When Bhagavan says that we must look within, what does he mean by ‘within’?
Last month a friend wrote me an email in which he asked me to clarify certain aspects of Bhagavan’s teachings, including what he means by ‘within’ when he says that we must look within, and whether the source of the individual self can be within that same individual self, so this article is adapted from the reply I wrote to him.
Everything other than ourself (including not only our body and breath but also all our thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions, memories, beliefs, desires and so on) is external to ourself, so what is ‘inside’ or ‘within’ is only ourself. When we attend to anything other than ourself we are looking away from ourself, so we need to turn back 180 degrees, so to speak, to look at ourself alone. This is what Bhagavan means by turning within or looking inside.
There are not two selves, a real Self and an individual self, because we ourself are one. However, so long as we experience ourself as Kevin, Michael or any other person, we are not experiencing ourself as we actually are. What you refer as ‘the Self’ is ourself as we actually are, which is pure self-awareness, ‘I am’, uncontaminated by even the least awareness of anything else, but when we are aware of ourself as if we were a person, that mixed and contaminated self-awareness, ‘I am this person’, is what is called ego, which is what you refer to as the ‘individual me’ or ‘individual self’.
What you refer as ‘the Self’ is what Bhagavan generally refers to as ātma-svarūpa, which literally means the ‘own form’ or real natural of oneself, or just as svarūpa, meaning one’s own real nature. Our real nature is ourself as we actually are, whereas ego is ourself as we seem to be. These are not two different things, just as a rope and the snake it seems to be are not two different things.
The rope is not a snake, but the snake is nothing other than a rope. Likewise, our real nature is not ego, but ego is nothing other than our real nature.
If we see an illusory snake, how to see what it actually is? All we need do is to look at it very carefully, because if we look at it carefully enough we will see that it is just a rope. Likewise, if we look at ourself, this ego, carefully enough we will see that we are just pure self-awareness, uncontaminated by even the least awareness of anything else.
When we look at what seems to be a snake, what we are actually looking at is only a rope, even though it continues to look like a snake until we look at it carefully enough to see what it actually is. Likewise, when we look at ourself, who now seem to be this ego, what we are actually looking at is only our own real nature (ātma-svarūpa), even though we continue to seem to be ego until we look at ourself carefully enough to see what we actually are.
What is the source of the illusory snake? It is only the rope. And where is it? It is inside the snake, metaphorically speaking. Therefore if we look deep inside the snake, we will see its source, the rope.
Likewise, what is the source of ego? It is only our real nature. And where is it? It is inside ego, metaphorically speaking. Therefore if we look deep inside ego, we will see its source, our real nature.
Our real nature is pure self-awareness, which is what we always experience as ‘I am’. Ego is the adjunct-mixed self-awareness ‘I am this body’ or ‘I am this person’. Within this adjunct-mixed self-awareness, ‘I am this body’, is pure self-awareness, ‘I am’. All we need do is remove all adjuncts, because what will then remain is only this pure self-awareness, ‘I am’. It is so simple.
How can we remove all adjuncts? As ego we attach ourself to these adjuncts (everything that makes up whatever person we currently seem to be) by projecting them in our awareness (just as we do in a dream), so to remove them we must try to be aware of ourself alone. This is why Bhagavan said that attention is the key. By attending to anything other than ourself we rise as ego, and by attending to ourself alone this ego will dissolve and cease to exist, and what will then remain is only pure self-awareness, our real nature.
As Bhagavan says in verse 16 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
Since our fundamental self-awareness, ‘I am’, is what now seems to be ego, the false awareness that is aware not only of itself but also of other things, in order to attend to our own fundamental self-awareness all we need do is attend keenly to ego, because when we seem to be attending to ego, what we are actually attending to is only ourself.
When we mistake a rope to be a snake, what we are actually seeing is just a rope, but with the added belief ‘this is a snake’. This added belief is like the adjuncts that we as ego mistake to be ourself. This added believe can be removed only by our looking at the snake carefully enough to see that it is actually just a rope. Likewise, all the adjuncts that we as ego mistake to be ourself can be removed only by our looking at ourself, this ego, carefully enough to see that we are actually just pure self-awareness.
Our aim is to experience and just be the pure self-awareness that we actually are, but in order to do so we must investigate ego. Since we now experience ourself as ego, we cannot attend to ourself except as ego, just as when we see a rope as a snake we cannot look at it except as a snake. However, by looking at the snake, we see that it is actually just a rope, and thereafter we can never again mistake it to be a snake. Likewise, by keenly attending to ego, we see that we are actually just pure self-awareness, and thereafter we can never again mistake ourself to be ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that we should look within, what he means is that we should look only at ourself, this ego (the subject who perceives all objects, the one who is aware of everything else), because when we look at ourself keenly enough we will see that what we actually are is not the ego that we seemed to be but only pure self-awareness.
Everything other than ourself (including not only our body and breath but also all our thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions, memories, beliefs, desires and so on) is external to ourself, so what is ‘inside’ or ‘within’ is only ourself. When we attend to anything other than ourself we are looking away from ourself, so we need to turn back 180 degrees, so to speak, to look at ourself alone. This is what Bhagavan means by turning within or looking inside.
There are not two selves, a real Self and an individual self, because we ourself are one. However, so long as we experience ourself as Kevin, Michael or any other person, we are not experiencing ourself as we actually are. What you refer as ‘the Self’ is ourself as we actually are, which is pure self-awareness, ‘I am’, uncontaminated by even the least awareness of anything else, but when we are aware of ourself as if we were a person, that mixed and contaminated self-awareness, ‘I am this person’, is what is called ego, which is what you refer to as the ‘individual me’ or ‘individual self’.
What you refer as ‘the Self’ is what Bhagavan generally refers to as ātma-svarūpa, which literally means the ‘own form’ or real natural of oneself, or just as svarūpa, meaning one’s own real nature. Our real nature is ourself as we actually are, whereas ego is ourself as we seem to be. These are not two different things, just as a rope and the snake it seems to be are not two different things.
The rope is not a snake, but the snake is nothing other than a rope. Likewise, our real nature is not ego, but ego is nothing other than our real nature.
If we see an illusory snake, how to see what it actually is? All we need do is to look at it very carefully, because if we look at it carefully enough we will see that it is just a rope. Likewise, if we look at ourself, this ego, carefully enough we will see that we are just pure self-awareness, uncontaminated by even the least awareness of anything else.
When we look at what seems to be a snake, what we are actually looking at is only a rope, even though it continues to look like a snake until we look at it carefully enough to see what it actually is. Likewise, when we look at ourself, who now seem to be this ego, what we are actually looking at is only our own real nature (ātma-svarūpa), even though we continue to seem to be ego until we look at ourself carefully enough to see what we actually are.
What is the source of the illusory snake? It is only the rope. And where is it? It is inside the snake, metaphorically speaking. Therefore if we look deep inside the snake, we will see its source, the rope.
Likewise, what is the source of ego? It is only our real nature. And where is it? It is inside ego, metaphorically speaking. Therefore if we look deep inside ego, we will see its source, our real nature.
Our real nature is pure self-awareness, which is what we always experience as ‘I am’. Ego is the adjunct-mixed self-awareness ‘I am this body’ or ‘I am this person’. Within this adjunct-mixed self-awareness, ‘I am this body’, is pure self-awareness, ‘I am’. All we need do is remove all adjuncts, because what will then remain is only this pure self-awareness, ‘I am’. It is so simple.
How can we remove all adjuncts? As ego we attach ourself to these adjuncts (everything that makes up whatever person we currently seem to be) by projecting them in our awareness (just as we do in a dream), so to remove them we must try to be aware of ourself alone. This is why Bhagavan said that attention is the key. By attending to anything other than ourself we rise as ego, and by attending to ourself alone this ego will dissolve and cease to exist, and what will then remain is only pure self-awareness, our real nature.
As Bhagavan says in verse 16 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
வெளிவிட யங்களை விட்டு மனந்தன்‘வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு’ (veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu), ‘leaving aside external viṣayas [phenomena]’, means ceasing to attend to anything other than ourself, and ‘மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தல்’ (maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdal), ‘mind knowing [or investigating] its own form of light’, means mind attending only to its own fundamental self-awareness. Just giving up attending to external phenomena is not sufficient, because we do so whenever we fall asleep, so what is required is just that we attend only to ourself, that is, to our own fundamental self-awareness, because if we do so we will thereby give up attending to anything else.
னொளியுரு வோர்தலே யுந்தீபற
வுண்மை யுணர்ச்சியா முந்தீபற.
veḷiviḍa yaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉantaṉ
ṉoḷiyuru vōrdalē yundīpaṟa
vuṇmai yuṇarcciyā mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām.
அன்வயம்: மனம் வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): maṉam veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām.
English translation: Leaving aside external viṣayas [phenomena], the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness [true knowledge or knowledge of reality].
Since our fundamental self-awareness, ‘I am’, is what now seems to be ego, the false awareness that is aware not only of itself but also of other things, in order to attend to our own fundamental self-awareness all we need do is attend keenly to ego, because when we seem to be attending to ego, what we are actually attending to is only ourself.
When we mistake a rope to be a snake, what we are actually seeing is just a rope, but with the added belief ‘this is a snake’. This added belief is like the adjuncts that we as ego mistake to be ourself. This added believe can be removed only by our looking at the snake carefully enough to see that it is actually just a rope. Likewise, all the adjuncts that we as ego mistake to be ourself can be removed only by our looking at ourself, this ego, carefully enough to see that we are actually just pure self-awareness.
Our aim is to experience and just be the pure self-awareness that we actually are, but in order to do so we must investigate ego. Since we now experience ourself as ego, we cannot attend to ourself except as ego, just as when we see a rope as a snake we cannot look at it except as a snake. However, by looking at the snake, we see that it is actually just a rope, and thereafter we can never again mistake it to be a snake. Likewise, by keenly attending to ego, we see that we are actually just pure self-awareness, and thereafter we can never again mistake ourself to be ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that we should look within, what he means is that we should look only at ourself, this ego (the subject who perceives all objects, the one who is aware of everything else), because when we look at ourself keenly enough we will see that what we actually are is not the ego that we seemed to be but only pure self-awareness.
528 comments:
All we need do is remove all adjuncts, because what will then remain is only this pure self-awareness, ‘I am’. It is so simple.
Yes, I AM....it is so simple!
You Are. All else is an add-on.
* * *
In your view Mr James, how extreme should we take our practice?
If for example one enjoys a daily cup of tea with sugar, it is ego rising up, clinging to an object and strengthening itself, isn’t it!
Should the ego turn away from its daily cups of tea?
Or perhaps one can have their daily cup of tea, but remain Self-aware at the same time?
What is your view please?
Aham, your daily cup of tea with sugar is not an issue, because a cup of tea cannot come between you and yourself.
What is an isssue is our liking for, desire for, interest in, concern for or attachment to such things, because any such liking, desire, interest, concern or attachment draws our attention away from ourself towards other things. So long as we have even the slightest desire for or attachment to anything other than ourself, we are not yet sufficiently willing to surrender ourself, this ego who has such desires and attachments.
To overcome all such likings, desires, interests, concerns and attachments the most effective means is to cling as much as we can to being self-attentive at all times and in all circumstances, even while having a cup of tea or whatever.
Michael,
"What is an iss(s)ue is our liking for,...".
There I have a problem because for instance I allow me to enjoy a shower to the full or drinking my water/coffee/tea or eating a good meal just in the moment of enjoying.
Even though I do not feel to thus breeding/cultivating an attachment which could prove to be a hindrance/an obstacle to my "career" of surrendering this ego.
Rejecting any form of relish or enjoyment of life I - as this ego - do not consider as a necessary step to get the required attention to my/our own fundamental self-awareness.
Could not perhaps just deliberate cultivating complete neutrality/indifference towards wordly pleasures be more detrimental to that issue ?
So then,
When destiny serves tea, drink with impartiality (Self-attentiveness).
To LIKE tea, is to strengthen ego.
.
Sometimes these descriptions are so confusing....
Isn't "looking carefully at what is aware of thoughts" a much more clear cut description of the practice?!
Thank you,
Dragos :)
Aham,
why switch off our senses ?
Because tea is neither tasteless nor odourless/scentless I definitely like its taste and smell I do not at all per se consider the perception of sense impressions as pleasant as strengthen ego. There are quite surely more dangerous experiences in the scale of sense impressions which may cause/arouse/excite/provoke certain longings or desires...
Nevertheless, as Michael unambiguously points out: to cling as much as we can to being self-attentive at all times and in all circumstances is our overriding concern and urgent matter of priority.
Bhagavan is responsible for our outward life, but we are responsible for our inward life
Many of my friends here believe that since Bhagavan is taking care of our worldly life, he is also taking care of our inward life. In other words, he is responsible for our sadhana. According to them, we just need to understand that Bhagavan is taking care of everything and once it is understood, our sadhana is over. To support this view, they quote Bhagavan’s note for his other.
They also often talk about a verse by Sadhu Om in which he supposedly says that once we understand that Bhagavan is taking care of us and that his love for us is greater than our love for us, our job is over. However, they have clearly misunderstood Sadhu Om. If he said any such thing, he is clearly talking about our life in this world. If we recognise that Bhagavan is making everything happen in this world, why should we be worried about anything in our outward life? However, they have taken it to mean that Sadhu Om believes that our sadhana is also over after this understanding dawns on us.
I think many of our friends have converted Bhagavan’s teachings into some sort of philosophy. That is, they feel that if we clearly understand certain things, our job is over. Bhagavan’s teachings are no doubt simple, but it is not that simple. I think many of my friends have not internalised the message contained in Ulladu Narpadu, Upadesa Undiyar and Nan Ar?. We will have a half-baked understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings if we do not read, reflect on and assimilate the message of these three texts.
We need to experience ourself as we really are by destroying our ego and only then our job is over. To do so we need to repeatedly turn within, need to go deeper and deeper within ourself, until ego is destroyed. These devotees completely overlook his fact. Until and unless we have even a single desire or attachment, we need to practise self-investigation. This practice is completely under the jurisdiction of our will, but these devotees conveniently pass on even this responsibility to Bhagavan. They believe since they have surrendered to Bhagavan, their work is now over.
They have completely missed the point of Bhagavan’s teachings. They overlook what Bhagavan teaches us in paragraph 12 of Nan Ar?:
God and guru are in truth not different. Just as what has been caught in the jaws of a tiger will not return, so those who have been caught in the glance of guru’s grace will surely be saved by him and will never instead be forsaken; nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly along the path that guru has shown.
They fully accept the first part of this statement, namely ‘God and guru are in truth not different. Just as what has been caught in the jaws of a tiger will not return, so those who have been caught in the glance of guru’s grace will surely be saved by him and will never instead be forsaken’.
However, they are not interested in its second half, namely ‘nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly along the path that guru has shown’. They feel Bhagavan will walk unfailing on their behalf. However, if they think so they will surely be disappointed. Bhagavan has shown us the way, and now it is our job to tread this path with love and perseverance. There is no other shortcut here.
Sanjay Lohia,
"..., so those who have been caught in the glance of guru’s grace will surely be saved by him and will never instead be forsaken’."
Could one ever exist at all without the guru's grace ?
By the way, you mean "note for his mother"...
Sanjay, to the extent that we surrender ourself to Bhagavan, he will certainly take care of all our needs, both spiritual and material (and even when we do not surrender ourself to him he is still taking care of all our needs in spite of us obstructing him and delaying his work of grace). The only reason it seems to be necessary for us to make some effort is that we have not yet surrendered ourself entirely to him.
As you say, he ends the twelfth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? saying, ‘எனினும், குரு காட்டிய வழிப்படி தவறாது நடக்க வேண்டும்’ (eṉiṉum, guru kāṭṭiya vaṙi-p-paḍi tavaṟādu naḍakka vēṇḍum), ‘nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly in accordance with the path that guru has shown’, but what is the path that he has shown us if not complete self-surrender? So long as we rise as ego, we must try our best to surrender ourself to him by being keenly and persistently self-attentive, as he implies in the first sentence of the next paragraph.
Therefore it is true that he will take care of all our spiritual needs if we surrender ourself to him, so if anyone sincerely believes this we should not say anything to discourage them or undermine their trust in him. However, surrender is complete only when we do not rise as ego even to be concerned about our spiritual needs, so until then we do need to persevere in our effort to surrender ourself completely.
Dear Josef,
why switch off our senses ?
I doubt that we can. But instead of letting ego crave delicious tea, attention need be shifted to fundamental Beingness whilst drinking delicious tea.
So I think you are right,
.....as Michael unambiguously points out: to cling as much as we can to being self-attentive at all times and in all circumstances is our overriding concern and urgent matter of priority.
it is true that he will take care of all our spiritual needs if we surrender ourself to him
I believe Sri Ramana uttered the words, "Thy will be done" when He first arrived at Arunachalesvara Temple.
Vichara asks us to turn attention towards Self, which is a non-conceptual version of "Thy will be done".
But I wonder if it is also useful to have the mental attitude "Thy will be done"?
Aham,
accepting the consumption of delicious tea modestly and with equanimity i.e. without craving for more will not bind us attached to such pleasure.
Aham,
...to turn attention towards Self, which is a non-conceptual version of "Thy will be done"... well expressed
"But I wonder if it is also useful to have the mental attitude "Thy will be done"?".
In the most matters/affairs/situations, if not in all, that mental attitude will be appropriate to spiritual aspirants.
Sir, I agree. Bhagavan has also said that grace is the beginning, middle and end of sadhana. However, he has also repeatedly emphasised the need for effort. He says, for example, in the 10th paragraph of Nan Ar?:
Without giving room even to the doubting thought ‘Is it possible to dissolve so many vāsanās and be [or remain] only as svarūpa [my own actual self]?’ it is necessary to cling tenaciously to self-attentiveness.
So when some of our friends give talks emphasising that only grace is enough, we may have to sometimes present the other side of the picture. In the beginning, we have to be like baby money. It has to cling to its mother. However, later on we become like a kitten that is held by her neck by her mother. So without clinging to Bhagavan – that is, without being tenaciously self-attentive – how can we surrender to Bhagavan?
When young Kitty was taking leave of Bhagavan, she asked him, ‘Bhagavan, will you remember me?’ Bhagavan replied, ‘If Kitty remembers Bhagavan, Bhagavan will remember Kitty’. So we have to first remember Bhagavan before his grace consumes us.
However, I completely agree with your views. We should not discourage devotees who believe that grace will do everything for them. I never argue with such devotees. As you say, ‘to the extent that we surrender ourself to Bhagavan, he will certainly take care of all our needs, both spiritual and material […] Our lives are a testimony to this fact.
I had written in my comment, ‘They also often talk about a verse by Sadhu Om in which he supposedly says that once we understand that Bhagavan is taking care of us and that his love for us is greater than our love for us, our job is over’. What exactly did he say, and in what context did he say this? What can we understand from this, especially if he said 'our job is over'? Thanks.
Before we are separated from our possessions, let us discard them
Kyrzayda Rodriguez, the famous fashion blogger, died a few days ago from stomach cancer. I recently received a whatapp message which mentioned her words in her last days:
“I have a brand new car parked outside that can’t do anything for me. I have all kinds of designer clothes, shoes and bags that can’t do anything for me. I have money in my account that can’t do anything for me. I have a big well-furnished house that can’t do anything for me. […]
“So do not let anyone make U feel bad for the things you don’t have – but the things U have, be happy with those. If you have a roof over your head, who cares what kind of furniture is in it […]”
Reflections: I often wonder how people feel when they know they are not going to live long. It could be that they have cancer and doctors have told them that they just have a few more months. What goes on in their mind? I think it must be horrifying to them if they are too attached to their family, possessions and so on.
So we should work hard in removing our attachments when it seems there is time, but who knows how much time we have. Bhagavan has given us a sure and quick way to reduce and finally destroy all our attachments. The way is by practising self-investigation. The more we practise, the deeper we go within, the sooner we will reduce and destroy all our attachments.
The root of all attachments, ego, has to vanish in order to make us free of all our desires and attachments.
Bhagavan used a remarkable technique to tackle evil – he didn’t recognise evil
The following is an extract from an article titled: Sri Bhagavan and Ahimsa by V. Krithivasan. This has appeared in the journal SRI RAMANA JYOTHI October 2018 issue:
The test of non-violence comes when unprovoked violence is directed against us. Sri Bhagavan used a remarkable technique in tackling evil – he didn’t recognise evil! He ignored evil is such a manner that the opportunity for conflict did not arise at all, at least from his side. When one offers no resistance whatever, the conflict never materializes. Being a perfect jnani, he remained a witness to everything that happened around him.
Reflections: I think it is a great lesson for all of us. We face evil and violence of all sorts – often unprovoked. Bhagavan has given us an excellent weapon to tackle these. Just ignore evil. Easier said than done, but one can clearly see that is the best method of tackling violence. Counter violence with non-violence!
Sanjay Lohia,
you mean of course "baby monkey" instead "baby money" :-)
Michael,
referring to your reply to Sanjay
"However, surrender is complete only when we do not rise as ego even to be concerned about our spiritual needs, so until then ...".
I do not understand the clause "even to be concerned about our spiritual needs" in the given context. Could you please paraphrase it or give an example for its meaning ?
Dear Sanjay
What would you do if a loved one were being physically attacked?
I think it is a case of Self-abidance, whilst taking the necessary worldly actions.
That is, one may have to physically step in and apply physical force when someone is being physically attacked, all the while attending to Self.
Josef, thanks. Yes, it should have been 'baby monkey'.
Aham, you ask, ‘What would you do if a loved one were being physically attacked?’ I cannot categorically answer this question. However, we are indulging in unceasing violence and are a recipient of violence which is not as extreme as this. If someone looks at us angrily that could be violence by look; if someone abuses us that could be violence by speech; if someone does some acts will are intended to show us in a bad light that could be violence by action.
So when we talk about non-violence we are basically talking about ‘what should be our reactions in such situations?’ Should we react - indulge in tit for tat - or just bear all such violence calmly without reacting? In such situations, we should try to remain as calm and composed as possible. As it was written in the article that I quoted, ‘Bhagavan just ignored evil is such a manner that the opportunity for conflict did not arise at all, at least from his side. When one offers no resistance whatever, the conflict never materializes’. I think this is a brilliant response - no response is the best response in such situations.
However, if somebody is trying to physically harm us or our friends or our family members, then the situation becomes different. Our response will depend on the situation. We may just to flee the scene to escape being hurt, or we may even have to hit back and use physical force to resist the act of violence. This is acting is self-defence and cannot be considered an act of violence. In what manner we hit back will depend on the situation we find ourself in.
You guys who are taking your egos and your dreams so seriously to be real, naturally will be reborn into the dream illusory as it may be.
Mr Lohia,
The ideal of non-violence is a beautiful one. But difficult to live up to in reality.
I believe Sri Ramana said only the one remaining as Self is non-violent.
The rest are violent (killing Self).
Thank you for your reply.
.
The more one practises being self-attentive, the more it will help in the recovery of one’s mental illness
The following comment has been posted by blueskythinking83 under Michael’s latest video:
Dear Michael, I recently had a bout of severe ill health which also affected my mental stability. I could no longer even remember what self-inquiry was. It was all due to a simple change in the brand of my medication. I think self-inquiry and liberation wouldnt be possible without His blessings because something so trivial could affect the mind, the very tool we use to reach the Self.
I have replied to her/ him as follows:
Dear Blueskythinking83, as you rightly say, ‘self-inquiry and liberation wouldnt be possible without His blessings’. However, can one practise self-investigation (self-enquiry) if one is mentally unstable? It may be difficult in extreme cases, but even in such cases if one already has sufficient sat-vasana (inclination to attend to oneself due to one’s past practice), it could be possible to turn within.
However, if our mental condition is not that bad, we can definitely practise turning within. In fact, the more we practise turning within, the more it will help in the recovery of whatever mental illness we may have. The more we practise being self-attentive, the more the sattva-guna (the quality of equilibrium and calmness) of our mind increases, and this will greatly help our recovery.
Ramana Maharshi on Sense of Doership, Karma and Karma Yoga - Part 1
The present difficulty is that the man thinks that he is the doer. But it is a mistake. It is the Higher Power which does everything and the man is only a tool. If he accepts that position he is free from troubles; otherwise he courts them. Take for instance, the figure in a gopuram (temple tower), where it is made to appear to bear the burden of the tower on its shoulders. Its posture and look are a picture of great strain while bearing the very heavy burden of the tower. But think. The tower is built on the earth and it rests on its foundations. The figure (like Atlas bearing the earth) is a part of the tower, but is made to look as if it bore the tower. Is it not funny? So is the man who takes on himself the sense of doing. (Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 63)
Visitor: Our work-a-day life is not compatible with such efforts [for Self-realization].
Ramana Maharshi: Why do you think that you are active? Take the gross example of your arrival here. You left home in a cart, took train, alighted at the Railway Station here, got into a cart there and found yourself in this Asramam. When asked, you say that you travelled here all the way from your town. Is it true? Is it not a fact that you remained as you were and there were movements of conveyances all along the way. Just as those movements are confounded with your own, so also the other activities. They are not your own. They are God’s activities. (Source: The Core Teachings of Ramana Maharshi, Roy Melvyn)
The feeling “I work” is the hindrance. Enquire, “Who works?” Remember, “Who am I?” The work will not bind you. It will go on automatically. Make no effort either to work or to renounce work. Your effort is the bondage. What is bound to happen will happen. If you are destined to cease working, work cannot be had even if you hunt for it. If you are destined to work you cannot leave it; you will be forced to engage in it. So leave it to the Higher Power. You cannot renounce or hold as you choose. (Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 268)
In the seventh chapter, Arjuna asks if Karma is a method (sadhana). Krishna answers that it is so if done without the sense of doership. So also are Karmas approved by scriptures which deny Karma. The Karma disapproved by them is that which is done with the sense of doership. Do not leave Karma. You cannot do so. Give up the sense of doership. Karma will go on automatically. Or Karma will drop away from you. If Karma be your lot according to prarabdha, it will surely be done whether you will it or not; if Karma be not your lot, it will not be done even if you intently engage in it. (Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 41)
What does the Gita say? Arjuna refused to fight. Krishna said, “So long as you refuse to fight, you have the sense of doership. Who are you to refrain or to act? Give up the notion of doership. Until that sense disappears you are bound to act. You are being manipulated by a Higher Power. You are admitting it by your own refusal to submit to it. Instead recognise the Power and submit as a tool. (Or to put it differently), if you refuse you will be forcibly drawn into it. Instead of being an unwilling worker, be a willing one.
“Rather, be fixed in the Self and act according to nature without the thought of doership. Then the results of action will not affect you. That is manliness and heroism.” (Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 58)
(Continued below in Part 2)
Ramana Maharshi on Sense of Doership, Karma and Karma Yoga - Part 2
Visitor: So Karma yoga is kartrtva buddhi rahita karma – action without the sense of doership.
Ramana Maharshi: Yes. Quite so. (Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 643)
Question: Without the sense of doership — the sense ‘I am doing’ — work cannot be done.
Ramana Maharshi: It can be done. Work without attachment. Work will go on even better than when you worked with the sense that you were the doer.
Question: I don’t understand what work I should do and what not.
Ramana Maharshi: Don’t bother. What is destined as work to be done by you in this life will be done by you, whether you like it or not. (Source: Day by Day with Bhagavan, 3-1-46 Afternoon)
If one keeps fixed in the Self, the activities will still go on and their success will not be affected. One should not have the idea that one is the doer. The activities will still go on. That force, by whatever name you may call it, which brought the body into existence will see to it that the activities which this body is meant to go through are brought about. (Source: Day by Day with Bhagavan, 9-10-45 Afternoon)
If you are not the body and do not have the idea ‘I-am-the-doer’ the consequences of your good or bad actions will not affect you. Why do you say about the actions the body performs “I do this” or “I did that”? As long as you identify yourself with the body like that you are affected by the consequences of the actions and you have merit and demerit. (Source: Day by Day with Bhagavan, 20-6-46)
What exactly did Lord Krishna tell Arjuna? He told him, the deed will get done according to the ‘doing’. I am the ‘doer’ watching the whole thing from above. Why do you worry? It is your body which does the killing of your relatives. Are you the body? No! Why then this bondage for you? Renounce the idea, He said. This means that He asks Arjuna to do the thing but to give up the feeling that it is he that is doing it. That is personal effort. The feeling that one is, or is not, the body, comes from one’s own ignorance. One only has to give up that feeling; that which one has, one must oneself reject. Who else can do it? If by personal effort that bondage is removed, action, under the orders of the ‘doer’, Ishwara, goes on of its own accord. Every one has his work allotted to him and he will do it automatically. Why should one worry? Arjuna, when he felt that it was not proper to kill his relatives, was only told to give up the feeling that he was the ‘doer’, yet it was Arjuna himself who ultimately fought. By listening to the Gita, he lost the feeling of being the ‘doer’ and the doubt he had had was no longer there. The work had to be done with that particular body, and it was done. Even Duryodhana was like that. Not that he was not aware of the correctness or otherwise of what he was doing. He knew that what he was doing was not right, but some force was leading him on to that work. What could he do? That work had to be done in that way by that body, and it was done. He is reported to have said so at the time of his death. Hence it is clear that some Force is making all people to do things. Getting rid of the feeling that ‘I myself am doing’ is personal effort (purushakaram). All spiritual practices (sadhanas) are towards that end. (Source: Letters from Sri Ramanasramam, 184. The Doer and the Doing)
Unknown,
therefore we are looking forward to meet you again in our next dream.:-)
The more one practises being self-attentive, the more it will help in the recovery of one’s mental illness – continuation
In response to my reply to her, Blueskythinking83 asked me a question:
@Sanjay Lohia thanks for trying to explain. May be I have not understood what looking within is. Can u pls explain it to me? How do I know if I'm doing it right?
I replied to her as follows:
Blueskythinking83, co-incidentally Michael James’ latest article is titled: ‘When Bhagavan says we must look within, what does he mean by ‘within’? You can visit his website www.happinessofbeing.com and go to its blog section to read this article. The following is an extract from this article:
Everything other than ourself (including not only our body and breath but also all our thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions, memories, beliefs, desires and so on) is external to ourself, so what is ‘inside’ or ‘within’ is only ourself. When we attend to anything other than ourself we are looking away from ourself, so we need to turn back 180 degrees, so to speak, to look at ourself alone. This is what Bhagavan means by turning within or looking inside.
To answer your second question, you cannot go much wrong if you try looking within. You need to turn your attention away from everything else and try to be attentively self-aware. You are always aware of yourself whether or not you are aware of other things. However, you should not try to concentrate on any particular point in the body but just look deep within. We learn by practice, just as we can learn cycling only by trying to cycle.
Bhagavan is slowly-slowly cooking us – making us fit to be consumed by him
Most people believe that the world continues when we are not seeing it, but how can we be sure of this? Why should we believe what we don’t see? People say it is foolish to believe in God because we don’t see God. So by the same logic, it is equally foolish to believe that the world exists when we don’t see it.
Why don’t we see God? It is because seeing God means becoming food to God and we haven’t become food, so we have not seen God. If we want to see God we have to pay the price – we need to become his food. We say, ‘I haven’t seen God; therefore, there is no God’.
We are not that tasty for God because we have not yet become pakva. We have to become fully ripe and the ripeness is our willingness to surrender ourself. Bhagavan will not eat us until we are willing to be eaten by him. So our life is a process of marination. Bhagavan is slowly-slowly cooking us – making us fit to be consumed by him.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-10-07 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 21 (1:11 to 1:14)
Reflection: Bhagavan is slowly but surely cooking us and making us pakva (ripe). Such ripeness makes us develop vairagya. We can clearly see that there is nothing worthwhile in this world. This world-show is like a Broadway Show - extremely attractive till it lasts, but we soon know that it is all make-believe.
Therefore we now start loving God because we can’t stay without love. So Bhagavan induces us to make effort to merge in Bhagavan. What a wonderful play of grace! Can any Broadway Show match Bhagavan’s leela (the drama played out by Bhagavan)?
"Bhagavan is slowly cooking us":
Bhagavan is a cannibal?
Hi DSR and Aham below,
Your topic is very interesting: can one practise self-investigation (self-enquiry) if one is mentally unstable?
Is there anyone among us who is entirely stable? We have all experienced arising thoughts and emotions taking us away? This is just a matter of degree?
There are types of meditation that have been researched as effective for those in prison and with mental health challenges.
Research has been done on T.M. for example.
Pure Atma Vicara or attention on "I" is abstract and often not easily attained initially and so adjuncts are often very useful if not required and styles which have careful instruction in the basics can be useful.
Atma Vicara practice seems to require experience and a significant degree of self sufficiency.
And Bhagavan in Talks says repeatedly that no single approach works for everyone, there are different stages and people have different temperaments.
If using something like T.M. which is mantra based... then when there is inward attention without distracting thoughts and no need to introduce the mantra... then this is atma vicara. And of course they don't tell you this, they'd rather sell you more expensive techniques.
Aham, you ask about liking the daily cup of tea... is it ego?
And Michael responds: a cup of tea can not come between you and yourself.
The answers here are intellectual and promote atma vicara.
But atma vicara is not just thinking about atma vicara.
How do we know if Aham's cup of tea is taking him out of inward attention?
How do we know if Aham is attaining sustained inward attention at all?
Rather than asserting an intellectual idea of atma vicara...
Aham, do you or have you ever experienced sustained inward attention? Some decrease in mental activity and increase in inward attention and stillness for at least a brief period of time (a minute?) It's a sinking within into increased attention and stillness. The increased inward attention is like a pressure that tends to keep thoughts out.
For some... it may be best to find this sitting... and then after it can be located with reduced sensory stimulation... then find the same inward attention during activity.
Aham, IF you knew the experience of sinking within into increased inward attentiveness then it would be clear in your experience if various activities took you out of it.
If you don't like my description fine but how would you describe it?
How do we distinguish between thoughts about atma vicara and the actual practice?
Hi Morrison,
sorry, i am the dim-wit:
T.M. is Transendental Meditation by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
A system of mantra meditation etc.. a modern version of raja yoga.
thanks Roger
sorry about the name misspelling.
presumably you spoke about Transcendental M.
Dear Roger,
I am not exactly sure where you are leading. However I believe the conclusion about tea (or any desire for that matter), is that one should remain inwardly Still, whilst drinking tea, rather than contracting into likes, dislikes etc.
.
Hi Aham,
I am trying to move the discussion out of an intellectual "what should happen" to something useful which is: what are you actually experiencing? It's not useful if these questions stay on just an intellectual philosophical analysis which fails to be reflected in your practice.
You are asking about the experience of drinking tea. Michael is saying that tea cannot come between you and yourself. But Michael is making a philosophical presumption and ignoring your actual experience.
Aham, IF you could tell us that your inward attention was lost (or not) while drinking.. then probably you KNOW what inward attention is!
BUT since you are asking the question, apparently you are not settled in atma vicara / inward attention?
Then the question becomes: how can you become settled increasingly in inward attention and then you can tell US about your actual experience of drinking and it's no longer intellectual speculation!
Hi Roger,
You addressed a comment to me @ 9 October 2018 at 19:22; correct me if I am wrong, but I am not part of that thread of comments. Perhaps you mistook someone else's comment as mine because I posted only 2 comments above regarding Bhagavan's views on Sense of Doership, Karma and Karma Yoga.
That said, I do agree with your point that different methods/techniques will work for different people and a one-size-fits-all approach can be counterproductive.
Dear Roger,
Mr James is correct when he says "tea cannot come between you and yourself", for drinking tea and desiring tea are both mere imagination.
Now in terms of attempting to assess where I am at, or not at, regarding vichara, you are not going to be able to do it. But rest assured, despite any imaginings we indulge in, yours and mine, we remain as Self only.
You may wish to object that all of this just intellectualising.....for you maybe it is.
Hi DSR,
Sorry, that was Sanjay's post in-between yours.
But thanks for the Karma Yoga and doership comments.
Humility is vichara of sorts isn’t it.
When humble, ego is not rising up and going out.
It is resting and weakening.
.
Bhagavan’s path is not a life-rejecting path; it is a life-affirming path
Bhagavan’s path may seem to be a life-rejecting path, but what is real life? This body is a walking and talking corpse. When we leave it, it is just doing to be like a log of wood. They will bury or burn or dispose of it in some way. They will dispose it off as quickly as possible because it is going to start smelling.
So the life of the body is not real life. The real life is pure-awareness that we actually are. So Bhagavan’s path is not a life-rejecting path; it is a life-affirming path. The people who run after the world are rejecting life.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-10-07 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 21 (1:09 to 1:11)
Reflection: We will be in this body only for a short time. That is, this body will die sooner or later. Anything which is not permanent cannot be real ‘I’. So what is real ‘I’? It is pure self-awareness. This is what we really are, and this can never leave us.
So we should try to reject this body like a corpse and cling tenaciously to ourself. Even when the body seems to be alive, it is nothing but a corpse - as Michael says, it is a walking-talking corpse.
Sanjay,
"So we should try to reject this body like a corpse and cling tenaciously to ourself. Even when the body seems to be alive, it is nothing but a corpse - as Michael says, it is a walking-talking corpse."
Unfortunately experience shows that the body is prone to illness. In the event of serious illness or writhing in pain the body will draw almost the whole attention to its recovery. Then it will not care about whether we do reject it as a corpse or not.
Nevertheless, as you say, we should try to cling tenaciously to ourself as pure self-awareness.
Hi Michael,
A doubt on Ulladu Narpadu
I have got from Sri Ramanasrama the English version of Lakshmana Sharma's commentary in Tamil on Ulladu Narpadu. I was wondering if this is the authentic version that Bhagavan approved, or should I try to get hold of English translation of the Sanskrit version of Lakshmana Sharma?
Hi Aham,
In the recent article section 46 MJ says "Self-investigation is not imagining, which is a mental activity, but the cessation of all mental activity".
You say "drinking tea and desiring tea are both mere imagination".
When you are holding the cup in your hands and drinking... how is this an imagination? Excuse me, but are you making any sense? Please explain yourself.
Advaita teachings may suggest that the world is an unreal. But in order to discover this as a reality the way is to cease all imaginations.
Ego is rising - it is doing; we are just being
Being is our real nature – we just are. But ego is not being, it is rising, it is doing. There is activity so long as there is rising and doing. That is, our attention is facing outwards. If we want to return to the state of just being, our attention should not be on the things other than ourself, it should be on ourself alone. So long as we are rising and attending to things other than ourself, we are feeding ego. Therefore, we are not in a state of just being.
Because Tinnai Swami was fully ripe that one word from Bhagavan - iru - was enough to bring about that final 180 degrees turn, and he was swallowed by Bhagavan. ‘Becoming food is seeing’ – so he became food to Bhagavan. He remained in the state of just being, which is otherwise called ‘seeing oneself’ or ‘seeing God’.
Doing is not our real nature because we are not always in a state of doing. Only in waking and dream we ‘do’, so ‘doing’ cannot be our real nature. If ‘doing’ were our real nature, we would always be doing. However, in sleep we are not doing anything, we are just being.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-10-07 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 21 (1:04 to 1:08)
Reflection: Why are we exhausted after a hectic day’s work? It is because all activities are unnatural to us. It makes us exhausted. Our nature is peace and rest – ‘just being’. ‘Just being’ can never make us tired because when we just are, we are not expending our energy. Hence, in such a state we are ever full of energy.
It is said that Bhagavan never actually slept. Even when he seemed to be relaxing with his eyes closed, he was alert to even a small noise nearby. Bhagavan is eternally in a state of just being. He is making things happen by just being.
Egomania
Alan Jacobs
The Mountain Path March 2012
It would be good if one could write a perfect verse
Of Truth; a poem which expresses the reverse
Of falsity and delusion. Man is trapped in illusion.
Vast populations dwell in chronic confusion,
Because of a dire disease called egomania,
Stretching from Greenland right down to Australia.
Symptoms of egomania obscure Real Being,
The Knowledge of True Self without really feeling,
The pure bliss of consciousness awareness grace;
Realising ‘That’ as one’s own original face,
Not the one we see in the silvered looking glass,
That idolatry is one through which we must pass.
The way to achieve this more blessed sacred state,
Is by Self Enquiry, before it is too late.
We enquire within through attention ‘Who Am I?’,
And persist resolutely before we die.
Then the perfect Poem is unveiled, to be you,
Ones own pure loving Self.’That’ alone is really True!
.
Dear Roger,
Excuse me, but are you making any sense? Please explain yourself.
In a relative sense of course we can say "someone is drinking tea."
But in an absolute sense there is no such thing!
Take a new born, yet unable to conceptualise, is there anyone drinking tea for them?
In deep sleep, when you are unable to conceptualise, there may be someone right beside you drinking tea. But for you there will be no such thing.
There will only be Existence, Beingness.
.
Hi Aham,
Apparently you are speaking from an advaita philosophical perspective: "there is only existence, beingness".
But this is my complaint or inquiry with you:
There is the theoretical advaita philosophical perspective. And then there is our actual experience.
The advaita sayings may be useful for contemplation.
But I am suggesting that we must be as honest as possible about our experience and NOT go into imagination. We must not go into advaita imaginations because imagination is just more thinking (per H.H. Michael James).
So if you experience only Being then you must be Self Realized?
So the question still is: when drinking tea... what do you experience? That's the key for me. Of course you may prefer to keep your experiences private.
If we imagine advaita sayings... the imaginations are just thinking or assumed beliefs and can prevent settling into self awareness.
So the question still is: when drinking tea... what do you experience? That's the key for me.
Where are you headed with this Mr Isaacs? Why so much interest?
Hi Aham,
My passion is the practice of atma vicara (by whatever name or variation). That is my interest, both what the practice is and what is not it.
As MJ says above (feels weird to quote MJ in support of my argument, LOL)
"how can we remove all adjuncts?"
And as MJ said in the prior article: section 46
"atma vicara is not imagining, which is a mental activity, but the cessation of all mental activity"
Imagining is NOT self inquiry. Seems to me that virtually all of advaita discussion I've ever heard from those who claim some inspiration from Bhagavan is imagining!
Aham, you asked the question "if one enjoys a cup of tea...?"
I am applying MJ's observations to your question and the subsequent dialog.
If you find my questions to be too personal or irrelevant then there is no need to go further.
Bhakti means love: sometimes we can express our love through actions, but the actions themselves are not bhakti
The path of bhakti leads to the path of jnana so it has its place. However, what is necessary at one stage becomes unnecessary at a later stage. But just because these things may be unnecessary for us now, it doesn’t mean that they are unnecessary for others. However, once we are attracted to Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation and self-surrender all other practices become unnecessary.
For ordinary people going to a temple or church every week may be bhakti. For them breaking a coconut, putting some coins in the hundi, reciting the name of God a few times is bhakti. But bhakti means love. Sometimes we can express our love through actions, but the actions themselves are not bhakti. However, we are not here to judge people. These things may be right for them in their current level of spiritual development.
Ultimately, it is all a matter of what we want. As long as we want worldly things, we will continue praying for worldly things. There comes a time when we are dissatisfied with all these things. We have experienced wealth and health and all these things, but we know none of them last. They come and go. If we have millions, how long will it last? Just for a few years. One day the body is going to die and all our name, fame, money will go along with it. So what is the use of all these worldly achievements?
Slowly-slowly we come to the state of vairagya. Many things seemed important in the past but now seem trivial. That is the nature of the path of spiritual development.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-10-07 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 21 (0:53 to 0:59)
Reflections: I must confess, I sometimes look down upon my family members, relatives and others who are still doing these preliminary bhakti rituals. However, I should try to understand that these may be necessary for them in their current level of spiritual development. I should try to be more accepting.
Mr. Michael says: "For ordinary people going to a temple or church every week may be bhakti."
Wow, Mr. Michael. I did not know that you are so extraordinary. It must be such a burden to live, truly believing yourself to be extraordinary, while at the same time pretending to be not.
Mr. Lohia's reflection is undiluted, concentrated ego-poison. He says he should be more accepting, etc. etc., yet he is not. He can't even accept other enlightened beings. Typical scholar. Talks the walk. I want a SouthPark episode to be developed based on these two.
Mr. Lohia, preliminary bhakti rituals are needed even for you - you are not supposed to judge the rituals either ways. You say you judge it wrongly, then say that one should judge is 'correctly'. But your 'super-devotee' mind can't grasp the notion of NOT JUDGING.
Sanjay, in the last paragraph of your comment of 8 October 2018 at 08:26 you wrote: “I had written in my comment [of 7 October 2018 at 17:47], ‘They also often talk about a verse by Sadhu Om in which he supposedly says that once we understand that Bhagavan is taking care of us and that his love for us is greater than our love for us, our job is over’. What exactly did he say, and in what context did he say this? What can we understand from this, especially if he said ‘our job is over’?”
Can you tell me which verse of Sadhu Om your friends are referring to? Without knowing that I cannot give you a precise answer, because I would need to know exactly what words he had used in order to do justice to them.
However, if he did say something to the effect ‘once we understand that Bhagavan is taking care of us and that his love for us is greater than our love for us, our job is over’, we would need to understand what he meant by ‘understand’ in this context. Obviously he would not have been using this word in the usual sense of a superficial conceptual understanding, because mere conceptual understanding is just the beginning and not the end of spiritual practice.
He often used to say, for example, that if we had truly understood that happiness is our real nature and therefore can be found only within ourself and not outside, our mind would have ceased going outwards. Therefore so long as our mind continues to go outwards we have not yet understood this teaching deeply and clearly enough.
Conceptual understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings can be obtained by means of śravaṇa (hearing or reading) and manana (reflection and reasoning), and that is a necessary starting point, but in order to be so keenly self-attentive that we merge forever in our source, our understanding needs to be much deeper and clearer than anything that can be achieved by such means alone. The only means by which we can gain the depth and clarity of understanding required is nididhyāsana (deep contemplation), which means the practice of keen self-attentiveness.
Therefore if Sadhu Om did say ‘once we understand that Bhagavan is taking care of us and that his love for us is greater than our love for us, our job is over’, what he would have meant by ‘understand’ in this context is the depth and clarity of understanding that can come only from keen and persistent practice of self-investigation and self-surrender — sufficient depth and clarity of understanding to enable us to forever cease rising as ego, because only when we have once and for all ceased rising as ego is our job over.
Sanjay Lohia,
you state quoting Michael: "That is the nature of the path of spiritual development."
Some questions in that context may arise:
Who develops what ? Who is the developer ?
Note: The verb 'develop' has both sorts transitive and intransitive.
What is developed at all ?
Keep dreaming about Self Realization in this life. Only a dhira like Bhagavan (ONLY BHAGAVAN SRI RAMANA) who voluntarily faced death and extinction could attain it and deserved it. As for all of you chattering egos, pundits and scholars another physical body is already waiting to grab and adorn and make a mockery of Self-realization in your next life all over again. Even Cow Lakshmi is offering her utmost sympathies to all of you rascals from the realm of Sat-Cit-Ananda.
Sir, I have asked my friend to let me know this exact verse by Sadhu Om (along with the name of the work and verse number). She replied that she would be able to do so by this Sunday. I thank you for clarifying this supposed saying by Sri Sadhu Om. I thought you would be aware of this verse.
As you imply in your reply, our depth and clarity of understanding can blossom only if we practise self-investigation and self-surrender. If our understanding develops to a sufficient extent, we will have an unshakeable conviction that Bhagavan is taking care of all our needs. Therefore we should give up all the concerns about our material and spiritual needs because he knows them better than us. He is providing us with all the yogashema.
We can almost directly see or feel Bhagavan’s overflowing love and protection towards us. We may even start believing that Bhagavan has special love for us. However, since he is love itself, his love is absolutely equal for all. He gave us an inkling of the impartiality of his love while he was in his body.
If we develop such depth of clarity and understanding, we will be most willing surrender ourself along with all our desires and attachments. So our job then will be over. I think this is what you were trying to explain. Am I correct?
Hi Michael,
"Your own Self-Realization is the greatest service you can render the world." Sri Ramana
I read Sanjay's post above, at first I thought it was Sanjay speaking.
Michael, you are a priest speaking about enlightenment and the way to realize. BUT you are not speaking from the realized state so the message is increasingly ineffective. Your speech is often egoic rambling.
A "priest" is someone who teaches about the ultimate reality (think of Christian priests) but priests do not know, they do not have the direct experience and so the message is weak and over time becomes misleading.
You are always saying you have the ONLY way.
Well why don't you go into seclusion, give up this egoic teaching, and actually become realized?
Otherwise you message is hypocritical.
Why would you be content to be a priest when you could revolutionize the world like Bhagavan and Nisargadatta?
Josef, Michael said, ‘Slowly-slowly we come to the state of vairagya. Many things seemed important in the past but now seem trivial. That is the nature of the path of spiritual development’. You ask, ‘Who develops what? Who is the developer? What is developed at all?’
Ego develops vairagya (non-attachment) and viveka (deep understanding) by its practice of self-investigation and surrender. However, the power behind our practice is only the grace of Bhagavan.
.
If you find my questions to be too personal or irrelevant then there is no need to go further.
Thank you Mr Isaacs.
At this moment I cannot think of anything worth adding. My mind is blank.
* * *
The only means by which we can gain the depth and clarity of understanding required is nididhyāsana (deep contemplation), which means the practice of keen self-attentiveness.
Thank you Mr James.
So True. It is wonderful to read.
* * *
Keep dreaming about Self Realization in this life.
Thank you Mr Unknown.
You make a valid point. We take our concepts too seriously. They are all empty.
.
The following is in continuation of my discussion with blueskythinking83:
@Sanjay Lohia thank u so much Sanjay. It's quite an abstract thing, this Self, or so it seems
@blueskythinking83, self may seem to be an abstract thing if we do not know that self is what we actually are. Are you not aware of yourself? Do you not know that you exist? You are always aware of yourself whether or not you are also aware of other things, aren’t you?
In fact, metaphorically speaking, we are the most ‘solid thing’. We are pure self-awareness, but now his awareness seems to be mixed up its adjuncts – the adjuncts being our body and mind. Therefore now we are not aware of ourself as we actually are, but we are nevertheless aware. This awareness is self or ourself. How can it be an abstract thing?
.
Very Good Mr Lohia,
That Self Awareness is always here, it is the closest of the close and it is effortless.
Yet the habit of "rising up and moving out" veils what is most obvious and the simplest.
As Sri Ramana states, we need only remain as we are, no more is required.
.
Sanjay ,
you mean "but now this awareness seems to be mixed up with its adjuncts"(instead of "but now his ...mixed up its adjuncts").:-)
Aham,
"As Sri Ramana states, we need only remain as we are, no more is required."
'Remaining as we are' sounds easy but means not rising as ego.
But is not true though that just that is the greatest feat ?
.
Dear Josef,
No doubt, the vasanas are strong.
The natural state though is the easiest, the most simple, the most obvious.
The difficulty is ceasing to contract into concepts.
.
Josef, yes, it should have been, ‘but now this awareness seems to be mixed up with its adjuncts’. Thanks.
Josef, in reply to your comment of 8 October 2018 at 19:21, in which you ask me to explain what I meant when I wrote ‘even to be concerned about our spiritual needs’ in the last sentence of my comment of 7 October 2018 at 19:53, ‘However, surrender is complete only when we do not rise as ego even to be concerned about our spiritual needs, so until then we do need to persevere in our effort to surrender ourself completely’, unless we rise as ego we cannot be concerned about our spiritual needs or anything else, because what is concerned about anything is only ego and not our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is just pure self-awareness.
Since surrender is complete only when we do not rise as ego, and since we can be concerned about our spiritual needs only when we do rise as ego, being concerned about our spiritual needs is not compatible with complete self-surrender. Therefore if we want to surrender ourself completely, we need to give up being concerned even about our spiritual needs, because in order to be concerned about them we need to rise as ego. This is what I meant when I wrote that we should ‘not rise as ego even to be concerned about our spiritual needs’.
Does this make the meaning of that clause any clearer?
How are you Mr Ego
Ego is me. It is not my possession. It is not something apart from me. It is the perceiver, knower, witness, first person or subject, which is aware of all phenomena or objects. However, in the following conversation I have created an imaginary separation between ego and myself:
Sanjay: How are you Mr Ego?
Ego: I am not ‘Mr’ or ‘Mrs’ – I am beyond gender.
Sanjay: Ok. So tell me more about your background?
Ego: My ‘back’ and ‘ground’ is atma-svarupa. I come from there, and I have to eventually return there.
Sanjay: But why are you here?
Ego: Only to give you all sorts of troubles! [Laughs]
Sanjay: Bhagavan talks a lot about you. You seem to be quite an important fellow.
Ego: Don’t take Bhagavan’s name in front of me. He has revealed all my secrets to the world, and he has also given you all a brahmastra (the supreme weapon) to kill me. He simply wants me dead.
Sanjay: Michael has recently written the following about you:
Ego is neither pure self-awareness nor any adjuncts, but just a confused mixture of both, so it is a spurious entity that borrows the properties of both but has no properties of its own.
Is it a correct assessment of your true nature?
Ego: He is spot on. I must confess that he knows quite a lot about me.
Sanjay: So you fear him also?
Ego: Yes, obviously.
Sanjay: Ok, tell me, why you don’t just leave us and go? Bhagavan teaches us that you are the root of everything; hence, you are the root of all my problems, miseries, desires, attachments, fears and so on. Why do you want to continue staying here?
Ego: It is because you are pampering me in so many ways. You are catering to all my whims and fancies. So I am enjoying my stay in you. As the McDonald’s slogan says, “I’m lovin’ It”.
Sanjay: I must tell you, you have a good sense of humour. Good Night. I am feeling sleepy.
Ego: Good night. See you tomorrow morning!
Sanjay,
Good one @ 12 October 2018 at 17:43. I enjoyed reading it and I like your sense of humour. Keep it up.
Samarender, thanks.
Michael,
thank you for your clearing explanation. Could you please additionally tell me which (kind of) 'spiritual needs' you were looking at (and give an example for them) ?
To all the Egos seeking whatever that you are seeking.
Yes, Mr. and Mrs. EGO whomever you are, please do keep up your good and bad works and be ready for another body in another life and play the PRETEND GAME once again that you will realize absolute Self Awareness-Consciousness-Bliss unlike Bhagavan Sri Venkata Ramana and Cow Lakshmi who ACTUALLY DID it by fearlessly facing voluntary ego death and extinction.
Mr.and Mrs.Ego are you ready to DIE and become EXTINCT this very moment to everything you know and ARE as you are now as EGO, PERSON, BREATH, MIND, BODY and WORLD?
I am losing the attraction I had for Bhagavan
Yes, I am losing the attraction I had for the name and form of Bhagavan, but instead, I am becoming more and more attracted to the inner Bhagavan. I still love his name and form, but I know that this is not real Bhagavan.
If we are merely attracted to the name and form of Bhagavan, we are his devotees. However, if we also start practising his teachings we become his followers. By doing so we do not stop being devotees, but we become his devotee-follower.
Yes, I am losing the attraction I had for the name and form of Bhagavan
Very good Mr Lohia. And then the intellectual Teachings will lose their luster. For what are the verbal and written Teachings? Only a lure for the ego. And a weak imitation.
from http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.com/2008/06/narayana-iyer.html
Once a few very learned Sanskrit scholars were sitting in the old hall, discussing portions of the Upanishads and other scriptural texts with Bhagavan. Bhagavan was giving them proper explanations and it was a sight to remember and adore! At the same time I [Narayana Iyer] felt genuinely in my heart, ‘Oh, how great these people are and how fortunate they are to be so learned and to have such deep understanding and be able to discuss with our Bhagavan. Compared with them, what am I, a zero in scriptural learning?’
I felt miserable. After the pundits had taken leave, Bhagavan turned to me and said: ‘What?’, looking into my eyes and studying my thoughts. Then, without even giving me an opportunity to explain, he continued: ‘This is only the husk! All this book learning and capacity to repeat the scriptures by memory is absolutely no use. To know the truth, you need not undergo all this torture of learning. Not by reading do you get the truth. Be quiet, that is truth. Be still, that is God.’
Then, very graciously he turned to me again, and there was an immediate change in his tone and attitude.
He asked me: ‘Do you shave yourself?’
Bewildered by this sudden change, I answered, trembling, that I did.
‘Ah, for shaving you use a mirror, don’t you? You look into the mirror and then shave your face; you don’t shave the image in the mirror. Similarly, all the scriptures are meant only to show you the way to realisation. They are meant for practice and attainment. Mere book learning and discussions are comparable to a man shaving the image in the mirror.’
From that day onwards the sense of inferiority that I had been feeling vanished once for all.
One more assurance from Bhagavan which also he gave as a personal instruction is of absolute value for me in my sadhana. I cried to him that I knew nothing about Vedanta nor could I practise austerity, being a householder; so I prayed to him to help me by showing the reality or the way to it. I also frankly admitted that Bhagavan’s own method of self-enquiry was too hard for me.
He then graciously said: ‘You know Ulladu Narpadu [Reality in Forty Verses]. It imparts pure truth, deals with it and explains it. Go on reading it verse by verse. The words of the verses will, in course of time, vanish and pure truth [sat] alone will shine, like the snake relinquishing its skin and coming out shining.’ This is now my sadhana.
One day I was sitting near Bhagavan’s couch. I felt puzzled by the ancient teaching that everything that appears in the world is maya or illusion. I wondered how it could be when I saw Bhagavan, the couch on which he sat, the barrier separating me from Bhagavan and myself. How could all these be false? I asked Bhagavan, explaining my doubt.
‘Bhagavan, can all of us be unreal and non-existent? Please enlighten me.’
Bhagavan laughed and asked me whether I had had any dreams the previous night. I replied that I saw several people lying asleep.
He said: ‘Suppose now I ask you to go and wake all those people in the dream and tell them they are not real, how absurd it would be! That is how it is to me. There is nothing but the dreamer, so where does the question of dream people, real or unreal, arise? Still more of waking them up and telling them that they are not real? We are all unreal, why do you doubt it? That alone is real.’
On another occasion he said: ‘There is no jnani [realised man], jnana [knowledge] alone is.’
About the jivanmukta, realised while still living, Bhagavan said: ‘The jivanmukta is one without any thoughts or sankalpas [inherent tendencies]. The thought process ceases completely in him. Some power makes him do things. So he is not the doer but the one, who is made to do.’
Samarender, as you have reproduced, it is recorded that Narayana Iyer had the following conversation with Bhagavan:
‘I also frankly admitted that Bhagavan’s own method of self-enquiry was too hard for me.
‘He [Bhagavan] then graciously said: “You know Ulladu Narpadu [Reality in Forty Verses]. It imparts pure truth, deals with it and explains it. Go on reading it verse by verse. The words of the verses will, in course of time, vanish and pure truth [sat] alone will shine, like the snake relinquishing its skin and coming out shining”. This is now my sadhana’.
I had heard this before, but could mere repetition of Ulladu Napadu make the ‘pure truth [sat]’ shine forth, as Bhagavan had supposedly said? This cannot be literally true. He may have said this to Narayana Iyer to suit his then level of spiritual development. Since Narayana Iyer found self-enquiry too hard, maybe Bhagavan suggested, ‘OK, start with sravana and manana of Ulladu Narpadu. The nididhyasana will follow in due course when your mind is purer’. This may have been Bhagavan’s line of thinking.
We know Bhagavan had to dilute his teachings on many occasions to suit the limited understanding of the devotees. This could be one such occasion. If Ulladu Narpadu is to be believed one cannot experience pure truth until and unless we turn within. So eventually, one has to leave behind the sravana and manana of even Ulladu Narpadu if one wants to experience oneself as one actually is.
We can read verse 22 of Ulladu Narpadu to understand this point:
Consider, except by, turning the mind back within, completely immersing it in God, who shines within that mind giving light to the mind, how to fathom God by the mind?
So it is only by ‘turning the mind back within, completely immersing it in God’ can we know God or guru or truth or self or whatever. Bhagavan uses different terminology in verse 21 of Ulladu Narpadu to stress this same point:
If one asks what is the truth of many texts that say ‘oneself seeing oneself’, ‘seeing God’: Since oneself is one, how is oneself to see oneself? If it is not possible to see, how to see God? Becoming food is seeing.
What does ‘Becoming food is seeing God’ mean? Michael has explained this means ‘the ego being swallowed and consumed entirely by the infinite light of pure self-awareness’. So we have no other option but to turn back within if we want to be swallowed by God. Bhagavan’s teachings make this clear.
So whatever was said to Narayana Iyer was applicable only to him at that particular time. It cannot be taken as one of the core principles of his teachings.
Samarender, Bhagavan also told Narayana Iyer the following:
Ah, for shaving you use a mirror, don’t you? You look into the mirror and then shave your face; you don’t shave the image in the mirror. Similarly, all the scriptures are meant only to show you the way to realisation. They are meant for practice and attainment. Mere book learning and discussions are comparable to a man shaving the image in the mirror.
This makes it clear that Bhagavan’s didn’t literally mean mere reading or even repeating Ulladu Narpadu unceasingly can help one to experience the truth. As Bhagavan says scriptures are meant to show the way. So Ulladu Narpadu and other scriptures can only show us the way. As Bhagavan further implies without practice we cannot attain the truth.
So without turning within we cannot experience ourself as we really. This practice has to be relentless. A man who is madly in love with his beloved will always be thinking of her. Likewise, we have to constantly keep our attention on Bhagavan, who is our beloved shining within us as ‘I’.
Self-attentiveness is the only door through which we can enter the kingdom of heaven
The following is extracted from an article called Narayana Iyer published in David Godman’s blog on June 26 2008:
‘I [Narayana Iyer] once asked him: ‘Bhagavan, it is said that all roads lead to Rome. All religions lead to the same goal. How, can it be said that the quest “Who am I?” is the only way and the direct way?’
‘He replied: ‘Yes, all roads lead to Rome. But, on reaching Rome, you have to go to the citadel – the sanctum. What I say is just that’.
Reflections: Some of the devotees are offended when we tell them that self-investigation is the only way if we want to experience ourself as we really are. Some of them insist that all paths are equally efficacious. They argue that it not important which path we choose, what is important is the sincerity with which we practise the chosen path.
However, Bhagavan confirms to Narayana Iyer that ‘the quest “Who am I?” is the only way and the direct way’. As Bhagavan explains, we can reach Rome through many roads. But once we are there we need to go to the citadel or sanctum because that is our purpose of visiting Rome. So if we want to reach the citadel or sanctum of our ultimate experience, we need to practise self-investigation.
So self-attentiveness is the only door through which we can enter the kingdom of heaven. Bhagavan’s teachings are clear and unambiguous.
regarding: "Who am I is the only way and the direct way":
"Self attentiveness" is NOT something that could ever be trademarked by any religion and must be present to some extent in teachings by all realized beings. Nor can Self Attentiveness be reduced to a single conceptual teaching, guru or culture because it is subtler than concept.
"I" is not the only perspective as Bhagavan in his death experience describes it as "current of energy": the awakening gave me a continuous idea or feeling that my Self was a current or force.
As Bhagavan says in Talks, people have different temperaments and no single teaching works for everyone.
Michael James & Sanjay would lecture Krishna, Sankara, Buddha, Jesus, Mahavira ( on and on....) that MJ teaches the ONLY way to God. They should all line up behind Michael James!!! After all, none of these people could be Realized as they did not practice Atma Vicara, the ONLY way, as taught by Michael James. Ridiculous.
Religious superiority has been the cause of more murder, torture & wars than anything else?
But Michael James and Sanjay are playing the religious superiority game.
Secret of a happy life
If a person overlooks the faults of others, and sees only their merits, and thus keeps his mind serene, his whole life will be happy.
To be unconcerned in all things, with the mind cool, free of desires and without hate, is beautiful in a seeker.
from Gems
For Mr. Michael and Mr. Lohia, it is more important to expound knowledge about practicing vichara than to practice it. Mr. Michael's livelihood, and Mr. Lohia's social reputation depend on hammering the world with their undigested regurgitation of bookish knowledge.
They will use anything and everything available in this world to show Ramana as a 'topper'.
"Buddha, Mahavir, Krishna, Jesus? Hmmmf... amateurs! I do not understand Buddha's teachings. That surely implies that his teachings are inferior to MY Ramana's teachings. After all, I am an EXPERT and a SCHOLAR."
These two are eager to pilot a jumbo jet, but all they have under their belt, as practical experience, is 30-40 years worth of training on nothing else but a flight simulator. They haven't even flown a measly Cessna out of the simulator. The pilots are also drunk with the liquor of self-righteousness. The jet passengers giddily strap themselves to the seats, excited that these two will surely get them to their destinations safely.
These two, old as they are, have been associated with Ramana for 30-40 years each, I guess. A total of 60 years between them - an entire lifetime for some individuals. And all they have to show for that time is their tendency to abuse other teachings/teachers/beings in the servitude of their 'master'. Everything is just and fair when it is used to appease the (image that they have in their minds of the) master.
One of Mr. Lohia's many tactics: Use Ramana's teachings to show David Godman in poor light. Then, turn about, and use David himself to show Ramana's teachings in good light. All that Mr. Lohia has done is being defensive, when Ramana does not need any defense. But Mr. Lohia's ego, his 'knowledge', his identity as a Ramana scholar (after all he has written books and named businesses after Ramana) needs protection.
These two give the 'one-guru' tradition an extremely perverse spin. If one is not enlightened even after 40 years of sadhana, it behooves one to take a good look at oneself, and make changes, even if drastic, in order to achieve the one goal that matters.
But these two, they have placed all their eggs in the basket of their next lives.
Buddha was indeed a fool, who left his princely life style, in an urgent search for the truth, without relaxing in the comfort of next lives. He was unfortunate enough to be born at a time when Mr. Michael's and Mr. Lohia's teachings did not resound through the internet.
Buddha was also quite stupid, since it took him about 6-7 years. And of course, 6-7 years (spent eradicating teachings which were roadblocks) is too much time compared to the 30-40 years that Mr. Michael and Mr. Lohia have spent on what they claim as the ONLY way to reach God.
And how dare does Buddha teach others when he clearly spent more time than the two of us, and we are being called out for spending ONLY 30-40 years each?
I am pretty sure that Mr. Lohia will come up, at least in his mind, with arguments which will be in SUPPORT of Buddha, just so he could defend his ego. And that's the game being played here - defend the ego by hook or by crook.
More commentary on the issue of "atma vicara is the ONLY way":
An elephant was enjoying a leisurely dip in a
jungle pool when a rat came up to the pool and
insisted that the elephant get out.
"I won't" said the elephant.
"I insist you get out this minute" said the rat.
"Why?"
"I shall tell you that only after you are out of the pool."
"Then I won't get out."
But the elephant finally lumbered out of the pool, stood in front of the rat, and said, "now then, why did you want me to get out of the pool?"
"To check if you were wearing my swimming trunks" said the rat.
Moral: An elephant will sooner fit into the trunks of a rat than God will fit into your notions of him.
Anthony De Mello "The Song of the Bird".
Ramana Maharshi on Different Paths to Self-realization
(from Letters from Sri Ramanasramam, No. 159, 29th November, 1947)
Enquiry is not the only way. If one does spiritual practice (sadhana) with name and form,repetition of holy names (japa), or any of these methods with grim determination and perseverance, one becomes THAT. According to the capacity of each individual, one spiritual practice is said to be better than another and several shades and variations of them have been given. Some people are a long way from Tiruvannamalai, some are very near; some are in Tiruvannamalai, while some get into Bhagavan’s hall itself. For those who come into the hall, it is enough, if they are told as they step in, ‘Here is the Maharshi’, and they realize him immediately. For others they have to be told which route to take, which trains to catch, where to change, which road to turn into. In like manner, the particular path to be taken must be prescribed according to the capacity of the practiser (sadhaka). These spiritual practices are not for knowing one’s own Self, which is all-pervading, but only for getting rid of the objects of desire. When all these are discarded, one remains as one IS. That which is always in existence is the Self — all things are born out of the Self. That will be known only when one realizes one’s own Self.
Self-attentiveness is an art; by practising it we perfect this art
The practice of self-attentiveness is extremely simple – we just need to take one step back to ourself by looking inside. How do we know all the objects of this world? How do we know our thoughts and feelings? We know them because we attend to them. So if we want to know ourself, we have to attend to ourself. We are the subject, the most subtle thing of all. We are not an object; we are that which is aware of all objects. So attending to ourself is quite different from attending to other things.
What is the first thing that we are aware of? Before we are aware of anything else, we are aware of ourself (‘I’). So that self-awareness is the basis of everything else we are aware of. So because we are aware of ourself, we can attend to ourself. So this is a very subtle use we are making of our power of attention.
The more we try to attend to ourself, the more our power of attention will become subtle and sharp. So as we practice, we will become more and more familiar with what is meant by self-attentiveness. However, we have still not understood what perfect self-attentiveness is because one moment of perfect self-attentiveness will destroy ego forever. By following this path we come closer and closer to discovering what self-attentiveness is.
So this is an art. By practising we perfect the art. I am still experiencing myself as ‘I am Michael’ so I haven’t yet distinguished ‘I am’ from ‘Michael’. However, the more I try to attend to myself, the clearer this distinction will become. Eventually, when my power of attention becomes sharp enough, I will be able to attend to myself so keenly that I will be aware of myself alone, in complete isolation from everything else.
When I become aware of myself thus, I will know what I actually am. The deeper we go within, the clearer this way become.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-07-29 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: discussion with Michael James on thought and self-investigation (1:47)
.
I am still experiencing myself as ‘I am Michael’ so I haven’t yet distinguished ‘I am’ from ‘Michael’.
‘I am’ from ‘Michael’.
This captures our situation nicely. Very well stated Mr James.
.
Hi Michael & Sanjay,
I found this blog a few years ago. I was researching "neti-neti" also called "not this - not this".
My first comment to Michael James was that his blog on neti-neti lacked understanding.
Michael doesn't understand the process of neti-neti. I told him this, he arrogantly told me that neti-neti could never lead to Realization and that I should follow him instead.
Michael showed absolutely no interest and no ability to consider an opinion different than his own translations.
So I will repeat my message here after a few years of contemplation.
Michael, Sanjay, so imagine that you are practicing Atma Vicara, Self Inquiry... and suddenly you realize that your thoughts are occupied with a large plate of desserts, vanilla pudding, pastries, ice cream etc... (I'm of course speaking from some experience, I can meet you at my favorite Mexican Food Buffet all you can eat dessert bar if you'd like).
On noticing that your thoughts have drifted... you bring attention back to self inquiry. NOT THIS distraction by a plate of desserts.
You see where I am going? How can you practice atma vicara without some aspect of performing "not this" when your mind drifts off self attention?
If one places emphasis on the negation aspect... it is called neti-neti from Jnana Yoga, but attention on self IS the whole idea why "not this" is used.
If one places emphasis on the aspect of inquiry into self... simply a different aspect of the process is emphasized.
AND I honor that "self inquiry" as a process and as a teaching must have it's own uniqueness independent from "not this".
I also benefit by placing attention on the subtle inner sensation and inner energy experienced as a side effect of "not this". AND of course "I AM" or "I" is there in the energy as a reality that is entirely different than any mental concept of "I".
All this is beyond conceptual description, there could never be any definitive single description.
I have a natural preference for the negation aspect: "not this" while others certainly might prefer "self inquiry".
And certainly I'd expect that there could many numerous other angles such as the devotional perspective and I look forward to hearing about them.
You see: hearing perspectives that differ from our own has the enormous potential benefit of furthering our own perspective.
Where as arrogantly proclaiming that our understanding is the "ONLY WAY" simply reinforces the ego and invites conflict with others.
This is why I recommend with all sincerity: Michael James your teaching has a strong component of ego: the arrogance of "the ONLY way, the ONLY teaching". If you really believe what you teach... then it is time to withdraw into solitude and put your teaching to the test. You are advancing in years, the opportunity is time based. If YOU with all your study are unable to Realize... then the teaching of Sri Ramana as you understand it is dead.
Bhagavan’s message for Chinnaswami: Let anything happen, he has only one duty – that is, to retain his peace of mind
Bhagavan will always give us enough; he will never give us too much. When Chinnaswami was constructing the temple for his mother, he was always short of money, had unending problems with the workers and such things.
Chinnaswami was terrified of Bhagavan. He called Bhagavan ‘that’. So when Sadhu Om came to Bhagavan, Chinnaswami told Sadhu Om, ‘Be careful of that; that is fire’.
When Chinnaswami had difficulties he was afraid to go to Bhagavan so he would send someone on his behalf. Once he had a lot of difficulties and he believed that if these were brought to the notice of Bhagavan, these would be solved. So this person came to Bhagavan and narrated all the difficulties that Chinnaswami was facing. Bhagavan listened patiently and replied, ‘Tell Chinnaswami, let the temple be built or not be built, let the money come or not come, let anything happen, his duty is to retain his peace of mind’.
Through this message, Bhagavan gave an excellent teaching. Nothing matters in this life because everything happens according to destiny. We have only one duty – ‘to be happy’.
2018-10-13 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? Paragraph 11 (1:42)
Reflections: One of Bhagavan’s devotees was living a life of a recluse. That is, he was hardly interacting with others, was hardly going out of his house and so on. His relatives were not happy. They thought he was just wasting his life instead of doing something ‘constructive’. When Bhagavan heard about this, he simply said, ‘What matters is peace. If he is happy and peaceful leading that sort of a life, he is happier than most of you’, or something to this effect.
Bhagavan doesn’t advocate unnecessary actions. He knows that our interest in our actions is what is keeping us bound. So if someone is trying to restrict his activities, it is good. Bhagavan taught us in verse two of Upadesa Undiyar:
The fruit of an action having perished, [remaining] as a seed [a karma-vāsanā or propensity to do the same kind of action] it causes [one] to fall in the ocean of action. [Therefore] it [action] does not give liberation.
So why should we be addicted to actions or want others to act? We should be in peace and let others also be in peace.
How can you practice atma vicara without some aspect of performing "not this" when your mind drifts off self attention?
Dear Roger,
The true vichara is not interested in thoughts. Vichara is to abide in Stillness, Beingness.
In contrast, practitioners of neti neti tend to keep churning the thought "not this", "not this". Some may slip into Beingness via this path. But most (perhaps) will simply keep churning the thought, "not this".
Aham,
Are you listening to me? Obviously not!
You declare what the practice of "neti neti" is BUT you don't practice it, and you aren't considering my experience.
Both Atma Vicara and Neti Neti have begining phases which may start from thought.
"Atma Vicara" at a begining phase might start by introducing the mental thought "Who am I?"
And "neti neti" might include the mental thought "I am not this..."
BOTH of these are at the beginning phases.
Atma Vicara eventually becomes an inquiry into self which is subtler than thought.
Neti Neti becomes the effortless observation that one has become engaged with thought or emotion or some other distraction and this observation stops the distraction so that we are back on Self.
How can you practice atma vicara without some component of neti neti being present?
When you drift from self attention, it is "not this", the effortless observation that you have drifted, that brings you back.
It may be true that there are teachers who say that "neti neti" is a mental repetition.
BUT there are also those that consider "who am I?" to be an mental repetition.
BOTH of these view points are only the initial teachings which eventually may evolve beyond thought.
Atma Vicara and Neti Neti are different.... and are intimately linked.
The end result of vichara IS the practical experience that I am not this, not this, not this.
If you suddenly experienced the self without any adjuncts, for the very first time in your life, you would immediately experiential-ly realize, among other things, that this body is not mine, that 'you' are inside something 'foreign'.
Mr. Michael and Mr. Lohia are so deeply engrossed in their love for words, their love for the image of their master, their love for their own images as super, humble devotees, they have forgotten to love and practice the practice.
NN,
"...are so deeply engrossed in their love for words, ...they have forgotten to love and practice the practice".
Hey you, obviously by a sudden experience you forgot to write the verb 'practise' correctly. Or rather you seem to be so deeply engrossed in your love for writing words incorrectly.:-)
The word practise is a variant spelling for the verb practice. American English spells both the noun and verb forms practice. For the Brits, the noun form is still spelled practice, but the verb is practise.
didn't we settle this in the 1700's with the revolutionary war?
Roger, oho, then NN is quite correct and I was indeed mistaken. Thanks for your language instruction!
Salazar,
if “I AM!” is not an experience how can you know it (what it is )?
Must there not be in any case an experiencing subject/ consciousness ?
Hi Josef,
I was perplexed about this: it seems one spell checker, gmail for example prefers practise... and another spell checker practice. Ha!
Salazar,
if you like call it ("I am") as awareness. Can awareness be without any knower ?
Salazar says To know that "I" without any adjuncts
WITHOUT any adjuncts may suggest the state the MJ has discussed: sit in meditation, atma vicara, then awareness of the body and world are lost with only "I" remaining. In ancient terminology: nirvikalpa samadhi. This is the state of Bhagavan eyes closed with attention inward.
There is another state: "I" WITH adjuncts but "I" not limited by, attached to identified with the adjuncts. This is the state of Bhagavan acting in the world but free. Savikalpa Samadhi.
Apparently Michael James does not teach about this state because it is not described in any of the works he translates.
And there's all this weird teaching: Bhagavan did not actually exist in the world, only in the minds of those present.
In Godman & Talks either state (samadhi with or without the world) is said to be sufficient.
https://www.sriramanateachings.org/blog/2014/04/atma-vicara-and-nirvikalpa-samadhi.html
Salazar knows what is correct, knows when others are confused, knows when others are "not helpful" or "futile". Who is it that can judge such things? :-)
the chapter on Samadhi in Godman "be as you are" is significantly different than MJs view. "be as you are" is available as a free pdf download.
To Salazar especially, this blog post is on looking within and what constitutes looking within. Therefore these topics seem applicable.
Salazar,
as you imply: to just be there must be anything which just is - awareness.
MJ says that the ONLY way is when concentration is so focused that the world and body disappear from awareness (right?). This is nirvikalpa. It conflicts with Bhagavan who says or implies that waking state samadhi with eyes open in the world (savikalpa) is also a way AND useful. I mean... how are you going to practice when eyes are open?
Bhagavan in the works MJ translates focuses on "no body, no world in awareness". Other works of Bhagavan are more inclusive.
Michael says above "be aware of our self alone".
This sounds good but is not totally true.
Another way:
With eyes open, one puts attention on Self and this is primary, awareness of the world continues as secondary. This is going directly into the state "bhagavan with eyes open" and the world does not disappear, only it's made secondary while the primary focus is on self.
MJ's whole philosophy is centered around "make the world disappear" and this does not allow the realized being to act in the world.
MJ says above: "what he means is that we should look ONLY at ourself" whereas I'm saying that you have to look at self primarily... but awareness of the world may continue when the eyes are open.
There is a flaw in MJ's work apparently: he says the world is ego, but then how does the realized being function in the world?
Godman "Be as you are":
2. Kevala nirvikalpa samadhi This is the stage below Self realization. In this state there is a temporary but effortless Self awareness, but the ego has not been finally eliminated. It is characterised by an absence of body-consciousness. Although one has a temporary awareness of the Self in this state, one is not able to perceive sensory information or function in the world. When body-consciousness returns, the ego reappears.
BTW I do not agree with the definition of savikalpa "with effort" in Godman because it conflicts with comments elsewhere and is not clear. But I agree when he says:
Abiding permanently in any of these samadhis, either savikalpa or nirvikatpa, is sahaja [the natural state].
Talks 24th January 1935:
D.: Does Maharshi enter the nirvikalpa samadhi?
M.: If the eyes are closed, it is nirvikalpa; if open, it is (though differentiated, still in absolute repose) savikalpa. The ever-present state is the natural state sahaja.
Thanks for the discussion.
The word "concentration" is used in Be As You Are and Talks dozens of times.
Please take the issue up with Bhagavan.
In the inquiry Who Am I? if the ego-I is focusing entirely on itself is that not done by the ego-I concentrating entirely on the ego or itself? The true I or the Self does not do Self Inquiry.
The Self-inquiry method is meant for the ego to return to its Source, the Self. This is what has been explained by Mr. James as per his several commentaries here. Mr. James himself is suggesting here to concentrate entirely on the ego or the "false I" parading as the Self.
Does IJ by any chance be an abbreviation for Infinite Joy? May God bless him whomever it is. Since you have the faintest idea of what Self actually is, maybe you can enlighten us novices here about it.
Since you are such an honest saint and such a grace to Happiness of Being Ashram visitors, maybe you can elaborate on your own hog wash self inquiry practice. We who have no faintest clue about anything other than your own stinking hog wash that you flood here everyday unasked for are all ears to hear of your faintest idea of the 'Self" as well.
Since you have grasped the tiny bit of Bhagavan's Naan Yaar, may we have the honor to hear of your hog wash analysis and commentaries of that also that you shamelessly brag to have grasped? Since you are such an ideal and top notch person to be liberated as you arrogantly presume yourself to be then why is it that your own cemented sack of hogwash concepts so important for you?
Why cling to all these transient and ephemeral things: these are like an insignificant coin
According to Bhagavan, the easiest thing is to know ourself, but why does it seem difficult? It seems difficult to surrender ourself because of our unwillingness to do so. Though we have some curiosity to know ourself, this liking is grossly inadequate. Why?
It is because, in order to fully surrender ourself, there is a small price to pay: we have to give up everything else.
However, giving up ego and all the things we hold dear seems to be most difficult. But Bhagavan says it is like sacrificing a quarter paisa coin – a tiny coin those days – in return for all the wealth in the world. We are reluctant to let go of this quarter paisa coin, even though in exchange Bhagavan has promised us infinite wealth. What we need to give up are all transient and ephemeral. This ego, this person and this whole world are transient and ephemeral. They appear and disappear. None of them is real.
These things seem to be valuable because we think that we get happiness from the things outside us. But according to Bhagavan, there is no happiness in anything outside us. Happiness is our real nature, and therefore it is only within.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-10-13 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 11 (0:00)
Reflections: Bhagavan has emphatically stated that this world is utterly unreal. It is just another dream. He has also unequivocally taught us that happiness lies only within. There is not even an iota of happiness in any of the objects of this world. If we understand these two core principles of his teachings, our practice of self-surrender and self-investigation will become relatively easy.
This ego, person and world is nothing more than a quarter paisa coin. So why is there so much reluctance to throw these away? When Bhagavan landed in Tiruvannamalai, he had a few coins with him, but he threw them all away in the tank of the temple. We should also garner the same degree of vairagya and dispose of our ego as soon as possible.
If we are able to discard ego, we will gain the infinite wealth: unlimited and eternal happiness.
Salazar,
you say "That what believes it would be a matter of merit and virtue to gain liberation (the mind) is exactly the cause of a seeming bondage. Any notion of a mind is bondage, including the complaint of the mind to not be able to “experience” Sri Ramana’s "state".
However, liberation does not occur out of the blue.
You also say "That very complaint (and other activities of the mind) is the VERY reason why self is seemingly not attainable."
May I question the other way round: how is self actually attainable - as fast as possible ?
Sanjay,
you write "We should ... dispose of our ego as soon as possible.
If we are able to discard ego, we will gain the infinite wealth: unlimited and eternal happiness."
How can one discard or dispose something (which is said to be) non existent ?
If unlimited and eternal happiness have ever existed, (how) could they have ever got lost ?
The real power is the power of silence and peace
Actually, power and peace are one. Sadhu Om has explained this through an analogy. A dam has to be very strong and powerful in order to hold all the water in place. So long as the dam is holding the water in place, it is quiet and peaceful. If the water flows out of this dam under regulation, it can generate so much electricity, it can water so many paddy fields. So the dam is powerful only if it has no cracks.
However, if this dam cracks and its water begins to leak out, the dam loses all its power. Its water is wasted and now it cannot produce electricity, it cannot water paddy fields. Likewise, the appearance of this universe is a result of the loss of our power. The real power is only silence - shanti.
So all these power we see outside – power games between countries or between people – are trivial and insignificant powers. Our true power is in our heart, in our real nature.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-10-13 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 11 (47:00)
Reflections: Our attention is the greatest power in this world. If it is directed away from itself, it is powerful enough to create this universe. Instead, if we turn our entire attention within, it can destroy the very seed of this universe, namely ego. Our practice of self-attentiveness is like trying to crush ego by force. The greater our force, the easier it will be to crush this ego forever. This is why Bhagavan says in the 10th paragraph of Nan Ar?:
It is necessary to cling tenaciously to self-attentiveness.
This tenacious self-attentiveness has great power. This will eventually destroy ego along with all its vasanas, which are nothing but the seeds of this vast universe.
Afterthought: I wrote the following in my preceding comment:
Our practice of self-attentiveness is like trying to crush ego by force. The greater our force, the easier it will be to crush this ego forever. This is why Bhagavan says in the 10th paragraph of Nan Ar?:
We are trying to crush the ego by force but by a loving force. We are yielding to the loving pull from within. We are aiming to suspend our will and by letting Bhagavan’s will overpower us.
Hi Salazar,
What is concentration?
As you have a reaction to the word concentration... why don't we look into it?
Who cares about the personalities involved, let's look at the word shall we?
Some dictionaries defined "concentration" as "attentiveness". That is acceptable?
Certainly there are other meanings that are not so useful.
WHAT is the particular meaning(s) which you think is unhelpful?
Do you deny the definition "attentiveness"?
Are you saying that the translation of Bhagavan below using the word is incorrect?
Frankly, I am not invested in the word or issues related to it. I don't really care... although it would be interesting to understand what you are getting at. What is your investment?
Talk 427.
D.: In the practice of meditation are there any signs of the nature of subjective experience or otherwise, which will indicate the
aspirant’s progress towards Self-Realisation
M.: The degree of freedom from unwanted thoughts and the degree of concentration on a single thought are the measure to gauge the progress.
Salazar,
I used the word "attainable" verbatim from your comment of 15 October 2018 at 22:16.
That we cannot attain what we already/actually are is also my conviction.
Salazar is a cyber-stalking and violent "nutcase" who tries to make himself look like a forgiving saint to impress others.
Beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing. Like he himself has admitted above in his earlier comment, he as Salazar or whatever other mischief-mongering shit-projector that he disguises himself as (NN?) will not get liberated in this sorry hogwash life of his. But the idiot that he is, he keeps dreaming that he will get liberated.
He regularly posts hogwash comments and then when it makes him look like an ass that he really is, he tries in vain to defend his own hogwash comments. This has already happened in his exchanges with Roger and Josef above.
More of Salazar's hogwash above. Like anyone really cares for his hogwash opinions and hog- poop lectures of his that he delivers from his "imagined hog wash guru pedestal". What a clueless moron he is.
"16 October 2018 at 20:54"
What a shameless and a superior kind of imagined and bogus Self-discovery from a nincompoopish ass. What a miracle has occurred at Happiness of Being Asharama. Wonder of wonders we have found the new Avatar (bogus) in Guru Maharajji Salazar.
If you follow his advice you will get instant moksha. Mr James, maybe even you should prostrate to this new "bogus guru avatar Salazar" even though he has lost respect for you as he himself said recently. What a vainglorious clown Salazar is.
Tomorrow Salazar "bogus-guru" will say he is mightier than Bhagavan Sri Ramana himself as he has already suggested that Bhagavan's advice is wrong and only what he says is correct
"Bhagavan is slowly-slowly cooking us – making us fit to be consumed by him."
This was posted by Mr. Lohia.
I sincerely pray to Bhagavan Sri Ramana to cook this "arrogant rascal Salazar" very, very fast
so that the "liberation concoction" which results from such extremely rapid cooking of bogus avatar and bogus guru Salazar will unfortunately be consumed by the almighty Bhagavan today itself.
All the arguments can never bring us any closer to the "knowledge". I just humbly await my death and hope I will have the moment of truth.
Salazar you say It is quite a phenomenon that a mind keeps agitating about a fictitious entity and with that creates misery and suffering for itself. To what end? I am quite puzzled about that.
"Misery and suffering" are an illusion that happens at a particular stage of development. It's entirely normal, a necessary stage of evolution, and ultimately not real.
Suffering is just a perspective, it is the awareness identifying with matter, expectation, doership, ownership and feeling gain and loss regarding things of existence.
With sufficient attention on "I" (or by any other term or means) "I" realizes that "I" is not bound by material creation. "I" stands alone beyond influence.
A thought or idea of suffering may bubble up into awareness... but with vigilant awareness or concentration (LOL!) on "I"... "I" no longer buys into the habit of going out into identification with matter. A thought or idea of suffering is just a thought. How can a thought take over awareness?
What is the end or purpose of Salazar? Who cares? Who knows? All that is important is that the illusion is dispelled that awareness is limited by form.
What I am describing here apparently can not happen according to Michael James. He says the WORLD is ego. The world and body must be removed from awareness. Where as what I am saying is that the "ego" part of importance is when awareness gets lost in thought and emotion. When "I" stands alone who cares if the world & body are there? The world and body have no impact on "I".
Hi Salazar,
Describing experience is an exercise in understanding and articulation. Yes, you're approach and everyone else's will likely be entirely different.
I have been reading PB's notebooks the last couple of days. Very interesting, although, probably forbidden here.
Advanced Contemplation, The Peace within You: https://paulbrunton.org/notebooks/24
Far from the arguments of mind-narrowed men, he will find himself without a supporting group in the end. He is to meet God alone, for all his attention is to be held--so fully that there is nothing and no one else. Thus the three become two, who in turn become the One, which it always is. Truth is no longer needed; its seeker has vanished. The great Silent Timelessness reigns.
By clinging to ourself, we are chipping away at this solid block of vishaya-vasanas
Bhagavan says that if we cling on to self-attentiveness, that alone will be sufficient. That will unfailingly lead us to our goal. Because by clinging to ourself we are chipping away at this solid block of vishaya-vasanas that are there in our heart. We are slowly-slowly dissolving them in the strong acid of self-attentiveness or self-remembrance. And when they are all dissolved, ego will dissolve along with them. What will then remain is svarupa – our real nature.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-10-13 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 11 (0:33)
Reflections: Nice analogy used by Michael:
Because by clinging to ourself we are chipping away at this solid block of vishaya-vasanas that are there in our heart. We are slowly-slowly dissolving them in the strong acid of self-attentiveness or self-remembrance.
17 October 2018 at 01:15, interesting comment by Noob. Maybe Mr. James can answer that as if it was a question and if such a thing is quite possible. It seems impossible.
Hi Salazar,
Yeah, I know what you mean. Sometimes an author will resonate, other times not. Sometimes with the passage of time things change. I haven't read PB for ages. I will look for Conscious Immortiality. It's probably a repackaging of things from the "notebooks" which are huge: 10,000s of quotes.
Regards,
Two verses from Arivu-t-turai, a song by Sri Sadhu Om
In response to one of my questions, Michael replied as follows:
Aṟivu-t-tuṟai is a song of 15 verses, in the first of which Sadhu Om sings, 'You have churned the ocean of learning, [but] has kavalai [cares, concerns, interests, worries, anxiety, agitation, fear or distress] gone? Tell the truth. You have amassed wealth, [but] has satisfaction been achieved? Tell the truth', so this is the general theme of the song.
In the 12th verse he sings: 'More than you, the great one who has kavala [care or concern] for you is Ramana, is it not? If you know this before, all sādhana would end'.
The verb he uses in the conditional clause of the last sentence is uṇar, which means to know, be aware or understand, so what he means is that if we really knew and had fully grasped how much love and concern for us Bhagavan has, we would happily surrender ourself entirely to him, and that surrender is the ending of all sadhana.
We haven't yet grasped this fully, but the more we grasp it the more willing we will be to surrender ourself.
Reflections: These are beautiful verses by Sadhu Om. These verses must be even more beautiful if one could read these in its original, Tamil.
There is never a time when we are free of all problems, concerns, worries, anxieties, fears and so on. However, we can reduce our concerns and worries if we can recollect Bhagavan’s infinite love for us. Even our mother's love pales into insignificance in front of Bhagavan's love. If we can recall this, our worries and concerns can be kept in check.
In the first verse of Aṟivu-t-tuṟai, Sadhu Om teaches us that no amount learning, wealth and such things can give us the complete satisfaction which we all are seeking. In fact, such learning or wealth can become obstacles to our spiritual progress if we are too attached to such things. Can a wealthy man be free of cares and concerns? It is extremely difficult.
Bhagavan is our only real protection. He provides us with this insurance without our having to pay any premium. His protection is free and available to us under all circumstances. Our journey, both worldly and spiritual, will become smooth and comfortable if we can understand this clearly. He is taking care of all our needs. Why should we doubt this?
Sanjay,
Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi told his fellow men that he is not the body.
Bhagavan seems to be a teacher having given us the profound teaching of self-investigation.
Bhagavan proclaimed the non-dual 'Absolute' as self, the 'I am' in each individual life.
Bhagavan has much love and concern for us - according Sri Sadhu Om's song Arivu-t-turai.
Bhagavan was the source of supreme peace.
Bhagavan awakens everyone of us to the dormant divinity and intrinsic immortality and infinity.
His very life was the a practical demonstration of the reality of brahman and the unsubstantiality of the phenomenal world. All is brahman, nothing exists but brahman and the world as brahman is real.
His gospel reveals clearly the oneness of humanity and the indivisibility of the Godhead as the truth of his own experience. To know Bhagavan is to be Bhagavan himself because knowing is being and being is knowing - reality is at once being and consciousness.
Bhagavan's solid silence spoke louder than words at times, and his sublime look was vividly significant at all times. Silence is the true and perfect upadesa.
It is a great privilege to bow down one's ego to the holy feet of our beloved and blessed Bhagavan.
Nevertheless, I might ask who Bhagavan and what Arunachala really are.
Hi Salazar,
thanks, I ordered a copy of Conscious Immortality, ships from India to the US for around $40 USD. There are 2 used copies on Amazon for $500. You could sell yours if you need cash!
Above you profess allegiance to Bhagavan.
When "I" is found substantially the need for outward guidance falls off. Inward guidance takes over.
There is no difference between the mind and the self. The mind turned inwards is the self; turned outwards it becomes the ego and all the world. Therefore the mind does not exist apart from the self, i.e., it has no independent existence.
So the self exists without the mind, never the mind without the self.
Some here are feeling their oats and desires to become spiritual teachers and gurus before having actually realized the Self and destroyed their individual egos as was actually done by the one and only Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi in recent times.
Salazar,
You write in your comment @ 17 October 2018 at 22:40 that "When I met Papaji I felt extreme love for that guy, an all-consuming love I did not have had for anybody else." You lucky guy, so you got to meet a jnani. What is your impression of him? What effect did he have on you aside from what you mention? Did you ask him any questions and what were his replies? What advice or upadesha did he give you? If you can share some of your memories and experiences from that meeting(s) it would be educative for all of us on this blog.
Unknown,
you must be getting mixed up: Deleting one's comments is still not destroying ego.:-)
Sanjay,
"Bhagavan is our only real protection. He provides us with this insurance without our having to pay any premium. His protection is free and available to us under all circumstances. Our journey, both worldly and spiritual, will become smooth and comfortable if we can understand this clearly. He is taking care of all our needs. Why should we doubt this?"
You describe how Bhagavan is and what he does for us.
Where, what, and who is Bhagavan ? How to meet this interesting entity ?
By the way: Why does Google allow anonymous accounts ?
Josef,
You are an idiot. You bring this trivial matter up again? There is no option to edit mistakes. Capisce? Not everything in life is about the destroying the goddamn ego or the realizing Self. You guys here are brainwashed like hell.
Why does Google allow anonymous accounts? Take it up with Google for all I care. What does it matter to you if my name is Unknown, Ego, Self, James or Venkataramana? Does that make my ego any real? Does the Self or "I am" have any name?
You said elsewhere you and all of us are the Self. Then why do you want Bhagavan's protection? What are you afraid of? Death? Yes. You are afraid of poverty, destruction of your body, loss of your family, loss of money, last of all afraid of total extinction of your ego and body.
Then how the hell can you realize your Self if you do not die this very instant, not tomorrow? You should instead pray to Bhagavan to destroy your ego and your body to extinction this very moment. What are you afraid of if you claim to be the Self?
Hey you unknown crafty customer,
if you cannot write without a mistake you could simply not publish your faulty comment -
instead of being world the uncrowned champion of comment deleting.:-)
Unknown, of course: uncrowned world champion
Josef,
F.off. I will delete comments if need arises at my own discretion. I don't need your permission to do so.
Josef,
You yourself made a mistake there in your comment after giving me advice, you buffoon.
Unknown,
shame on me, my mistake is really a dreadful misdeed. Can you ever forgive me ?
Yes, good idea, ask my permission before deleting comments ! I promise to give you at any rate an excellent advice.:-)
Josef,
Hey you minion, instead ask the moderator whomever it is, to delete option to delete comments if it bothers you that much.
Unknown,
a good comment-destroyer would show frankness and destroy his comments immediately. Make it as a test of courage and do it ! :-)
Thanks Salazar, for sharing your experiences with Papaji.
Because our ego's view is from the beginning limited we are thus anyway deceived, presumably there is and was actually neither veiling nor rediscovering of self. Therefore the mind does not really exist and is rather a myth - at least that should be found after keen inquiry.
Regarding "Atma vicara is the ONLY way" or as Michael James says frequently: he is somehow frequently able to identify the ONLY correct view.
In the 12th century Zen Master Ta Hui addressed the same issue. From the book "Swampland Flowers" quoted below. Portions of "One Path Pure and Even":
You asked me "please point out the concise essentials of this mind and this inherent nature, of delusion and enlightenment, of turning towards and turning away."
I was silent and didn't answer.
When you asked me again, I laughed and said, "as for the concise essentials, they cannot be pointed out to people. If it could be pointed out, it wouldn't be the essentials."
You said "How can you have no expedient means to enable me to go towards (the path)?"
I said "as for expedients, well then: with mind, there's no delusion or enlightenment; with inherent nature, there's no turning towards or turning away."
But people set up views of delusion and enlightenment and hold to interpretations of turning towards and turning away, wanting to understand this mind and see this inherent nature; thus this mind and this nature immediately flow into wrong paths, following the person's inversions, errors, and confusion. Hence enlightenment is not distinguished from delusion, nor the wrong separated from the correct.
Because they do not fully understand the dreamlike illusions of "this mind" and "this nature", they falsely establish pairs of terms: they consider turning towards and turning away, delusion and enlightenment, as real, and accept this mind and this nature as true. They are far from realizing that whether true or not true, false or not false, worldly or world-transcending, these are merely provisional statements.
Thus Vimalakirti said, "The Dharma cannot be seen, heard, perceived, or known. If you employ seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing, then this is seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing -- it's not seeking the Dharma". ...
If views of delusion and enlightenment perish and interpretations of turning towards and turning away are cut off, then this mind is lucid and clear and the bright sun and this nature is vast and open as empty space; right where the person stands, he emits light and moves the earth. ...
Even so, it's from lack of any other choice again that I say this: don't immediately consider this as really true. If you consider it really true, then you're ignorant of expedient means, accepting dead words as fixed, multiplying empty falsehoods, producing even more confusion-- there will be no end to it.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 41
This life, an illusion based upon likes and dislikes, is an empty dream, which appears, as if real, during the sleep [of ignorance], but is found to be false when one wakes up.
Reflections: If we have no likes and dislikes, we will be free of disappointments, sadness, heartbreaks or whatever. I like things to happen and if it doesn’t, I am disappointed. Likewise, I hope certain things do not happen but if it happens, I am disappointed. I want my business to make a lot of profit but if it doesn’t, I am sad. I want people to behave in a certain way and if they don’t, I am unhappy.
However, if we are able to give up our likes and dislikes, nothing will disappoint us. Let my business make money or close down, let people behave in whatever way it suits them, I should be indifferent to such things. I should be peaceful and equipoised in all circumstances. We should have an attitude of nin ishtam en ishtam – ‘Bhagavan, your will is my will’. We should accept Bhagavan’s will wholeheartedly. This is the only way to remain peaceful.
Sadhu Om sings in the 12th verse of Arivu-t-turai:
More than you, the great one who has kavalai [care or concern] for you is Ramana, is it not? If you know this before, all sādhana would end.
If we still have concern for this or that, if we still like or dislike this or that, we do not trust Bhagavan? We can develop such trust most effectively and quickly by practising self-investigation. The more deeply and consistently we practise it, the more our trust in Bhagavan will blossom. The more it blossoms the more willing will we be to give up all our likes and dislikes.
A sinner is a person with very strong desires and attachments
Bhagavan says that even the worst sinner - a person with very strong desires and attachments – can succeed on this path if they are ready to persevere. That is why in verse 17 of Upadesa Undiyar, Bhagavan says that it is the direct path for everyone.
Why do we have so many desires and attachments? It is because we want to be happy, but we wrongly think that we will get happiness from external things.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-07-22 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: discussion with Michael James on self-investigation and surrender (1:16)
Reflections: So we are all sinners because we all have desires and attachments. However, if our desires and attachments cause harm to other sentient beings, we are relatively greater sinners. If our desires and attachments only harm us, we are relatively smaller sinners.
For example, Hitler was a great sinner, who would dispute this? He was responsible for world-wars so he was obviously a greater sinner than us. However, if we are addicted to smoking, we are still a sinner. But by this addiction we are only harming ourselves (and others to a limited extent), so, in comparison, we are smaller sinners.
Salazar,
regarding "perversion of Bhagavan's atma vichara",
Of course the real self does not complain of ignorance. Is it not the ego in you that so complains ? Therefore you have to investigate the ignorant ego namely to be specific very very keenly !!! Oh sorry, I must apologize to you for that...you do not like the saying "keen" inquiry.
The outgoing mind is just an outgrowth of the primary ignorance.
Roger Isaacs,
so reading your given text carefully you can easily find your own defects.:-)
Sanjay Lohia,
"the great sinner Hitler" was responsible for the Second World War - in the strong belief that the Wall Street-Jews caused the First World War ...
As such he also seems to have been used by Ishwara as the enforcing power of prarabdha karma of Jewish people.
Hi Josef, I frequently proof read.
Salazar,
the first thought is a false one namely 'I am this body'.
Therefore we have to seek the source wherefrom the ego rises.
This we can do only by concentrating the mind on that quest.
As you imply there are not two 'I's in the same person. So the ego-mind can investigate only itself because in vichara there is only the subject without an object.
Salazar,
on the contrary: 'I am' is not a thought. It is the goal and the final reality. To hold on this pure being with effort is vichara. When it is spontaneous and natural, it is (called) realization.
Salazar,
you say "That would be the subject ego/mind who tries to investigate the object self."
However, the self cannot be objectified.
Salazar,
I certainly asserted only that the mind has keenly to investigate from where the ego has arisen. You cannot seriously hang your last sentence round my neck:
"WHAT on earth is "keenly investigating" pure being? That is so hilarious ;)"
I now wave goodbye and give you a concluding remark to take with you: In order to destroy (the illusion of) ignorance the mind has simply to be turned inside.
Why not try and find out the real nature of the ever present existence ?
Let us enquire whence this 'I' springs and give up regarding as real what is unreal.
Simply being oneself, not knowing anything or becoming anything.
I am happy that I exist because 'I exist' is the only permanent, self-evident experience of every one. Nothing else is so self-evident as 'I am'.
So why denying that brahman exists as 'I' ?
sorry, there is only 1 dull witt and I am that.
Not ready to give up my crown yet.
morrison, try it again and again...,:-)
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 42
When the mind is lost in pure supreme self-consciousness, all the powers which seemed to function [through the mind], such as ‘ichha’ [willpower], ‘kriya’ [the power of action] and ‘jnana’ [the power of knowing], will cease, being found to be imaginary.
Reflections: This mind is a wonderful instrument. If we use it to interpret Bhagavan’s teachings, we will do so according to our level of maturity. I was just listening to an interview by one Arun Shourie, in which he is seen talking about his new book: Two Saints, which is about Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Ramana Maharshi.
In this interview, when he was asked about Ramana’s teachings that this world is unreal, he replies, ‘This world is unreal as we see it, but it is real; otherwise, why would he give all these teachings?’ and so on. He was obviously way off the mark. This world is absolutely unreal (full stop). Why should one qualify this statement by saying this world is unreal ‘as we see it’?
So as long as our ego exists we have freedom of will, and we can use this freedom to imagine whatever we want. Likewise, we have the freedom to act, at least to a limited extent. Also, we have the power of knowing, which we can use to focus on one particular thing and know it. However, all such powers are based on ego. If ego is destroyed, all our powers of will, action and knowing will be destroyed forever, never to return again.
Sanjay Lohia,
regarding GVK - verse 42
"...and ‘jnana’ [the power of knowing], will cease, being found to be imaginary."
Are we not taught that 'jnana' is real=true self-knowledge i.e. inhering in the self.
At least the term 'atma-jnana' means pure self-awareness which is our real nature
How can it ever cease ?
Obviously Muruganar uses 'jnana' here in a complete deviationist manner in the sense of a mind-bound 'power of knowing'. What shall I do ?
When we are afflicted with problems, should we pray to Bhagavan?
When someone asked this question to Bhagavan, he replied, ‘Why not?’ However, Bhagavan’s teachings clearly tell us everything is predetermined, then why should we pray? What can we hope to achieve by our prayers? Yes, our prayers will not change the predetermined course of events, but it may help us to surrender our problems. It may help us to lessen our worries.
If we are encountering a difficult situation, we may pray to Bhagavan, ‘Bhagavan, I am not able to bear this problem, please take it off my shoulders’. This may make us somewhat calm. Or we may pray, ‘Bhagavan, this is the position, do whatever you feel is appropriate. Ultimately, your will will prevail’. Such prayers will align our will to Bhagavan’s will. We will be able to accept whatever happens with a sense of equanimity.
Why has Bhagavan prayed to Arunachala? He has done so to demonstrate as to how we should pray to Bhagavan. Our prayers should be to give us more and more love for Bhagavan. So by our prayers, we are reminding ourselves that there is a supreme power taking care of everything. Since this power is all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful, whatever will happen will be for our highest spiritual good. This is certain.
Sanjay,
you seem to consider the all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful supreme power taking care of everything just as Bhagavan. But has Bhagavan a will ?
Hi Josef,
Perhaps "power of knowing will cease" refers again to the nirvikalpa samadhi state where body and world disappear from awareness.
Reality is complex, multi-level beyond description.
Perhaps due to knowledge being passed down by monastic traditions the aspect of withdrawing from the world and the "no world" state has been over emphasized.
Sanjay's hope to make the world disappear is simply an egoic projection fleeing from one imagined state to another. As long as the body lives we must return to our so called body and world at whatever level we know them.
Roger,
in the mentioned verse Muruganar presumably expresses that real knowledge transcends mere normal/ordinary knowledge of objects.
(from https://www.quora.com/What-do-people-mean-by-watch-your-thoughts-while-meditating-Who-is-watching-whose-thoughts-Am-I-different-from-my-thoughts-Who-is-the-one-being-watched-and-who-is-the-one-who-is-watching)
What do people mean by “watch your thoughts while meditating”? Who is watching whose thoughts? Am I different from my thoughts? Who is the one being watched and who is the one who is watching?
Answered by G Tyler Wright, Author of I Don't Care and I Do Not Exist
When I first started meditating, at 13, I used the TM method that I learned through drawings in the TM book. A dozen years later when I learned from a guru, I found the steps were essentially the same.
As a novice meditator, I focused on a mantra. This is the essence of “watching your thoughts.” It gives you a thought, and tells you to watch it.
Pretty quickly I saw that I was different from my thoughts since I could watch them. I thought the thoughts were mine, and that it was the way the mind works to be able to both watch and have thoughts watched at the same time.
When I meditated watching a mantra, I found, after a short time, other thoughts would come up when I lost interest in the mantra, and I would forget I was watching the mind. Instead of being a separate watcher, aware that I am not my thoughts, I would find myself lost deep inside a train of thought for awhile. Then I would remember and I would start listening to the mantra again in my head.
Phrases many instructions use, like “watch your thoughts,” or “become aware of your thoughts,” or even “repeat the mantra” are meant to direct attention to the thinking process.
Many of us never stop to look at what we are thinking, assuming that we are our thoughts, or that thoughts are generated by us for us. When you never pause to separate yourself from your thoughts, you never have the opportunity to know what your true nature really is, which is why meditation is such a useful tool.
When I had been meditating for many years, I began to see very clearly that I was not my thoughts. This understanding is key to why we meditate.
When I was able to watch my thoughts coming and going without caring or becoming attached to them, I found my experience of who I thought I was became clearer.
Eventually one night as I meditated, all thought ceased. I still existed, but I saw that clearly I was the space in which thought arose and subsided, independent of the thoughts that came and went. The realization was, “Wow, how could I ever have believed that I was just this tiny mind inside of this body!?”
The space of awareness that I was filled my bedroom, and I was literally everything. I was more than watching thought or aware of the surroundings, I truly was everything! My awareness permeated the whole room, much like in normal awareness it permeates the body.
Seeing life with this new perspective helped me to go beyond believing I was my mind or my thoughts or anything but all-pervasive awareness.
This is why we start by watching our thoughts, and eventually we can reach a place where we see ourselves as a limitless space in which life happens and thoughts comes and goes, leaving us as the peaceful, aware space beyond it all.
Without any doubt: Diving deep, deeper and much deeper is the same what is expressed with 'keen investigation'.
Samarender,
Given we were talking about Aparokshanubuthi, there is a dialogue between Swami Madhava Thirtha (Q) and Bhagavan (B) in the book Surpassing Love and Grace.
B: In a dream, many are seen but they are all in the imagination of the one seer. When you wake up from the dream, the dream and those seen in the dream with take care of their own prarabdha.
Q: Then there will be no others?
B: It is the same with the world. In Aparokshanubuthi, the author says: "In the state where there is no existence of seer, seeing and seen, the sight should be fixed there, and not to the tip of the nose.
Q: How can daily life go on if the sight is fixed in this way?
B: Jnanis fix their sight in the substratum (adhishtana) even during vyavahara (worldly activities) because nothing else becomes the truth except adhishtana. To feel that there is clay in the pot is the proper attitude.
Q: A pot can be filled with water, but one cannot achieve the same result by pouring water on clay.
B: I did not tell you to see clay after breaking the pot. Even when the pot is whole, you can see it in the form of clay. In the same way, the world can be seen as the form of Brahman. To have the knowledge of Brahman in the waking state is similar to having the knowledge of clay in the pot
BTW on Laskshmana Sarma's commentary on Ulladu Narpadu, it was written in Tamil; there is a recent English translation available. He also wrote Maha Yoga in English, which quotes (and explains) substantially from most of the verses of UN.
In Maha Yoga, there is a question 'Does the world exist?', and his comment is similar to the above.
"There is a difference between saying that the world exists and saying that it is real" says the Sage. The latter does not contradict the seemingly opposite one, that the world is unreal, whereas the former does so. The thoroughly ignorant man confounds the Substance - the Reality underlying the world-appearance - and the appearance, and takes the mixture to be real. The disciples of the Sage know that they have to separate the appearance from the Substance, and understand that the latter alone is real and the rest is an illusion.
In order 'to separate the appearance from the Substance' let us try to catch hold on the 'I-thought'. Only a jnani knows that he is the self and that nothing exists but the self.
Knowing what 'I' really is is being oneself and that should be our goal.
Do we see wrong or right in our deep sleep state ? But we existed in deep sleep.
So when we manage to be asleep even in the waking state we thus abide as and in the self and remain uncontaminated by what goes on around. Therefore seeking wherefrom the 'I' rises will bring direct perception of the ever present self which is said to be pure absolute jnana. Of course jnana lies beyond relative knowledge of objects (which appear only in the light of the ego-mind).
Hi Salazar, fully agree. Was it Bhagavan or Nisargadatta who said the path is also the goal.
Venkat,
Thanks for posting that exchange with Bhagavan. Nice to see Bhagavan endorsing the Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya, which also one comes across in Chandogya Upanishad Chapter 6.
Also, here Bhagavan is clearly implying that a Jnani perceives the world, contrary to what many here hold that a Jnani does NOT perceive the world. Of course, it is a no-brainer that he perceives it differently from us, that is, he sees only the clay while our attention is solely on the pot aspect or manifestation of clay.
IMO, whole of Advaita falls into place if you thoroughly understand the Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya.
Thanks for letting me know about UN.
Regarding the "existence" of the world, it is said to be "mithya"; that is, it cannot be said to be unreal because it appears, while at the same time it cannot be said to be real because it is not substantial but mere names-and-forms, hence since it is neither "real" nor "unreal", it is said to be "mithya". Remember that one-liner by Sankaracharya, which encapsulates the whole of Advaita, "brahma satyam jagan-mithyä jivo brahmaiva näparah", meaning "Brahman alone is real and this jagat (world) is mithyä, and the jiva is non-different from Brahman."
Regarding Salazar's comment in reply to venkat:
"...people do not grasp what that means. It means that any objectification of self as in "let us hold onto the I-thought" is not leading to realization."
I did not speak about holding to "I am". I clearly spoke only about holding on the 'I-thought'.
Nobody or at least very few people can start atma-vichara by holding to "I am" which is said to remain as residuum after self-investigation or surrender to the eternal 'I am'.
Is that so difficult to grasp ? (using Salazar's favourite hackneyed phrase):-)
One must of course bear in mind that only for the most advanced jivas of us - so to say the premier league - it is sufficient to hear the notion "The self is ever-attained (nityasiddha)." or "Ignorance never arose. It has no real being. That which is, is only vidya (knowledge)."
Salazar,
I always thought that there is no incurable disease, but after reading your comment I am now in great doubt if there is any remedy or curative treatment for such a pigheadedness.:-)
Good question, relevant for all - not only for the questioner alone.:-)
I read (past tense) the question above "If our ego cannot even concede to a minor thing...".:-)
Isn't it good that the 'I-thought' is absent in deep sleep ?
So take your bedtime and lie down to sleep; sleeping is very refreshing.:-)
Hi Sam,
You mention Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya: What is this? Is a document available?
Hi Salazar,
Thanks for "75 old devotees". V. Ganesan says:
He [Munagala] would then take the notebook to Bhagavan, who would edit or correct what had been written. That is how we have Talks with Ramana Maharshi. I have seen the original manuscript myself, in the form of note books, with Bhagavan’s corrections.
Also Godman says that a portion of Talks was reviewed by Bhagavan as part of a court deposition.
I agree with MJ that there are translation errors in Talks. However, that is hardly reason to entirely ignore the document which covers 4 years of teaching. Talks gives a radically different message than MJ: people have different temperaments, no single teaching works for everyone, and many other various methods are endorsed as resulting in the goal.
Salazar, regarding the sanskrit terminology "nirivikalpa samadhi" and so forth. it's used by Bhagavan and Sankara and may be useful for contemplation.
Venkat delightfully quotes RM above 'jnanis fix their sight in the substratum even during activity'.
MJ has said that the only way is when the body and world disappear from awareness (nirvikalpa).
However, placing attention on the "substratum" and thus separating from mental & emotional distraction during activity may be essential.
Sam, I also appreciate your comments on "the world".
The advaita descriptions of world as maya and world as unreal are for contemplation.
The "ego" moves towards pleasure (acquiring that which is desirable) and away from pain.
Thoughts about escaping from the world are just more ego activity.
Roger,
referring to the last sentence of your recent comment "...are just more ego activity."
Continuous misinterpretation MJ must be a big pleasure for you.
Is that real (your) happiness/ananda ?
Should there be not an end of troublemaking thoughts ? How can you ever remain as the self with cultivating such restless thoughts ?
Hi Josef,
You are making a general commentary "continuous misinterpretation".
Can you provide a specific instance?
MJ claims to have the ONLY way to God and is not realized. He implies that Buddha, Sankara et al could not have been realized because they didn't follow MJ or atma vicara.
Apparently you think we should allow such statements to go unchallenged?
What is your issue with identifying corruption ?
Roger,
may you provide a specific instance where
1. MJ claims to have the ONLY way to God.
2. He implies that Buddha, Sankara et al could not have been realized because they didn't follow MJ or atma vicara.
As far as I am concerned I am generally not exactly a friend of corruption.
If I would consider MJ as being stricken by corruptedness I would not study his articles and comments at all.
Oh Salazar,
your silence kept in sleep did evidently not last long. Your words indicate that you could not enter the kingdom of heaven. Instead you seem to be contaminated by the mind's ignorance.
As you know the mind is only the aggregate of thoughts and thoughts cannot exist but for the ego. Therefore all thoughts are pervaded by the ego. If you are wise you would seek wherefrom the 'I'-thought rises...and then all the other thoughts will disappear.
Yes Salazar,
in this regard you are completely right.
Therefore bye-bye for now!
Huike, the Second Patriarch, said to Bodhidharma, “My mind is not yet at
rest. Master, I implore you, set my mind to rest.”
The master replied, “Bring your mind here and I’ll set it to rest for you.”
Huike said, “I’ve searched for my mind, but am unable to find it.”
“There,” said the master, “I’ve set your mind to rest.”
Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya – Part 1 of 2
Roger,
Kaarana means cause, Kaarya means effect, and prakriya means analysis, or investigation or methodology. So, Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya simply means Cause-Effect Analysis, whereby one seeks to establish that the world, including one’s body-mind in it, is nothing but mere names-and-forms, the underlying substance being Brahman or Consciousness.
Below is a lucid account of it. [Roger, in the below explanation keep in mind that body-mind is like pot - mere name, form and function - while Consciousness is like clay, the substance underlying body-mind. So, Consciousness alone is the reality or sathya; and, body-mind is mithya. So, everything in the world is ONE, Consciousness, the differences being merely in name and form.]
The cause produces only name, form and function
By D. Venugopal
(Source: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/venugopal/venugopal38.html)
The question that arises out of this discussion is as to what the cause produces, when the effect is pre-existing in it. When the pot is made, what exactly is it that comes into being. The clay, which has been a lump, is now in a different form. The clay in the new form can be now put to particular uses. Since it has a specific form and particular uses, this clay now gets a new name, namely, the pot, for identifying it during the daily transactions. The effect that the cause brings about is production of name, form and function. Kärya is näma, rüpa and karma. When the clay is shaped into different forms with different uses, the same clay gets different names. Even so, many names, forms and functions do not mean many substances since all of them are made only of clay. When we say pot, there is no independent substance called the pot but only clay from which the pot is made.
Causation does not bring about any change in clay as a substance. In the following conversation, clay enlightens the pot-maker on this point:
Pot-maker to clay: See what I have done! You were earlier a lump of clay; I have now converted you into a shapely pot.
Clay: What do you mean? I have not become anything different. I continue to be the same clay as before.
Pot-maker: How is it that you miss very evident things? Earlier you were a lump. Now you are shapely. Earlier you had no particular use. Now you can be used for carrying water and for a variety of other jobs. Earlier you were called clay. Now you are called a pot. Are these not changes?
Clay: I do not understand you. With shape or without shape, I am only clay. With use or without use, I am only clay. I may be called a pot or anything else; but I continue to be only clay. Now tell me what change has taken place to me as clay? I have undergone no change at all!
The pot-maker had no answer to give to clay!
The word “pot” sits on the tongue only and does not cover any substance. Chändogya Upaniñad says: Pot is only a name dependent on speech. The product is merely a verbal distinction. In reality, only clay exists.
We have only words and their meaning. We think that there are tangible objects for which we have the words. But, these are just words and their meanings. The word, “pot” has its meaning which we understand and we can communicate it to others. This is vyavahära or transaction. But, we consider that the object that we perceive is the meaning of the word. But our notion does not give the pot, for example, that kind of tangibility. This is because “pot” has no being, as the is-ness of the pot belongs to clay. The capacity to go beyond the pot and see clay without doing anything to the pot or the clay is Vedänta. The pot continues to be pot and clay continues to be clay. But, our understanding of them becomes different.
(CONTINUED below in Part 2)
Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya – Part 2 of 2
What exists is the clay and not the pot
The reality that underlies all changes of forms is the substance itself. Change of form does not produce any change in substance. Every time we see the pot, the substance that we see is nothing but clay. When the substance remains the same in all forms and the change does not affect the substance, the change into forms cannot be considered as change, as far as the substance is concerned. So, from the angle of the substance, the change is not considered as real. For example, Devadatta, sitting, standing or lying is considered to be the one and the same person. In the case of the clay and the pot, we, however, tend to think of the pot not as an apparent change of the clay but consider the pot as a new substance and call it a clay pot. If we hold it in our hand and ask someone as to what it is, we would invariably get the answer that it is a pot. However, when we touch the pot, we are only touching clay. When we see the color of the pot, we are seeing only the color of clay. When we feel the texture of the pot, we are feeling the texture of only clay. The weight of the pot is only the weight of clay. However, we regard the substance 'clay' as a substance 'pot'. We can use the two words, pot and clay for the same thing only when both words mean the same thing. The clay must be the pot and the pot must be the clay. To arrive at this conclusion, pot must pass the anvaya-vyatireka test. Applying this test, we find that whenever the pot is present, clay is also present. Therefore, there is anvaya or invariable co-existence. However, whenever the pot is not present, clay can be present as a lump or as many other objects made of clay like the lid, bowl, and lamp. So, there is no vyatireka or invariable co-absence. Since the pot and the clay have not stood the test, they cannot be equated and used as synonyms.
Again, when we say ‘clay pot’, pot becomes the substantial noun and clay as the attribute of pot becomes an adjective. Nevertheless, in reality, clay is the substance and pot is the attribute, which is a particular form and usage of clay. Therefore, clay has to be the noun and pot has to be the adjective. The right expression would therefore be ‘potty clay’ and not ‘clay pot’. The grammatical error in the expression ‘clay pot’ arises out of the error in understanding. We confer substantiality on pot that does not have any substantiality being only a name, form and function of clay and deny substantiality to clay, which is the actual substance. When we say, “pot is”, the is-ness or existence belongs to clay and not to the pot. The is-ness of the pot is entirely borrowed from clay. Overlooking this fact is the basic error.
P.S.: Roger, Let me know if the above explanation makes it clear for you.
So much theory here about "Self" without having realized "Self" like Bhagavan Ramana who actually did. Like the "so called master and teacher" of this blog like his students.
Even the Master and Bhagavan Sri Ramana of Arunachala having actually realized Self remained silent. But there is non-stop yapping about "That Self" having not realized it.
Such Jnana from Happiness of Being Ashram I have not seen anywhere else.
Hi Sam (if that's an acceptable nick name),
I will read your posts.
thanks,
Hi Josef,
I used google advanced search looking for "no other way" and "only way" on the blog. A few quotes follow.
Clearly, Michael James knows the "only way" which is Atma Vicara and there is "no other way".
IF Atma Vicara is the ONLY way, how do we explain other greats (such as Buddha, Sankara, Krishna etc) who did not mention "Who am I?" as a technique? I do not believe that MJ's statements include Buddhism.
Also:
MJ insists that the ONLY way is to "experience the self alone" which is no body or world in awareness (nirvikalpa samadhi). This conflicts with other sages including Bhagavan (for example in Talks and Godman) and Sankara.
When an unrealized person claims "the ONLY way" this is intellectual conviction or belief and NOT from realization.
This places the speaker in conflict with virtually all other teachings and teachers.
This is called EGO.
quotes from MJ:
Ātma-vicāra is therefore a battle between our love to experience ourself alone (sat-vāsanā) and our liking to experience other things (viṣaya-vāsanās). In order to succeed we must just persevere in trying to be self-attentive as much as possible. There is no other way.
...we will be able to understand why he said so often that self-investigation is not only the direct means but also the only one by which we can experience ourself as we really are.
Self-investigation is the only way to wake up...
There is no other way, and no shortcut.
This attempt to be clearly aware of ourself alone is what is called self-attentiveness or self-attention, and it alone is the correct practice of self-investigation or ātma-vicāra as taught by Sri Ramana.
the only way to deprive our ego or mind of the nourishment that it requires to survive is to try to attend to ourself alone.
If we want all thoughts to wither away, the only way to make them do so is to try to attend to ourself alone, thereby ignoring them.
therefore investigating ourself or meditating on ‘I’, our ego, is the one infallible means to destroy all karma. Indeed, it is the only mean by which we can destroy it, because it is the only means by which we can destroy the illusion that we are this finite thing called ‘ego’.
The only way to free ourself from all thoughts, including their root, this ego, is to try to watch, observe, witness or attend only to ourself, who are what now seems to be this ego.
the only way to separate ourself permanently from all adjuncts is to destroy this ego
So long as we are attending to anything other than ‘I’, our mind is active, so the only way to keep it still (without falling asleep or into any other such state in which the mind subsides without clear self-awareness) is to attend only to ‘I’: in other words, to be aware of nothing other than ‘I’.
Roger,
You are welcome. Yes, you can certainly address me as "Sam", which has been my nickname since my teenage years.
Eventually, we recognise that whatever sadhana is being done, is being done through us rather than by us
In the course of our sadhana, two types of bhava (attitude towards God) are talked about. There is the monkey bhava and there is the kitten bhava. A baby monkey clings firmly to its mother in order to be kept safe. Whereas, the baby kitten doesn’t know how to cling, in fact it cannot cling to its mother, so it just cries out for help. In response, its mother comes and picks it up by the scruff of its neck and carries it.
Bhagavan has clarified that the spiritual path begins with the monkey bhava. First of all, we have to cling firmly to God. We have to cling firmly to self in our heart. But as we progress along the spiritual path, our ego gets more and more attenuated. As its outward desires become weaker and weaker, it surrenders itself more and more. We yield more and more to God. So we slowly progress from the baby monkey attitude to the kitten attitude.
That is, when we reach a certain stage of our spiritual development, we will think, ‘I am doing nothing; I can do nothing’. How can we cling to self-attentiveness if not by the grace of Bhagavan? So it is all entirely done by him. Eventually, we recognise that whatever sadhana is being done is being done through us rather than by us.
The effort has to be made – we have to cling – but how are we clinging? It is only because of the love that he has given us. There is nothing else we can do but to cling because he has taken away all our desires for other things. He has given us love only for himself, so clinging becomes our second nature. It doesn’t feel like ‘I am clinging; I am a great devotee’. It feels ‘I am totally worthless. He has taken possession of me. It is all his grace’.
Bhagavan used to often say ‘Grace is the beginning, middle and end’. Grace is the love that Bhagavan has for us or the love that we (as we actually are) have for ourself (as we actually are).
Edited extract from the video: 2018-10-11 Holland Park: Michael James discusses verse 4 of Śrī Aruṇācala Padigam (21:00)
Reflections: In what stage are we? Are we in the baby monkey stage or in the kitten stage? I think I am somewhat in between. I need to cling to self, but without Bhagavan pull from within such clinging can never take place.
Hopefully at the time of death, "I" being unable to cling to the body any longer, will try to grasp my substance, while being deprived of all the sense perceptions.
Our eternal 'I' is not a thought. The 'I-thought' is already the first thought 'I am this body' because the ego is always connected with the 'I am this body'-idea. In the moment the 'I'-thought rises on waking all other thoughts rush out spontaneously.
Indeed 'I am' stands alone by itself.
Regarding "sheer BS-concepts":
Why worry about anything ?
There is only one consciousness - beyond thoughts.
In deep sleep there is no 'I'-thought. It arises on waking and then the world appears.
The real 'I' is subsisting through all the three states of waking, dream and sleep.
Do not allow yourself to be distracted. :-)
Hi Salazar,
I like your talking about gross body, subtle bodies etc...
I can try to communicate this... although nothing of substance can be communicated.
IMO each of us may have different entry points, all slightly different depending on temperament.
If you say that you know the "bodies" by contemplation on "I" then I can't disagree and look forward to your discussing the subject.
The "body" is a key for me. I followed Barry Long's suggestions. I don't need to make him an unquestioned authority nor did he advise that. He says "don't accept anything I say without first finding it to be true in your experience".
His main suggestion is to go into the "sensation" or subtle energy in the body.
For example: sit meditatively and for an extended period of time (as long as necessary) put your attention into your hands (or any body part) and discover "what is the sensation there?"
There are other levels to this... but that would be a digression.
See the book "Stillness is the way" and various tapes and his web site www.barrylong.org... or ask me. :-)
A key point is: when the sensation is found in awareness, the mind is held because the sensation is subtler than digressive thinking.
I sink into the sensation all the time. That is my primary practice or simply what I am.
I say "mind is held" because "I" is occluded when thought runs away one thought leading to the next actually obscuring attention. When "mind is held" a thought may arise... but inward attention is maintained.
He didn't say this, but the sensation is the "vital body", pranamayakosha, or energy body. It is the same thing that kundalini yoga excites but in this case we are not stimulating it... just putting attention on it. Bhagavan discusses this in various places (another possible digression).
When you rest fully in the sensation / energy throughout the whole body... then the next layer may be revealed: the sensation / energy may "wink out" leaving only "I", or the causal body. In other words the physical layer has dropped away to reveal the energy layer, and then the energy layer drops away to reveal that which is finer than energy: it is as if the body is subtle as a thought... or just space.
The distinctions seem somewhat arbitrary, but yes the energy body is an outer layer. It is not necessarily pure "I". BUT is it subtler than the gross body, subtler than digressive thought, and so YOU ARE THAT at a particular level, and since putting attention on it holds thought this is extremely valuable.
Also when the energy body falls away revealing body as subtle thought or space (without physical material or energetic qualities) ... this too is not "I" as the causal body could be called just another layer (from a particular perspective). What or Who is observing these phenomena?
But "I" or "I AM" is splendidly there separate from the material body & energy bodies. When the outer layers have been reduced.. then there "I AM".
Realizing that you aren't just the physical body has been called important. To discover your relationship with the bodies... just place your attention there into the body meditatively and the reality will be known. Although... perhaps by contemplation on "I" the same can be known.
This is another perspective on the blogs title: what is meant by "within" ?
Sam
I would not rely too much on Venugopal's write-up of Vedanta. It is a sterile, rather dull book, which parrots his teachers (Dayananda and Paramarthananda), and repeats their duplicitous criticism of Bhagavan's self-enquiry.
Roger - I'd say the freshest explication of the cause-effect prakriya is still Sankara's Aparoksanubuthi.
"...visions, beautiful sounds or smell, and so on..."
I am happy when people show good comprehension:)
Bhagavan taught us definitely to ignore all of that but look for that what is experiencing it.
Roger,
I do not see any disparagement of any other forms of practices in Michael's articles. When Michael states the indispensable necessity of atma-vichara he never neglects to give sound reasons for his statements.
Regarding your criticism of Michael "IF Atma Vicara is the ONLY way, how do we explain other greats (such as Buddha, Sankara, Krishna etc) who did not mention "Who am I?" as a technique? I do not believe that MJ's statements include Buddhism." I agree what Salazar addressed yesterday to you (22 October 2018 at 21:31): "So in the end it IS vichara even when it was not particularly mentioned or acknowledged."
If this world is real then God has to be finite
While I was surfing the net yesterday, I found a video by Swami Mukundananda in it. He seems to be a famous guru in the USA. Some of our friends from America may know about him. He seems to be proficient in sastras. In this video, he was seen discussing whether or not this world is real. He started first by quoting Sri Sankara where he says that this world is mithya (unreal). However, then he quoted about 7 to 8 other acharyas who apparently have said that this world is real. Mukundananda said that he agrees with both these viewpoints.
He concluded that only our inner world is unreal. All our thoughts, desires, feelings and so on are unreal. However, he claimed that this manifested solid world is real. He said that our mental world is our creation so it is unreal, but the outer world is God’s creation so it is real. However in the course of his lecture he also stated that God is infinite and non-material, so how can our mind and intellect know God because these instruments are limited and made up of matter?
There were quite a few fallacies in his arguments. He was not able to clearly tell us the difference between the inner world and outer world, which he claimed is not alike. According to Bhagavan, whatever world we experience is unreal – these are all creations of our mind. Bhagavan has given us clear and logical arguments to prove his point. Whatever world we experience appears to be real while we experience it. Even when we dream we consider that world to be just like the present world. So how can one prove that this current world is not just another dream?
Also, Mukundananda said God is infinite and non-material, which is true. But he simultaneously claimed that this world is real. However, can these two statements be true simultaneously? If God is infinite, this world has to be unreal. It has to be nothing more than a dream. If this world is real than God cannot be infinite because a part of this infinite space will be occupied by this so-called ‘real world’. So if this world is real, God has to finite. So Mukundananda’s arguments were not in accordance with simple logic.
This is where Bhagavan is so unique. His teachings are clear, coherent and logical. He has given us the essence of all sastras. Others may confuse us instead of clarifying matters. This is how I look at it. However, some may find such lectures useful.
All the subtle bodies are also a creation and parts of mind, which operates our senses of smell, taste, sound, touch, vision and that's it. Mind works only within the realm of these senses. I can apply my 5 senses to my body, but how to apply the senses to "I"? Funny part is that we use the senses when we want to know something, they are operated by our attention to some extent, however how do we taste, see or hear I? We cannot, because I is the subject and well known to itself, it does not have to be called out by a name. Since mind operates only senses, it cannot even touch the realm of Self.
And also, since everything that mind and body has to experience has been already predetermined from the very beginning to the end like in a dream, is there anything to do and who can do anything but to humbly await the dissolution of the mind and the body while cultivating the desire to know "I" and only "I"?
Sanjay,
how can one judge the reality of the world or anything else if he cannot even say whether his own self-awareness is real or not ?
Making inferences from sense-informations is frankly short of evidence.
Without knowing the knower one gets into a risky area and is on shaky ground.
Thanks Venkat, I downloaded Sankara's Aparoksanubuthi.
Hi Josef,
you say "I do not see any disparagement of any other forms of practices in Michael's articles":
See below for disparagement. "only way" is itself a disparagement, a claim of superiority.
Competition with other teachings is an OUTWARD movement of ego into the world, it has nothing to do with a spiritual practice.
You say quoting Salazar "in the end it IS vichara even when it was not mentioned or acknowledged".
History records many people that were probably enlightened. Some of them left substantial teachings such as Buddha, Krishna, Sankara et al.
You disparage them all by saying that in their teaching they somehow missed the key element responsible for their enlightenment... and you just happen to have it.
The real question is: why do YOU have this need to feel superior in the world?
If you say that Atma Vicara is the best for you, fine, but when you say that Atma Vicara is the only way for everyone... this is ego.
Learn from Krishnamurti who MJ attacks in multiple blogs.
"K" points out that the incessant need to acquire is the issue.
We may all recognize that acquiring money, power, fame, the best sports team, the fastest car, the best meditation cushion etc.... is all just the outward movement of the ego into the world.
AND guess what, having the "only way" to Self is just another egoic acquisition.
By closely examining that which differs from our preferences... we learn!
A different spiritual teacher warned "judge not". Why is it that on this blog judging is a primary feature?
Michael says:
Which spiritual teachings are truly credible?
Why the teachings of J.Krishnamurti are diametrically opposed to those of Sri Ramana
What Krishnamurti teaches is diametrically opposed what Bhagavan teaches us
Regarding Nisargadatta, though he is reputed to be an ātma-jñāni, we cannot know what his inner state actually was. In the English books that record his teachings there seems to be a lot of confusion and lack of clarity...
Therefore generally I find that what Eckhart Tolle writes is at best only superficially similar of Sri Ramana’s teachings, and that careful scrutiny shows many glaring differences between them.
No doubt there have been many other teachers who MJ has judged... but I'd have to read ALL the blogs.
Hi Salazar,
Have you come to the conclusion that liberation from the ego is:
a) One in which Brahman alone is the witness, with no ego to have any volitional action or desire. This arguably implies an indescribable, almost 'mystical' change in state
or
b) One in which the ego is ameliorated to such an extent, that it enables the body to continue to function, but without any personal fear or desire - and without such personal fears / desires, it therefore acts 'impersonally', which means its acts will be for the benefit for the whole, because its identification is with the whole rather than the fragmentary me (but without any specific desire to do so). This is I think JK got at in terms of a radical de-conditioning of the mind.
They are both similar but also different. If (b), then arguably the ego does have a role to play in 'detaching' itself, and acting in ways that are in harmony with the understanding. If (a), then the ego has no control, and all it can do is step aside and look inwards, and leave the rest to Brahman.
I don't know the answer to this - would be interested in your perspective. Thanks.
Hi Salazar,
There seems a misunderstanding here that due to prarabdha we have no responsibility for our actions.
Perhaps this makes more sense for the seeker who has withdrawn from the world. And it makes sense from the advaita level.
But... there are multiple levels to consider. Moral restraint is a prerequisite for advaita. See the document recommended by Venkat Aparokshanubhuti where Shankara states exactly that in verses 104-105.
Michael James fails the basic moral requirement due to arrogance. A mind which insists that it knows all, that it has the ONLY WAY for all people for all time and sits in judgment of other spiritual teachers and practitioners is identified with a spiritual teaching. This may be a "good" or satwic attachment but it's still an identification.
To quote a famous interpreter (Michael James!):
As Sri Ramana taught us, enquiring about others is anātma-vicāra (investigating what is not ourself), so it will not benefit us in any way.
Making judgments about other teachers, and claiming to have the only way in a sea of different teachings are outward movements of attention.
If MJ actually believes what he teaches... then he'd withdraw from the world into full time practice.
Having always a counter-argument/reply and self-made imaginations ready - everyone will see how far he will come with such kind of self-deception.
At any rate it is Bhagavan's teaching that questing 'Who am I' within one's mind, that is questing with the mind turned inwards whence the 'I' rises, will be alone the enquiry leading to self-knowledge.
To seek and abide in the reality which is ever attained is alone true liberation, the state of non-emergence of the ego-'I'.
Hi Josef,
When you say "having a counter-argument/reply ready" you are referring to yourself?
Roger,
not exactly.:-)
Salazar,
you say "Especially that a mind is holding to something - that is nonsense."
At the moment I can't remember in what context I could have asserted "that a mind is holding something".
Salazar,
"Diving deep" by enquiring whence the 'I' springs is done certainly by the mind.
According Bhagavan: Only then when one reaches thus the heart the individual 'I' sinks crestfallen, and ...at once reality manifests itself spontaneously as 'I-I'.
Diving deep into one's mind is of course spoken metaphorically for keen investigation.
So what truly I am is therefore the supreme light, the source of supreme peace.:-)
Hi Venkat,
Regarding your question:
somewhere in the rig veda there is a description of self realization,
something like:
"I saw all of the equipments (ie mind, body, emotions) as if from a great distance forever uninvolved and untouchable."
Recently I found the same description in Barry Long's "From here to eternity":
Suddenly I am the Supreme Being, supreme consciousness. I see existence like a tiny sphere far, far away and start physically laughing because I know that nothing in existence - no sensory effort and not even love - can reach me or be what I am. I am above all.
From these descriptions the final disposition of the ego remains uncertain.
Salazar says that "There is only one self. Jesus Christ, Bhagavan and the Buddha never truly existed but as self and they are all the same one self."
If there is only one self - also called jnana - how can there be anyone excluded of it ?
Therefore a jnani sees nothing apart from him.
Are only the three mentioned sages the same one self ?
Are not rather we all included in the supreme consciousness, in eternal silence ?
Of course that has first to be realized in the depth of our heart.
Therefore diving deep within is necessary.
Our real nature is ourself as we actually are, whereas ego is ourself as we seem to be. These are not two different things, just as a rope and the snake it seems to be are not two different things. However, pure consciousness is indivisible, i.e. it is without parts and includes all. Nothing is outside or apart from it. It has no form and shape, no within and without. That is true.
Hi Venkat,
Are there other works especially of Shankara that you find compelling?
I have 2 translated by Nikhilananda which seem essential:
1: Drg-Drsya-Viveka
2: Mundakopanishad with Gaudapada's karika and Shankara's commentary
and another:
3: A Thousand Teachings translated by Mayeda
And your suggestion: Aparoksha-Anubhuti is also good.
I like these concise works. There is hardly a need to look elsewhere.
BTW, for Michael James and some others here a quote from the Aparoksha-Anubhuti: :-)
132: Only those in whom this consciousness (of Brahman) being ever present grows into maturity, attain to the state of ever-existent Brahman; and NOT others who merely deal with words [2].
[2]: "Deal with words": Engage themselves in fruitless discussions about Brahman by variously interpreting texts bearing upon It.
Because pure consciousness is indivisible even the most dull-witted are not excluded from self !!! Not even Salazar.:-)
Our destiny has brought Bhagavan into our lives; however, whether or not we try to follow his teachings depends on our freedom
A friend: Some people are making effort to know who they really are. Is this their prarabdha?
Michael: No, prarabdha is concerned with what you experience. However, whether or not you are making efforts to turn within is totally dependent on your will. Do you have the love to know the truth or not? This is independent of your destiny.
The fact that we have come to know about Bhagavan is our destiny, but what use we make of this will be decided by our will. We are free to put his teachings into practice or to ignore them. Our destiny is helpless here.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-07-14 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 8 (1:52)
Reflections: We may have the most sublime spiritual texts in our house – we may, for example, have texts such as Bhagavad Gita with us. We may even read this, but the love with we read it depends on our will. We may read such texts without trying to go deep into their meaning or may read them with full interest – all this depends on our will. Again, whether or not we try to practise what Gita teaches us depends on our will.
Therefore, our spiritual life is a warfare between the opposing elements of our will. It is our will which is keeping up bound, and the same will liberate us if we use it to turn within. Our outward directed will is our only problem.
"Nama Rupa Thinks It's Me" by Annette Nibley
Check out http://www.whatneverchanges.com/blog/files/nama-rupa-thinks-its-me.html
Is it not our good prarabdha to be allowed reading all interesting explanations of Salazar ?
Even having a vision of Bhagavan Ramana's face implies the seer. The nature of the vision is the same as that of the seer. A vision cannot be eternal, so the value of the vision is the same as that of the seer.
Perhaps even the self-forgetfulness of the ego inclusive the "end of the story" are possibly predetermined.:-)
Salazar, Roger
Thanks you for your comments. Apologies for not responding early - back from work, in the evening, so have some time now. As an aside, I wholly concur with you on Swartz and his 'enlightenment business'
S, as you know, when you describe the thoughts coming up for Bhagavan without premeditation, etc - that is true for us too. It is just that we also have the thought that I am the originator of this thought, I am the actor, etc. But this is our fundamental error.
I'm not sure if you have read Sankara's Upadaesa Sahasri? I would recommend it. Whilst Bhagavan focused on the method, Sankara focused on the philosophy of advaita. I think they are complementary. See what you think.
7.1 Because I am the one who always perceives everything that enters the mind, therefore I am the Absolute, the supreme, omniscient and all-pervading.
7.5 The object only manifests in the mind and only when the mind itself is manifest (waking or dream). When (as in dreamless sleep) the mind is not manifest the object has no existence. Therefore because the Seer is constant, duality does not exist.
7.6 As long as the mind failed to discriminate, it supposed that no Supreme (ie transcendent) being existed. But after discrimination, it apprehends nothing other than the Supreme, not even itself as mind.
8.1 O my mind, my true nature is pure consciousness, connection with taste and other objects of physical experience is due to your delusion. No result whatever accrues to me from your activities as I am free from all distinctions.
8.2 Therefore give up actions based on illusion, and attain to permanent cessation from striving for the unreal. For I am ever the supreme Absolute, liberated, unborn, one without a second.
10.13 He who though seeing duality when awake, yet on account of his awareness of non duality does not see it as if he were asleep, and who is apparently active yet really actionless for the same reason - he alone is a knower of the Self.
12.13 He only is a knower of the Self who has first known that the Self is the unbroken Witness and is not an agent, and who then gives up the notion that he is himself a knower of the Absolute.
14.23 If you know that desires and efforts and the individual sense of 'I' and 'mine' are by their very nature void of all application to the Self, then just remain established in your Self. What is the use of active efforts?
16.73 Just as one does not identify oneself with the body of another, so does one not identify oneself with one's 'own' body after vision of the Supreme. Having obtained this supremely pure knowledge one becomes totally liberated.
17.23 A man should carry out the best forms of physical and mental asceticism if he wishes to purify his mind, the highest goal. `the mind and sense should be kept constrained and under control. The body should be exposed to the rigours of the climate.
18.222 In order to perform the discrimination necessary to find the meaning of the word 'thou' there must be renunciation of all action. This is the right means. For the Veda teaches 'peaceful, self-controlled'.
19.8 O my mind, here thou art of the nature of non-existence. For when the matter is scrutinised thou canst not rationally be said to exist. The real, O my mind, cannot be destroyed, and neither can the unreal be born. Thou art both born and destroyed. Therefore thou art non-existent.
Thanks Sam regarding Annette's page.
I like those teachers that have somehow convinced me that they speak from the realized state. Even if they lived centuries ago.
I'm not sure that any of the growing crop of non-duality & advaita teachers are actually realized.
When an unrealized person teaches advaita... it is done as an intellectual conviction or belief which is entirely different than teaching from the realized state. And the neo-advaita schools ignore prerequisites (meditation to first still the mind) which seems to make realization unlikely.
BTW: the book "A thousand Teachings" aka "Upadesasahasri of Sankara" translated and edited by Sengaku Mayeda might be of interest. From the jacket: Mayeda is (or was?) professor and chairperson of the Department of Indian Philosophy and Buddhist Studies and the University of Tokyo.
Hi Salazar, Venkat, and Roger,
I agree that Annette Nibley may not be self-realised. But I find that as long as we are able to sift the chaff from the grain, we have something to learn even from those who are not yet self-realised, much like we learn from each other on this blog.
Highly recommended is studying Salazar-Upanishad, the new edition of Swami Salazarananda.:-)
Religions tell us that God has created this world, but why would God create anything?
If God is infinite satisfaction and happiness, why would he spoil all this by creating anything? Creation is an action, and all actions stem from our dissatisfaction, unhappiness or desire. God is never dissatisfied or unhappy. He does not have any desire so it would be absurd to claim that this world is God’s creation. God just is. He is what is – ulladu. Creation happens because of the power of God's presence, but it has no will or intention, and without these, it can make no effort to create anything.
Why do we create anything? It is because of our need, greed or desire. We build a house because we have the need for shelter. Some people try to create a business empire because of their greed for more and more wealth, praise or whatever. Even artists paint, sing or create some piece of art because of some need, which may not be always material. It could be an emotional need. He or she is unhappy and such artistic pursuits give them some satisfaction.
So ego is the only creator. It uses the energy inherent in God to create things, but God is not even aware that its shakti is being stolen by ego to create this world. In fact, in God’s view, there is no creation.
there is only one meditation -- the rigorous refusal to harbour thoughts.
Nisargadatta
"My point is..."
Enquiring for whom is having point is good tapas.
"...it came from grace according to many sages."
What is grace ? Wherefrom will grace come ?
Is not the self our grace ? Grace is the self.
Salazar,
Do not get excited. I unfortunately cannot control my thoughts; it must be my prarabdha.
But panic-stricken I follow just your advice and do not identify with ego. So you may go home with your mind set at ease.
When the sense of 'I am the body' arises then the notions of 'you' and 'he' also arise.
Therefore the notions of 'you' and 'he' cease only when the sense of 'I am the body' is put an end.
Our brilliant graphic artist will still win the highest acclaim. What an ornate work of art ...:-)
The imbecilic nincomPOOP Salazar who is supposed to have attained Jnana and liberation as he himself claims just like Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi who ACTUALLY did, is getting very, very angry and agitated.
I wonder what for? He can kiss Papaji's no good ASS for all we care. It seems the nutcase Salazar is feeling very, very lonely in his loony bin where he has been locked up by Lord Ishwara. Alas, what a pity! Lol! Hahahaha!
Since many have posted so many worthless comments here (except a few of course), I thought I would be allowed to post a couple in praise of the absolutely "fucking moron Salazar".
In our spiritual journey, we need to be like an expert gardener
Though our will has many elements, we have the ability to weed out the bad elements and to cultivate the good ones. A gardener wants to grow certain vegetables in his garden, but so many weeds will also come along with the plants. The gardener has to constantly remove these weeds in order to make the vegetables grow. This is what we are doing in our spiritual path. We are constantly trying to weed out the bad tendencies and to cultivate the good ones.
Good ones do not mean the tendencies to do so-called good actions. Any desire to do any action is a bad tendency because our real nature is being and not doing. So we have to weed out the vasanas which draw our minds away from ourself and cultivate the vasanas which draw our minds towards ourself.
Every thought is a rising of a vasana. Our attention to that thought is like water to a plant. So by attending to our thoughts we are nourishing them, or by withdrawing our attention from our thoughts we are depriving them of the nourishment they need to flourish.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-07-07 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 18 (1:07)
Salazar,Sam, Roger
I was just reading Kena Up, and came across Sankara's commentary on v2.4:
"Being the witness of all cognitions and by nature nothing but the power of Consciousness, the Self is indicated by the cognitions themselves, in the midst of cognitions, as pervading all of them. There is no other door to Its awareness. Therefore when Brahman is known as the innermost Self of cognitions, then is It known, then there is Its complete realisation. Only be accepting Brahman as the witness of all cognitions can it be established that It is by nature a witness that is not subject to growth and decay, and is eternal, pure in essence, the Self, unconditioned and one in all beings."
"Only be [correctly it is meant 'by'] accepting Brahman as the witness of all cognitions can it be established that It is by nature a witness that is not subject to growth and decay, and is eternal, pure in essence, the Self, unconditioned and one in all beings."
So the only task remaining for the 'accepting ego' is to carry out its own dissolution.
Venkat, Salazar, Roger,
Thanks, Venkat, for quoting S's commentary on K.Up. I guess the I-thought or ego or the I-sense or ego-sense is also an "object" to that Consciousness. That is why Bhagavan says in UN that Consciousness or Self does not need to say "I", body cannot say "I", so in between these two something arises and says "I" and apprehends its limits as the body. Using kaarana-kaarya prakriya, we can say that just like the body is a name-and-form whose underlying substance is Consciousness, the "I-thought" (which Bhagavan equates with mind and ego) is also a name-and-form manifestation of the underlying substance of Consciousness. So, we, that is Consciousness, are a witness even of the I-thought or what we ordinarily mean by "I', the ego-sense. Right?
Hi Sam
That is how I understand it as well.
There is only consciousness. A separative I-thought arises that identifies with an apparent body, that is deemed to be separate from the world. From this a whole series of fear-desire based thoughts arise, and we proceed to interpret the world as good and bad, for us or against us. And this becomes so immersive, that we take all of our (environmentally-programmed) ambitions / desires / fears to be real. It is like a movie or a video game where we are closely identified with the lead character and his/her tribulations.
Advaita and Bhagavan are both teaching us that we are not, and we do not need, any of these things (neti, neti), and thus when all this is negated - thought is realised to be useless - then we 'just be' in silence. The super-imposing thought is no longer taken seriously, and so does not attach and propagate itself, and we are just left in consciousness. "Killing the ego" is poetical; it is the cessation of the super-imposition of thoughts on consciousness.
As you and I discussed previously, everything is just consciousness = energy = clay, from which arises a manifestation of energy in the shape of a form, which is transmitted through light waves (=energy), which is then captured by sense organs (also a manifestation of energy), and which transmits energy through nerve cells to the brain, which inexplicably forms an image of what is 'outside'. It is all just energy playing with itself. The kaarana-kaarya prakriya indeed. There is no birth, no death. Nothing ever happened. Nothing really matters.
Summa iru is indeed the highest instruction.
Thanks Salazar
I think we posted simultaneously. Not sure if you'd agree with what I've just written?
From your experience, when you are silent, watching the world, but also watching your body-mind-thoughts as they respond to the world . . . that watcher, which sees both the world (seemingly) outside, and the feelings-thoughts (seemingly inside), but which in itself can only be imputed as the undifferentiated substratum . . is that not what vedanta says is Brahman?
What's up with the filthy disgusting language that appears at times?
It must give one an advantage over another or make the user feel superior.
It is really pathetic that a blog like this ends up with this garbage.
Salazar,
I tend to agree with Venkat's presentation of the matter, although there is not much wrong with what you are saying, considering also the fact that you are speaking from experience. When you bring in Reflected Consciousness (Chidabhasa), that is what Bhagavan refers to as ego, and he says that this ego is unstable unless it identifies itself with a body as "I". As far as the Witness-consciousness is concerned, if it is thought-free, then thought-free consciousness has been referred to as Self by Bhagavan - I can give the quote (which I had quoted sometime back on this blog) if you are interested. But. I can see how you an I can trip over these terms and concepts. The fundamental fact to keep in mind is that Only Pure Consciousness is the real deal, and rest all, ego et al, are mere names and forms and hence unsubstantial or mithya. That perspective, which is Viveka, gives rise to Vairagya, which dovetails nicely into Nididhyasana (after of course a the above Sravana and Manana). Again, I cannot emphasize enough that once you keep the Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya in mind and mull over all its deep and subtle implications then you will be hooked on to Nididhyasana. I am quite open to your critique of these viewpoints of mine.
All the different names 'I-thought', the 'first thought 'I', 'witness', the sense of 'I', 'mind', 'ego', 'intellect', 'reflected light', 'reflected consciousness', 'inner organ' (antahkarana) and 'suttarivu' do not denote the self in its purity (atma-svarupa).
morrison,
you ask "What's up with the filthy disgusting language that appears at times?"
Do you not know that a "real jnani" has no need to feel responsible for his filthy speech.:-)
Salazar, (and Venkat)
I have reached this understanding based on Kaarana=Kaarya Prakriya. Whatever be these terms and concepts floating around, like chidabhasa, ahamkara (ego), mind, body, intellect, prana, etc., they are all after all various forms named so, with different kinds of relations between them theorised. The point is to reject all forms, that is disregard them as mithya, and focus attention (now, don't trip me by asking "who is the one who is focusing the attention) on Consciousness, which is done by being thought-free (which is the same as not paying attention to the forms, be they thoughts, feelings or perceptions), that is, summa irau (be still), which is the be-all and end-all of sadhana. Don't you think so?
Hi Venkat, Sam,
nice comments thanks.
Hi Salazar,
you say "However in the classical sense a witness is a subject-object relationship between a seer and seen. Brahman is not witnessing any objects, so in that regard Brahman cannot be the witness for me.
For me the "subject-object" relationship is the key and not well understood.
MJ teaches that all objects must be eliminated from awareness and we must experience "ourself alone" with NO objects, no world or body in awareness and this is the ONLY way (right?) But this is only one facet.
During waking state, the illusion is: ownership, doership, identification and attachment to objects. The fact that objects appear in awareness is NOT the issue.
The illusion is when awareness becomes invested in objects for example when awareness is lost in digressive thought and emotion. IF awareness can be increasingly maintained on "I" or "I AM" or "Being" in the presence of objects... then what else can be done?
I like the ancient saying (although I seem to be the only one):
I am THAT,
Thou art THAT,
All this is THAT.
This saying proposes a progressive realization.
Initially "I" realize my unbounded immortal nature... but objects still exist separately. It is only with "All this is THAT" where all of creation is realized as my essence then the subject-object relationship is eliminated totally.
Being still (as just being) is correctly called 'summa iru(ppadu)'.
Roger,
I very much agree with you when you characterize one's progress in realization as:
"I am THAT,
Thou art THAT,
All this is THAT."
Because only then there is nonduality. Anything short of that is duality. The last two statements, by the way, occur in Chandogya Upanishad (as you may already know):
Thou art THAT = Tat tvam asi
All this is THAT = Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma
The first one, "I am THAT" (Aham Brahmasmi) occurs in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.
The above three statements have to be the case because the differences between "I", "Thou", and "All this" are only at the level of name and form, and hence not really any differences at all, and not at the level of underlying substance, which in all cases is only Consciousness.
Creation of the Universe - Part 1 of 3
(from Swami Paramarthananda's Commentary on Drik-Drsya Viveka)
What is creation? Creation can be defined as the production of an effect or a product from a cause. When an effect is produced out of a cause what happens exactly? What is the mechanism? The words cause, effect, etc., are normally used very loosely. Take the example of a potter making a variety of earthenware, like pot, jug, etc., out of a lump of clay. Clay is said to be the cause and the varieties of earthenware are said to be the effect. We say that the potter has produced, created or made many pots. The author asks the question: when one says that the potter created the earthenware, what has the potter created? On enquiry we find that the potter has not produced or created anything at all. In fact, nobody can create anything. Matter can never be created or destroyed. Thus the potter has not produced even an ounce of matter. He has not produced any substance at all. Previously there was clay and now also there is only clay alone. Then why do we say that the potter has created a pot? Then we come to know that the meaning of the word ‘creation’ is nothing but adding a shape to the already existing clay. The potter cannot and does not produce anything and all his efforts are to add a shape to the wet clay. Before shaping, there was only clay and after shaping also there is only clay. Before the shaping it is called clay. When the shape is given, the very same clay is given a new name, pot. What has the potter done? He has not produced anything. He has given a rūpam (shape or form), and in keeping with the shape, a new nāma (name) has been given, either pot or jug or plate or lid, etc. Addition of varieties of nāma-rūpa (name and form) is called creation, not production of substance. Addition of configuration to a substance is called creation. Cause plus addition of nāma-rūpa is creation. Clay plus nāma-rūpa is equal to earthenware. Gold plus nāma-rūpa is equal to ornaments. Wood plus nāma-rūpa is equal to furniture. Cause plus addition of nāma-rūpa is called ‘production’ of an effect. This is lesson number 1.
Now we will go to next lesson. It was said that the potter does not produce anything but that he gives only shape. The next question that is asked is from where does the shape come. Where does the potter bring the shape from? The shape is not added by the potter. All shapes are already present in the clay itself. The spherical clay has all the geometrical shapes in potential form. Spherical shape is nothing but all the shapes in unmanifest form. Clay contains all the names and forms of earthenware in potential condition, called avyakta nāma-rūpa (unmanifest nāma-rūpa). The potter does not do anything to the substance, clay, but only brings the unmanifest nāma-rūpa into manifestation. Nothing is produced including the nāma-rūpa. Substance plus unmanifest nāma-rūpa is called the cause. The same substance plus the manifest nāma-rūpa is called the effect. What is the benefit of the efforts of the potter? He has neither created the clay nor has he created nāma-rūpa. He has only changed the unmanifest nāma-rūpa into manifest nāma-rūpa. This nāma-rūpa transformation is called creation. Creation is the manifestation of nāma-rūpa upon the substance, which substance remains the same before and after the manifestation. This is lesson number 2.
(Continued below)
Creation of the Universe - Part 2 of 3
What about the creation of the universe ? The universe must also be a basic substance with the manifest nāma-rūpa. If the universe is a created substance, a product or an effect, it must also be a substance with manifest nāma-rūpa. Before the production of the universe, the basic substance must have existed with unmanifest nāma-rūpa. The universe in the current condition is one basic substance with infinite nāma-rūpa. The basic substance cannot be created by any one including God. Nothing can be created by anyone including God. Gauḍapāda establishes this principle in Māṇḍūkyakārikā. Therefore, the basic substance must have been present with the unmanifest nāma-rūpa. What is that basic substance, mūla-vastu? What is the truth of this universe? Vedānta calls that basic substance, Brahman. Just as clay is the basic substance from the standpoint of earthenware, from the standpoint of the whole creation including the five elements, time, etc., the basic substance is Brahman. What is the nature of that substance? It is sat-cit-ānanda or Pure existence and pure consciousness which is limitless. Limitless existence-consciousness is the basic substance which was present before creation and is present after creation also. Now we have the basic substance with varieties of manifest nāma-rūpa. Bṛhadāranyaka Upaniṣad (6.1) says that everything in this world may be classified into names, forms and actions.The manifest nāma-rūpa has appropriate function. In fact, the nāma is given to refer to whatever the function of the rūpa is.
What is the universe? It is Brahman plus manifest nāma-rūpa. Before the creation Brahman must have been present with the unmanifest nāma-rūpa. Brahman plus the unmanifest nāma-rūpa is the cause and Brahman plus the manifest nāma-rūpa is the effect. The technical name for the unmanifest nāma-rūpa, which is located upon Brahman, is māyā. Brahman plus the unmanifest nāma-rūpa māyā is the cause and Brahman plus the manifest nāma-rūpa māyā is the effect. To differentiate Brahman plus the unmanifest nāma-rūpa, the cause, and Brahman plus the manifest nāma-rūpa, the effect, two distinct names are given. Brahman plus the unmanifest nāma-rūpa māyā is called Īśvara (God). Brahman plus māyā is Īśvara. Brahman plus the manifest nāma-rūpa is called jagat (universe or world). Brahman continues to be present all the time without having any transformation at any time. During sṛṣṭi, sthiti and pralaya (creation, maintenance and dissolution), Brahman is Brahman. The substance, Brahman, continues to be the same always. The nāma-rūpa that is upon that Brahman goes through the unmanifest and manifest conditions. Conversion of unmanifest nāma-rūpa into manifest nāma-rūpa is creation. Conversion of manifest nāma-rūpa into unmanifest nāma-rūpa is dissolution. This goes on and on. Kṛṣṇa describes this process in the Bhagavad Gītā:
At the beginning of the day, all things that are manifest arise from the unmanifest. At the beginning of the night, they resolve in that alone which is called the unmanifest. (8:18)
There is only Brahman. In one condition it is called Īśvara and in another condition it is called jagat.
(Continued below)
Creation of the Universe - Part 3 of 3
The author says that this māyā, which is nothing but unmanifest nāma-rūpa and located in Brahman is also known by the name brahma-śakti. This māyā is known by the name, śakti (power). Any śakti or power cannot exist independently. It has to exist in some substance. For example, the speaking power cannot exist separately from the person that has the power. Māyā-śakti rests in Brahman depending on Brahman for its very existence. This māyā-śakti has two powers. One is the vikṣepa-śakti, the power to manifest, the power that converts the unmanifest to the manifest condition. Vikṣepa means ‘throwing out’ or ‘projecting’. The manifestation of the universe is in the hands of the vikṣepa-śakti of māyā, which rests on Brahman. The second power is āvaraṇa-śakti, the power of covering or veiling the truth. First the vikṣepa-śakti of Īśvara starts functioning at the time of creation. Īśvara is not affected by the āvaraṇa-śakti of māyā. When the vikṣepa-śakti is operating, all the unmanifest nāma-rūpa gets manifested. All the universes and the individual jīvas are thrown out. Once the jīvas and the jagat come into manifestation, the āvaraṇa-śakti of māyā becomes active and because of that, every jīva is ignorant of the basic truth that everything is Brahman plus nāma-rūpa and that the jīva is also Brahman plus nāma-rūpa. This is called ajñānam and the āvaraṇa-śakti of māyā is called ajñānam. This self-ignorance leads to the fear of mortality, which is saṃsāra. Self-knowledge is the solution for this saṃsāra.
He points out that ignorance regarding one’s own nature is the cause of the bondage. This ignorance is caused by the āvaraṇa-śakti of māyā. To explain the origin of ignorance the author enters the creation topic even though it is not the main subject matter of the text. Brahman is the cause of the universe and the universe is the effect. The emergence of the effect from the cause is creation. Brahman is of the nature of sat-cit-ānanda. Thereafter we saw that any product is nothing but nāma-rūpa and does not exist substantially. Thus the world is nothing but nāma-rūpa. This world nāma-rūpa should have existed in Brahman in potential form before creation because what is in potential form alone can come into manifestation because of the law that nothing can be created or destroyed. The unmanifest nāma-rūpa is called māyā. This māyā has two powers, vikṣepa-śakti and āvaraṇa-śakti. At the time of creation, the vikṣepa-śakti operates and the āvaraṇa-śakti does not operate at the cosmic level. Īśvara is not affected by the āvaraṇa-śakti. The karmas of the jīvas determine the time of creation. During dissolution all the sañcita-karma are dormant. When a portion of the sañcita-karma of the entire cosmos is ready to fructify as the prārabdha-karma, the vikṣepa-śakti of māyā becomes operational. The vikṣepa-śakti makes the unmanifest nāma-rūpa into the manifest nāma-rūpa. All the five elements, fourteen lokas, the gross bodies, and the subtle bodies, which are all non-substantial nāma-rūpa come into manifestation. There is only one substance behind all the nāma-rūpa. That original substance, which is the only substance behind the non-substantial nāma-rūpa, is Brahman. Vikṣepa-śakti will operate until the creation of the individual jīva. After the jīvas are created, the āvaraṇa-śakti starts operating and covers the jīva with the concealing power. There is no concealment for Īśvara at the macro level. Āvaraṇa-śakti operates only at the jīva level.
I agree with Salazar that what is aware of the ego/mind is what Bhagavan calls Self....
In my opinion, the ego mind is the counsciousness that inhabits the body, and what is aware of it is the Self. To destroy the illusion caused by this ego-body appeareance we must look for the source of it, the I AM. This is the practice....
Dragos,
as you yourself say ("In my opinion"), it is at best the view of the ego that "Self" is aware of it.
Are we not taught that "Self" is aware only of itself ? So how can "Self" be aware of the wrong awareness of the ego-mind ?
Theories about creation are mere speculation. The problem of mankind is ignorance.
Therefore one has first to shake off the dirt of ignorance.
Salazar
From Poonjaji's "The Truth Is"
p.26:
Know I am inactive, the activity takes place in me,
I am That, I am the screen, I never come and I never go.
Identify as Consciousness itself.
When the mind is pure you will see Self in all beings.
Purify the mind by removing all concepts, especially the concept of purity.
Then Self reveals itself to the empty mind which is Consciousness.
If there is unhappiness you are not unhappy, you are the untouched Awareness of this happiness.
p.31:
There is the awareness which is aware of objects like flowers. True Awareness is the awareness which is aware of the awareness of objects. It is the undisturbed simple awareness in which things rise and fall.
p.153:
Your true nature is Awareness, it cannot be practised.
If you do not know, this Awareness turns outward towards manifestation and there is suffering.
Turn you face inward toward the source of 'I'.
Then the reflection of `Self falls on the mind turned toward Self, dissolving this mind into Self.
p.261:
You are the one who watches. You are the witness of thought as it rises, passes away and stops.
The one who watches is everlasting.
The mind is the habit to be involved in its objects. It can't both silently watch and be involved.
Because of this habit you forget that what you are involved in is just a projection on the screen. Due to this forgetfulness, identification goes from being the silent witness to becoming the projection itself. You forget that you are the screen on which these projections are rising and passing.
So allow the projections of the mind, which is everything you see within and without.
Like this you must remain That which is untouched, That which is before identifications and intellectual grasps. This is eternal Being.
The one who follows the thought is also a thought.
The one who follows the thought is in thought.
When you know that both are thoughts, you are Home.
Then allow thoughts to arise and allow them to be followed.
You remain as That unmoved and unconcerned Being.
This is the highest understanding.
"So allow the projections of the mind, which is everything you see within and without.
Like this you must remain That which is untouched, That which is before identifications and intellectual grasps. This is eternal Being."
"Then allow thoughts to arise and allow them to be followed.
You remain as That unmoved and unconcerned Being."
Is allowing the projections of the mind and allowing thoughts to arise and allowing them to be followed really being untouched, unmoved and unconcerned ?
Poonjaji's descriptions (and others) have puzzled me.
He says for example:
There is the awareness which is aware of objects like flowers. True Awareness is the awareness which is aware of the awareness of objects..
My concern has been... what can I do? What is my precise intention in practice?
It is possible to be aware... but how the heck to be "aware of the awareness"?
In my current opinion: my effortless "job" is simply to be aware all the time. Which is to rest in "I" or "I AM" or "Being". And to rest in such a way is the result of "who am I?" or "not this" or other methods.
The second stage "aware of awareness" is realization.
Realization is spontaneous and happens by grace not by my effort.
The second level "aware of awareness" is beyond my effort but the requirement for grace is my being "aware", that is all that I can do.
"Aware of awareness" corresponds with the earlier descriptions that I posted: "I saw all of creation as if from a great distance totally uninvolved and forever separate my essence being beyond forever untouchable by all external things".
right?
Roger
Brhadaranyaka Up has the great line "How can one know That by which all this is known". It is that awareness of awareness that it is pointing to.
And when they say, we are already that, we just don't know it, one immediately sees how true that is. We are just misled by the superimposed ignorance of the I-thought and subsequent thoughts that arise subsequential to it.
Hence neti, neti - realise that all these thoughts / feelings and not it, and keep on negating until all that is left is Silent, Unmoving Awareness. That is why they say no practice can get you there - because you are already there.
All the sages from ancient to modern, say that total, utter desirelessness is moksha. Because when there is absolutely no desire, no preference, no fear, you are that unmoving, untouched awareness, that is choicelessly aware of all that is, without any desire to move away or towards whatever is currently appearing.
So there is no practice, no effort, no stages. It is a fundamental shift in awareness from not seeing yourself as a body-mind, to BEING consciousness. But this is not just intellectual either. It is the razor's edge that Katha Up talks of.
Bhagvan's summa iru indeed is the highest instruction.
Venkat,
I upvote your sagacious answer @ 28 October 2018 at 15:19.
Hi Venkat,
"summa iru" is a practice... or a non-practice.
One must conceive of it and have the intent to be that and strip away what it is not.. otherwise why speak of it and why call it an "instruction"?
In agreement,
R
Salazar,
You are so right in writing "The problem is not truly thoughts, it is the attachment to these thoughts, if there is no interest in a thought it has no impact whatsoever."
Question can then be asked, "Why do we get attached to thoughts?" As I see it, it is perhaps because:
1. We are seeking something out of life and we see thinking as a means to achieve that end.
2. We believe we are the ones thinking those thoughts - they are "my" thoughts.
Your thoughts on this?
When Salazar writes "By the way, being "aware of awareness" is just a clumsy way to describe that we ARE awareness, intrinsically so and that needs no effort whatsoever."
it should be undoubtedly clear that so long we experience ourself as ego we must investigate this ego - in order to know our real nature.
Sam, if I may attempt an answer to your question . . .
I think that your second response comes first, and from there your first response.
However, I'm not sure that why are “we” attached is a valid question in the first place, because the 'we' itself is the attachment. It is tautological.
The ego is nothing but attachment; and attachment pre-supposes duality. As Bhagavan says, it comes into existence by grasping form, and further self-aggrandises by attaching to second and third person objects (including fame, fortune, pleasure etc.). As we become attached to something, the more that thoughts arise - about how we like it, how we can get more of it, our fear of losing it, etc, etc. And the more that thoughts arise, the more we get caught up in them.
So, utter detachment = utter desirelessness = choiceless awareness = no mind = summa iru
Then the next question “how do we become detached”, or “how do we stop thoughts" is also not valid. That in itself is a thought, a concept, a desire.
The story of the tenth man is really significant. There were always 10 men, but the counter had to realise that he had forgotten to count himself. When he got that knowledge, and was convinced of it, he was free of sorrow. Similarly, we have to, through atma vichara, investigate ourselves, such that we gain the steady conviction that we are really consciousness, with the same strength of conviction that we currently have, that we are the body-mind.
If we had that conviction, that we are not this body-mind and that we are non-separate from the world, then what attachment, desire or fear could there be?
In Mandukya Karika chp 4, Gaudapada praises Asparsa Yoga, Asparsa being ‘no touch’. Simply do not be touched by anything that is not-Self.
Three cheers, NO EFFORT AT ALL IS NEEDED.
There has even never been an ego, we not even seemed to be that wrong awareness 'I am this body or this ego.
Therefore, how could there have been any need to remove the false ego-awareness or how could there be ever any problem ?
You lucky mankind !!! Lucky You! Be just simply perfectly happy !
with "effort" (as with many things) it can be stated either in the positive or negative:
Effort must be ceaseless and untiring until the goal can be reached.
No one succeeds without effort... those who succeed owe their success to perseverance.
Conscious deliberate effort is needed to attain that effortless state of stillness.
quotes attributed to Bhagavan
Most of us are not able to reach the goal by beginning with that effortless state.
That could do at most only a couple of handfuls sages.
Salazar,
"Certain things have to be grasped/discovered by one alone".
Yep, and that is what is meant by "there is no path to realisation".
There is nothing to realize because self is anyway ever realized.
There is no path, there is nothing. Even the absence of something or anything is a matter of complete indifference to us. So mankind is completely needless.
What have we done to deserve that total disaster ?:-)
Bhagavan is the perfect outlet from which grace flows eternally, steadily, with full power and perfect control
Bhagavan will never force atma-jnana on us because if he does so it may topple our balance of mind. So we will not lose our mental balance if we take refuge in Bhagavan and his teachings. He is a perfect guru who is working from within. He is preparing us in so many ways. He is giving us countless opportunities to rectify our vasanas from moment to moment. But are we making proper use of such opportunities? We will have to admit, we are not.
Bhagavan knows us so well because he is nothing other than ourself. So he will not give us anything until we are ready for it. He is leading us gently, smoothly and as quickly as possible to our final destination. He is giving us the right doses of his most powerful grace unceasingly. Bhagavan has to control its release because, like an overdose of any medicine, an overdose of grace may harm us. By his controlled release of his grace, he is making us fit to receive more and more of his grace.
Therefore Bhagavan is the perfect outlet from which grace flows eternally, steadily, with full power and perfect control.
~ The above is a paraphrase of ideas of Sri Sadhu Om and Michael
Reflections: It is so much reassuring to know that Bhagavan is leading us with so much care and concern. It is such a cool and refreshing feeling. This knowledge makes us relaxed.
He wants us to reach our finishing line as quickly as possible, but he knows that this should not be forced. We are perfectly safe in his hands.
Sometimes I would risk an overdose of Bhagavan's most powerful grace because receiving only the usual dose of grace seems to harm me more than a proper overdose.:-)
Clay Pot Example by Swami Sarvapriyananda
Check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHYTkzoaiKU
You Can Be Free In This Very Life - Papaji
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhD5ZWOoVmY
Arise, awake and stop not till the goal is reached: Swami Vivekananda
In the booklet ‘Who am I?’ Bhagavan says that a time will come when all that has been learnt has to be forgotten. There are so many things we can learn about, but all such knowledge has to be eventually given up. Let us make good use of the limited time we have available to go deep into Bhagavan’s teachings. If we are attracted to other things, those are all diversions.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-10-28 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: discussion with Michael James on the nature of ego (1:54)
Reflections: Yes, we have very little time available with us because this body will not last forever. This life will go past very quickly. So we should not waste our time on unnecessary pursuits. As far as possible, we should spend our time reading, listening to, reflecting on and practising Bhagavan’s teachings. These are the only things that really matters. Rest everything is a distraction.
Swami Vivekananda said: ‘Arise, awake and stop not till the goal is reached’. I am sure Bhagavan would have endorsed his advice. How can we stop before our goal is reached? What is our goal? It is complete and irrevocable self-surrender. Bhagavan has made this crystal clear.
Are we not taught that the ego-mind does not really exist.
So how can the (seeming) ego/mind spoil at all the one eternal awareness ?
Salazar,
You are spot on when you talk about effortlessness. Because we are already that and we don't need to put effort because we don't need to achieve something we don't already have. Trying to put effort is like somebody who is in Ramanasramam asking what should i "do" or what exertions I should put in to reach Ramanasramam - he does not need to "do" anything, or rather he has to stop "doing" anything and just come to understand that he is already in Ramanasramam. Similarly, we are now so strongly identified with the mind that we take its defects to be our defects and so we are always on the lookout for putting in effort to overcome the defects of the mind, while all we need to do is understand that we are already That and we just need to remove ignorance, or better still realise that even the ignorance was merely imagined, there is no bondage - we are merely imagining the bondage because we are erroneously thinking we are the bound body-mind. So, as Papaji always emphasized that his only advice was "Keep quiet", and keeping quiet means dropping all forms of effort and exertions, including thinking, and just being, which is what "Summa iru" of Bhagavan amounts to. I think the reason we are always itching to "do" something is that we are always seeking, but when it comes to the Self, there is no need to seek because we are already that and we just have to give up the false notions we have about ourselves - the Tenth man is not missing; the necklace is not lost.
Two statements from Bhagavan:
1: Conscious deliberate effort is needed to attain that effortless state of stillness.
2: Here it is impossible for you to be without effort. When you go deeper, it is impossible for you to make any effort.
There is another quote from Bhagavan although I can not find it at the moment, something like: when effort is required, effort will arise, when effort is not required it will not arise.
These statements describe an intelligent use of effort which leads to effortless stillness.
Salazar, you say confirmed by my own direct experience, that awareness cannot be anything else than effortless.
Salazar, you had an experience in time of effortless awareness, and it ended.
Why aren't you this effortless stillness eternally?
Is that grasped?
Salazar wrote
"However Brahman/Self is effortless. And that is even quoted by people here but don't believe it since they think they are the ego and not Brahman."
I do not doubt that "Brahman/Self" itself "is always effortless". Is it of great practical use to think "I am not the ego but Brahman" ?
"One thought of remembrance to be aware is enough, after that the mind has to be left alone, awareness does not need the mind to be aware. In fact except of that one thought of a prompt anything else by the mind spoils vichara! "
How is the mind to be left alone ? Is it not rather to be focussed properly on its source ?
D Samarender Reddy,
your statement: "So, as Papaji always emphasized that his only advice was "Keep quiet", and keeping quiet means dropping all forms of effort and exertions, including thinking, and just being, which is what "Summa iru" of Bhagavan amounts to. I think the reason we are always itching to "do" something is that we are always seeking, but when it comes to the Self, there is no need to seek because we are already that and we just have to give up the false notions we have about ourselves".
However, experience shows that dropping all forms of effort and exertions, including thinking and giving up the false notions we have about ourselves, is just not actually managed effortlessly but only by keen and thorough attention.
Nevertheless, Papaji's peaceful radiation felt even by watching the given video (Global Well-Being) only for some minutes impressed me really. Thanks.
Salazar,
regarding your reply to Roger "there is no eternity. I do not expect you to grasp where I come from."
Where do you actually come from ?
Salazar
Your articulation of circular reference is spot on. Bhagavan told us that I is just a thought (albeit one which is the jumping off point for others), and many have conceptualised some entity 'I'. But 'I' is just a thought not an entity. But by making it an entity, it is then believed it can do something to bring about its own destruction.
JK used to critique those who talked about trying to control thoughts, by saying that the controller is the controlled, ie that the controller is just a thought, and the controlled is also just a thought. And therefore it is absurd to talk about one thought controlling another thought.
So there really is nothing we can do apart from summa iru. Thanks for the useful discussion.
Salazar repeatedly proclaims to be wise while labeling others as ignorant. This is duality, ego.
Salazar,
it is true that I am far away from the mastery over the mind and senses. Therefore I continue with faith in the compassionate grace of the Lord my endeavour to subdue them. Anyhow I do not give up my hope to become ever free from desire and delusion. Then by steadfast abidance in atma-svarupa I may know that real happiness and perfect peace is within me as my own inherent nature.
Salazar,
referring to Papaji's comparison of vasanas with writings on the beach "...i.e. when he said that vasanas are like writings on the sand of a beach, all what is needed is to take one's foot and wipe out those writings and the vasanas are gone."
Why to make that effort with one's own foot ? That task would carry out much easier the rising tide in one night.:-)
Salazar,
you wrote today (29 October 2018 at 17:20) as a reply to me: "Who is asking the question? The ego, and therefore it has spoiled awareness.
...LMAO...Is that grasped?".
Is it not clear that the immutable, all-pervasive one and absolute self cannot be polluted by the ego at all ?
It seems that someone (too) became a prey to delusion. Without sincerity and humility there can be no approach to wisdom.
Since Salazar is well versed and an expert in these matters why does he not start his own blog like Michael James has done instead of trying to show off here everyday in this blog that he is the only person here to have understood what needs to be understood correctly and others have not?
I am quite certain he will be as famous as Micheal James himself is and and will attract a lot of followers.
Salazar you are an obnoxious asshole and you stink like hell. Even if I praise you you get upset. You are fishing for followers unlike Michael James and Sanjay Lohia who are authentic and faithful in their devotion to Sri Ramana Maharshi.
Salazar I am not angry at all. I am simply stating the plain fact about your own giganic ego. You boast that you have no ego at all but then a brief comment of mine hurts you so much. If it is not your ego that gets hurt then what is it Mr.Know it all Salazar?
Seriously, Salazar why don't you start your own blog? You could teach a lot of ignorant egos which you yourself point out all the time are out here and there outside this blog.
Salazar if you start your own blog I will promise to read your posts just like I read Michael James's posts whenever time permits. Reading contents in your blog should be quite entertaining if not spiritually enlightening. After all you always claim to have understood everything while the rest of us have not.
Salazar,
you say: Only a delusional ego would be concerned with humility, it's another diversion from awareness.
The diversions are countless ....
Do you have anything but diversions from awareness?
Your posts here are diversions?
Listen now attentively to the buzzing sound of a humble-bee...hmmm
As already Salazar stated, the diversions are countless ...:-)
By the way, Salazar has in fact started his own blog here with his magnificent teachings - albeit the blog runs in Michael's name.
Salazar,what is it you are trying to prove and establish? That you are in fact a Sage like Sri Ramana Maharshi is and the rest of us here are mere ignorant jivas?
Josef,
You write, "However, experience shows that dropping all forms of effort and exertions, including thinking and giving up the false notions we have about ourselves, is just not actually managed effortlessly but only by keen and thorough attention."
But, you see, since you are already that, that is, the Self, and since all that is seemingly covering it up is the mind activity in the form of thoughts, all that you have to do is give up thinking, including so-called attending, and just remain still (summa iru).
As Bhagavan says in Talk 601: "He who instructs an ardent seeker to do this or that is not a true master. The seeker is already afflicted by his activities and wants Peace and Rest. In other words he wants cessation of his activities. Instead of that he is told to do something in addition to, or in place of, his other activities. Can that be a help to the seeker? Activity is creation; activity is the destruction of one’s inherent happiness. If activity be advocated the adviser is not a master but the killer. Either the Creator (Brahma) or Death (Yama) may be said to have come in the guise of such a master. He cannot liberate the aspirant but strengthens his fetters."
Glad you liked Papaji's video.
from http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.com/2008/06/yes-but-what-do-i-do.html
"Yes, but what do I do?" - Part 1 of 4
by David Godman
What I want to do today is elaborate a little on Papaji’s statement: ‘I don’t give people any do’s or don’ts.’
Many people go to the Guru with the idea that he should tell them to ‘do’ something in order to reach some goal or be relieved of some problem or other. We are all so addicted to ‘doing’, we believe that we have to ‘do something’ to attain whatever spiritual goal we are chasing.
When the Guru says, ‘You are the Self, you are Brahman,’ the disciple often responds by saying, ‘Yes, I understand, but what do I do to attain it? How do I discover this for myself?’
The asking of such a question means that the disciple thinks that Brahman is something he should become, through effort, rather than something that he already is. The assumption implicit in this world-view is the premise behind all sadhana.
With this in mind, read verse 271 of Guru Vachaka Kovai:
The Guru who instructs the disciple, who has taken complete refuge in him, by giving one more prescription for action, instead of directing him towards jnana, and who leads him into activities, saying ‘These should be done,’ is for the disciple [equivalent to] the coming of cruel Yama and Brahma. Only he who consummates them [the disciples], transforming them into those who have done all that needs to be done, enabling them to attain the true benefit of this birth, is the grace-bestowing, divine Guru.
Since Brahma is the god of birth and Yama the god of death, the verse is implying that gurus who get their disciples involved in unnecessary activities, physical or mental, instead of directing them towards jnana, will be responsible for them being reborn. Bhagavan gave similar advice to the following devotee when the latter came up with a ‘Yes I understand, but what do I do?’ query:
Question: Our grasp is only intellectual. If Sri Bhagavan be pleased to direct us with a few instructions we shall be highly benefited.
Bhagavan: He who instructs an ardent seeker to do this or that is not a true master. The seeker is already afflicted by his activities and wants peace and rest. In other words, he wants cessation of his activities. Instead of that he is told to do something in addition to, or in place of, his other activities. Can that be a help to the seeker?
Activity is creation; activity is the destruction of one’s inherent happiness. If activity be advocated the adviser is not a master but the killer. Either the Creator (Brahma) or Death (Yama) may be said to have come in the guise of such a master. He cannot liberate the aspirant but strengthens his fetters. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 601.)
The same idea appears in Day by Day with Bhagavan, 27th March 1946, afternoon, where Bhagavan tells a questioner: ‘the truth is, all karma of whatever kind will lead to fresh bondage. That is why it is said in Ozhivil Odukkam that the Guru who prescribes fresh karma or action of any sort, i.e., rituals or sacrifices to one who after trying various karmas comes to him for peace, is both Brahma and Yama to the disciple i.e., he only creates fresh births and deaths.'
"Yes, but what do I do?" - Part 2 of 4
Ozhivil Odukkam is a Tamil philosophical text composed by Kannudaiya Vallalaar several centuries ago. It was one of Bhagavan’s favourite advaita texts, so much so that he asked Muruganar to make a Tamil prose rendering of it in order to make the meaning clearer and more accessible. The original Tamil is extremely difficult to follow, and most people gain an understanding of the work through a commentary that has appeared in all editions of the text. Unfortunately, the commentator incorporated a few interpretations of his own that are not present in the text, which is why Bhagavan thought that a new and clearer rendering of the original was desirable. Muruganar never found time to execute this commission, so the true meaning of the original verses remains inaccessible to all but the most learned Tamil scholars.
The idea that Gurus who tell disciples to do things are Yama and Brahma in disguise comes from verse 123 of this work:
Having exhausted themselves by activities, aspirants come to the Guru seeking jnana. He alone is the true jnana-bestowing Guru who, possessing the wealth of bliss, produces the crop of bliss in them so that they wander without volition and without doing anything. But the Guru who occasions the least rising of their ego through his instructions is both Brahma, he who possesses the ability to create the world, and Yama too, the god of death.
‘Without volition and without doing anything’ refers to the ego-free state in which there are nosankalpas (decisions or choices made by the mind) and no sense of being the performer of the actions that the body is doing.
Most people will read a verse like this and decide that it refers to physical activities alone.
‘My Guru is OK.’ they will say, ‘He doesn’t tell me to run around doing things; he tells me to meditate instead.’
That is not an acceptable response to this verse because it is also implying that keeping the mind busy – even with meditation – is no different from keeping the body busy. Anyone who prescribes either course keeps his followers on the wheel of birth and death. It would seem that Bhagavan accepted this position because, in the two citations from Talks and Day by Day that I have already given, he is introducing the ideas from this verse and endorsing them.
I began with a quote from Papaji. I will reintroduce him here because one of his often-repeated maxims is highly relevant to what I am endeavouring to say: ‘Physical activities produce physical results; mental activities produce mental results; since the Self is neither physical nor mental, an awareness of it cannot be brought about by either physical or mental activity.’
That’s a hard conclusion to accept for most people because it undercuts and negates all their mental activities that are optimistically geared towards realising the Self. The solution, as both Bhagavan and Papaji pointed out on many occasions is ‘being still’ (summa iruttal). When Bhagavan gives out the instruction ‘Summa iru’ (be still), he is not telling us to practise being still – that would just be more ‘doing’ – he is telling us desist from all mental activity, even meditation. ‘Being still’ is not something you accomplish by effort; it is what remains when all effort ceases.
"Yes, but what do I do?" - Part 3 of 4
Here is a Thayumanavar verse (‘Udal Poyyuravu’, verse 52) on this topic that Bhagavan was fond of quoting:
Bliss will arise if you remain still.
Why, little sir, this involvement still
with yoga, whose nature is delusion?
Will [this bliss] arise
through your own objective knowledge?
You need not reply,
you who are addicted to ‘doing’!
You little baby, you!
To which I will add verse 647 of Guru Vachaka Kovai, followed by another quote from Thayumanavar that comes from the same poem:
If you remain still, without paying attention to this, without paying attention to that, and without paying attention to anything at all, you will, simply through your powerful attention to being, become the reality, the vast eye, the unbounded space of consciousness.
If we truly see-without-seeing the inner light,
not investigating, not thinking at all,
will not the flood of bliss come,
spreading in all the ten directions,
rising up in surging waves to overflow its banks?
(‘Udal Poyyuravu’, verse 58)
There is a section in Padamalai that gives a broad summary of Bhagavan’s views on ‘being still’. I will conclude today’s offering by reproducing it.
25
Supreme liberation will shine as Atma-swarupa if one remains still.
This verse is introduced by the word ‘amma’, which indicates that Bhagavan is expressing surprise in this statement, possibly at the thought that anyone could think otherwise.
26
Through his gentle smile, radiant Padam joyfully declares: ‘Why this distress? Be happy by just remaining still.’
Bhagavan: Your duty is to be, and not to be this or that. ‘I am that I am’ sums up the whole truth; the method is summarised in ‘Be still’.
And what does stillness mean? It means ‘Destroy yourself’; because, every name and form is the cause of trouble. ‘I-I’ is the Self. ‘I am this’ is the ego. When the ‘I’ is kept up as the ‘I’ only, it is the Self. When it flies off at a tangent and says ‘I am this or that, I am such and such’, it is the ego.
Question: Who then is God?
Bhagavan: The Self is God. ‘I am’ is God. If God be apart from the Self, He must be a selfless God, which is absurd.
All that is required to realise the Self is to be still. What can be easier than that? Hence Atma-vidya [Self-knowledge] is the easiest to attain. (Maharshi’s Gospel, pp. 31-2)
27
Since becoming established in the state of the Self is both the means and the goal to be attained, remain still.
Though it was Bhagavan’s highest and simplest upadesa, he conceded that for many people, it was an impossible command to execute:
Question: What should one do in order to remain free from thoughts as advised by you? Is it only the enquiry ‘Who am I?’
Bhagavan: Only to remain still. Do it and see.
Question: It is impossible.
Bhagavan: Exactly. For the same reason the enquiry ‘Who am I?’ is advised. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 322)
Bhagavan: All the age-long vasanas carry the mind outward and turn it to external objects. All such thoughts have to be given up and the mind turned inward. For that, effort is necessary for most people. Of course everybody, every book says, ‘Summa iru,’ i.e. ‘Be quiet or still’. But it is not easy. That is why all this effort is necessary. Even if we find one who has at once achieved the mauna or supreme state indicated by ‘Summa iru’ you may take it that the effort necessary has already been finished in a previous life. (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 11th January, 1946)
"Yes, but what do I do?" - Part 4 of 4
28
The wonderful meaning of the one supreme word [summa iru] is to know and rest in the Atma-swarupa through the enquiry ‘Who am I?’
29
Except by remaining still [summa iruttal] by what great tapas can the Atma-swarupa be attained in the Heart?
Bhagavan: People seem to think that by practising some elaborate sadhana the Self will one day descend upon them as something very big and with tremendous glory, giving them what is called sakshatkaram [direct experience]. The Self is sakshat [direct] all right, but there is nokaram or kritam about it. [That is, there is no one who performs actions, and no actions being performed.] The word ‘karam’ implies doing something. But the Self is realised not by doing something but by refraining from doing anything, by remaining still and being simply what one really is. (The Power of the Presence, part three, pp. 131-3)
30
It will be impossible to merge with the feet of Lord Sonachala [Arunachala], unless one remains still, with the mind consumed and annihilated.
Bhagavan: Stillness is total surrender without a vestige of individuality. Stillness will prevail and there will be no agitation of mind. Agitation of mind is the cause of desire, the sense of doership and personality. If that is stopped there is quiet. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 354)
31
By shining motionlessly, which is meditation on the Self, all manner of excellent benefits accrue.
32
To remain still, without thinking about that which is other than the Self, is to offer the mind to the Self.
33
Being still is the experience of swarupa jnana. Whatever is perceived by the senses is a false, illusory appearance.
34
To rest, remaining still as consciousness, is union [sayujya], the abundance of peace.
35
Knowing That is only abiding as That. Therefore, shine, remaining still without objectifying.
D Samarender Reddy,
thank you for giving that wonderful texts.
But,
refraining from doing anything,
remaining still and being simply what one really is,
getting the mind consumed and annihilated,
offering the mind to the Self,
remaining still without objectifying,
all that necessary effort must first be accomplished - at least for most people.
If we try reflecting on our adverse situations in the light of Bhagavan’s teachings, this will reduce our worries
Our adverse situations are a good time to reflect on Bhagavan’s teachings. If we try to see our unfavourable situations in the light of Bhagavan’s teachings, this will reduce our worries. Such reflections will obviously also deepen our understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings.
Some amount of money is due to me from somewhere, but for some reason, I am not able to receive this. I often think about this. However, why should I think about such issues? I may send them reminders to return this amount, but why should I worry? Why do I think about such matters? It is because I am attached to this amount. I think it belongs to me and therefore I have a right to receive it back.
However, this is all the play of maya. I am unnecessarily worrying about some pieces of paper or some figures in my bank account. If and when this amount comes to my account will I become happy? Yes, it is because my current agitation of mind, which exists because of this issue, will subside temporarily, and this will make me satisfied for some time. But again some new issue will crop up and I will again start worrying. We should understand that there is no real happiness in money or wealth. Happiness exists only within.
Moreover, whether this amount comes to me or not depends on my prarabdha. Since prarabdha is Bhagavan’s will, why should we doubt his will and intelligence? He loves us more than we love ourself, so we should gladly accept his will as our will. Whatever we experience will mature us spiritually. Bhagavan gives us many such opportunities to rectify our will. If this amount is not supposed to come to me, no amount of effort on my part will bring it back.
Also, if we think about such issues, we have not travelled far on our spiritual path. We should try and remember Bhagavan’s supreme vairagya. When he reached Tiruvannamalai, he threw away even the few coins he then had with him. He was sure that Arunachala will provide for all his needs. We should try to emulate his vairagya, to whatever extent possible.
Of course, in the end, we need to use Bhagavan’s brahmastra to dispel all our concerns. That is, we should try to find out ‘who is having these worries?’ Thus, we should try to turn within by ignoring everything else. This is the direct and most powerful way to dissolve all our problems then and there. If we stop attending to our thoughts or concerns, all our thoughts or concerns will subside.
So Bhagavan’s teachings and, more importantly, the practice of vichara is the most powerful antidote for all our concerns, worries and problems.
Sanjay ,
"When he reached Tiruvannamalai, ... He was sure that Arunachala will provide for all his needs. We should try to emulate his vairagya, to whatever extent possible."
What provided Arunachala actually for Ramana downstairs in Patala Lingam ?
We also should be able to accept readily all rigours of fate which correspond to all the attacks of the vermins in Patala Lingam which Ramana's young body had to endure there then in the year 1896.
Josef, yes, Bhagavan’s life is the greatest lesson on what true surrender is. He accepted everything that happened to him or around him as Arunachala’s will. His humility and forbearance were simply out of this world.
In fact, when he was in Patala Lingam, he was so absorbed in himself that he was not even aware of vermin eating away his thighs. This is a lesson for us – that is, when we try to practise self-investigation, we should be so deeply absorbed in ourself that we should not be even aware of vermin on our body. This may be not possible initially, but this is certainly possible as we practise more and more.
Bhagavan has also indicated that when we try to turn within, we should let our body become like a corpse. That is, we should try to lose all our connection with with our body. This is the only way to experience ourself as we really are. We should try to separate the 'I am' from our 'body'. This is granthi-bheda (severance of our knot of ignorance), and this is our ultimate goal.
Salazar,
as you say, the sentiment to not feel drawn to Arunachala is of course also entirely the ego's concern.
To understand the point you may read again your previous comment and then by comparison you would perhaps find...
Salazar,
I meant nothing cryptic; when you imply that feeling drawn to Arunachala is only the ego's irrelevant concern, one has to consider also the other side of the coin namely that also the opposite i.e. not feeling drawn to Arunachala is only the ego's (irrelevant) concern.
Nikola asked the following question in the comment section of Michael’s latest video:
Nikola Cvetkovic:
Question, maybe for future sessions:
When we recognize that we are not willing to surrender, what should be our relationship with this lack of willingness? Investigating who is not willing is here prevented by the lack of willingness itself. So is the point to go with life until the experiences makes us more willing, along with practicing self inquiry to the level we are able to surrender?
Or should we not cling to this present idea and just keep the practice "pretending" that this lack is not present and rely on the practice itself to remove it?
The question is about which approach is better, positive or negative, and what are pros and cons of both?
I answered him as follows:
Sanjay:
Nikola, if we are not willing to practise self-surrender and self-investigation, no one can force us to do so. However, when you ask these questions, it shows that Bhagavan has sown some love in your heart for Bhagavan and his teachings. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have listened to Michael’s video. So you just need to fan this interest.
This interest may not be great, but you can surely start by practising turning within a little here, a little there. In other words, you can cultivate the love and willingness to practice self-investigation. You may be able to do this only for a few minutes daily, or maybe even a few seconds daily, it doesn’t matter. All such efforts will add up. This is the way most of us start our practice.
Eventually, there will be a snow-balling effect. The more we practise, the more momentum our practice will gain, until it will become our second nature. There is no turning back at this stage. It will only be a matter of time before we reach our goal, which is the annihilation of ego.
Salazar,
my previous comment was written not to make you "worse" but primarily out of the idea to control the mind and intellect.
Sanjay,
I would answer to Nikola:"pretending" does in any case not serve the necessary mind-control/mind-restraint. Without withdrawing of the mind to its source one cannot abide in one's real nature. Therefore we should try to reject every kind of thought as and when it arises. Because...:the self is ever present and we have to realize it as such, as the pure being-consciousness, the source of thoughts.
In continuation of my conversation with Nikola Cvetkovic:
Nikola: Thank you for your time. My question wasn't about lack of willingness to practice, but about lack of willingness to surrender the ego.
Just like Michael explained, the only reason we need practice is because we dont want to fully surrender. If we wanted to truly do it, it would be easy just like falling asleep and actually then we wouldnt watch these videos because we would be realised just like Bhagavan, or same as Bhagavan.
Time is very relative factor to our practice. Just because you practice for long time doesnt mean you are closer to realisation then some random person on the street that doesnt practice at all.
Maybe this person will hear about the truth and has done it in pervious lives, ask himself once and thats it. And you and me might spend next 40 years practicing without any progress.
However Ramana did said that no effort to realise the Self is ever wasted. He also said that as long as a person has a mind, there is no way for that person to know how much of it is there left to surrender. Bhagavan is the only one who knows this.
Sanjay: Nikola, our willingness to practice and our willingness to surrender are directly proportionate to each other. That is, to the extent we practise to that extent we are willing to surrender. What does the practice of self-investigation entails? When we practice turning with, we are trying to surrender our likes and dislikes – trying to surrender our hold on everything other than ourself. So the practice of self-investigation is just another name for the practice of self-surrender. Our self-surrender can be initially practised without actually investigating ourself, but without self-investigation, we cannot complete our self-surrender.
Yes, as you imply, we cannot measure our spiritual progress or the progress of others, and there is no use in our trying to go so. The only thing that matters is our own perseverance at self-surrender and self-investigation. We are surely progressing if we are practising or even trying to practise these. We should rest assured that Bhagavan knows where we stand and he is doing everything to help our progress.
My two cents on the philosophy and practice of this teaching...
First of all there are a LOT of different spiritual paths, each with their own unique aims. We have to take this into account... There are various scriptures where the goal is attainment of some state and not at all merging in the mind’s source. Fair enough, but this path seems incredibly hard to me... From what I gather based on the practical philosophy and my meager practice, we have to dive deep within ourselves to find the source of the mind A trace from that incredible state is found right now within ourselves as “I”, the observer/knower/cognizer/subject etc... of all our thoughts and perceptions... (“To whom”, right?!.. we try to go back by following this thread, “I” or “I am”... )
So thinking more carefully my previous comment, this “I” or “I am” is just a reflected consciousness not at all the Self in its all glory, our only “scent” we need to track to dive within and go back to our source...
If this is so, then it does not make any sense that there will be any experience of time space etc..., no world will appear, this is so clear and intuitively I feel its correct...
Now, this seems an incredible feat to me... Let’s pray to Bhagavan for help... I am baffled, scared, and I actually can’t believe He wants us to achieve that... This is truly astonishing
To those who want to follow Bhagavan’s teachings, nothing about bodies, nadis, yogas and such things will have any appeal
What Bhagavan said about the heart being two digits to the right of the centre of the chest is not his real teaching. It has no deep spiritual significance. That was just said to satisfy the people who cannot think except in terms of the body. It is meaningful only at the level of yoga. All talk about nadis, chakras, kundalini and such concepts are for people who have a very gross mind. We need a subtle mind to grasp Bhagavan’s teachings.
What is Bhagavan’s basic teaching? It is that our root problem is ego, and ego is nothing but the false awareness ‘I am this body’. So in order to know ourself we need to eradicate ego, and in order to eradicate ego we need to distinguish the pure awareness ‘I am’ from the ‘body’. In other words, we have got to separate these two things. We have to isolate the pure awareness ‘I am’ and give up everything else.
So if that is Bhagavan’s real teaching, what does it matter where in the body the awareness ‘I’ seems to be centred? This will interest only those whose minds are looking outwards. If we want to follow Bhagavan’s teaching, nothing about bodies, nadis, yogas and such things will appeal to us.
If we want to follow Bhagavan’s teachings, we have to go much much deeper.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-10-28 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: discussion with Michael James on the nature of ego (1:32)
Reflections: Bhagavan explicitly explained to Suri Nagamma that when our body itself is an imagination, all talk about nadis, chakras, kundalin are also nothing more than imagination. The less we know about such matters, the better it is for us. Why fill up our minds with concepts which have no deep spiritual significance? Why learn about irrelevant things which will merely clog our minds.
Ramana Maharshi on the "I Am"
(from Talk 503)
Reality is only one and that is the self. All the rest are mere Phenomena in it, of it and by it. The seer, the objects and the sight, all are the self only. ... The only permanent thing is Reality; and that is the Self. You say “I am”, “I am going”, “I am speaking”, “I am working”, etc. Hyphenate “I am” in all of them. Thus I - AM. That is the abiding and fundamental Reality. This truth was taught by God to Moses: “I AM that I-AM”. “Be still and know that I-AM God.” so “I-AM” is God.
You know that you are. You cannot deny your existence at any moment of time. For you must be there in order to deny it. This (Pure Existence) is understood by stilling your mind. The mind is the outgoing faculty of the individual. If that is turned within, it becomes still in course of time and that “I-AM” alone prevails. “I-AM” is the whole Truth.
Salazar,
What EXACTLY is the practice?! Theorizing is a little value to me...
I’m interested in practical results...
Same question to everyone else...
How EXACTLY do you practice?!
Thank you
... also, what did you experience so far?! Please share your practicalities not empty theorizing...
I’ve been doing this for several years now. In my own words trying to describe the practice, I’m trying to hold on to the seer, what is aware of everything else, the so called “I” or “I-thought”. .. doing this tenaciously one seems to have opened a pandora’s box where all repressed stuff from this and previous lives comes up to get “cleaned” so to speak by vichara... this has been my experience so far... seems a never ending endeavor... what was your experience so far?
Thanks,
Dragos
Ramana Maharshi on the "I Am" – Part 1 of 4
Everyone knows ‘I am.’ There is the confusion that the ‘I’ is the body. Because the ‘I’ arises from the Absolute and gives rise to buddhi (Intellect). In buddhi the ‘I’ looks the size and shape of the body, na medhaya means that Brahman cannot be apprehended by buddhi.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 54)
The Master, while referring to the Bible for “Be still and know that I am God”, Psalm 46, found in the Ecclesiastes.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 77)
Consciousness is indeed always with us. Everyone knows ‘I am!’ No one can deny his own being. The man in deep slumber is not aware; while awake he seems to be aware. But it is the same person. There is no change in the one who slept and the one who is now awake. In deep sleep he was not aware of his body; there was no body-consciousness. In the wakeful state he is aware of his body; there is body-consciousness. Therefore the difference lies in the emergence of body-consciousness and not in any change in the Real Consciousness. The body and body-consciousness arise together and sink together. All this amounts to saying that there are no limitations in deep sleep, whereas there are limitations in the waking state. These limitations are the bondage; the feeling ‘The body is I’ is the error. This false sense of ‘I’ must go. The real ‘I’ is always there. It is here and now. It never appears anew and disappears again. That which is must also persist for ever. That which appears anew will also be lost. Compare deep sleep and waking. The body appears in one state but not in the other. Therefore the body will be lost. The consciousness was pre-existent and will survive the body. In fact, there is no one who does not say ‘I am’. The wrong knowledge of ‘I am the body’ is the cause of all the mischief. This wrong knowledge must go. That is Realisation. Realisation is not acquisition of anything new nor it is a new faculty. It is only removal of all camouflage.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 96)
The Self is known to everyone but not clearly. You always exist. The Be-ing is the Self. ‘I am’ is the name of God. Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement “I AM THAT I AM” in EXODUS (Chap. 3). There are other statements, such as Brahmaivaham, Aham Brahmasmi and Soham. But none is so direct as the name JEHOVAH = I AM. The Absolute Being is what is - It is the Self. It is God. Knowing the Self, God is known. In fact God is none other than the Self.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 106)
The Self is ever-present (nityasiddha). Each one wants to know the Self. What kind of help does one require to know oneself? People want to see the Self as something new. But it is eternal and remains the same all along. They desire to see it as a blazing light, etc. How can it be so? It is not light, not darkness (na tejo, na tamah). It is only as it is. It cannot be defined. The best definition is ‘I am that I AM.’ The Srutis speak of the Self as being the size of one’s thumb, the tip of the hair, an electric spark, vast, subtler than the subtlest, etc. They have no foundation in fact. It is only Being, but different from the real and the unreal; it is Knowledge, but different
from knowledge and ignorance. How can it be defined at all? It is simply Being.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 122)
“Be still and know that I am God.” To be still is not to think. Know, and not think, is the word.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 131)
The ‘I-thought’ is the ego and that is lost. The real ‘I’ is “I am That I Am.”
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 164)
The essence of mind is only awareness or consciousness. When the ego, however, dominates it, it functions as the reasoning, thinking or sensing faculty. The cosmic mind being not limited by the ego, has nothing separate from itself and is therefore only aware. This is what
the Bible means by “I am that I AM”.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 188)
Ramana Maharshi on the "I Am" – Part 2 of 4
The egoless ‘I am’ is not thought. It is realisation. The meaning or significance of ‘I’ is God. The experience of ‘I am’ is to Be Still.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 226)
One should not think ‘I am this - I am not that’. To say ‘this or that’ is wrong. They are also limitations. Only ‘I am’ is the truth. Silence is ‘I’. If one thinks ‘I am this’, another thinks ‘I am this’ and so on, there is a clash of thoughts and so many religions are the result. The truth remains as it is, not affected by any statements, conflicting or otherwise.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 248)
Everyone knows ‘I am’. Who is the ‘I’? It will be neither within nor without, neither on the right nor on the left. ‘I am’ - that is all.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 273)
You admit “I am”. You admit “I was” in sleep. The state of being is your self.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 280)
The Bible says, “Be still and know that I am God”. Stillness is the sole requisite for the realisation of the Self as God. … The whole Vedanta is contained in the two Biblical statements: “I am that I AM” and “Be still and know that I am God.”
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 338)
“I am that I am.” “I am” is God - not thinking, “I am God”. Realise “I am” and do not think I am. “Know I am God” - it is said, and not “Think I am God.”
It is said “I AM that I AM”. That means a person must abide as the ‘I’. He is always the ‘I’ alone. He is nothing else. Yet he asks “Who am I?” A victim of illusion would ask “Who am I?” and not a man fully aware of himself. The wrong identity of the Self with the non-self makes you ask, “Who am I?”
There are different routes to Tiruvannamalai, but Tiruvannamalai is the same by whichever route it is gained. Similarly the approach to the subject varies according to the personality. Yet
the Self is the same. But still, being in Tiruvannamalai, if one asks for the route it is ridiculous. So also, being the Self, if one asks how to realise the Self it looks absurd. You are the Self. Remain as the Self. That is all. The questions arise because of the present wrong identification of the Self with the body. That is ignorance. This must go. On its removal the Self alone is.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 354)
Your duty is to be: and not to be this or that. “I AM that I AM” sums up the whole truth. The method is summed up in “BE STILL”. What does “stillness” mean? It means “destroy yourself”. Because any form or shape is the cause of trouble. Give up the notion that “I am so and so”. Our sastras say: ahamiti sphurati (it shines as ‘I’).
(Aham, aham) ‘I-I’ is the Self; (Aham idam) “I am this” or “I and that” is the ego. Shining is there always. The ego is transitory; When the ‘I’ is kept up as ‘I’ alone it is the Self; when it flies at a tangent and says “this” it is the ego.
The Self is God. “I AM” is God. “I am the Self, O Gudakesa!” (Ahamatma Gudakesa).
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 363)
Vichara is the process and the goal also. ‘I AM’ is the goal and the final Reality. To hold to it with effort is vichara. When spontaneous and natural it is Realisation.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 390)
Nirvana is Perfection. In the Perfect State there is neither subject nor object; there is nothing to see, nothing to feel, nothing to know. Seeing and knowing are the functions of the mind. In nirvana there is nothing but the blissful pure consciousness “I am.”
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 406)
Dvaita and advaita are relative terms. They are based on the sense of duality. The Self is as it is. There is neither dvaita nor advaita. I AM THAT I AM. Simple Being is the Self.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 433)
In the Bible God says “I AM before Abraham.” He does not say “I was” but “I AM.”
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 436)
Ramana Maharshi on the "I Am" – Part 3 of 4
This Consciousness is the eternal Being and the only Being. The seer cannot see himself. Does he deny his existence because he cannot see himself with the eyes as pratyaksha (in vision)? No! So, pratyaksha does not mean seeing, but BE-ing. “To BE” is to realise - Hence I AM THAT I AM. I AM is Siva. Nothing else can be without Him. Everything has its being in Siva and because of Siva.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 450)
You say ‘I AM’. That is it. What else can say I AM? One’s own being is His Power. The trouble arises only when one says, “I am this or that, such and such.” Do not do it - Be yourself. That is all.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 478)
Be still and know that I AM GOD. “Stillness” here means “Being free from thoughts”.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 480)
Reality is only one and that is the self. All the rest are mere Phenomena in it, of it and by it. The seer, the objects and the sight, all are the self only. ... The only permanent thing is Reality; and that is the Self. You say “I am”, “I am going”, “I am speaking”, “I am working”, etc. Hyphenate “I am” in all of them. Thus I - AM. That is the abiding and fundamental Reality. This truth was taught by God to Moses: “I AM that I-AM”. “Be still and know that I-AM God.” so “I-AM” is God.
You know that you are. You cannot deny your existence at any moment of time. For you must be there in order to deny it. This (Pure Existence) is understood by stilling your mind. The mind is the outgoing faculty of the individual. If that is turned within, it becomes still in course of time and that “I-AM” alone prevails. “I-AM” is the whole Truth.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 503)
Everyone is aware, ‘I am’. Leaving aside that awareness one goes about in search of God.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 557)
You are neither That nor This. The truth is ‘I am’. “I AM that I AM” according to the Bible also. Mere Being is alone natural. To limit it to ‘being a man’ is uncalled for.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 601)
“Be still and know that I AM God”. So stillness is the aim of the seeker. Even a single effort to still at least a single thought even for a trice goes a long way to reach the state of quiescence. Effort is required and it is possible in the waking state only.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 609)
That which is, always is. If the ahankar dies, It, the Reality, exists as It has always existed. You may speak of It as having aham vritti or simply aham. It is all the same. That which exists is ‘I am’ or ‘aham’.
(Source: Day by Day with Bhagavan, 12-11-45 Morning)
‘I exist’ is the only permanent, self-evident experience of everyone. Nothing else is so self-evident (pratyaksha) as ‘I am’. What people call ‘self-evident’ viz., the experience they get through the senses, is far from selfevident. The Self alone is that. Pratyaksha is another name
for the Self. So, to do Self-analysis and be ‘I am’ is the only thing to do. ‘I am’ is reality. I am this or that is unreal. ‘I am’ is truth, another name for Self. ‘I am God’ is not true.
The Swami thereupon said, “The Upanishads themselves have said ‘I am Brahman’.” Bhagavan replied, “That is not how the text is to be understood. It simply means, “Brahman exists as ‘I’ and not ‘I am Brahman’. It is not to be supposed that a man is advised to contemplate ‘I am Brahman’, ‘I am Brahman’. Does a man keep on thinking ‘I am a man’ ‘I am a man’? He is that, and except when a doubt arises as to whether he is an animal or a tree, there is no need for him to assert, ‘I am a man.’ Similarly the Self is Self, Brahman exists as ‘I am’, in every thing and every being.”
(Source: Day by Day with Bhagavan, 22-3-46 Afternoon)
Ramana Maharshi on the "I Am" – Part 4 of 4
We do not know anything about Siva or the Paramatman. We know the jiva. Or, rather, we know we exist. ‘I am’ is the only thing that always abides, even when the body does not exist for us, as for instance, when we are asleep. Let us take hold of this, and see wherefrom the ‘I’ sense or ahamkara, as you put it, arises.
(Source: Day by Day with Bhagavan, 27-12-46)
When I say you are present at all times and at all places and you ask where is that ‘I’, it is something like asking, when you are in Tiruvannamalai, ‘Where is Tiruvannamalai?’ When you are everywhere, where are you to search? The real delusion is the feeling that you are the body. When you get rid of that delusion, what remains is your Self. You should search for a thing which is not with you but where is the need to search for a thing which is always with you? All sadhanas are for getting rid of the delusion that you are the body. The knowledge that ‘I am’ is always there: call it Atma, or Paramatma or whatever you like. One should get rid of the idea that ‘I am the body’. There is no need to search for that ‘I’ that is the self. That Self is all pervading.
(Source: Letters from Sri Ramanasramam, [73] The “I” is the Mind Itself)
Samadhi alone can reveal the Truth. Thoughts cast a veil over Reality, and so It is not realised as such in states other than samadhi. In samadhi there is only the feeling ‘I AM’ and no thoughts. The experience ‘I AM’ is being still.
(Source: Maharshi’s Gospel, VI. Self-Realisation)
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says ‘Aham’ is the first name of God. The first letter in Sanskrit is ‘A’ and the last letter ‘Ha’ and ‘Aha’ thus includes everything from the beginning to the end. The word Ayam means That which exists, self-shining and self-evident. Ayam, Atma, Aham all refer to the same thing. In the Bible also, ‘I AM’ is given as the first name of God.
(Source: Gems from Bhagavan, XIII. Miscellaneous)
Not even an iota of prarabdha exists for those who uninterruptedly attend to the space of consciousness, which always shines as `I am', which is not confined in the vast physical space, and which pervades everywhere without limitations.
(Source: Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi, Ch. 21 Karma, Destiny and Free Will)
Salazar,
no matter. I referred only to your sentence of 30 October 2018 at 23:15 "There is no need to make one or the other "better" or "worse"."
Seeing always both sides of the coin finally serves to control the mind and intellect.
It is surely Bhagavan's direct command for everyone who seeks to know the self that one has first to perfect himself in self-discipline, give up desires and attune the mind to the self.
D Samarender Reddy,
thanks for compiling your compilation of Ramana Maharshi's sayings on the 'I am'.
So by the constant grace of Arunachala and the unfailing protection of Lord Siva we may dedicate our life to the supreme omnipresent being. Only by complete surrender to the Lord who dwells as the self in the heart we can attain that supreme state.
Let us become free from the enslavement through desires and thus be well satisfied in the self and by the self.
Salazar, regarding bizarre assumptions creeping up on this blog and "dull-witted":
We clearly see that it must be our indispensable endeavour to primarily destroy the mind's evil tendencies.
Dragos Nicolae,
You asked on
31 October 2018 at 15:10 to 'everyone".
How EXACTLY do you practice?
Michael James has explained quite in detail how to practice in his several commentaries and comments in this blog. Is that not sufficient for you? Sri Ramana Maharshi has also explained how to practice. Who is better to explain than the two of them here?
Hi Salazar,
I received my copy of "Conscious Immortality" today which is supposed to be a record of Paul Brunton's conversations with Bhagavan. I believe you recommend it?
Although I have hardly looked at it... somethings are very interesting.
I appreciate the preface which frankly, intelligently and impartially describes the intrigue surrounding the work:
The original manuscript was lost and whatever text was removed is unknown.
Of the current work: 62% of the book corresponds to Munagala's "Talks" and of that 62%... fully 67% corresponds word for word with Talks.
And the preface which is from V.S. Ramanan president of Sri Ramanasramam says "There is a wealth of instruction in the notebook and the ashram feels devotees can gain immeasurably from this new edition".
Of course, at best words only point.
thanks again,
Hi Sam,
thanks for your excellent and inspiring posts.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 43
The projected picture of this world of triads is a play of chit-para-shakti [i.e., the power or reflected light of self-consciousness] on the screen of supreme consciousness.
Reflections: The seer, seen and the process of seeing or the knower, known and the process of knowing is all like a film appearing on the screen of awareness. What is the power which makes such a picture appear? It is chit-para-shakti – the reflected light of self-consciousness.
The books we like change in correspondence to and in relation with our need.
In alteration what Salazar said ("...actually all what is needed can be found in Padamalai or GVK.") I would say that all what is needed must be found finally in one's own practice.
Sanjay,
as we know, the reflected light of self-consciousness is not the direct light of self but only the light borrowed by the ego from self.
Hi Josef,
Regarding your comment: "all what is needed must be found finally in one's own practice"
The way (or "non-way") is self revealing. Instructive glimpses are provided.
Roger,
at least instructive glimpses are appreciated. Who might be the provider of them ?
Josef loves to make these innocent appearing questions while we know that [his] ego has already the answer and it just likes more food to argue once an answer was provided :)
Where could that come from? [Rhetorical question.]
Salazar,
why do you so easily see through my person ?:-)
You always see what it's really all about, that is certain.
who provides glimpses? Grace.
A glimpse maybe the result of extensive Atma Vicara practice or whatever else you do or being with a realized person.
For example after a period of extensive meditation, a lengthy retreat etc... Grace might reveal some highly personal clue on what to aspire to next... this may just be a clear example of profound stillness demonstrating not in concepts but actually in your experience what it is.
So in this regard: the way is self revealing. Study and contemplation is also good. But grace will actually show you.
PB talks extensively of glimpses: https://paulbrunton.org/notebooks/
Just enter "glimpse" into the search box.
There are many false matches but 700+ in total.
Roger,
if Paul Brunton had not written his book "A search in Secret India" perhaps I would not know anything about Arunachala-Ramana. Therefore I have to write posthumously a thank-you letter to him.:-)
Hi Josef,
I certainly allow anyone a devotional attraction to Arunachala.
But I feel none myself.
I do live with an extensive mountain range in my backyard with numerous 4000+ meter peaks.
So that will have to do for me even though it has no associated mythology it is not less in feeling.
Roger,
no matter, I feel myself no devotional attraction to the magnificent mountainous region of Sierra Nevada. In contrast to that majestic Californian mountain range Arunachala hill with its only about 800 meters height is only a dwarf. However, Arunachala is not an ordinary mountain...and more than a myth.
Salazar,
let me have my inferior devotion to the location Arunachala!
But you are right in saying: simply to be is the supreme devotion and the highest attainment is the realisation of one's identity with the Lord within through atmanishta,
the steadfast abidance in the oneness of self.
By the way, I only guessed that Roger meant Sierra Nevada. Sorry, I have never been in California.
The three vices of the mind are desire, fear and anger presuppose duality and duality is based on the mind.
It is said...once the mind is destroyed, the illusion of bondage is put to an end.
The only direct means of destroying the mind with its duality and consequent vices is unswerving abidance in the self, atmanishta. When atmanishta becomes sahaja or spontaneous, the sense of duality is destroyed for ever.
Arunachala is pure self-awareness; how then can it be considered as an object ?
IF one has the skill of devotion / Bhakti, then devotion to some object (ie mountain, saint, child, spouse or abstract god etc... whatever is personally moving) may lead in the direction of freedom. It is not the object that frees, it is the devotion.
It is the same with Karma Yoga. It is not the action that frees, it is the inward selflessness found in performance of ones duty.
Download the pdf of Talks and search on Bhakti: there are 62 hits. Bhagavan puts devotion at the same level as other methods including vicara. People have different temperaments. The thing is finding what works for you.
If Papaji dismissed devotion, then maybe it wasn't his temperament... or he skipped key lectures by Bhagavan. :-)
Salazar,
..."And secondly, the term Self is an object, as is Brahman, sat-chit-ananda, pure self-awareness etc. It can only be an object for the mind, it is imagined."
But... Arunachala is self and that is beyond the mind which itself does not even actually exist. Therefore imaginations of the non-existent mind are completely irrelevant. As pure consciousness Arunachala is always present as transcendental being within, beyond the three states of consciousness, eternal and immutable.
We should surrender unto the omnipresent Lord who dwells in the heart, not to any "ignore list".:-)
I see two trends on this blog, a parrot style repetition-regurgitation of what Michael has thought for himself, and neo-advaita guru wannabes who like to pretend they're better than anyone else... good luck!
Dragos,
make it better - good luck, best wishes and kind regards to Bucharest.
Why remain in the dark, finite hole when we can become one with the brilliant, infinite whole
Why not just keep quiet; why let ego see height,
Why rise as ego and give up happiness; why such incessant madness,
Why not bring ego under Bhagavan’s feet; why not remove all its heat,
Why remain in the dark, finite hole when we can become one with the brilliant, infinite whole.
Salazar,
You fit in nicely with Michael James. Both of you have strong held opinions on how everyone else should practice and that is your main vocation.
Salazar,
Can you explain what are Bhagavan's basic tenets of his practice/philosophy and what they entail? Then you will see the many logical errors you produce in what you write...
Thanks
Salazar likes to play down his often condescending style of commenting by the notion "I share my viewpoints on this blog."
For instance: "Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahha"
(1 November 2018 at 23:44)
Anyhow an interesting, strange and revealing viewpoint.:-)
Salazar,
I believe the path is to dive deep into oneself and get the Self metaphorically speaking... logical conclusions for me is that there will never be a world to be experienced. No time, no space, no thoughts, no seeing anything, pure self awareness, nothing else... that, for me, easily separates the wheat from the chaff, as far as many other spiritual teachers/writings are concerned... and keeps everything extremely simple... Bhagavan's metaphysics is an aid to this path, keeps the mind not so scattered on so may spiritual concepts...
Neo-advaita on the other hand tells people there's no ego, nothing to do... that's so wrong in my opinion and, most importantly, very capable aspirants are lead astray with this wishful thinking. Neo-advaita has nothing to do with Bhagavan's unique path and goal... We need to get to our source to destroy the ego (which manifests all we see) not merely accepting there's no ego... if it's so simple as neo-advaitins imply, why so many people don't realize it so quickly...?! It has nothing to do with theory/accepting something, it has all to do with our rising vasanas from countless lives/dreams... we are told how to destroy them... dive within to reach the source... so how's that compared to neo-advaita that you seem to preach here?! You are leading many people astray
A seeker of truth must learn not to lose his equanimity when he encounters a rude or insulting manner or aggressive attitude of someone.
Dragos Nicolae,
Reg:
31 October 2018 at 15:10 to 'everyone".
How EXACTLY do you practice?
Michael James said in this commentary.
Our aim is to experience and just be the pure self-awareness that we actually are, but in order to do so we must investigate ego. Since we now experience ourself as ego, we cannot attend to ourself except as ego, just as when we see a rope as a snake we cannot look at it except as a snake. However, by looking at the snake, we see that it is actually just a rope, and thereafter we can never again mistake it to be a snake. Likewise, by keenly attending to ego, we see that we are actually just pure self-awareness, and thereafter we can never again mistake ourself to be ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that we should look within, what he means is that we should look only at ourself, this ego (the subject who perceives all objects, the one who is aware of everything else), because when we look at ourself keenly enough we will see that what we actually are is not the ego that we seemed to be but only pure self-awareness.
Michael James has understood correctly what Bhagavan taught in his post of his. Now if it has not yet practically worked for the student (whomever it is) it is not the teacher's fault but the unreadiness of the student or seeker to give up identification with the ego.
We see that impure beings are overpowered by rajas and tamas.
They are caught and harnessed in the wheel of samsara. By a lucky chance they will get a free bed in a special clinic.:-)
Let us say enough is enough
To reach our goal we need to destroy ego; self-investigation is the only way to let it go.
Some do not like when we thus clarify; but why should we dilute the truth to satisfy?
With ego is command our life is miserable; why should pretend that it is tolerable?
Let us say enough is enough.
Correction:
With ego in command, our life is miserable; why should we pretend that it is tolerable?
Why do we get angry?
We may get angry when our expectations are not met or when our desires are thwarted. We may become angry when somebody or something we are attached to is taken away from us. We are likely to get angry when somebody or some incident causes harm to the things or people we love.
The intensity of our anger depends on the intensity of our desires and attachments. For example, if I am too attached to my car, I will become very angry if someone causes harm to my car. If I am only slightly attached, my anger may not be so much in such situations.
However, if we have no expectations, have no likes and dislikes, we will not become angry because of whatever seemingly bad or horrible situations we may encounter. So to give up our anger we need to tackle its root, namely our desires and attachments. And give up our desires and attachments we need to remove their root, namely ego. And to remove ego we need to turn our attention a full 180 degrees within and thereby experience ourself as we really are.
Sanjay,
yes, we have primarily to cut the ego-tree off its roots (or root it up).
Dragos,
I just consider that looking within is synonymous with letting go of the ego.
So I try to combine practically both aspects. I hope that will intensify and deepen my attempts of self-investigation. In this manner my investigation will become more careful and keen and the awareness of myself as if I were a person should gradually vanish.
There have been a number of revealing comments of late:
"very capable aspirants are lead astray with this wishful thinking"
"Michael James has understood correctly what Bhagavan taught in his post of his"
"Some do not like when we thus clarify; but why should we dilute the truth to satisfy?"
The implicit assumption by these 3 commentators is that they know what the truth is, how else can they make such comments? But one cannot know the truth until s/he is self-realised; prior to that it is a belief, a concept, a hypothesis held by the illusory mind, which we have been told is false and misleading. So in these statements, one has the roots of religious fundamentalism, not self-investigation.
Assumptions of the mind are yet so exiting; why painting things so black ?:-)
Why being concerned with the mind's assumptions ?
To whom do these assumptions appear ?
Find out and be at peace.:-)
Nice comments Venkat.
There is frequent talk here about the "ego".
For me, this always seems imprecise and not very useful even fantasy.
Often what MJ has said is repeated... but what does it mean? what is the ego?
MJ says that the ego is the world and body.
does this work? Can anyone actually go so far into "I" that the world and body disappear?
For me, very precisely, when my attention is focused inward using some kind of meditation, the "ego" is simply that takes attention off the subject going outward into thought or ambition. And to overcome the "ego" is simply recognizing that attention has been lost... and back to self. Then... the ego is something very specific that "I" can deal with practically: attention lost into ambition or thought or emotion (ego)?... then just bring attention back to inward focus.
does it make sense? The definition of "ego" here seems to broad to be useful.
(I'm not trying to pose as if I know or master the path... far from it)
Yes, Roger.. I have similar questions... and I believe this is what this comment section should be about... dissecting things that could help us in our own practice....
For me, there are some crucial things that need more clarification (which obviously get more clarified by practice but...) ..they are:
1. What is the ego?!
2. What exactly is the path?!
3. What does the state of realization we are trying to achieve entail?!
These are very very important questions. I'm trying to answer based on what Bhagavan says, and what my meager practice so far seems to tell me.... So please, everyone join the discussion, with what you experienced so far, and your manana ...
1. What is the ego?!
The ego, according to Bhagavan is basically what is aware of all other thoughts. You are aware of anger... what is aware of anger is the ego. Subject<--->object relationship.... what-is-aware-of-anger <---> anger .. I think this is clear to anyone, no question about it...
Bhagavan also says that this ego expands and creates everything so in a way everything we see right now is ego, or an expansion of it... just like in a dream...
So ego is what is aware of everything else, and also the world, the body etc..... Also ego is mind accord to Bhagavan, so all this world is mind (just like in a dream, including your body). So ego, mind, i, world are the same thing...
2. What exactly is the path?!
The path is to look at the ego, right?! See what it its... But what exactly that entails... it's simple to just say it.... So, to whom right... well i'm doing that... it's obviously nothing there, but when I really try to keenly look at it (very very brief moments of intensity of attention) it seems to me that the very act transitions to diving into yourself as Bhagavan rightly says in Ulladu Narpadhu verse 28: (https://www.sriramanateachings.org/Sri_Ramanopadesa_Noonmalai.pdf)
"
Just as one would dive (restraining one’s speech and breath) in order to find a thing which has fallen into the water, one should dive within (oneself) restraining speech and breath with a keen mind (that is, with a keen and penetrating attention fixed on the feeling ‘I’), and know (the real Self, which is) the rising-place (or source) of the ego, which rises first. Know thus.
"
So this would be the practice, it so seems to me....
3. What does the state of realization we are trying to achieve entail?!
Bhagavan repeateadly says that when the State we are after is achieved, body consciousness along with world consciousness will be gone forever... But many teachers say these two will come back and you (as pure consciousness) won't be affected by them...
So what do you think...
Thanks,
Dragos
So we greenhorns must penitently admit that only Salazar's concepts, imaginations, theories, expectations, truth's (as imagined and believed by the mind) will never veil Brahman/Self.:-)
Dragos,
may I generally recommend to carefully study Michael's numerous articles.
Regarding your first question 1. What is the ego?! you may watch also Michael's recent video: Sri Ramana Teachings:
2018-10-28 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: discussion with Michael James on the nature of ego
Your last question 3. What does the state of realization we are trying to achieve entail?! you will find answered after realization - if then still necessary.
You do not greatly profit from any speculation.
I'm asking for other people's own opinion/actual practice ... why is everyone just quoting/parroting Michael here?!
As regards, the state of realization, this is a very important question... if the state of realization does not entail perception of the world (it's people, object, time etc...) and basically we won't experience it anymore (just like you now you don't experience last night's dream) it means that all teachers who teach otherwise are not enlightened at all... (just assume for the sake of argument that this is the case, isn't this the logical conclusion?!)
Joseph, I know what the ego is... I'm asking you what it think it is... and what is your experience so far...
"what you" i meant
My opinion/practice so far is that you have to dive deep within yourself as Bhagavan says in verse 28, and that there won't be any perception of this world with it's time, people etc.... So basically anyone who says otherwise is not enlightened... Yes, I know... this sounds arrogant... so what do you think?! Seriously... isn't this what Bhagavan implies?!
So basically, Papaji, Mooji, Robert Adams, Nisargadatta and tens of other so called Jnanis are not Jnanis at all...
(now let the quote war begin :).... better state your own practice/conclusions, thanks...)
I will not reply to anyone who just mindlessly posts quotes here without also adding up his own thoughts / practice... I'm not trying to look arrogant, but please share what you think...
Salazar,
what do you do (or try to do) everyday? What exactly is your practice... just so we know how to tackle our conflicting ideas... so please share...
Same for everyone else... please share... so we can have a honest discussion
(sorry for the scattered posts, ideas came like that...) and sorry if it looks arrogant... that's not the idea... we're trying to help each other progress in understanding and sharpening the practice..
thanks,
Dragos
Dragos,
between you and me I think that none of the mentioned teachers did reach the same depth of wisdom as Bhagavan Sri Ramana. Not only I but many others are convinced that he is the greatest luminary in the firmament of spirituality in the recent past. I cannot judge if these mentioned teachers are considered with justification as jnanis.
So far as I am concerned I have to admit that I just began to overcome a sense of frustration about he fact that till now I was not able to bring the mind to stand still i.e. to eliminate all thoughts or at least to bring the mind gradually under control. Not to rise as ego/person and thus to remain in the self seems to be still far away. However, there is no alternative but to develop the required patience and perseverance.
Kind regards.
Dragos, sorry,
correction: it should be "the fact" not "he fact".
Thank you Joseph,
I’m in the same situation...
Dragos
1. The ego is a thought. One thought cannot see other thoughts; to posit such essentially furthers the entification of the ego. I don't think this is what Bhagavan was teaching. He was saying that once the I-thought, which identifies with body-mind arises, then all the further concepts about the world arise. So we don't see things as they are - non-different from us, as in the same gold in different ornaments - but through the lens of our I-thought which likes and dislikes, has greed and fear.
I have pointed out in previous comments, quotes from Muruganar and Shankara that clearly state that it is the Self / awareness that witnesses the jiva and the world.
2. For me, the path is to investigate the ego, first analytically / intellectually, and then through constant awareness of the I-thought, especially when it waxes - in desire, anger and fear. This constant inward awareness on its own, leads to a natural (rather than forced) subsidence of thoughts, such that you just be - summa iru.
3. Realisation does not necessarily mean the disappearance of the body and world. It simply entails the loss of subject-object division - ie one goes through life, without specifically identifying with this particular body-mind and its desires and fears. Again, there are quotes from Muruganar and Advaita more generally (including books that Bhagavan recommended such as Kaivalya Navaneeta, Ashtavakra Gita, and Bhagavad Gita).
This disappearance of the body world is a logical follow-on if one asserts that the world is projected and perceived by the ego. Therefore when the ego dies, the world must disappear. This is MJ's logic, but in my opinion is based on a misunderstanding of Bhagavan's teaching.
That of course is just my opinion, since I am not realised.. You need to investigate and come to your own view.
To all those pandits, scholars and pretentious sages who do not appreciate Michael James's commentaries and explanations on Bhagavan's teachings.
What are you doing here criticizing Michael James saying he has not realized the Self and such other nonsense. How do you know for sure Michael James is not a Jnani even of he says he is not? As is you people have realized the Self yourselves and are Jnanis?
Go and start your own blogs like Michael James has done if you have a better understanding than Micheal James instead of behaving like arrogant assholes and showing off your worthless mental concepts.
"Therefore when the world appears, svarūpa [our ‘own form’ or actual self] does not appear [as it really is]; when svarūpa appears (shines) [as it really is], the world does not appear" Nan Yar
No one can doubt this quote by Bhagavan.... How do you interpret it? ok, be it so... it's mysterious, mind can't comprehend it... etc... what do I know.. let's leave it here...
"You have already gone astray" lol.. I am already astray... trying to disentagle myself form this messy life-body... looking for what is unchanging in me... the path is clear, trying to understand certain things that might help me more profoundly does not make me "corrupted"... well... each with his own way... everyone is responsible for himself... I wish everyone success in this endeavour
Have a nice day,
Dragos :D
Have you got the experience to speak with authority?! If not, how do you know I'm not correct? On what you base your intrepretation?
I'm not saying I'm right... That's why I believe it's important we all have a honest discussion about this...
If, as you say, the grasping has stopped, how can you be aware of any world since what you perceive as the world are in themsevles things (mental impressions) that are grasped?! Don't you see your logical contradiction?!
Salazar,
having had an experience of self - our real nature - is nothing particular. Rather we all have it every night.:-)
Evidently your experience (of what ever it really was) was not manonasa but at best manolaya.
Dragos
I will again repeat GVK 1119:
"Though the mind that has been captivated and held under the sway of the shining of pure being may move away to sense objects that are seen, heard, eaten, smelt and touched, as in the past, its knot has definitely been severed through perfect, firm vichara."
Muruganar's comment on this verse:
"There is no rule that the mind whose knot has been cut should not operate among the sense objects. . . . it can operate among them wholly as the Self, but it will not in the least become bound by them."
As Salazar pointed out, no jnani has stated that the world disappears on realisation. It is therefore highly unlikely that Bhagavan intended this interpretation, and this is clearly evident in GVK 1119 and Muruganar's comment thereon. This idea of world disappearing on enlightenment is just another concept grasped by the ego to maintain itself . . . "I need to keep on practising until the world disappears!" What Bhagavan and all Jnanis tell you is that you already are free, and it is just your ignorance that binds you. Think what this means! Think about the story of the tenth man, and its meaning; no one disappears on the 10th man remembering to count himself - they were 10 before and they are 10 after.
Actually, even in Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham, Bhagavan makes it clear in his directly written teaching, that the world does not disappear on realisation.
v.26: O hero, having enquired into all the states which are of various kinds, play your role in the the world, always clinging firmly with the mind only to that one which is the supreme state devoid of unreality. O hero, since you have known that Self which exists in the heart as the Reality of all the various appearances; therefore without ever abandoning that outlook, play your role in the world as if you have desire.
v27: O hero, being one who has seeming mental excitement and joy, being one who has seeming mental anxiety and hatred, being one who has seeming effort or initiative, but being as one who is in truth devoid of all such defects, play your role in the world. O hero, being one who has been released from the many bonds called delusion, being one who is firmly equanimous in all conditions, yet outwardly doing actions appropriate to your disguise, play your role in the world.
Paragraph Three
சரவ் அறிவிற்கும் சரவ் மதோழிற்குங் கோரண மோகிய மன மடங்கினோல் ஜகதிருஷ் டி நீங்கும். கற்பித ஸரப்்ப ஞோனம் பபோனோ மலோழிய அதிஷ் டோன ரஜ்ஜு ஞோனம் உண் டோகோதது பபோல, கற்பிதமோன ஜகதிருஷ் டி நீங்கினோ மலோழிய அதிஷ் டோன மசோரூப தரச்ன முண் டோகோது.
If the mind, which is the cause of all [objective] knowledge and of all activity, subsides, jagad-dṛṣṭi [perception of the world] will cease. Just as knowledge of the rope, which is the base [that underlies and supports the imaginary appearance of a snake], will not arise unless knowledge of the imaginary snake ceases, svarūpa-darśana [true
experiential knowledge of our own actual nature or real self], which is the base [that underlies and supports the imaginary appearance of this world], will not arise unless perception of the world, which is an imagination [or fabrication], ceases
Indeed beliefs, being just thoughts, would sustain the mind. However, having desire to experiencing the Self and at the same time the world and trying to justify it with numerous examples of the so-called "enlightened" people is not better at all.
Hi Salazar, I concur with your comment to me.
Noob, the ashram publication of Who am I, contained in "Words of Grace" has this translation for your paragraph:
"If the mind which is the instrument of knowledge and is the basis of activity subsides, the perception of the world as an objective reality ceases. Unless the illusory perception of the serpent in the rope ceases, the rope on which the illusion is formed is not perceived as such. Similarly, unless the illusory nature of the perception of the world as an objective reality ceases, the vision of the true nature of the Self on which the illusion is formed is not obtained".
This gives a very different sense to the MJ translation that you have quoted. Michael's might be a sparse, word for word translation; but clearly the meaning inherent can be conveyed with very different nuances.
Consequently any thinking person needs to take into account MJ's interpretation, ALONGSIDE others such as Muruganar, Annamalai Swami, Shankara and the various books that Bhagavan recommended, even if you dispute other Jnanis.
Indeed you need to consider the significance of Bhagavan's verses in UN (such as 'the world is real for the ajnani and the jnani . . .', 'this body is I for the ajnani and jnani . . . ') and UNA (as I have quoted above); as well as his dialogues as recorded in Talks (whatever the shortcomings).
As I have stated previously MJ has done a great service for us in translating Bhagavan's works. To understand them is our responsibility. To simply rely on Michael's interpretation, without recourse to understanding how his interpretation contradicts that of others, just betrays an ego that wants comfort and security in a belief without having to think for itself.
Venkat, thank you for your input.
This is entirely my judgment about the meaning of such a deep masterpiece. However, if I have to take into account the fact that according to Bhagavan we must treat this world the same way as we treat our dreams, the statement that an "enlightened person" can see this world is the same as saying that I keep seeing dreams after waking up, which is equal to " I keep dreaming". Besides this is all happening in "my dream", so to speak.
We are just have to much attachment to this world.... Like when we see a dream but feel reluctant to wake up from it. And it keeps feeding us all the garbage about " see these enlightened persons" in your dream, you can be like one of them. And we fail to understand that there is only ONE, and he is not a person.
Funny stuff, sometimes when I have a philosophical argument with my friends and they ask a question why we do this or that, trying to find a logical answer, I answer them "I did this or that because I woke up in the morning"
Noob,
I think Salazar articulated it well - not to have any expectations of what realisation entails. The philosophical point we can all intellectually grasp and agree upon is that we are not separate from the world (the gold in ornaments), and that the ego is an illusion and the cause of our travails. Therefore just be aware of the ego in all its thoughts and actions, and Bhagavan says that watching / investigation will cause it to subside. What happens after that is not your (ego's) concern.
Noob,
For me the waking world has no more reality than a dream. We / our ego take it seriously, and believe we need to grab things for ourselves and achieve something for ourselves. That is what Bhagavan meant by dream. That is what Bhagavan meant by "just be". That is why he suggests a number of verses from the Bhagavad Gita describing a jnani, such as:
"Satisfied with what comes to him by chance, beyond the pairs of opposites, free from envy, equal in success and failure, he is not bound by his actions".
There is no hint of disappearance of the world in BG, but there are plenty of verses to say it is not real, it is illusory, like a mirage of water in the desert . . . so don't take it seriously, and be unaffected by it.
So my question for you Noob: How do you understand Bhagavan's UNA verses 26 and 27, which I quoted in an earlier comment, and which is the gist of the BG quote as well?
Indeed, having the ability to see the world after "realization" is one of those expectations.
Venkat, my understanding of those two verses is as follows:
Bhagavan uses "O Hero", speaking to a 2nd person. My personal take is that it is a sort of a reassurance to those on the path, in the same way as it is in Bhagavad Gita. Every body dies sooner or later, what awaits beyond is what we will find out in due time. When we are ready, we will just await THAT, playing our role without worries and fears.
Noob - the UNA and the BG verses are speaking of a jnani.
I wonder why Bhagavan, who always was very straight-forward in his teaching, would seek to confuse by saying at one point the world disappears with the ego, and then saying within the same composition, 'the world/body exists for the jnani and ajnani' and 'play your part in the world'. And why point to Shanakara, Bhagavad Gita, Kaivalya Navaneeta and Vivekachudamani, which do not promulgate this idea of the world disappearing.
One either concludes that Bhagavan was not consistent and confused in his teaching, or that our interpretation of it is confused.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have no particular desire to see the world. I am simply disagreeing with Michael's interpretation of Bhagavan's, based on the various sources I have quoted.
There seems to be a cult developing around Michael's translation and interpretation of three texts (UN, UU and Nan Yar), whilst discarding pointers from Talks, Day to Day, Muruganar's commentaries, Annamalai Swami, let alone other jnanis.
Venkat, for me this is very simple. I accept that my mind can create illusions with different degrees of sophistication. I also try to take the world and my dreams as just one great illusion. So what jnanis are we looking for in this dream world? I know with my experience that I cannot change what I see in my dreams when I am already dreaming, even though it looks like I have a will there as I am frequently travelling there, speaking in different languages, performing other actions that seem to be impossible to do without a will in this world. And I know that that is all an illusion in my dreams therefore it can also be an illusion in this world. So again what jnanis are we looking for?
They can all be just illusory jnanis.
"So again what jnanis are we looking for?"
So why quote Bhagavan's Nan Yar?, And why frequent this site?
Probably this is my role. I came across Bhagavan's teachings by accident, but I always wanted, since I was a kid, to find out about the world and consciousness. At first I could not even accept that this can be all an illusion, but with time, slowly, Bhagavan's interpretation won, cleared all doubts I had when I read Bhagavad Gita, the Bible, etc. And I keep asking that same question myself, why am I even coming to post here?
Probably I am not yet ready to give up on everything.....
We have created so many needs for ourselves and made our lives extremely complicated
The mind continues to multiply its needs. Actually, what we need for living is food, clothing and shelter – pretty basic. But we have made our lives very complicated by creating so many needs for ourselves nowadays. Can anyone of us live without a mobile phone or computer these days? All these things were not needed 30 to 40 years back. We have created all these perceived necessities now. This is the nature of maya.
Nowadays so many things are available, but even in a relatively primitive society desires were endless. This is the nature of mind because we think happiness comes from external things.
Edited extract from: 2018-06-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston - discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 17 (1:00)
Reflections: Yes, we have definitely created so many needs for ourselves, but can we undo them now? It may seem difficult but we can try doing so. A simpler life is conducive to more peace and contentment. We can try getting out of this rat race of owning more and more things.
Some of our friends are of the opinion that we should speak only from direct experience and not just repeat whatever Bhagavan or Michael have said or written. It was also stated that since Michael is not a jnani, we should not believe in everything he says or writes. My views on these points are as follows:
Should we speak from our direct experience and not just repeat what Bhagavan or Michael have said or written?
No one denies the need for direct experience, but this does not mean we should not repeat what Bhagavan has written in his own words. If we consider him to be our guru, why should we not repeat whatever he has written? This will help us to internalise the meaning of these words. Many devotees recite Bhagavan’s works and this is beneficial.
I do try to repeat whatever Michael has said or written (maybe in my words), but this is because I concur with his views. We tend to trust people whom we believe are more experienced than us. Others may have more trust in other 'teachers'. It is fine.
'Michael is not a jnani, so we should not believe in everything he says or writes,' believe some of our friends.
The one who says so, can you tell us whether or not you are a jnani? If you say, ‘I do not know’, then if you do not know even about yourself, how can you say whether or not Michael is a jnani? If you say, ‘I am not a jnani’, then how can an ajnani know whether or not someone else is a jnani? If you claim, ‘I am an jnani’, then there could be no one other than you, so how can you even see Michael? So the question ‘whether or not Michael is a jnani’ can never arise in you.
In fact, we can never know whether or not someone is a jnani. One may counter argue and say, ‘but Michael has himself said that he is not a jnani’. OK, so if I say tomorrow that ‘I am a jnani’, should everyone believe me? A jnani has no need to admit that he is a jnani. There is no one other than him to whom he can say so. This is not to say that I believe Michael is a jnani. He may or not be one. To me this question is irrelevant.
Even to say Bhagavan is a jnani is not correct as long as we point to his body while saying so. The jnani is not a body, so the real Bhagavan is only that which is shining in us as ‘I’.
Venkat, you say
1. The ego is a thought.
Have you experienced: with attention inward... a thought may arise... but the thought is seen while attention still does not waiver from the inward focus?
From this perspective, a single thought is not a challenge to awareness.
It is thinking, thought that digresses endless actually taking away awareness. Awareness becomes identified and invested with the thinking process, with thoughts of ambition, gain, avoiding loss etc.
The "ego" takes over awareness through digressive thinking and emotions, NOT necessarily by a single thought. Nisargadatta said somewhere that he still had thoughts arise... but he paid no attention to them.
And Venkat you say: I wonder why Bhagavan, who always was very straight-forward in his teaching, would seek to confuse by saying at one point the world disappears with the ego
The "world disappears with the ego" when meditating with eyes closed and going into the "no world no body state" (nirvikalpa samadhi). Bhagavan's statements perfectly describe this state. But then when eyes open... the world or some refined subtler aspect of it is there. So his statement "world disappears with ego" applies only to the eyes closed state.
This is elaborated in Godman "Be as you are" the chapter on Samadhi.
Addressing others:
There is speculation about what the ego is and what we are trying to "achieve".
The ego loves this as there is never any break from the philosophic speculation and argument.
The "cure" seems to me to be to stop this speculation:
Put attention within NOW, and if some thinking or emotion takes the attention outward and away... THIS is the ego. What do we have to achieve? Simply notice that the attention has been diverted outwards... and place the attention back inward.
Stories and fantasy about what the ego is and what we might achieve are pretty much useless because they are imaginations in the future.
Why should be "believe" anything? Belief is another digression in to imagination. Instead... simply put attention within NOW and when attention is diverted outwards you will know exactly what the "ego" is and what circumstances are a challenge for you personally right now.
Michael James with blogs such as "what we should believe..." is trying to start his own religion.
It's a big deal if indeed the state we're after is what we experience in deep sleep everynight... if it's not so, yeah, everyone can claim enlightenment, and ideed is not our business to judge who is who... Who cares anyway?! ... it's obviously a highly individual business... to whom?! right... let me see for myself...
All the best to all,
Dragos :)
on the other hand, I cannot but think of Andrew Cohen and all the people he seduced with his "enlightenment" . Lives can be ruined if we are not careful and just blindly believe every claim... perhaps having an idea of what the state entails, as much as words can express it, can save a lot of people from getting into the hands of such charlatans...
I still believe the State we're after is what we experience in deep sleep where no world as such appears, where peace reigns and only being is. Forever conscious in that state is enlightenment.. I believe Bhagavan meant that by his path...
There are quotes by Shankara to that regard (if I find it I will post it), also zen masters, Ibn Al Arabi in sufism/islam, Catholic mysticism where "union with God" is used to describe the experience and the world is "seen no more"... If I have time I will post here the quotes...
And by the way Salazar,
I believe Papaji is a charlatan, who started the whole neo-Advaita nonsense, producing deluded "teachers" like Andrew Cohen... Perhaps you're next....
Dragos,
A summarised sequence of your posts is as follows:
"I'm not saying I'm right... That's why I believe it's important we all have a honest discussion about this..."
"If, as you say, the grasping has stopped, how can you be aware of any world since what you perceive as the world are in themsevles things (mental impressions) that are grasped?! Don't you see your logical contradiction?!"
"I still believe the State we're after is what we experience in deep sleep where no world as such appears, where peace reigns and only being is."
"I believe Papaji is a charlatan, who started the whole neo-Advaita nonsense, producing deluded "teachers" like Andrew Cohen... Perhaps you're next...."
Interesting isn't it? You start by saying you want an honest conversation from everyone, and that you don't know; then from your comments it actually transpires that you do think you know, basically following what Michael has said; and you end with derogatory comments about another jnani, which actually had nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
So your ego tried to show a bit of faux humility, but just could not maintain it.
Hi Dragos,
You say:
I still believe the State we're after is what we experience in deep sleep where no world as such appears.
Bhagavan had an affinity for ajata (meaning he preferred to emphasize this state when teaching or in some documents). That is: awareness so pure that it could never even move to create the world. But this is only one state: eyes closed (or attention withdrawn from eyes totally), attention withdrawn from world and body.
Regarding Shankara, you may be thinking of the Mandukya Upanishad Karika with Shankara's commentary. There are copies with can be downloaded or read on line.
The "state we are after" is simply having attention within. And noting when attention is drawn outward being lost in digressive thought. Then bring attention back within. That is What else can be done?
Thoughts about "what state we are after" are likely more imaginative digressive thought. Place attention within and then actually see what is there. Anything else such as philosophic imagination is a distraction.
Bhagavan wrote or dictated some works which emphasized the "no world, no body" state of awareness. But he also taught people who were active in the world for example in Talks. Michael James has mistakenly taken these documents emphasizing "no world no body" to be the whole picture and made ridiculous conclusions like "the world does not appear to a jnani".
This kind of teaching invites more imaginative philosophic speculation and distracts from placing attention within.
Hi Roger
Ajata vada is the final truth, developing from eka jiva vada, which is a prakriya to urge the ego to disregard all else and focus on itself, the one jiva.
Ajata vada is simply saying that there is no birth, no death, no ego in the first place. It negates the whole idea of a jiva having any distinctive / separate reality. It is simply pointing out that the snake (ego) is just an illusory product of ignorance; it never really existed; therefore how can it be born or die.
Hi Venkat,
thanks for the ajata clarification.
IMO the only absolute truth has to be unchanging, it must be pure consciousness, realization, or "That" (from I am That all this is That).
All we know of ajata is that it is a philosophy, a conceptual projection.
MJ's teaching that the world no longer exists for a jnani is from Ajata (or from temporary or permanent Nirvikalpa). Thus it is only a concept.
So I am saying that the only useful thing to do is to have attention inward, on self, "I", "I AM" or whatever preliminary.
In this regard, philosophic imagination is a distraction from inward attention. Most all of the discussion here is a distraction, imagination.
When I say "preliminary", I find it useful to be able to place attention on the inward energy some times. For example when hiking with a heavy pack up a steep trail, "I" maybe difficult to locate but the precursor inward sensation or energy may be easier to locate.
Also, IMO the ajata philosophy although the final truth is not the whole truth. Because the temporal universal still exists (while it does). The temporal world is not absolute... but even for Bhagavan the appearance of the world must have continued to exist while his body was alive.
MJ seems to insist that only the absolute god exists, and he ignores that the relative god as world does have a temporal reality.
Roger
Ajata vada doesn't say the illusion doesn't appear. It clearly does. It just says that there is no reality to it, as separate from Brahman. It is as we were discussing on Aparokshanubuthi, where the clay is real and the pot is just a temporary effect of clay, and does not have any separate existence / reality apart from clay. And as the idea of a separate world is an illusion, a dream, therefore it cannot be said to have birth or death.
Shankara's commentary on Gaudapada's famous verse says:
"Birth or death can be predicated only of that which exists, and never of what does not exist, such as the horns of a hare . . . It has already been said that our dual experience is a mere illusion . . . Hence it is well said that the Ultimate Reality is the absence of destruction etc, on account of the non-existence of duality (which exists only in the imagination of the mind)."
By contrast, Shankara goes on to say: "For It (Brahman) is ever unimagined, because it is like the rope that is never the object of our imagination, and is real, even before the knowledge of the unreality of the snake. Further the existence of the subject (knower or witness) of imagination must be admitted to be antecedent to the imagination. Therefore it is unreasonable to say that such subject is non-existent".
[Note here that Shankara is saying that Brahman is the witness of the imagination, not the ego as Michael has asserted].
So, when ajata says "no birth, no death, none in bondage", it is saying both that an illusory dream ego ("horns of a hare") cannot be said to have birth or death (recall Nisargadatta used to ask - "do you remember your birth?"), and that the non-dual Brahman also cannot have birth or death. Ajata is simply reaffirming that there never really was a distinct, separate ego-entity; it was always just an imagined I-thought.
Once that is understood, temporal reality is irrelevant; it is just a film running its course on the screen; there is no identification with a particular character in the film. That is the point of nishkamya karma, or wei wu wei - actionless action, or desireless action - a jnani lives the remainder of his life without any particular desire or fear. It is the zen chop wood, carry water.
"One of Noob's comments implied that the people who warn about expecting the world to vanish would automatically have the desire to keep seeing the world. That is a typical but immature response. To have NO expectations includes ANY expectation as it was mentioned to Noob, so why was he assuming that there is an expectation (to want to see the world) after all?"
I am assuming this because many posts here quote different jnanies that say that the world is there to remain...
And that's after the same people say it is impossible to grasp the Self with the mind.
BTW, Salazar, you are right, probably I am typing on the illusory keyboard right now in the same way as I talked with illusory people when I saw a dream last time. I can only know that when the dream has run its way. Why am I doing it?
Why was I talking with all those illusory people when I was dreaming? Probably because I dreamed?
So there is the divine grace, the pure mind, the Self and the world.... quite interesting.
Salazar
I think you may be referring to Isa Upanishad
v.6: He who sees all beings in the Self itself, and the Self in all beings, feels no hatred by virtue of that realisation.
Sankara:
Just as I, the soul of the body, am the witness of all perceptions, and as such I am the source of its consciousness, and am pure and attributeless, similarly in that very aspect of mine am I the soul of all, beginning with the Unmanifested and ending with the immobile; he who realises the unconditioned Self in all beings thus, by virtue of that vision, does not hate.
Salazar claims to shamelessly boast and brag to have had experience of this or that SELF at various times. But it still does not change his status as the one and only "premier fucking asshole" of this blog.
Salazar, keep posting your worthless mental concepts from the loony-bin you have been consigned to until you kick your goddamn bucket. That is all you are good for. You will never realize the Self or get liberated the way Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi did, you fucking asshole.
Salazar, if you are such a "great spiritual Jnani as you claim and boast to be without any shame, why don't you have your own blog and your own goddamn followers? Why do you want to misuse and abuse Michael James's blog to dispose off your worthless shit? You are not just an "ajnani" but you are also the only hypocrite in this blog.
Happy Deepawali
A friend: Happy Deepawali! Could you take a couple of minutes to explain the significance of deepawali?
Michael: ‘Deepa’ means ‘light’ and ‘awali’ means ‘a series’. So deepawali means 'a series of lights'. Oil lamps are lighted during this festival and, ever since gunpowder was invented by the Chinese and came to India, deepawali includes fireworks.
But the significance of the festival is connected with a story of Vishnu, narayana, killing the daemon Narakasura. This festival is a celebration of the conquest of this evil daemon. There is a puranic story (mythological story) behind this.
Bhagavan explained the significance of this mythological story. Naraka is often used as a term for hell. So narakasura is a daemon who rules over hell. Bhagavan explained that naraka is the body and the asura (daemon) who rules over the body is ego. Vishnu killed narakasura with his discus.
How do we kill ego? It is by experiencing self-knowledge, by experiencing pure self-awareness. When ego is killed, the light that shines forth, which is the light of pure self-awareness, that is deepawali.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-11-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 22 (1:39)
Reflections: Deepawali is a Hindu festival. The friend who asked this question is a Hindu from India, and Michael is supposedly a Christian from the UK. Imagine a Hindu asking a Christian to explain the significance of their own Hindu festival. I am also a Hindu from India, but I have no shame in admitting that Michael knows more about the Hindu culture and Hindu way of life than I know about it.
Michael is more Indian, more Hindu, than most of the Hindus. He has totally soaked himself in the Hindu culture. We are fortunate to have him amongst us. He is explaining to us that which we should have already known but unfortunately, do not know or do not know enough.
The world may expect anything from us but if we have no desires, the expectations of the world would mean nothing to us
A friend: The world expects many things from us. How do we tackle this issue?
Michael: The world may expect anything from us but if we have no desires, the expectations of the world would mean nothing to us. Let anyone expect anything from us, but we wouldn’t have the desire to satisfy their expectations. We desire appreciation, and therefore we desire to cater to others’ desires. If we are indifferent even to that appreciation, we would be indifferent to their expectations.
The cause of our troubles is within us as our ego, why blame anyone else for our troubles? If we have no desires nothing will trouble us.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-11-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 22 (1:29)
Reflections: Yes, others’ expectations seem to be a problem, but as Michael has explained, the real problem lies within us as our ego and its desires. My niece is getting married this December, and its celebrations will continue for a few days. One is expected to wear something new every day. However, why should I try to fulfil the expectations of others? I would try striking a balance. I may repeat some dress, if not all.
Regular ritualistic worship in Hindu homes
In most of the Hindu households, some place in their home is earmarked as a place of puja or worship. It may be a small space in a corner or some homes may even have a mandir (temple) in a separate room. In most of the traditional homes, regular worship is performed by their occupants. In some houses, even pujaris (priests) are employed to perform regular pujas. They come every day to perform pujas. The question is how useful or efficacious are such pujas in the house?
Pujas done with love purifies the mind and makes one spiritually mature, so to this extent all pujas are beneficial. However, if only the pujaris perform these pujas it will not benefit the family members. All the benefit of such pujas will go only to the pujaris (if they worship with love). However, the occupants may also be benefitted if they participate in pujas along with pujaris. However, mere actions of pujas are of little if they are not done with love.
However, it is always good to have a place of puja in the house even if no regular worship is done there. As and when the situation arises, say in the times of difficulties, some may need to pray to God for help. At such times such places may prove useful. We may not need such places of worship but it may be useful to our other family members. Bhagavan teaches us in Nan Ar? that if we are practising atma-vichara, we need no other spiritual practice.
Thank you for your posts Mr Lohia. You bring much needed maturity to the comments section.
.
Salazar, ātma-vichār is beyond your capacity.
.
If we want to become fearless, we should become desireless
If we have no desires, we will have no fears. I desire regular meals, enough clothing and shelter and I fear that I may not have these forever. If we had no desire, we will be indifferent to everything. Whether or not we have food, whether or not we are in pain, if we are indifferent to these things, we will have no desire for anything. And without desire, we can have no fear.
Even the richest man on this earth has fear. He may fear that the stock markets may crash or his business may run into losses or whatever. He is attached to his billions and therefore he fears that he may lose it. So desire and fear are two sides of the same coin. A truly fearless person is a person without desires, and only a desireless and fearless can be truly happy.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-11-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 22 (1:27)
Sanjay Lohia,
to become desireless one must be egoless. And how to become egoless we are taught to practise intense atma-vichara. And how to become able to carry out intense self-investigation ? By carrying out self-investigation without interruption.
Have I forgot anything ?
Josef, yes, we cannot become completely desireless without destroying ego. However, our desires can be reduced by other means to some extent. These can be reduced by niskamya bhakti. It can be reduced by recollecting that if Bhagavan is taking perfect care of all our needs, why should we desire anything?
I have a desire to eat sweets, but I may try to resist indulging is such a desire by impressing upon my mind that sweets are bad for me. It will increase my weight. This is the Deepavali season where there will be a lot of sweets around me, so it is important to reflect on these lines!
So we can reduce our desires and attachments to some extent even without practising self-investigation. But such means can only take us so far. As you say, eventually we have to practise atma-vichara in order to destroy ego, the root of all our desires.
Such great souls who are enabled to know by own experience that all is in the self and that no object in this world or universe is apart from the self are very rare indeed.
A jnani does not find anything different or separate from the self. All are in the self. It is wrong to imagine that there is the world, that there is a body in it and you dwell in the body. If the truth is known, the universe and what is beyond it will be found to be only in the self.
There is no being who is not conscious and therefore who is not Siva. Not only is the jnani Siva but also else of which he is aware or not aware. ...Siva is seen as the universe.
Hi Venkat,
Thanks for the ajata & Gaudapada comments, always interesting. Some issues:
You say "once that is understood (ajata etc), temporal reality is irrelevant...."
"Understood" is mere conceptual mental activity and falls far short of realization.
Temporal activity (ie the world) is hardly "irrelevant".
With realization the ego's obsession with gain and loss, the claims of ownership and doership, the identification and attachment are gone.
But the temporal world still maintains a relevance, only without ego attachment.
The world may only be a temporal phantom "Idea" without concrete form but it has relevance at that level.
Calling the world irrelevant is hypocrisy when we consume food, use shelter, use basic medical services and transportation etc. even after realization.
Krishna's comments seem useful: "do your duty" which indicates some relevance.
If "I am That and all this is That"... as the so-called "world" is "That"... it has relevance?
Would we call the actions of Nisargadatta, Ramana, Krishna "irrelevant"?
If action and the world are irrelevant... why would realized beings do any action at all? Yes there is no "doer" but this is not the same as abstaining from the appearance of activity.
The biggest issue with the idea that "temporal reality is irrelevant" is that un-realized beings adopt an attitude that action is unnecessary and then they dream of escape from the world. Krishna's comments about "do your allotted duty" should be Incorporated.
ajata and Gaudapada's & Sankara are describing an aspect of the higher state of consciousness (which has to be totally beyond description).
They are NOT describing how to act or think before realization nor are descriptions of the higher state sufficient for realization.
Thoughts about escape from the world or that the world is irrelevant are just more ego activity taking a position, asserting a viewpoint and wishing for some result in an imagined future.
So many wise jnani's in this forum....
Roger,
I have a lot of sympathy for your comment. And I agree that nishkamya karma is a key teaching of Bhagavad Gita.
But the world and our actions in it are irrelevant in the sense that there is nothing to achieve or do.
Most jnanis advise seekers to discard the world and not be involved in it to the extent possible; and focus instead on self-investigation. Sankara advocates that renunciation is an important (though not a prerequisite) factor for realisation. And after realisation, as you note, there is nothing more to do.
Noob,
...that is because consciousness is the reality.:-)
Consciousness means to be aware that 'I exist'.
This awareness of our existence is consciousness.
I do not know, maybe the concept is too difficult to grasp but:
1) My whole perception of the world is through my 5 senses (hearing, seeing, touching, smelling and tasting).
2) These 5 senses are enabled by the mind, which controls the organs which in their turn provide the input (or are responsible for the creation) of the world.
3) My consciousness is aware of the mind and, as a result of it, is aware of the world.
4) if my mind is no more, how to be aware of the world?
Whether there after realization is anything more to do we will see only after realization.
However, it is said that once the seeker became himself the self there remains nothing further to be achieved.
Noob,
your assumption is correct:
Without the mind perception of anything or any world cannot occur.
Moreover, all our desires and dislikes are only possible when the mind is "feeding" the consciousness. trying to curb them with the mind (engaging the thought process) is the same as a criminal will start an investigation into his own acts.
As for the comments like "Krishna's comments seem useful: "do your duty" which indicates some relevance",
In my opinion ( of course pretty much negligible) this was said so that we could finish our life cycle without much fear and worry, if I am a husband, I have to protect fearlessly my family, if there is an earthquake I have to save my family, even sacrificing my life, if there is an armed burglar, Ill put my chest against the barrel. If I am a boss and I have to fire a cheating worker, I must do it.
Noob,
what else but the mind will curb our desires and dislikes ?
Do you think Ishwara or the self will do it for you ?
Josef,
If we accept that this mind and this world are like a dream,
then everything related to the mind, including all the thoughts, all the actions of the body have been already predetermined and WILL run its course.
In the same way as in my dream it looks as if I have the complete control of my actions but upon waking up I realize that this was a dream. Even though in my dream there was no one but me, all those people that I talked to, all that food that I ate, all the buildings that I saw, were nothing but my consciousness (they were so to speak inside my mind), during this dream it looked as if they were separate from me, objects, with which my mind was interacting. The mind can give an illusion that we can change the dream while we are dreaming, but is there anyone who succeeded? Upon waking up I realize that there was nothing I could do in my dream. Isn't a desire just a thought of which "I" becomes aware of?
Therefore the best is just to remain calm, the dream will end anyway. Creating a fruitless task in such a dream to change what thoughts "I" is aware of by engaging in a thought process (utilizing the mind as means to do so) will just multiply the thoughts, in my opinion.
Noob,
"Therefore the best is just to remain calm, the dream will end anyway. Creating a fruitless task in such a dream to change what thoughts "I" is aware of by engaging in a thought process (utilizing the mind as means to do so) will just multiply the thoughts, in my opinion."
Yes, but just to become able to remain calm one first or at least simultaneously must weaken one's desires, likes and dislikes. And that one cannot do without using the mind's power and will. What does it matter when also thoughts are thus multiplied ? Why worry or mind about the gossip of thoughts and illusions which one must anyway sacrifice for getting ahead on the path together with desires, likes and dislikes ?
(of course just my opinion).
Josef,
If it was predetermined that "I" becomes aware of the thoughts "my mind must be purified" or "I have to do yoga", or "I must eat vegan food" it will happen anyway.The question remains what "I" becomes aware of when the mind is no more.
To know the truth about Bhagavan, we have to change our perspective
We think that Bhagavan’s story began when he had the fear of death as a boy of 16. For us, it is from this point that the entire interesting story starts. But from Bhagavan’s point of view, this is the point when his entire story came to an end. At the age of 16, the ego that appeared as Venkataraman was devoured forever, and everything else – his body, the world – was also devoured along with his ego.
However, because our ego is still seeing from outside, we say that Bhagavan’s story continued for another 54 years as a jivanmukta. This is true from our perspective, but from Bhagavan’s perspective, this is not true. So we have to change our perspective. To know the truth about Bhagavan, we have to know the truth about ourself.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-06-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston - discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 17 (1:34)
Your remaining question is easy to answer: after extinction of the mind 'I' becomes itself but relieved/released/rid of any adjuncts. Then the 'I' is absolutely ident with supreme brahman or self.
Josef,
This is for us to find out. For now, "I" seems to be content with watching the endless row of changing dreams. However, the seed has been sown as we are now fiercely debating about these topics on this blog. I personally think the moment of "death" is of the utmost importance, it is when "I" has a chance to be aware of nothing but "I". Until then, in my opinion, it is better to remain calm and "do the duties" fearlessly, always trying to be aware of nothing but "I" and awaiting the moment.
Noob,
as you say we must find out that. I however prefer to stay alive because I already had almost the 'chance to be aware of nothing but "I".' - (impending of immediate death 40 years ago) - and to use my remaining "lifetime" for making me suited for experiencing essential insights/understanding. 40 years ago one could not find even the slightest trace of "spiritual maturity". Instead then I only went off in search of the experience of "exciting adventures".:-)
Bhagavan: ocean of nectar, full of love and one with all
A friend: If we follow this path of self-enquiry, the path of trying to destroy ego, don’t we run the risk of becoming aloof, withdrawn and uncompassionate?
Michael: The people we are bad are people with strong egos. They have strong desires and attachments. They care only for themselves, and they will even exploit others. They feel ‘only my happiness matters; I don’t care about anyone else’. However, if we start practising self-investigation, our desires and attachments start reducing. Our mind starts becoming more and more purified. So this way our ego is weakened or attenuated, and consequently we see less difference between ourself and others.
So we cannot bear to see the suffering of others. We suffer by seeing others suffer. So the more we practise self-investigation, the purer our mind will become - the more caring, kind and compassionate we will become. Inwardly we will become more detached, but outwardly we will grow in love and compassion for others.
Bhagavan was so kind and compassionate even to the hornets when his thigh brushed against their nest. He felt extreme remorse for an act which was not intentional. He let the hornets sting his thigh until they were fully satisfied. Since Bhagavan is that pure self-awareness shining in the heart of all, he saw himself in those hornets. He felt as those hornets felt.
So there is no contradiction between being kind and compassionate and following this path. If we are practising this path, the less we will like to cause harm to or hurt others. We will not be able to even see anyone hurt.
We will become indifferent to things for ourselves. Bhagavan had no desires and attachments, but when people used to come and tell him about their calamities – their husband or child has passed away – sometimes Bhagavan listening to such stories would shed tears. He is just like a mirror, so he felt all that other people felt.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-06-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston - discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 17 (1:34)
Reflections: Bhagavan’s life should melt even a person with a heart of stone. If it does not, we have not understood the greatness of Bhagavan. He is the pure-awareness shining in the heart of all from Vishnu down to a small ant or hornet. He feels our pain as we feel it, so he is ever ready to remove all our suffering. Bhagavan is another name for pure love and infinite compassion. We saw an inkling of such love and compassion while he was in his body.
Once we start following Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation, we start losing interest in all organised religions
In the comment section of Michael’s latest video, I wrote the following:
Sanjay: Deepawali is a Hindu festival. The friend who asked this question is a Hindu from India, and Michael is supposedly a Christian from the UK. Imagine a Hindu asking a Christian to explain the significance of their own Hindu festival. I am also a Hindu from India, but I have no shame in admitting that Michael knows more about the Hindu culture and Hindu way of life than I know about it.
Michael is more Indian, more Hindu, than most of the Hindus. He has totally soaked himself in the Hindu culture. We are fortunate to have him amongst us. He is explaining to us that which we should have already known but unfortunately, do not know or do not know enough.
In reply to this comment, Beejum wrote as follows:
Beejum: Sanjay Lohia *m James has never ever claimed to be a Christian nor for that matter any other religion
I have replied to him as follows:
Sanjay: Beejum Ittahb, yes, Michael is (or was) a Christian by birth; however, of late, I think, he is more Hindu than a Christian. This is how I see, but he may have a different opinion on this matter. However, even to say that he is more Hindu than a Christian is not correct because once we start following Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation, we start losing interest in all organised religions. It is because religions are the creation of our mind, but we are trying to transcend our mind by turning within. However, from another perspective, we are trying to follow the essence of all religions. Bhagavan explains this in verse 10 of Upadesa Undiyar:
Being [by] subsiding in the place from which one rose: that is karma and bhakti; that is yoga and jñāna.
In continuation of my conversation with Beejum:
Beejum gave his views in response to my reply to him. The following is what I have written in response to his reply:
Sanjay: Beejum Ittahb, as you say, like Buddha, a young Michael (in his 20s) left the comforts of his home and natural surroundings and went out in search of truth. This adventure finally brought him to Tiruvannamalai. He has said that he was just generally dissatisfied with things and so he wanted to find the real meaning to life. Yes, Christianity didn’t have the answers to his doubts and dilemmas; otherwise, why would he move out to find the real purpose of life?
I also sometimes wonder how a person can know so much. His knowledge and understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings are mind-boggling. He is a man in love – his only love being Bhagavan’s teaching. Bhagavan teaches us: Being [by] subsiding in the place from which one rose: that is karma and bhakti; that is yoga and jñāna.
What is this ‘one’ which rises? It is our ego. So our real birth is this arising of ego and its death will be our real death. Bhagavan is not concerned about our physical birth or death because these are all part of our dream. He is only concerned about the dreamer, namely ego. His entire teachings are centred on the need to investigate ego and to see that it does not exist. If this ego is destroyed, everything else will be destroyed along with it.
Sanjay,
you say "His entire teachings are centred on the need to investigate ego and to see that it does not exist. If this ego is destroyed, everything else will be destroyed along with it."
Will this ego ever have understanding that it would be in its own best interest and benefit to get annihilated ?
It seems this ego will ever refuse its assistance to get destroyed. Can we expect the ego to accept happily its death sentence ?
So it will never give its consent to its own destruction. What will we lose when we wait for its agreement and willingness to die ?
It should be clear that the ego has no business to be here at all.
Hi Josef:
you talk about the ego, tell stories about the ego. This is the ego talking about the ego.
Why don't you find some way of putting attention inward all the time as much as is possible?
How many hours per day do you meditate?
sanjay says: yes, Michael is (or was) a Christian by birth; however, of late, I think, he is more Hindu than a Christian. ...
Michael James corrupts Bhagavan's legacy by mixing it with Christianity.
MJ's emphasizes belief just as Christianity does. MJ emphasizes his rigid scriptural authority rather than direct experience.
There are numerous blogs such as "What should we believe? Why should be believe what Bhagavan taught us?"
Bhagavan's real teaching is about direct experience, not belief. Where did Bhagavan ever insist that people believe a certain way?
Hi Josef,
A quote by Bhagavan from "Conscious Immortality":
All lectures and books do little good and are of use only for beginners, to point out on the way. The real service is done in meditation. One sitting still and silent -- as mentioned in the poem by the Tamil saint Tayumanavar -- can influence a whole country. The force of meditation is infinitely more powerful than speech or writings. One who sits in silence meditating on the Self, will draw a whole lot of people to him without his going out to anyone.
Even books like the Bhagavad Gita, Light on the Path, must be given up to find the Self by looking within. Even the Gita says "meditate upon the self". It does not say, "Meditate upon the book, the Gita".
And a favorite quote from Lahiri Mahasaya from Yogananda's bio:
Solve all your problems through meditation. Exchange unprofitable religious speculations for actual God-contact. Clear your mind of dogmatic theological debris; let in the fresh, healing waters of direct perception. Attune yourself to the active inner Guidance. the Divine Voice has the answer to every dilemma of life. Through man's ingenuity for getting himself into trouble appears to be endless, the Infinite Succor is no less resourceful.
Some times we are taking friendly fire....
Hi Roger,
your explanations are a perfect example of how one could misinterpret Michael's writings.
I dislike saying it, but deliberate misinterpretation of Michael's articles is rather a mentally disturbed intention which does not promote a beneficial understanding of Bhagavan's teaching.
However your recommendation namely putting attention inward all the time or as much as possible is certainly a good one.
Regarding the number of hours of meditation may I report to you that I try to be self-attentive whole the day. Meditation in a sitting position I do not observe regularly.
But in some - perhaps too wide - intervals I feel that this poor practice is not sufficient and then I put in periods of intense and intensive looking inside.
Hi Josef,
You say that MJ's articles are the only truth and that to see anything different is a "mentally disturbed intention".
Or saying it differently: to challenge MJ's viewpoint is automatically a deliberate misinterpretation.
Even to consider a different perspective than what is officially approved by Michael James is "mentally disturbed".
Josef, you have the disease of "guru-itis". An inflammatory ego disease where one engages in conflict with the world proclaiming that "my guru has the only right way".
There can never be any single teaching which is the "only way" for all people for all time.
To claim that one has the "only way" (as Michael James does) is an egoic mental disturbance.
Roger,
again you show your disease of repeating your "only way" mantra.
Neither I nor Michael ever claimed that MJ's articles are the only truth or to have the "only truth" or "only way".
Different perspectives/viewpoints were categorically repudiated by MJ only when they rock the very foundations of Bhagavan's teachings.
Roger, you seem to be a hopeless case...
Take a step sideways, take a deep breath ...and all is okay. For heaven's sake do not persist in your dreadful and deadly monotony ! For what I had to emphatically criticize you was only your unparalleled repeated deliberate misinterpretation.