Why did Bhagavan sometimes say the heart is on the right side of the chest?
A friend sent me a WhatsApp message yesterday saying that while explaining the first verse of Saddarśanam someone had said, ‘Many ask why Ramana Maharshi stated that heart is on your right. It is because you think that it is on the left. Heart actually is where one experiences the existence as consciousness’. I understood this to mean that that person had implied that the right side of the chest is where one experiences existence as consciousness, so I replied accordingly, but later my friend clarified that what that person was trying to convey was that ‘ullam or heart is not on right or left or nothing to do with the position in the body, but where or what one experiences as consciousness — not the body or mental consciousness which many associate this word with’.
Saddarśanam is a Sanskrit translation (albeit a very inadequate and in many places seriously distorted translation) by Kavyakantha Ganapati Sastri of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, so the first verse of Saddarśanam is his translation of the first maṅgalam verse of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, in which Bhagavan said:
உள்ளதல துள்ளவுணர் வுள்ளதோ வுள்ளபொருWhat I replied to my friend is as follows:
ளுள்ளலற வுள்ளத்தே யுள்ளதா — லுள்ளமெனு
முள்ளபொரு ளுள்ளலெவ னுள்ளத்தே யுள்ளபடி
யுள்ளதே யுள்ள லுணர்.
uḷḷadala duḷḷavuṇar vuḷḷadō vuḷḷaporu
ḷuḷḷalaṟa vuḷḷattē yuḷḷadā — luḷḷameṉu
muḷḷaporu ḷuḷḷaleva ṉuḷḷattē yuḷḷapaḍi
yuḷḷadē yuḷḷa luṇar.
பதச்சேதம்: உள்ளது அலது உள்ள உணர்வு உள்ளதோ? உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல் அற உள்ளத்தே உள்ளதால், உள்ளம் எனும் உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல் எவன்? உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே உள்ளல். உணர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uḷḷadu aladu uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu uḷḷadō? uḷḷa-poruḷ uḷḷal-aṟa uḷḷattē uḷḷadāl, uḷḷam eṉum uḷḷa-poruḷ uḷḷal evaṉ? uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē uḷḷal. uṇar.
அன்வயம்: உள்ளது அலது உள்ள உணர்வு உள்ளதோ? உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல் அற உள்ளத்தே உள்ளதால், உள்ளம் எனும் உள்ள பொருள் எவன் உள்ளல்? உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே உள்ளல்; உணர்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): uḷḷadu aladu uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu uḷḷadō? uḷḷa-poruḷ uḷḷal-aṟa uḷḷattē uḷḷadāl, uḷḷam eṉum uḷḷa-poruḷ evaṉ uḷḷal? uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē uḷḷal; uṇar.
English translation: If what exists were not, would existing awareness exist? Since the existing substance exists in the heart without thought, how to think of the existing substance, which is called ‘heart’? Being in the heart as it is alone is thinking. Know.
Explanatory paraphrase: If uḷḷadu [what is or what exists] were not, would uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu [existing awareness, actual awareness or awareness of what is] exist? [Or: (1) Except as uḷḷadu, does uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu exist? (2) Other than uḷḷadu, is there awareness to think [of it, meditate on it or investigate it]?] Since uḷḷa-poruḷ [the existing substance or reality] exists in the heart without thought, how to [or who can] think of [meditate on or investigate] uḷḷa-poruḷ, which is called uḷḷam [the heart]? Being in the heart as it is [that is, as pure thought-free self-awareness] alone is thinking [of it, meditating on it, contemplating it, investigating it or revering it]. Know [or be aware] [of it as it is].
What Bhagavan says about heart in the first maṅgalam verse of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu has nothing to do with the body or the right side of the chest. He says it is ‘உள்ளல் அற’ (uḷḷal-aṟa), ‘without thought’, whereas the body, like everything else in the world, is just a thought.
This verse is extremely subtle and deep in meaning and implication, whereas what he said about the heart on the right is relatively gross and superficial, so we should not trivialise the deep meaning of this verse by associating it with the heart on the right.
The heart on the right is true relative only to the dēhātma-buddhi. When we mistake ourself to be a body, the dēhātma-buddhi (the false awareness ‘I am this body’) is experienced by us as centred on the right side of the chest, which is why we point there when referring to the body as ourself, and why when we experience any shock or strong emotion we feel a sensation there. We also sometimes experience a similar sensation there when we try to turn our attention back towards ourself, but that is because of our attachment to this body, the survival of which is threatened by keen self-attentiveness.
Therefore the right side of the chest is not where one experiences existence as consciousness (sat as cit), but where one experiences one’s dēhātma-buddhi centred.
The heart on the right has nothing to do with the core teachings of Bhagavan. He referred to the heart being on the right side of the chest only to satisfy those who were unwilling to give up thinking in terms of the body and who therefore asked him where in the body the heart is located and whether it is the same as the anāhata cakra.
However, in most cases where Bhagavan used the term heart, such as in the first maṅgalam verse of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, he was not referring to the right side of the chest but only to our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is sat-cit, our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, because that alone is the real heart, core or centre of ourself, and hence of all other things also. Therefore when he says in the first maṅgalam verse, ‘உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே உள்ளல்’ (uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē uḷḷal), ‘Being in the heart as it is alone is thinking [or meditating on it]’, he does not mean we should be in the right side of the chest, but only that we should be in and as உள்ள பொருள் (uḷḷa-poruḷ), the existing substance, which is our real nature, pure awareness.
679 comments:
Advaita is a name given to a very simple principle: ekam evadvityam (one only without the second)
A friend: People believe that Bhagavan was an advaitin. But Bhagavan’s teachings are much more broad-based than mere advaita. What do you say?
Michael: Advaita is concerned about knowing 'who am I?' or 'what am I?' So theism (that is, belief in God) is optional. So sometimes Bhagavan would say, 'if you believe God will do all that you want him to do, leave it all to God. If you don't trust God, investigate yourself'. So belief in God is not essential. However, because generally people have a concept about God, Advaita says that God is nothing other than you. You are that. People who believe in God believe that God is something great. He is infinite. If God is infinite, we cannot be other than him. So he must be what we actually are. So for advaita, God is nothing other than oneself: oneself means our real nature.
Even the atheist believes ‘I am’. So Bhagavan doesn’t believe than an atheist is an atheist. So long as you believe in ‘I am’ you believe in God because there is no God other than ‘I am’. The people who believe they are atheists have merely rejected certain concepts about God, but nobody can deny that ‘I am’. OK, some philosophers deny ‘I am’, but who is denying ‘I am’? I am denying ‘I am’. How can I deny my own existence? So ‘I am’ has to exist in order for one to be a philosopher and to deny one’s own existence. So, philosophers sometimes get very very confused.
Bhagavan’s teachings are the core of advaita principles, and they are perfectly logical and reasonable. Now we take ourself to be this person. Bhagavan by simple arguments shows us that we cannot be this person because we experience ourself in sleep without experiencing this person. So we cannot be this person. That’s simple logic. If two things are identical, what is true for one must be true of the other because they are actually not two things but one thing. So if we and this body are one, we couldn’t be aware of ourself without being aware of this body. The fact that we are aware of ourself without being aware of ourself as this body means logically we cannot be this body.
Most philosophers including the atheists believe in the existence of the world. Bhagavan says why should you believe that the world exists independent of your perception of it? Why should you believe that the world is anything but a dream? What evidence do you have? Just like atheists say there is no evidence that there is a God, there is equally no evidence that there is a world except in my mind. You cannot say anything exists independent of your perception of it. So Bhagavan is as logical as one can possibly be.
Bhagavan often used to say, ‘Do not believe what you do not know’. We do not know that the world exists in sleep. We don’t know that the world exists independent of our perception of it. So why should we believe these things?
Advaita is a name given to a very simple principle: ekam evadvityam (one only without the second). That’s the principle of advaita. How then to explain the appearance of multiplicity? Bhagavan has given us the simplest possible explanation which is in perfect accord with our experience. When ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence. When ego does not exist, nothing exists. That’s our experience. In waking and dream, we rise as this ego, so we see this or some other world. In sleep, we don’t rise as ego and there are no phenomena. Generally, we assume though we don’t see the phenomena is sleep, they are still there. But why should we believe they exist independent of ourself?
So, advaita is the name given to the philosophy that there is only one without a second and that we are that.
• Edited extract from the video: 2020-06-13 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses the practice of self-investigation (1:53)
Sanjay,
thank you for your recent video-transcription-extract.
Regarding the Sanskrit words in the heading: Michael's spelling is usually 'ēkam ēva advitīyam' (one only without a second).
Sanjay,
only a little typo, but made not seldom, is typing 'is' instead of 'in'.
Here it should be: "Generally, we assume though we don’t see the phenomena in sleep,...".
Anadi-ananda, I thank you for correcting my typos. I will remember to spell 'ēkam ēva advitīyam' correctly in future. Yes, it should be ‘in’ and not ‘is’.
If we put our trust in him, he will never let us down
Michael: Bhagavan is shining in our heart. He is guiding us from within. He knows the appropriate type of understanding to give us, and he is constantly making our understanding deeper and subtler. As we proceed along the path, our understanding will evolve. It will become clearer and more correct. So let us follow the guidance he is giving us. We should have full faith and trust in Bhagavan.
A friend: Yes, Michael, it is about trust. I fully trust that I am being guided by Bhagavan.
Michael: Ya, ya.. That’s the important thing. We shouldn't believe anything else but should believe Bhagavan. He alone will save us. If we put our trust in him, he will never let us down.
The friend: Thank you very much, Michael. I love you.
• Edited extract from the video: 2020-06-21 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses the appropriate attitude towards injustices (01:22)
My reflection: If we put our trust in Bhagavan, he will never let us down.
Bhagavan is constantly refining and evolving our understanding. So very true! The more we practice self-investigation, the more our understanding will grow. The more we read and reflect on Bhagavan’s teachings, the more our understanding will grow. The more we read Michael and listen to his videos, the more our understanding will grow. And the more our understanding grows, the deeper we can go within in our practice . . .
And, yes, I too whole-heartedly love Michael. He is without any least doubt the most wonderful person I know. My admiration for him knows no bounds. He is my teacher, who is teaching me something new every day.
Ego is the only daemon
Ego is the only daemon. There is no daemon other than ego. All our problems are caused by ego, but ego is not something other than ourself. What we experience as ourself - that is ego. That is why we need to surrender ourself completely.
• Edited extract from the video: 2020-06-21 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses the appropriate attitude towards injustices (01:08)
My reflection: Ego is the only daemon, and this daemon can be killed only by Bhagavan. In our context, Bhagavan means the power of keen and sustained self-attentiveness. So, only self-attentiveness can destroy this ego-daemon. Since all problems are caused only by this daemon-ego, if this ego goes all our problems will be destroyed along with this ego. Bhagavan has made this absolutely simple and clear!
The heart on the right has nothing to do with the core teachings of Bhagavan
Michael writes in this article:
Therefore the right side of the chest is not where one experiences existence as consciousness (sat as cit), but where one experiences one’s dēhātma-buddhi centred.
The heart on the right has nothing to do with the core teachings of Bhagavan. He referred to the heart being on the right side of the chest only to satisfy those who were unwilling to give up thinking in terms of the body and who therefore asked him where in the body the heart is located and whether it is the same as the anāhata cakra.
However, in most cases where Bhagavan used the term heart, such as in the first maṅgalam verse of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, he was not referring to the right side of the chest but only to our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is sat-cit, our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, because that alone is the real heart, core or centre of ourself, and hence of all other things also. [End of Michael’s quote]
My reflection: As Michael says, ‘I am’ alone is the real heart. That alone is the centre or core of ourself, and hence of all other things. I have heard and read people say that self-enquiry means concentrating on the right side of the chest and such things, but this is a complete misinterpretation of Bhagavan’s teachings. In the context of Bhagavan’s teachings, we should take 'heart' to mean atma-svarupa. Bhagavan is our real heart because he is the centre of our life in all possible ways.
Real heart is the place which is devoid of all thoughts including the root of all thoughts, this ego. This body is nothing but a thought, an idea in our mind, so the right side of the chest is also a thought. Bhagavan wants us to reject all thoughts by focusing wholly on the thinker. If we focus our attention on the right side of the chest or anywhere in the body, we are keeping both the thinker and its thoughts alive. Ego, which is thinker, has to exist to attend to the right side of the chest. So this is not what Bhagavan wants us to do.
Bhagavan wants us to focus our entire attention on ourself or on our real heart, which is devoid of the thinker and thoughts. If we miss this crucial point, we will misapply Bhagavan’s teachings in practice.
Claiming a separate existence for ourself is robbing or stealing what belongs to God
So long as we rise as ego and experience ourself as a person, we seem to be something other than God, or God seems to be something other than ourself. But if God is the infinite whole, how can we be other than God? So claiming a separate existence for ourself is robbing or stealing what belongs to God. That is, we have no existence apart from or independent of or separate from God. So claiming a separate existence is stealing from God.
So if we truly love God, we should want to give ourself completely back to him. We should want to lose ourself completely in him. But we cannot do so as long as we rise as ego because as ego we experience ourself as a person, and therefore experience ourself as if we were something separate from God. But if God is the infinite whole, nothing is other than him. He is our very existence. He is our real self. He is what we actually are.
But now take ourself to be a person. This ego is nothing but a wrong awareness of ourself. Therefore, we can surrender ego only by being aware of ourself as we actually are. That is, in order to destroy the false awareness of ourself, we need to be aware of ourself as we actually are. And in order to be aware of ourself as we actually are, we need to turn our attention within to investigate ourself. That is why Bhagavan says in the 13th paragraph of Nan Ar?:
Being ātma-niṣṭhāparaṉ [one who is completely fixed in and as oneself], giving not even the slightest room to the rising of any cintana [thought] other than ātma-cintana [thought of oneself], alone is giving oneself to God.
Only when we turn our attention within and look at ourself keenly will we experience ourself as we actually are, and ego is thereby dissolved and what remains is God alone. So self-surrender becomes complete only by the means of self-investigation.
• Edited extract from the video: 2020-06-21 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses the appropriate attitude towards injustices (01:13)
My reflection: As Michael says, ‘claiming a separate existence for ourself is robbing or stealing what belongs to God. That is, we have no existence apart from or independent of or separate from God. So claiming a separate existence is stealing from God’.
So we are the greatest sinner because we have committed the greatest sin of stealing what rightfully belongs to God. That is, what we believe is our separate existence is actually misappropriating God's existence. It is because we do not really exist. Our separate existence is a false idea stolen from God's infinite existence.
Sanjay,
"Our separate existence is a false idea stolen from God's infinite existence."
If that is true then the omnipotent God must have grined and borne it.
Such a robbery is at best a metaphorical story because obviously the infinite God has not made any loss from that (robbery). :-)
(it should be "But now we take ourself to be a person.")
Michael,
"English translation: [...].Since the existing substance exists in the heart without thought, how to think of the existing substance, which is called ‘heart’?"
So does that mean that the 'heart' (namely the existing substance) exists in the heart (itself)?
Michael,
"Explanatory paraphrase: If uḷḷadu [what is or what exists] were not, would uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu [existing awareness, actual awareness or awareness of what is] exist? [Or: (1) Except as uḷḷadu, does uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu exist? (2) Other than uḷḷadu, is there awareness to think [of it, meditate on it or investigate it]?] Since uḷḷa-poruḷ [the existing substance or reality] exists in the heart without thought, how to [or who can] think of [meditate on or investigate] uḷḷa-poruḷ, which is called uḷḷam [the heart]? Being in the heart as it is [that is, as pure thought-free self-awareness] alone is thinking [of it, meditating on it, contemplating it, investigating it or revering it]. Know [or be aware] [of it as it is]."
Am I right in the supposition that the four terms
uḷḷadu [what is or what exists]
uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu [existing awareness, actual awareness or awareness of what is]
uḷḷa-poruḷ [the existing substance or reality]
uḷḷam [the heart]
are one and the same, albeit they may differ in their functions ?
Many things Bhagavan says are metaphorical because the truth lies beyond thoughts and words
A friend: Bhagavan says ‘turn within’. What does ‘within’ mean in this context? And what does ‘outwards’ mean?
Michael: Everything other than ourself is outside. Everything which is not ‘I’ is 'out'. So everything other than ourself is, metaphorically speaking, outside ourself. So, all the five sheaths are outside. All thoughts, feelings, emotions, everything is outside ourself. Outside means extraneous or external to ourself. So, we alone are within.
Everything other than ourself is just a projection. Of course, it is all projected within awareness, so it couldn't exist without awareness. But these are all shadows appearing within awareness.
The friend: But you said in the beginning that self is everything.
Michael: Self is not everything. Self is the only thing. We are pure awareness, and pure awareness is the light. We are looking for that light. That is, we ourself are the light that illumines all these things. So when Bhagavan talks about ‘turning within’, he means turning towards ‘I’.
There is a term Bhagavan often used in Tamil ‘ahamukham’. Mukham means ‘facing’, and aham has two meanings in Tamil. One meaning is ‘inside’ or ‘home’, and another meaning is ‘I’. It’s the Sanskrit first-person pronoun ‘I’. So ahamukham means ‘facing within’ and it also means ‘facing towards I’. Both actually mean the same because what Bhagavan means by within is only ‘I’. Anything that appears and disappears is external to ourself – external means it is extraneous to ourself, something other than ourself.
So when Bhagavan talks about ‘turning within’, he means ‘turning towards I’. For example, Bhagavan sings in verse 44 of Arunachala Aksaramanamalai:
Turning within see yourself with your inner eye; it will be known - thus you taught me my Arunachala.
tirumbi yahan means ‘turning within’. danai dinam aha kan kan means ‘see yourself with your inner eye’. teriyam means ‘it will be known’. Thus you taught me my Arunachala. So the implication is if we turn within, what we see is only ourself because everything other than ourself is, metaphorically speaking, outside ourself.
Of course, nothing can exist independent of ourself because they all appear within our awareness. But so long as we rise as ego, we are the perceiver and everything else is the things perceived by us. We are the subject and everything else is objects. So, all objects are outside the subject, metaphorically speaking. So we have to turn back to face ourself alone. So that’s what Bhagavan means by ‘turning within’. Facing or attending to anything other than ourself is, metaphorically speaking, facing outwards.
The friend: Yes, thank you, Michael. The word ‘metaphorically’ has cleared my misunderstanding.
Michael: Yes, because many things Bhagavan says are metaphorical because the truth lies beyond the thoughts and words. So no words can adequately express what Bhagavan is pointing to. So Bhagavan speaks metaphorically quite often. We have to understand the sense in which he is using the words.
• Edited extract from the video: 2020-06-21 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses the appropriate attitude towards injustices (01:57)
My reflection: In the beginning, I used to feel that ‘turning within’ means ‘turning within the body’. This is a crude way of understanding the statement ‘turning within’. We are not actually turning within the body, but we are turning within to face ourself alone. So actually we are rejecting our body and mind and everything when we try to turn back within. This body is outside ourself, so we are not turning within the body, even though it may seem that is what we are doing when we are turning within.
So we need to clearly understand what does ‘turning within’ mean. Therefore, this conversation with Michael is extremely useful because Michael makes it clear that turning within means becoming ahamukham, and aham means both ‘within’ and ‘I’.
Sanjay,
"...but we are turning within to face ourself alone."
'Facing ourself alone' is an exiting read. Indeed.
To come across oneself as the bare awareness 'I am' must be a cheering experience.
What we are looking for is ‘who am I?’ Everything else is just a distraction (Part One)
A friend: Nisargadatta Maharaj used to smoke. How can a realised being smoke and have other addictions?
Michael: We cannot judge who is a realised being and who is not. So long as we do not know what we actually are, how can we know about the state of others? I believe, Nisargadatta implied that he had attained some sort of self-knowledge and no doubt he genuinely believed it. However, what we call ‘realisation’ is a state of the complete dissolution of ego.
According to Bhagavan, those who say either ‘I have known myself’ or ‘I have not known myself’, both are ground for ridicule. When we are always aware of ourself, it cannot be true to say ‘I have not known myself’. Since we are always aware of ourself as ‘I am’, we are always aware of ourself. The problem is what we are now aware of ourself as something other than what we actually are. And when ego is eradicated, who is left to say ‘I have realised myself’? That is when ego is annihilated, what remains is just pure awareness, and pure awareness will never say ‘I have known myself’ or ‘I have not known myself’. So Bhagavan says ‘saying I have known myself or I have not known myself, both are equally ridiculous’.
So labelling others as jnanis or ajnanis is futile. In a dream, we may see many people, and we may believe that some of them are jnanis and some are ajnanis, but when we wake up from the dream, we will know that they were all figments of our imagination. According to Bhagavan, our present state is just a dream. So all the people we currently see, including the person we seem to be, is a figment of our imagination. What is real is only ‘I am’. So to think in terms of a realised person shows a fundamental misunderstanding. There is no such thing as a ‘realised person’. That is, ‘realisation’ only means knowing ourself as we actually are.
Bhagavan never said, ‘I am a jnani. Come to me and I will save you’. He said, ‘You are the jnani. Go within and save yourself’. So the truth we are seeking cannot be found outside in any other person. We can find the truth only within ourself because we ourself are the truth we are seeking. So why should we be concerned about whether Nisargadatta was a jnani or not a jnani, or whether he smoked or whatever. These things need not concern us at all.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited extract from the video: 2020-06-21 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses the appropriate attitude towards injustices (01:35)
What we are looking for is ‘who am I?’ Everything else is just a distraction (Part two)
In continuation of my previous comment:
Michael: If at all we are concerned about Nisargadatta, we should try to know what he actually taught. Is that useful or not? There are many many differences in what Bhagavan taught and what Nisargadatta taught. Many things that Nisargadatta taught are not at all compatible with Bhagavan’s teachings, so I am not at all interested in Nisargadatta.
Even if what he taught us is same as Bhagavan, why do we need it? Is not Bhagavan’s teaching sufficient for us? So, if we understand Bhagavan correctly, there is nothing more for us to learn from outside. Even if we find some other guru, the real guru will tell us only one thing: turn within and know yourself. Bhagavan has taught us that so clearly in so many ways. That is the role of the outward guru.
Bhagavan has said that the real guru is what is shining in us as ‘I’. So the guidance we are seeking, we need to seek within ourself. Bhagavan’s teachings in words are there to encourage us and to help in many ways. But ultimately, his words serve one purpose and one purpose alone; that is, turning our attention within. That is the sole purpose of all that he taught us. So what we have to do? We have to try our best to turn within.
So Bhagavan taught us ‘turn within’. So if we are really following Bhagavan’s teachings, we should understand that what we are looking for can be found only within ourself. So let anyone smoke or drink or take drugs or do anything, that’s no concern of ours. What we are looking for is ‘who am I?’ Everything else is just a distraction.
• Edited extract from the video: 2020-06-21 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses the appropriate attitude towards injustices (01:35)
Goodness gracious ! Salazar trumpetes "That is just the incorrect view of immature aspirants." because he seriously considers himself as a mature aspirant always being in sole possession of the only true view. Oh great !
The idea of making progress is a distraction
The idea of making progress is a distraction. Any idea is something other than ourself. Why should we think about whether we are making progress or not? All Bhagavan asked us to do is to put it into practice now. Try to turn within. If we are turning within, we won't be thinking about progress. If we are thinking about progress, our attention is facing outwards, not inwards.
• Edited extract from the video: 2020-04-26b Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses eradicating ego and doership (12:00)
My reflection: Sometime back I foolishly felt that my ego was about to subside and vanish forever. In other words, I foolishly felt that I have made enough progress now, and therefore this ego is about to die soon. I felt this way because I could see that my self-attentiveness was becoming deeper and at times I was finding myself reluctant to leave the peace of deep self-attentiveness. I even foolishly told my wife that I feel my ego was about to subside forever. Of course, all this was a delusion, a mere play of maya. When I shared all this Michael, this is what he wrote back:
In a dream would you tell the people you see there that you think you are about to wake up? If you have truly understood that it is just a dream, you would have no inclination to announce it to others, and you do have such an inclination, then you have not truly understood that it is a dream.
So as sadhakas we may sometimes feel that we are making good progress, or may even feel that our ego is about to die soon, as I had felt. However, we should reject all such ideas because all such ideas are a distraction. Such ideas will keep our attention on those ideas, and therefore we will not be doing what we are supposed to be doing, which is to always keep our attention turned within.
So instead of thinking about progress, ‘we just need to continue patiently and humbly following the path that Bhagavan has shown us’, as Michael once wrote in an email to me.
Sanjay,
"Try to turn within."
What we will find 'inside' is always the crux of the matter.
Different persons experience different things inside - depending on the intenseness of that turning within and of their actual maturity.
All the people we love are actually nothing but our real nature, so they never actually leave us
If we are true devotees of Bhagavan, we will be happy. It doesn’t matter what happens. We undergo so many experiences in life – some pleasant and some unpleasant. Death comes to our loves ones sooner or later, but all these things are part of our dream. Moreover, if we accept that whatever happens in life is for our ultimate spiritual good, we will be happy amidst all our dream happenings.
The nature of the world is misery. Bhagavan says when the world appears, the mind experiences misery. The more we surrender ourself, the less weight we will give to this world, the less importance we will give to the person we seen to be, and therefore happier we will be.
If we accept all that happens as given to us by Bhagavan for our ultimate liberation, we can experience happiness underlying under even the most miserable experiences of life. One of the greatest miseries of life is someone very dear to us leaves us for good. We all experience such bereavement sooner or later. However, even in the midst of that, we should find joy because nothing actually is ever lost or gained. It is because what actually exists is only infinite happiness, which is our own nature. So all the people we love are actually nothing but our real nature.
So, our near and dear ones never actually leave us. They are always with us, but instead of seeing them outside we must turn within and see them as they actually are – which is our own real nature.
So if we are truly following Bhagavan’s path instead of seeing happiness outside, we have to really seek it within ourself. All that we love outside actually comes from within. So if we want to experience the full happiness, the full joy, the full love, we have to turn within because infinite love and infinite happiness is our real nature.
So Bhagavan asks only one thing of us. He doesn’t ask anything else. He just asks us to be happy, but how to be happy amidst all this misery of life? We can do so only by turning within, by surrendering to Bhagavan.
• Edited extract from the video: 2019-01-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 14 (00:45)
My reflection: We will sooner or later lose our loved ones, or they will sooner or later lose us. So this separation from our loved ones is inevitable. But we should remember that all those whom we love are nothing other than our real nature. They exist in us as our own self, and since we can never be separated from ourself, we will actually never be separated from our near and dear ones.
This is easy to understand, but I believe the pain of separation with our spouse or child or such near and dear ones will be quite traumatising. If I lose my wife before I die, for example, how will I take it? It is hard to imagine, but surely I will be devastated. So we need to prepare ourself for such eventualities. We need to reduce our attachments and dependence of our near and dear ones. How? We can do so most effectively by turning within more and more.
The more we become established in our true self, the more we give up our ego nature, the more detached we will become from our near and dear ones. And when we lose this ego in the infinite clarity of pure self-awareness, we will lose all our attachments completely. If we cut our identification with the person we seem to be, we also cut all our other attachments forever. So from here onwards, no bereavement can ever touch us because we will experience no loss when our near and dear pass away.
Anadi-ananta, you say, ‘What we will find 'inside' is always the crux of the matter’. Yes, only what is inside is the real crux of the matter. Everything outside of us is mere shadows, here today, gone tomorrow. So we should value only that which is inside, and reject everything which is outside of us. Only this crux inside is permanent, eternal and immutable. Only this crux inside is happiness, everything outside is misery.
Actually I am very eager to correctly practise vichara. Then it will not in the far distance to "know vichara and the nature of self". Why should a champion in spelling not succeed also in practising vichara ? :-)
Salazar,
the seeming semantic problem is solved if one replaces the verb "experience" with "being aware of" and the seeming semantic problem is . For the same purpose the noun "experience" can be exchanged for "awareness of".
It is expressed differently in different religions, but self-surrender is fundamental to any type of spiritual practice
We can surrender ourself long before we come to the path of self-investigation. But we can surrender ourself only partially through other means. Actually, self-surrender is the underlying practice of most types of spiritual practices. It is expressed differently in different religions, but self-surrender is fundamental. So whether you are a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Jain or whatever, giving oneself up is the underlying practice in all religions.
In the early stages of self-surrender, we are trying to surrender our will to the will of God. Like they say in the Christian prayer ‘thy will be done’, Bhagavan has also sung to Arunachala ‘your will is my will; that itself is happiness’. So we are surrendering our will to the will of God or whatever. Some people think in terms of God, or if you don’t have a particularly theistic view of the world, we can say ‘accepting things as they are’.
We think we can change things in the world. We think we can obtain happiness by doing this or that, but actually, things happen as they are meant to happen. People say they want to be in control. So many things happen in our life over which we have no control. Things happen to us, and accepting these things, giving up our likes and dislikes, finding contentment and satisfaction in things as they are, this is the beginning of the path of surrender.
So surrender begins by giving up our likes and dislikes, our desires, our hopes, our fears – in other words surrendering our will. But we can never surrender our will without surrendering the one who has the will. That is, the will is ego’s will, so eventually, we need to surrender our ego for our surrender to be complete.
• Edited extract from the video: 2019-01-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 14 (50:00)
Salazar,
of course 'being that' is said to be our real nature. Nevertheless, the everyday level of ego/person as our starting point shows usually a different face which is not free of thoughts and where is no "impersonal happiness".
(incidental remark regarding my last comment: sorry, I forgot to remove the final words "and the seeming semantic problem is").
To the extent we turn our attention within, to that extent ego is subsiding and its desires and attachments are dropping off
To the extent we turn our attention within, to that extent ego is subsiding and its desires and attachments are dropping off. Only when this ego doesn’t rise even to the slightest extent are we truly just being.
We can close our mouth, close our eyes, and sit like a rock. We can try to stop our mind from going outwards, but so long as we are feeling ‘I am meditating’. ‘I am keeping quiet’, ‘I am doing this’, ‘I am doing that’, ego is still there. It is the non-rising as ego that is true surrender.
So whatever the body, speech or mind is doing, that is all outward, whereas surrender is inward. We can surrender whatever the body, speech and mind may be doing outwardly, but we can inwardly surrender only by turning our mind back within.
• Edited extract from the video: 2019-01-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 14 (01:30)
Just like the paramesvara shakti is taking care of our inner world, it is likewise also taking care of this outer world
The following is the reproduction of my Whatsapp exchange with my one of my friends:
Sanjay Lohia: Michael James: People say, they want to be in control. So many things happen in our life over which we have no control. Things happen to us, and accepting these things, giving up our likes and dislikes, finding contentment and satisfaction in things as they are, this is the beginning of the path of surrender.
My friend: Just look at our own body inside. It is a factory. So much going on. We have no control at all. Surrender only works. Namo Ramana
Sanjay Lohia: Yes, agree. We can hardly control anything within our body. All the physiological functions inside us are taking place by our pranic shakti, which is just an extension of the paramesvara shakti (the one supreme power). Just like this paramesvara shakti is taking care of our inner world, it is likewise also taking care of this outer world. This ego which we now seem to be is in control of nothing.
By identifying Bhagavan’s teachings as Adviata, we are not identifying it with the unnecessary complexities of Advaita but with the basic principles of Advaita (part one)
A friend: Bhagavan approved many teachings of Christianity and Buddhism. So his teachings are much more than mere Adviata. So why should we say that Bhagavan taught Advaita?
Michael: There are many complicated explanations given in Advaita. Bhagavan has simplified it all. If ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence. If ego doesn’t exist, then nothing exists. Simple! What is ego? When we investigate it, it disappears. What can be simpler than this?
Another thing that has led to the complication in Advaita is that Advaita says that the problem is avidya (ignorance), and the solution to avidya (ignorance) is vidya (knowledge). This has been interpreted in so many ways by the advaitins. According to their own level of understanding, they understand these terms in their own sense. Avidya means non awareness of our real nature. So the nature of ego is avidya, and what is vidya (the correct awareness of ourself) will remove avidya. So avidya is not some book knowledge as many take it to be.
According to Bhagavan, vidya is awareness of ourself as we actually are, and we can be aware of ourself as we actually are only by turning within. So Bhagavan has really simplified both the theory and practice of Advaita. He brought it back to its pristine origin, to its fundamental principles. Bhagavan’s only concern is self-investigation and self-surrender because that is the means to gain vidya, to know ourself as we actually are.
So by identifying Bhagavan’s teachings as Adviata, we are not identifying it with the unnecessary complexities of Advaita but with the basic principles of Advaita. But when we identify Bhagavan’s teachings with Advaita, we are not doing so in a sectarian way, in an exclusive way. Advaita is the simple truth.
If we accept ‘I am’, the simple truth, we are already half-way through Advaita.
In verse 37 of Ulladu Narpadu, Bhagavan teaches us:
Even the contention that declares, ‘Duality only in spiritual practice, non-duality in attainment’, is not true. Both when one is eagerly searching and when one has found oneself, who indeed is one other than the tenth man?
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited extract from the video: 2020-06-13 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses the practice of self-investigation (2:01)
By identifying Bhagavan’s teachings as Adviata, we are not identifying it with the unnecessary complexities of Advaita but with the basic principles of Advaita (part two)
In continuation of my previous comment:
The friend: Can we use 'Ellam Ondre' instead of Advaita?
Michael: Ellam Ondre means ‘all is one’, but there is no ‘all’. There is only one. If by ‘all is one’ we mean ‘all these things are one’, that is a bit confusing. If we mean ‘all there is, is only one’, that is correct. That is Advaita because Advaita is, philosophically speaking, a very special kind of monism.
Generally, monism means ‘all things are basically one thing’. One form of monism is Physicalism, which means that basically, all things are one thing: that is, all things are physical. Another kind of monism is Idealism, which means that basically, all things are one thing: that is, all things are mental.
However, Advaita doesn’t recognise the existence of all things. Advaita says there is one thing without a second. So Advaita is the most radical form of monism. It denies the existence of everything other than the one. It says everything else is just an appearance. This is vivarta vada, which means everything is just an appearance.
Ultimately, Bhagavan says the truth is not even vivarta vada. Ultimately, the truth is ajata, which means nothing has ever appeared.
The friend: Buddhists say everything is nothing. It is totally empty.
Michael: Even to say everything is totally empty is not exactly true. There is at least one thing, otherwise, we wouldn’t be here talking. The manyness could be an appearance, but the oneness is what is real.
• Edited extract from the video: 2020-06-13 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses the practice of self-investigation (2:01)
Regarding the allegory of the tenth missing person, Michael James had posted about this earlier on Sunday, 4 March 2007 "Non-duality is the truth even when duality appears to exist"
What happens to ego when one dies? (part one)
A friend: What happens to ego is sleep?
Michael: Nothing happens to ego in sleep. Ego is something that happens in waking and dream. In waking and dream, ego rises and dances around, and when it ceases dancing what remains is just pure awareness. If ego is something that exists, we have to give some explanations to ‘What happens to ego is sleep? Does it go and hide in a hole?’ It doesn’t exist at all.
It seems to exist in waking and dream. It doesn’t exist in sleep. Sleep is a state of absolute non-happening. Nothing happens in sleep because there are no phenomena in sleep. There is neither the perceived nor the perceived.
THe friend: What happens to ego when we die?
Michael: What happens to ego when a dream comes to an end? You have two options: either you fall asleep or you come to another dream. Exactly the same thing happens after death. Either temporarily you remain in sleep or you immediately grasp some other form and begin dreaming again. What we call ‘death’ is just an ending of a dream.
But even if we sleep after death, whatever sleep we have will not last very long because we have not eradicated ego. So we want eternal sleep, and to get that eternal sleep we have to get rid of ego by seeing what we actually are.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited extract from the video: 2019-01-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 14 (02:03)
What happens to ego when one dies? (part two)
The friend: Does ego retains its identity when it re-emerges?
Michael: Every time it emerges, it emerges with an identity, one identity or another. What we call our present life is a big dream divided into so many smaller chunks. It is because we fall asleep and we come back to this dream again. So the whole of our life we should consider one dream, and within that one dream, there are many many dreams. Every night we fall asleep and within our dream, we have so many dreams. So we have dreams within dreams within dreams.
The friend: So if another dream emerges after death, will it continue some of the qualities which were there previously?
Michael: Yes, what will continue is our will, our likes and dislikes, our desires and attachments, our hopes and fear and so on. The seeds of all this are called vasanas. These vasanas come with us.
Ego is like a General and vasanas are like its army. Every time the army goes out to fight a war, the General leads it and it every war some of the soldiers get killed. But the General cannot remain without his army. So he recruits new soldiers. So over the course of time, our vasanas may be changing, but ego remains the same.
• Edited extract from the video: 2019-01-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 14 (02:03)
My reflection: Michael said in another video:
‘Ego consists of a real aspect and an unreal aspect. Ego doesn’t have part but aspects. One aspect of it is ‘I am’, which is pure awareness. The other aspect of this is ‘this body’, which s unreal. So if we want to know what we actually are, we have to do hold on to ‘I am’, that is to the real element of ego. So if we are holding on to ‘I am’, we are holding on to our real nature.
Sanjay,
many thanks for your recent video-transcription (• Edited extract from the video: 2019-01-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK).
You presumably wanted to write:
part one:
"What happens to ego in sleep?"
"There is neither the perceiver nor the perceived."
part two:
"Does ego retain its identity when it re-emerges?"
"...and in every war some of the soldiers get killed."
Anadi-ananta, I thank you for pointing out my typos. Out of the four typos you have pointed out, three are obvious typos, but I am not sure about the fourth one.
That is, I wrote: ‘Does ego retains its identity when it re-emerges?’ You believe that it should be ‘Does ego retain its identity when it re-emerges?’ Even the questioner had said ‘retain’ and not ‘retains’, so in this sense, it is a typo. But I am not sure whether the correct usage should be ‘retain’ or ‘retains’.
According to my understanding, since ‘ego’ is a singular noun, it should be followed by a plural verb ‘retains’. Maybe someone with a better grasp of English grammar will help clarify this. Thanks.
Michael: When practising self-investigation, I have to look at the ‘I am’ aspect of ‘I am Michael’
A friend: Is self-investigation a two-way process? Do you first have to look at ego and then our real self?
Michael: No, self-investigation is not a two-way process. It’s not first seeing ego and then seeing the real self. We are all aware of ego. We all say ‘I’, ‘I’, ‘I’, ‘I’. We all say ‘I am sitting’, ‘I am talking’, ‘I am angry’, ‘I am sad’, ‘I am this’, ‘I am that’. So ‘I’ is the centre of our world. So we are all aware of ‘I’.
However, instead of being aware of ‘I’ as it actually is, we are aware of ourself as ‘I am this or that’. I am aware of myself as ‘I am Michael’. Michael is not I actually am. But so long as I am aware of myself as Michael, I have to look at the ‘I am’ aspect of ‘I am Michael’. The more I look at ‘I am’, the less I will look at Michael. Michael means not only the physical body of Michael but all his thoughts, feelings, desires, hopes, fears everything.
Who or what is it that is saying ‘I am Michael’? Who is the perceiver of all these phenomena? So we turn our attention back towards ‘I’ and that’s all we need to attend to. If we focus on this ‘I’, all the phenomena, all its adjuncts will drop off, and what will remain is the pure ‘I’ which we actually are.
So there is no two-state process. There is only one thing there. It seems to be a snake, but if you look at it carefully, you see it’s just a rope. There never was a snake there. So if we look at ego carefully enough, we will see that what actually exists is just pure awareness. Nothing else is there at all. There never was an ego, there never was a world, a body or anything. What exists is just pure awareness, and we are that.
• Edited extract from the video: 2019-01-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 14 (02:01)
Sanjay Lohia, In case you are writing a book in the near future you have none other than the ever reliable and meticulous Josef Bruckner to check for correct spelling, grammar etc.
Sanjay,
regarding the interrogative clause "Does ego retain its identity when it re-emerges?",
Because you are not sure whether the correct usage should be ‘retain’ or ‘retains’.
According English grammar:
a.) If you use the present simple in the spelling of the third person singular (he,she,it) as a general rule an 's' is coupled to the basic form/infinitive of the verb (here:retain).
However, to form a question in the present simple you need the auxiliary verb 'do' and the 's' is not coupled to the verb (here:retain) but to the auxiliary verb 'do'.
b.) The subject (here: ego) determines the form of the following verb in number and person. Therefore the predicate (here: retain accompanied by the auxiliary verb do) always includes a conjugated verb form which must fit in number and person to the subject. Because 'ego' is a singular noun in the third person therefore the auxiliary verb form 'do' must be transformed to 'does'.
So when you say "since ‘ego’ is a singular noun, it should be followed by a plural verb ‘retains’, you are badly mistaken.:-)
It is sufficient if we save ourself
The following are some of the things Michael said in yesterday’s Zoom meeting of RMF UK. I have paraphrased whatever he said according to whatever I remember him saying:
(1) Michael: It is sufficient if we save ourself. If this one ego wakes up, that is sufficient.
My reflection: What Michael implies is that we shouldn't bother about this world or about the other egos in this world. Let them wake up or remain sleeping. It should not bother us. Our only concern should be that we wake up to the reality or we save ourself. How do we save ourself? We can do so only by surrendering this ego, and ego can be surrendered only by turning fully within and by experiencing ourself as we actually are.
(2) Michael: As long as we take ourself to be a body, we are no better than a vegetable.
My reflection: I think Michael said this in response to someone telling him that it seems that being self-attentive all the time will seem like remaining as a vegetable. Michael said it is the opposite. That is, as long as we take ourself to be a body, we are no better than a vegetable. Why? It is because our bodies are made of the plants we eat, so this body is a modified vegetable so to speak. Secondly, when someone goes into a coma and is not in a position to recover, we say that they have become like a vegetable. So as long as we take ourself to be a body, we are no better than living corpses or like the people who have become like vegetables.
(3) Michael: We need to dig the well deeper and deeper and deeper until we find water. We need to dig it one place instead of digging a bit here, then digging some bit there and so on. That is, we need to follow only the one set of teachings and go deep into it, instead of following bits and pieces of different teachings.
My reflections: I believe, what Michael implied is that if we are following Bhagavan’s teachings, we should go deep into his teachings. That is, we should not follow a bit of what Bhagavan says and then follow a bit of some other teachings. This will not take us anywhere.
Just like we will get water only if we dig a well deep enough, so we can drink the cool and refreshing nectar of true self-knowledge only if we stick to Bhagavan’s teachings. That is Bhagavan’s teachings direct us to turn our attention within and to go deep deep within ourself. We can experience what we are looking for only within ourself, so with one-pointed attention we should look within. We will surely reach our destination if we keep travelling in the right direction.
Anadi-ananta, as you say, it should be 'retain' and not 'retains':
Does ego retain its identity when it re-emerges?
Sounds correct!
In order to make us willing to surrender ourself, God allows us to undergo so many experiences that we consider bad (part one)
A friend: We see many injustices happening in this world. We are ourselves recipient of many such injustices. Should we bear all of them without protesting, or should we do all that we can to protect our rights?
Michael: We see many things happening in this world which we consider bad. Why does God allow all these things to happen? He allows them to happen because God’s ultimate aim is that we should surrender ourself to him and thereby experience the infinite happiness which is our real nature. God’s aim is not our immediate freedom from pain or the immediate gratification of our desires. So it is from our limited perspective we say that certain things are bad – we say wars or disease or death are bad – but why does God allow these things to happen? God is taking a long term view and he is aiming to bring all forms of suffering to a complete end.
All forms of suffering will only come to an end only when we surrender ourself, only when this ego is completely eradicated. In order to make us willing to surrender ourself, God allows us to undergo so many experiences that we consider bad. The ultimate aim of all these experiences is to teach us that we cannot find happiness outside ourself. If we depend on outward circumstances for our happiness, which we are all doing at present, we will never be satisfied.
As embodied being we face so many difficulties. That is, as embodied being we have so many needs. We need air to breathe. We need water to drink. We need food to eat. We require clothing to protect us from the cold weather. We need adequate shelter to protect us from the elements. We require sleep every day. We have so many needs, so the state of an embodiment is a fundamentally unsatisfactory state. Sure we experience some pleasure here and there, but we can never experience complete satisfaction.
And however pleasant our life may be, one day we are going to face death and the more pleasant our life, the more reluctant we will be to leave this world and die. So as Buddha said, the very nature of embodiment is dukha. ‘Dukha’ can be translated as suffering or pain, but a comprehensive translation of ‘dukha’ is ‘dissatisfaction’. We can never be satisfied as long as we experience ourself as an embodied being, and embodiment is the very nature of ego. When we rise as ego, we always experience ourself as ‘I am this body’ – not always the same body but we always experience some body or other as ‘I’.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-06-21 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses the appropriate attitude towards injustices (43:00)
In order to make us willing to surrender ourself, God allows us to undergo so many experiences that we consider bad (part two)
Michael: So because God knows the fundamentally unsatisfactory nature of embodied ego-existence, he also knows that we are not ready to surrender ourself because of the strength of our desires and attachments. He gives us such experiences that will gradually wean our mind off its desires, attachments, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears and so on. In other words, God’s ultimate aim is that we surrender ourself. So if we are wise, we will cooperate with God because God knows better than we do what is good for us.
However, the more we are concerned about the world, the more unwilling we will be to turn within and surrender ourself. That is why Bhagavan said as far as possible we shouldn’t dwell on worldly matters, and that is why he also said as far as possible we shouldn’t interfere in the affairs of others. We should just leave everything to the care of God because God knows better than we do how to take care of all these things.
Moreover, Bhagavan has said our entire life is just a dream, so it is all the more reason for not concerning ourself with whatever is happening in our dream. In a dream, if we see suffering – we see famines, wars, diseases and so on – what is the best way to end that suffering? We can end all that suffering we experience in that dream world simply by waking up. Likewise, if we want to put an end to all the suffering we see in this world, we need to wake up. In order to wake up, we need to turn our attention back within to investigate ‘who am I’ and thereby surrender ourself completely.
So the deeper we go into Bhagavan’s teachings, the less we will feel drawn to solve the problems of this world. It is because we will understand that we cannot solve the unending problems of this world except by waking up from this dream. Of course, in our day-to-day life, we come across injustices. We may be made to interfere to do something to stop these injustices according to our prarabdha. But we don’t have to concern ourself with it because if it is our destiny to do, we will be made to do so.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-06-21 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses the appropriate attitude towards injustices (43:00)
In order to make us willing to surrender ourself, God allows us to undergo so many experiences that we consider bad (part three)
Michael: So if we are firmly convinced by what Bhagavan has taught us, and if we are really serious about seeking to surrender this ego, we will confidently turn our attention away from this world and all its problems and try to investigate ourself. We will not be concerned about what actions we should do. Whatever actions the body, speech and mind are destined to do, they will be made to do. Whatever other actions we do in accordance with our will will not yield any result because they are not according to prarabdha. Such agamya actions will just build up the fruits of more karmas and strengthen our vasanas.
So ultimately Bhagavan has given us just one responsibility: that is, to turn our attention within and thereby to surrender ourself completely. Only surrendering ourself completely is the sure way to end all injustices. Why? It is because injustices happen in the world, and the world is just a dream appearing in our own mind.
So long as we continue looking outwards, the dreamer will continue. So ultimately who is responsible for all the injustices we see in this world? We alone are - because we have risen as ego, we see the world with all its injustices. Therefore, we have to take responsibility for all these things and put an end to all injustices by turning within and thereby surrendering ourself.
So ultimately the best good we can do to this whole world is to surrender ourself. When we see what we actually are, ego and the world is thereby completely eradicated and what remains is the beginningless, endless and infinite happiness.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-06-21 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses the appropriate attitude towards injustices (43:00)
My reflection: It is a sheer joy and rare privilege to transcribe these extracts from Michael’s videos because what Michael is telling us is the ultimate teachings. Yes, Michael is just expanding what Bhagavan has so loving taught us, but we wouldn’t have understood the meaning of Bhagavan’s words if they were not explained to us as clearly as Michael has been doing so tirelessly. So a thousand prostrations to Bhagavan, and heartfelt thanks to Sri Michael James!
Sanjay,
many thanks again for your good video-transcription.
"Therefore, we have to take responsibility for all these things and put an end to all injustices by turning within and thereby surrendering ourself."
What does surrender mean exactly ?
Presumably, that we should not at all rise as a separate identity and that we completely give up our (own) will. But unfortunately, most of the time I am dwelling more or less in that ego-bound awareness from which I evidently cannot escape by a simple act of will. As far as I am concerned it seems that there must happen first a big inner explosion which could lead me to that required willingness to surrender.
"...we should be in and as உள்ள பொருள் (uḷḷa-poruḷ), the existing substance, which is our real nature, pure awareness."
I am not sure whether I ever have been in and as (uḷḷa-poruḷ), the existing substance, which is our real nature, pure awareness.
Salazar,
I merely stated to be uncertain about my present feeling, but did not put a question.
However it is true that I understand the allegory of the tenth man only mentally.
If I were fully aware of the tenth man in me I would not have to deal with any spiritual teaching.:-)
Salazar,
thank you for your explanation.
However, the sentence "The mind cannot kill itself by not giving itself no attention anymore,..." has three negations what seems to be to much. Apparently you wanted to express "The mind cannot kill itself by giving itself no attention anymore,..." or
"The mind cannot kill itself by not giving itself any attention (anymore),...".
How do we explain the projection of this world? (part one)
A few weeks back, I asked the following question to Michael through an email. He read out my email in the last Saturday’s Zoom meeting of RMF UK and then answered my question. The following are the excerpts from what I wrote to him:
Sanjay: The following is an extract from your video of 08/02/2020. At around 01:26 of this video you said something to the following effect:
The world we see in our dreams is just our thoughts. Our current so-called waking state is also a dream, so all this is also the projection of our thoughts. The seeds from which these thoughts sprout are called vasanas. Vasanas means the seed forms of our likes, dislikes, desires, attachments and so on. These are what sprout as thoughts and appear as this world. Whose vasanas are they? They are ego’s vasanas. So ego is the one who has projected all this. Ego is the dreamer. Because it is the same dreamer, the one who dreamt at night, the same dreamer dreams this dream. You dream something and you experience something similar the next day. This is because they are all projections of the same vasanas.
Sorry, this is not 100% clear to me. My question is how can we say that our likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, fear and so on have projected this world? Whatever we experience is in accordance with our prarabdha as decided by Bhagavan. So according to my understanding, what we experience outside is according to Bhagavan’s will and not our will.
So we may like some projections or dislike some projections, but the projection is not according to our likes and dislikes. For example, the current coronavirus is my projection, but the power that has made this come into existence is Bhagavan’s will. I react to this situation according to my will. In other words, we react to the situation according to our vasanas.
Yes, I can understand that this projection is just our thoughts, and all thoughts originate from the seeds of those thoughts, but such seeds of projection are different from our likes and dislikes. I would be glad if you could clarify this?
Michael: Firstly, it’s not necessary to be 100% clear to us. What we need to understand is a general principle. According to Bhagavan, all phenomena, which includes the world we see, all feelings, everything is our thoughts. That is all phenomena are mental phenomena, and the seeds of all thoughts are what are called vasanas. Vasanas are the inclinations that we have formed from our past likes and dislikes. So vasanas are the seeds from which everything sprouts.
Those seeds first sprout in the form of likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, fears and so on. That is the primary manifestation of the vasanas. All other thoughts or phenomena are the secondary manifestation of the vasanas.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited extract from the video: 2020-06-27 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses self-realisation and karma (00:16)
How do we explain the projection of this world? (part two)
Michael: Our desires, attachments, likes, dislikes and so on are collectively called our ‘will’. The word generally used in Sanskrit is chittam, which is sometimes also described as the karana-sarira (causal body) or anandamaya-kosa (the sheath composed of happiness). Different explanations are given as to why it is called anandayamaya-kosa. The usual explanation given is that it is called anandayamaya-kosa because this kosa is said to remain in sleep when no other kosas exist, and since what we experience in sleep is just happiness, this kosa is called anandamaya-kosa.
However, according to Bhagavan, the happiness we experience in sleep is not a kosa, but our real nature. So Bhagavan has given us much deeper and refined explanations. What Bhagavan says is that all desires are ultimately desire for happiness. Whatever we desire, we desire it because we think we are going to get happiness from it. As Bhagavan has said in the first sentence of Nan Ar ‘Happiness alone is the cause of love’. Love also means desire in this context. So because all our desire is the desire for happiness, the will is sometimes called the anandamaya-kosa.
The reason why it called karana-sarira is that these seeds are what we project as all these phenomena. Bhagavan sometimes compared the vasanas to the film reel is a projector: the vasanas get projected as this world.
Regarding prarabdha, what we now experience is the fruit of our past karma, so it is not entirely true to say it is Bhagavan’s will. We did actions in the past by our will, and these actions have certain fruits. Those fruits get stored in sanchita. Bhagavan selects from these fruits the fruits which will be most beneficial for us to experience in each lifetime. So in that sense, it is Bhagavan’s will. But it is not Bhagavan’s will that we suffer. Bhagavan’s ultimate will is that we surrender ourself completely. That is Bhagavan’s true will, but he ordains our prarabdha in such a way that will be conducive to our spiritual progress, our ultimate surrender.
So Bhagavan determines which vasanas are projected at each moment. Because it is said that the vasanas are the seeds of our likes and dislikes, your objection seems to be that the projection is not according to our likes and dislikes. It is not according to our present likes and dislikes, but in the past, we have done actions driven by our likes and dislikes. What we are experiencing is the fruits of those actions.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited extract from the video: 2020-06-27 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses self-realisation and karma (00:16)
How do we explain the projection of this world? (part three)
Michael: Our current projections may not be to our liking at present, but we may have done actions in the past which caused harm to other sentient beings. We didn’t want that harm to be caused to us, but we were willing to cause it to other sentient beings. So we may not like the harm which is coming our way in this present projection, but we liked such harm to be caused to others in our past. We were willing to make others experience something which we wouldn’t have liked to experience because we thought that we would gain from it.
So all actions are driven by our likes and dislikes, and the fruits of actions are what we now experience as our prarabdha. So ultimately things come back to our likes and dislikes, but it is not as simple as ‘I project what I like and not what I dislike’. It’s not a simple matter like that.
But as I said earlier what we need to understand is the general principle. According to Bhagavan, whatever we experience is just thoughts. So the whole world is nothing but thoughts. What seems to be physical phenomena are just mental phenomena, which are what are called thoughts, and the seeds from which all thoughts sprout is our vasanas. These vasanas first manifest in the form of our likes and dislikes and later manifest as these other things.
So how this projection takes place is not a simple matter, and we don’t need to understand it entirely. What we need to understand is that what we now experience is our projection. So I who perceive it have also projected it. So who am I who has projected this and who perceives all this? That is what we need to find out. If we investigate this ‘I’, this ego, we will find there is no such thing. Then we will find that there has never been any projection of this world. There has never been any vasanas. There has never any prarandha or sanchita. None of these things is true.
That is the key principle to understand. If we understand that, everything else will be clear. We don’t need to understand the whole thing because after all, all this is maya, and maya is anirvachaniya, inexplicable. We don’t need to explain it because it doesn’t actually exist. What is true is only ‘I am’. That is Bhagavan. That is what we need to know.
So we don’t need to break our heads trying to understand all these things fully. We need to understand the general principle which will help us in our practice of self-investigation and self-surrender. Trying to understand all these things in too much detail is unnecessary.
• Edited extract from the video: 2020-06-27 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses self-realisation and karma (00:16)
My reflection: Sir, Thank you for such a detailed reply to my question. Things seem clearer now. As you say, we need to understand the basic principles of these things, but shouldn’t try to understand these things in too much in detail.
Sanjay,
again many thanks for your recent video-transcription of Michael's answer to your question put by email.
(some typos:
you meant to write anandamaya-kosa [twice you wrote anandayamaya-kosa];
it should be "film reel in a projector;
and "There has never been any prarabdha or sanchita".)
Salazar,
to fulfil your wish of today at 14:38.
Thank you again for your comparing description of self and mind.
However, I cannot comment about self which I do not really know. At best what I can express is more of a hunch.
You are certainly correct in saying that 'self just is'.
Nevertheless, I presume that real bliss does not come and go because self must be always (t)here.
For the time being I urgently have to improve my feeble ability to anchor the mind in self.
Salazar,
without bliss I am not complete. :-)
Look at Bhagavan's eyes, are they not permanently radiating bliss ?
Bhagavan's bodily eyes (may) have decomposed, but not the emanation of bliss itself.
But without having a first-hand experience of self via vichara how could I know anything ?
Bliss is the one without a second.
You mean the noun 'extent'.
Our real nature is said to be sat-chit-ananda, not sat-chit-apple.:-)
No imagination, no expectation, no obstacle. Neither good look nor bad look.
Only happiness. Freedom of suffer and sorrow.
(incidentally, you mean the noun 'extent').
As you say, all kinds of beliefs are maya and have no relation to reality whatsoever.
Without exception.
Anadi-ananta, I thank you for pointing out my typos. I need to proofread whatever I type more carefully before I post them.
We need not concern ourself with what will happen after ‘self-realisation’ because ‘self-realisation’ is the end of all happenings
A friend: How does a ‘self-realised’ person earn a livelihood in today’s world? Does a person’s day-to-day life change after self-realisation?
Michael: There is actually no such thing as a ‘self-realised’ person. Though it may seem to us that certain people are ‘self-realised’, that is only from our ignorant perspective. What does ‘self-realisation’ mean? It means being aware of ourself as we actually are. So long as we are aware of ourself as a person, we are not aware of ourself as we actually are. What we actually are is the infinite expanse of pure awareness. So as long as we are a person, we are not ‘self-realised’. When we are ‘self-realised’, we are no longer a person. So ‘self-realised person’ is a contradiction in terms.
People might say, ‘What about Bhagavan? He was self-realised’. In whose view was Bhagavan a person? It’s only in our view. Because we mistake ourself to be a person, we take Bhagavan to be a person. What is a person? A person is a body. Bhagavan says, ‘I am not this body or mind’, so Bhagavan is not what he seems to be.
Bhagavan often used to say, jnana alone is the jnani. Jnana here means pure awareness. That alone is the jnani. Only pure awareness knows itself as pure awareness. So when we are ‘self-realised’, as it is called, that is the complete dissolution of ego. When ego is dissolved, what remains is only pure awareness.
When we experience ourself as we actually are, we are no longer a person, and there is no longer a world in which we need to earn a livelihood. The world is a projection of the ego. So when ego is destroyed, the world comes to an end. What remains when our ego is destroyed is best described by Bhagavan in verse 28 of Upadesa Undiyar:
If one knows what the nature of oneself is, then what will exist and shine is only anadi [beginningless], ananta [endless or infinite] and akhanda [unbroken] sat-chit-ananda [being-awareness-bliss].
So eternal and infinite sat-chit-ananda, that is what remains after ‘self-realisation’, and that is present even now. But since now we are aware of ourself as ego, we are not aware of ourself as anadi, ananta, akhanda sat-chit-ananda. When we turn our attention keenly within to see what we actually are, we will see that we have always been anadi, ananta, akhanda sat-chit-ananda, and therefore there has never been any world or anything else.
Only when we rise as ego is waking and dream that there seems to be a world. Where is the world in sleep? In sleep, there is no ego and therefore there is no world. So we need not concern ourself with what will happen after ‘self-realisation’. ‘Self-realisation’ is the end of all happenings. It is returning to what is ever-present, which is infinite, pure awareness. We may call this pure awareness brahman or atma-svarupa or whatever.
• Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-06-27 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses self-realisation and karma (00:35)
Money is not a problem; the problem is our attachment to the money
Sanjay: As you implied earlier today, we should not hoard wealth because then it will be difficult to leave it and go when we die. But suppose if there is a family settlement happening and I am supposed to get some money which is more than my needs, what should I do? This money will come to me automatically, but in a way, it will then be hoarding.
Michael: Money is not a problem. The problem is our attachment to the money. So if it comes automatically, we can then decide what to do with it. We can give it away to those who are in more need. Money is neither good nor bad, though as a general rule hoarding money is not good.
Nowadays there are people who have an unbelievable amount of wealth, not only billions, but there are people who have hundreds of billions. Such wealth disparity creates so many problems. So generally we shouldn’t take for ourself more than we need. Having enough for our needs and the needs of our family, that is fine. But if it is in our destiny to have millions or billions, it is better to find some way of giving it away to those who need it more than we do.
So ultimately what matters is not the money itself but our attachment to it.
• Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-06-27 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses self-realisation and karma (01:46)
Sanjay,
good idea, but we all commentators generally need to proofread whatever we type more carefully before we post them.:-)
How do we deal with abusive relationships?
A friend: How do we deal with abusive relationships of any kind? Do we have the duty to extricate ourself from such abuse, or do we just accept it as a lesson from the Lord?
Michael: There are no simple answers to such questions. Whatever is destined to happen will happen. If we are destined to be in an abusive relationship, we will be in an abusive relationship for as long as that destiny is there. When the time comes for that relationship to come to an end, it will come to an end. So if it's time for the abusive relationship to come to an end, you may be prompted from within to bring it to an end, or circumstances may prompt you to decide, ‘OK, enough is enough – time to end this relationship’.
Sometimes Bhagavan will perform a clean operation. If the relationship is harming us, he will bring it to a complete end. He will sever that relationship entirely. We may decide to bring the relationship to an end, but if it is our destiny to continue in that relationship, we will continue in it. But if our decision to bring that relationship to an end is supported by our prarabdha, that decision will fructify. So it’s all according to destiny.
Abusive relationships can be extremely damaging, so from a mundane point of view, it is better to avoid such relationships. So there are no simple answers to such questions.
The friend: What about the near and dear ones who either perpetuate abuse or turn a blind eye to abuse for selfish reasons?
Michael: Sometimes the near and dear ones may let us down due to selfish reasons. Whatever relationship we are in, that is our prarabdha, but that doesn’t mean we have to continue in that relationship forever. What our destiny will be the next moment or the next day, we don’t know.
I was also in an abusive relationship, but when the time was ripe, it came to an end. But so long as I was destined to be in that relationship, I had to bear with it. So whatever it is, it is all according to the will of Bhagavan for our own good.
So let us leave everything to Bhagavan. Sometimes it is best to just pray to Bhagavan, ‘Bhagavan, this is entirely your problem, not my problem. Take care of all this’. At an appropriate time, he will bring the relationship to an end if that is what is best for us. The fact that you are experiencing that relationship means that that is best for you at that moment.
So Bhagavan will take care of everything. He is taking care of everything. Nothing can happen except by his grace. In Tamil, there is a saying: ‘Except by his grace not even an atom can move’. So let us surrender, leave everything to him.
• Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-06-27 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses self-realisation and karma (00:09)
Salazar,
spelling became my hobby horse after I had noticed my good eye for typos and spelling mistakes as a special gift. Be assured that I consider my own typos as extremely "unpardonable".:-)
And besides I got no problem with it.
However, believe me I'd love to exchange that spelling "attachment" for the ability to keenly and persistently practise self-investigation.
Salazar,
thanks for your warning. But frankly I think everybody should primarily look at one's own obsessions which are mostly overlooked quite easily.
Salazar,
"...jump at the opportunity for some growth ...",
How could I ever want ego's growth ?
For what do you hope from passing judgement on others ?
Sanjay,
some days ago, on 29 June 2020 at 13:19, you wrote "The world we see in our dreams is just our thoughts. Our current so-called waking state is also a dream, so all this is also the projection of our thoughts.[...]."
On reflection about that statement I come to the conclusion that this declaration/explanation - that the world-perception in waking and dream is just thoughts - does not change the fact that we have to deal with that world-perception along with the world. Only our point of view or the way of looking or angle of vision has changed.
If we can make our outlook into the inlook, we can change everything (part one)
A friend: You say everything is Bhagavan’s will. My experience is that it seems it is like being a vegetable – ‘since it is Bhagavan’s will, we cannot do anything’. So it seems we have no freedom.
Michael: No, it’s not like being a vegetable. We don’t have any freedom to change anything that is happening outwardly, but we can change our outlook by turning our attention within. If we can make our outlook into the inlook, we can change everything. But we don’t actually change everything. We can eradicate ego and thereby experience the infinite freedom that we actually are – infinite happiness, infinite awareness that we actually are. So this is the very opposite of being a vegetable.
So long as we take ourself to be a body, we are being a vegetable. When we experience ourself as we actually are, that is the very opposite to being a vegetable. This body is no different to a vegetable. This body is just a matter. We eat vegetables and it becomes this body – the body is composed of nothing but vegetables. Even if we eat meat, meat comes from vegetables. So ultimately all physical living organism comes originally from the plant kingdom. So long as we take ourself to be a body, we are no longer better than a vegetable.
The friend: Karmas are created by desires and our desires create our world, and this desire is for ego. So if this ego is destroyed then . . .
Michael: Then everything is destroyed – if ego is destroyed everything is destroyed. That is why Bhagavan’s whole teaching is centred on ego. The whole problem is ego. How to get rid of ego? Simply investigate it and it disappears because we seem to be ego so long as we are looking at anything other than ourself. If we look at ourself, has anyone ever seen ego?
• Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-06-27 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses self-realisation and karma (01:23)
My reflection: As Michael says our life in this body is no better than the life of a vegetable because this body is made up of nothing but vegetables.
As Michael has beautifully put, if we can make our outlook into the inlook, we can change everything. Our outlook is the root of all problems, and our inlook will root out all our problems forever. So simple!
If we can make our outlook into the inlook, we can change everything (part two)
The friend: What is ego?
Michael: Ego is nothing but false awareness of ourself as ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ – as ‘I am this person’.
The friend: It’s just an idea?
Michael: It’s an idea, but it’s the root of all other ideas. It’s ultimately unlike all other ideas because no idea is aware of itself or aware of anything. But ego is that idea that is aware both of itself and of all other ideas. So all other ideas are jada (non-aware), but ego is a mixture of chit (awareness) and jada (non-aware objects). It’s a combination of awareness and non-awareness. As ego we are aware, but we are aware ‘I am this body’. This body is jada (non-aware). What is aware is this ego which mistakes itself to be this body.
The friend: So ego takes this body to be the reality, but in the dream state we have a different body and in sleep, we have no body.
Michael: What we learn from the dream is that ego has an ability to project a body and take it as itself. So when we know that we are able to do that in a dream, why should we be so sure that what we are now experiencing is anything but a dream? According to Bhagavan, this body is just another dream body. This world is another dream world.
The friend: Thank you very much.
• Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-06-27 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses self-realisation and karma (01:23)
My reflection: Yes, as Michael says, ‘What we learn from the dream is that ego has an ability to project a body and take it as itself. So when we know that we are able to do that in a dream, why should we be so sure that what we are now experiencing is anything but a dream? According to Bhagavan, this body is just another dream body. This world is another dream world’. It is extremely crucial to understand this if we want to understand Bhagavan’s teachings.
Our dream experience and our deep sleep experience give us invaluable clues to so many things, and thus help clarify so many aspects of Bhagavan’s teachings.
Writing a comment and thus lecturing about Bhagavan's teaching is dealing with the world, whether you call it prarabdha or not.
Regarding "ignoring Bhagavan", even rise as ego is just ignoring Bhagavan.
So who can with full justification claim to not ignoring Bhagavan ?
Sanjay,
"According to Bhagavan, this body is just another dream body. This world is another dream world."
Even considering this world as a dream or dream world does not relieve/discharge somebody of his/her duties.
Bhagavan told us not to believe anything before experiencing or knowing it.
Salazar,
thanks for your attention.
Salazar,
when you say "Duties and the world is maya.",
did not you self outline today at 16:26 a special kind of duty by stating "So the only thing which is required to do is to attend to "I am". Everything else will take care of itself."
and again at 16:53 that "...one just has to attend to "I am" and not worry about the rest, at ANY time." ?
Is not vichara only the method of self-investigation ?
If I remember correctly, atma-vichara is only trying to distinguish oneself from ego, called also self-investigation.
According Michael's article of Wednesday, 15 August 2007 is atma-vichara only the practice of keeping our mind fixed firmly in self.
So how can it be said that "Vichara is reality. It is what we truly are." ?
Maya means that what is not. Consequently maya's deluding power is itself only figment or imagination.
‘Love’ as a word describes our real nature
A Friend: How to describe what true love is?
Michael: As we go deeper into this path, what true love is will become clearer and clearer to us. Can you describe the awareness ‘I am’? We cannot. We all know ‘I am’, but it is not something which we can describe. Love is actually ourself, but we cannot put what love is into words. If we want to discover what true love is, we need to discover what we ourself are. The love we are seeking is only within ourself. We will discover true love only when we lose ourself in love - only when this ego dissolves back into its source.
Aksaramanamalai has 108 beautiful prayers, and among these, one that is very very simple and appealing is verse 101, in which Bhagavan sings:
Like ice in water, melt me as love in you, O form of love, Arunachala!
Arunachala is our real nature. It is the very embodiment of love, the very nature of love. To know that love, like ice in water we have to dissolve in that. In substance ego is nothing but Arunachala, which is the ocean of love, but because it is frozen it seems something separate. So it needs to melt back – our heart needs to melt with love for him. It is only by that heart-melting love that we need to follow the path of self-investigation. The more we surrender ourself, the more we will become willing to surrender ourself completely to him – dissolve back into love as love.
The friend: So it is a process surrendering into love – just going deep into it.
Michael: Yes, our very nature is love. As Bhagavan talks in the very first paragraph of Nan Ar?:
Since all sentient beings want [or like] to be always happy without what is called misery, since for everyone the greatest love is only for oneself, and since happiness alone is the cause for love, [in order] to obtain that happiness, which is one’s own nature, which one experiences daily in [dreamless] sleep, which is devoid of mind, oneself knowing oneself is necessary. For that, jñāna-vicāra [awareness-investigation] called ‘who am I’ alone is the principal means.
So the implication is that not only is happiness our real nature, but love is also our real nature. Why we love ourself? It is because we are love. So love and happiness are one and the same thing. So what we are seeking is only love, but the problem is that we are seeking it in things other than ourself. Whereas love and happiness we are seeking is our real nature.
‘Love’ as a word describes our real nature. When we rise as ego, the love that we actually are takes the form of desire for things other than ourself. Even desire is a form of love, but it’s a distorted form of love. But the substance of desire is love.
So love is our real nature. Love is what we actually are and that’s the only reality.
• Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-06-27 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses self-realisation and karma (01:34)
Is Michael James a fanatic? (part one)
A friend: Some people say Michael James is a fanatic of the teachings of Ramana Maharshi. So should we just focus on one spiritual path or should we value other teachings at the same time?
Michael: There are many spiritual teachings because people are at different levels of spiritual development. We are attracted to those teachings which are most appropriate to us. I have been attracted to Bhagavan’s teachings which I consider the deepest and subtest but at the same time the simplest and the clearest of all teachings. I am fully convinced by Bhagavan’s teachings, and I don’t feel anything lacking in his teachings. So I don’t feel the need to look elsewhere.
The fact I focus on Bhagavan’s teachings doesn’t mean that I consider other teachings invalid. Other teachings may be suitable for other people. I respect that, and that’s not a problem for me. But for me, Bhagavan’s teachings are the clearest. Obviously, I am not alone in this as many people are attracted to Bhagavan’s teachings in a similar way as I am. So when I am talking or writing, basically I am talking or writing for those who are attracted to Bhagavan’s teachings.
Some people may feel that Michael is a fanatic. Well, if fanatic means being one-pointed, yes, I think it is necessary. If we are following a spiritual path - whatever path we are drawn to - we should be one-point in following that path. If we are going to dig a well, obviously we have to select an appropriate place to start digging and dig. We shouldn't just dig one meter or two meters and then decide to go and dig somewhere else. In that way, we will never get water. We need to continue digging at the right spot as long as we do not get water.
So if we are firmly convinced by Bhagavan's path, we should follow this path with one-pointed devotion and dedication. We don't have to look for anything elsewhere. All the help and guidance which is required is provided by Bhagavan's teachings. So no other teachings are necessary. If we are reading too many different kinds of spiritual teachings, we are likely to get confused. By focusing on one we are likely to get more clarity and depth of understanding. We need to not only study Bhagavan’s teachings but put it into practice. We need to practise Bhagavan’s twin path of self-investigation and self-surrender to the best of our ability.
Bhagavan has clearly indicated that atma-vichara is the ultimate path. As he says in verse 8 of Upadesa Undiyar, ‘It is the best among all paths’. So we don’t need any other path or teaching if we are attracted to Bhagavan’s teachings. If we are not attracted to Bhagavan’s teachings, fine, then we can go and look elsewhere. If we are attracted to Bhagavan’s teachings, we do not need to look elsewhere.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-06-28c Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses the need for one-pointed dedication
My reflection: We all need to be ‘fanatics’ if we want to succeed in our spiritual journey. However, ‘fanatic’ here means one-pointed in following one spiritual path. So it is in this sense that Michael is a ‘fanatic’ because for him Bhagavan and Bhagavan’s teachings are be-all and end-all.
I have also become a fanatic because I do not look beyond Bhagavan’s teachings. So in this regard, Michael has made me somewhat like himself, but I am happy. It is because I am fully satisfied with Bhagavan’s teachings, and I am no longer mixing and matching various teachings as I was doing at one time. So, thankfully, it is now Bhagavan’s teachings and only Bhagavan’s teachings for me!
Is Michael James a fanatic? (Part two)
The friend: Jiddu Krishnamurti would say, ‘Truth is the land without roads’. He would say, ‘when we confuse the road with the truth, we end up getting lost’. How will you respond to these statements?
Michae: These are very nice sounding words, but it doesn’t really have much substance in them. What is real? If we understand Bhagavan’s teachings, what is real is only ourself. Our fundamental awareness of our existence ‘I am’ – that is the truth. Bhagavan has given us very sound reasons for believing this. Everything else appears and disappears – that is, all phenomena appear and disappear. They appear in waking and dream but disappear in sleep. But there is something that remains whether they appear or disappear. That is the fundamental awareness of our existence.
So this awareness ‘I am’ is the only enduring element of our experience. We perceive so many phenomena now, but everything could be an illusion. Even the ego that appears and disappears, its reality is open to question, but the one thing we cannot reasonably doubt is ‘I am’. We are aware that ‘I exist'. We have good reasons to doubt what we are, but we don’t good grounds to doubt that we are. We do exist, but what we are, that we need to investigate. That’s what Bhagavan’s teachings are all about.
So what is real is our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, and the path to that is to attend to ‘I am’. In one verse of GVK, Bhagavan says that our real nature is both the path and the goal. So ‘I am’ is the path, and ‘I am’ is the goal. So the road we are following is nothing other the truth we are seeking.
When ego dissolves and the reality alone remains then there are no paths because we are always that. But from the perspective of ego, because we have risen as ego, Bhagavan said, ‘go back the way you came’. We have risen as ego, so we need to subside back into the source from where we rose. So in that sense, from the perspective of ego, there is a path. But the nature of the path is not other than the goal we are seeking.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-06-28c Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses the need for one-pointed dedication
My reflection: It is recorded that J. Krishnamurti once said, ‘I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect’. To say this is absurd because this means we need no sadhana. A sadhana indicates that there is a path to reach the goal. So J. Krishnamurti is denying the validity of all religions and all spiritual practices, which is clearly absurd. All religions and spiritual practices are indicating some path. These may not be the direct path like Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation, but nevertheless, they are paths to eventually come to this direct path.
As long as we experience ourself as this ego, we do need a path to reach our destination. Why? It is because ego is not our destination. Ego is where we now find ourself in. So, as Bhagavan used to say, ‘go back the way you came’. So Bhagavan has given us a clear path, but this path is nothing other than our goal. When we are following this path, we need the effort to walk on this path, but when we reach the goal, it will be an effortless state. That is the only difference between the path and the goal.
Salazar, thank you. I enjoyed reading your comment addressed to me.
Is Michael James a fanatic? (Part three)
The friend: Many believe that we should enrich ourself from many points of view in different teachings. They believe that we should explore everything that is out there in the spiritual market and decide which is best for us. But it’s a question of resonance. You resonate with Bhagavan’s teachings, so what is the point in going to the other teachings.
Michael: Yes, if we are still looking around, we haven’t found what is right for us. Once we have found what is right for us there is no need looking around. So if Bhagavan’s path is the path for us, we will recognise it pretty quickly and then is no need to look elsewhere. That doesn’t mean we look down upon other paths, or we think that those paths are invalid. They may be valid for others. So there will always be a diversity of spiritual teachings. We need to decide what is appropriate for us, what draws us.
The friend: Yes, many of the people who have come to Bhagavan have followed different spiritual paths before.
Michael: Yes, all of us. If not in this lifetime but in previous lifetimes we would have followed other paths. But now we have come to this path, so there is no need to look elsewhere.
The friend: So if we come to Bhagavan’s path - that is no accident. We have not come to this path by chance.
Michael: It’s no accident because this is what is meant for us. This is the appropriate thing for us.
If people disagree with my views on Bhagavan’s teachings and if they want to call me a fanatic, that’s fine. That’s not a problem for me. But generally, a fanatic is one who goes and tries to impose their views or beliefs on other people. I have no desire to impose my beliefs on anyone. If people are interested in following Bhagavan’s path, I am happy to talk about it. I am happy to share what I have learnt or what I have understood. But the last thing I would try to do is to impose my views on anyone else. Just because Bhagavan’s path is appropriate for us doesn’t mean it is appropriate for everyone else.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-06-28c Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses the need for one-pointed dedication
My reflection: As Michael says, ‘if Bhagavan’s path is the path for us we will recognise it pretty quickly and then is no need to look elsewhere’. Yes, very true. I feel no need to look elsewhere after I have come to Bhagavan’s teachings.
Is Michael James a fanatic? (Part four)
Michael: Bhagavan generally didn’t give any teaching of his own accord. He gave teachings only people asked him questions. So we should not be going and telling people about Bhagavan’s teachings. If people ask, then we can say. We are not here to evangelise Bhagavan’s teachings.
The friend: Or go to the streets with boards of Bhagavan’s teachings. If we were really fanatics, we would have done that.
Michael: Yes, but if anyone means by ‘fanatic’ someone who has one-pointed zeal in following the path, then it is good to be a fanatic of Bhagavan’s teachings. I wish I was more fanatic.
The friend: I wish I was a radical or a fundamentalist.
Michael: I wish I was more serious about going within. What does ‘radical’ mean? ‘Radical’ means going to the root. What does ‘fundamentalist’ mean? It means going to the fundamentals. So Bhagavan’s teachings by their very nature are radical and fundamental. So if we truly want to follow Bhagavan’s teachings, we have to be radical. We have to be a fundamentalist but not in a bad sense, but in a good sense.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-06-28c Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses the need for one-pointed dedication
My reflection: I too seriously wish I was more serious about going within.
How can I ever hope to cross the vast ocean of samsara if not Bhagavan from inside removes all my ignorant ideas (ignorance) ?
It is clear to me that I am incapable to surrender myself completely to Bhagavan.
Even to receive Bhagavan's grace without the help of his higher power seems to be impossible.
Nevertheless, I trust in Arunachala who is said to give us all we need.
The term ‘soul’ generally refers to ego
Sue Thompson: I am a little confused here by the reference to souls being born. Is this a reference to the individual person being born rather then Brahman?
Sanjay Lohia: Sue, no, soul means ego, so the soul is different from a person. A soul or ego is what projects a person and takes it to be itself. For example, in your case, ‘Sue’ is the name of a body or a person that you seem to be. But what or who is it that says ‘I am Sue’? That ‘I’ who identifies itself with Sue, that ‘I’ is ego or soul. So this ego or soul can attach itself to many persons in its spiritual journey, but it still remains apart or different to all these persons.
Does this help?
• Extract from the comment section of the video: 2020-06-28b Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses introducing one’s children to this path
We have no control over what sort of a soul is born to us
A friend: What would be the best way to introduce our children to Bhagavan’s path from an early age?
Michael: Children learn not only from what we say but also by example. So we can be talking about Bhagavan’s path, but we shouldn’t try to impose our ideas and beliefs on our children. Our children may be physically born of us, but every child is its own individual. When we are born in this world, we are born with the baggage from the past, with our own vasanas - our own interests and inclinations. So we have no control over what sort of a soul is born to us. It could be a very pure soul or a soul full of desires and attachments.
So if we want to introduce these ideas to our children, we should do it in a very gentle way without imposing our ideas on them. They may be interested, or they may not be interested. That will depend on their level of maturity. So what we can do as a parent to influence our children is limited. We do our best and leave the rest to Bhagavan. We cannot mould our children in our image. We have to let them grow according to their own interests, their own inclinations. We try our best to guide them on the right path, but ultimately the child is their own person.
In Bhagavan’s path, we should be concerned about our own practice. Are we turning our attention back towards ourself? Are we surrendering ourself? If we are surrendering ourself, we are leaving the burdens of what we should do, and how we should behave, and how we should bring up our children. We leave that entire burden to Bhagavan. God will guide us appropriately at each moment. So let us leave everything to him. He will take care of everything.
The friend: In a sense parents shouldn’t worry because everything is predestined. If it is predestined, the child will run into a book or a guru or whatever. If it is predestined, the parents’ guidance will bear fruit.
Michael: Yes, we are parents of their body, but we are not the parents of the soul. According to our prarabdha certain souls are born to us as our children, and according to the prarabdha of our children, they experience us as their parents. So everything is according to destiny. Why a particular child is born to us is known only to Bhagavan.
So everything we do in life, we have to do it with detachment, without expectation of the results that we would like to achieve. So long as our children our small, we provide for their bodily needs and we try to guide them in a proper way in terms of their learning good values and morals and introducing them maybe to a little to Bhagavan’s teachings to see if they have any taste for it. The outcome of all these things, we leave entirely to Bhagavan. If we are trying to follow the path of surrender, we should try to accept whatever happens as his will for the good of all concerned.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-06-28b Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses introducing one’s children to this path
My reflection: Yes, I too have tried to guide my children in the matter of proper diet and such things but have mostly failed. They may have picked up some good habits but overall they are not interested, for example, in a vegan diet as I am. I tried to talk to them about such subjects but the response has always been disappointing. So I used to feel let down, but now I have become more accepting of their choices.
As Michael says, ‘we are parents of their body, but we are not the parents of the soul’. So we cannot do much to guide them. They have to live their lives according to their likes and dislikes. Of course, Bhagavan is taking care of them as he is taking care of us. So we should trust his guidance. If Bhagavan is moulding us, he is also surely moulding them in accordance with their maturity. So we should leave everything to the care of Bhagavan. As ego, we are in control of nothing.
Sanjay, regarding your comment "Is Michael James a fanatic? (Part two)" of 2 July 2020 at 16:07,
"These are very nice sounding words,..." you quoted Michael having been said (not Michae).:-)
Sanjay,
"If we are trying to follow the path of surrender, we should try to accept whatever happens as his will for the good of all concerned."
I generally don't believe that we should perform our life as a weak-willed or spineless robot but should use our will reasonably and conforming to all the requirements. What then is the purpose [or good] of being provided with reason, will and heart ?
By the way, you obviously wanted to write "So long as our children are small, we provide for their bodily needs...".
Anadi-ananta, I thank you for pointing out my typos.
Salazar, yes, as you say, ‘the path of surrender is not easy’. Many people who came to Bhagavan were not particularly attracted to Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation. They would say to Bhagavan, ‘Bhagavan, I can’t do atma-vichara, but I want to surrender to you’. These people thought that surrender was easy. This is not exactly the case. As you imply, we all act with our body, speech and mind, and we all desire a certain outcome by such actions. So as long as we are looking for such particular outcomes to take place, we have not surrendered.
So surrender is not easy. So long as we feel ‘I should do this’ or ‘I should not do that’, we have not surrendered. As long as we have any desire, attachment, like, dislike, hope, and fear, we have not surrendered.
And why do we find self-investigation difficult? It is because we are not willing to surrender our desire, attachment, like, dislike, hope and fear. However, the more we practice Bhagavan’s twin paths self-investigation and self-surrender, the more easy and natural our surrender will become. So we just need to keep practising what Bhagavan has asked us to practice. Everything will eventually fall into place.
According to Bhagavan, Arunachala is Shiva himself (part one)
A friend: Why did Bhagavan make such a big deal about Arunachala? Is there something special about the hill, or is it just a myth?
Michael: It could be explained at various levels. At the most basic level, Bhagavan says Arunachala is ourself. So at the most basic level, whatever Bhagavan is saying about Arunachala, he is saying about ourself, about what we really are. So in other words, we can say that whatever he said about Arunachala is a poetic description of ourself - it is a metaphor. We can take it in that sense. But that is not the end of it because many people find strength and solace by following a path of dualistic devotion, and that is not necessarily in conflict with the path of self-investigation.
So long as we are ready to worship God as another but at the same time have the understanding that what we are actually worshipping is only ourself – it’s a bridge we can say. It’s a bridge connecting duality with non-duality. So possibly the best way to understand whatever Bhagavan has said and written about Arunachala is to understand that Bhagavan is providing a bridge. This may of course not true for all people. Whatever Bhagavan has said about Arunachala as a hill does not resonate with all people. That is because it is not essential to his teachings, but for many it is essential.
The friend: So whatever Bhagavan is saying about Arunachala, he is saying about me. I never realised that before. But Arunachala is a symbol of Shiva, isn’t it?
Michael: According to Bhagavan, Arunachala is Shiva himself. A linga is not meant to represent Shiva; a linga is meant to be Shiva. To understand this [Michael points at the photograph of Bhagavan], does the person in that picture represent Bhagavan, or is it Bhagavan? In one sense, it represents Bhagavan because Bhagavan is far greater than that form that lived for 70 years. But at the same time, that form is Bhagavan. So we are trying to comprehend the incomprehensible. That person is Bhagavan, but at the same time, Bhagavan is much more than that person.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2015-04-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on self-investigation (01:44)
According to Bhagavan, Arunachala is Shiva himself (part two)
Michael: I think we have to be very careful. Bhagavan explicitly at many places indicates that Arunachala is ourself. However, simply saying that all that Bhagavan said about Arunachala is only about ourself, it’s not about the hill, that would be doing injustice to it.
For some devotees of Bhagavan, the role that Arunachala plays in their devotion to Bhagavan is much greater than for others. We cannot say what is right or wrong. Some people view all that Bhagavan said in Arunachala Stuti Panchakam at a metaphor. That’s fine for those people. Other people take it more than a metaphor. That is fine for them.
But even if we worship Arunachala as an external form, Bhagavan constantly made clear that that external form is a manifestation of ourself. It is ourself that we are seeing in that form of Arunachala. So Bhagavan never allows us to get away from the central importance of what we ourself actually are. Who am I?
The friend: It is down to predilection, is it not?
Michael: It is.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2015-04-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on self-investigation (01:44)
My reflection: Michael said later in this video that ‘You can express your love both inwardly by investigating yourself and outwardly for a form of God’.
If one preaches that "Attending to reason is delusion, ego, it certainly is not attending to self and will never even lead to self.", such one should (be invited to) happily and contentedly attend 24 hours a day strictly to self.
Equally when one complains that attending to reason will never even lead to self, it is enough to remark that self is anyway never absent. Therefore the assumption that we are separated from self and because of it should led to self seems to be rather annoying.
anadi-ananta, yes some really good posts from you in this thread as well as in others. Good luck to you.
Unknown,
I do not deserve praise, I only do my best. Best wishes to you too. :-)
Inaugural Ceremony for Venkat S. Ramanan, Ramanasramam’s Fourth President
In the midst of a global pandemic, duty called and Dr. Venkat S. Ramanan traveled to India to administrate the Ashram and look after his ailing father. After testing negative for COVID 19 both in the US and in India, as per public health requirements, Anand made the journey to Tiruvannamalai. On the morning of the 17th June, he was installed as Sri Ramanasramam’s fourth President. The requisite papers were signed at 5.30 am in Bhagavan’s Shrine in the exact place where his father used to sit each morning at the same hour to chant Ramana Gita. Later that morning, a brief ceremony in the presence of his mother and two uncles took place under the venerable iluppai tree. In honour of the newly ordained President, on the following day, 18th June, a homa was performed with social distancing in the New Hall.
An extract from the asram magazine – Saranagati - SPECIAL EXTENDED INAUGURATION EDITION JULY 2020, VOL. 14, NO. 7
This ego is like a ghost possessing a corpse
Now I experience myself as Michael, but in sleep where was this Michael? In dream, I may still have the name Michael, but the body I was experiencing in dream was not this Michael body but some other Michael body. I have attached myself to many persons in my previous dreams, and I will continue to do the same in my future dreams as well.
In GVK, Bhagavan says that the life lived by ego is like a ghost possessing corpses in cremation grounds. This body according to Bhagavan is just a corpse - an animated corpse. So each of us is like a ghost possessing a corpse.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2015-09-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on life as a dream
My reflection: Yes, so very true. This ego is like a ghost possessing a corpse. So we are carrying this corpse-like body with us and feel that this corpse is me. How foolish are we? Bhagavan while explaining the practice of atma-vichara said that we should leave aside this corpse-like body and focus fully on the awareness that seems to attach itself to the body.
So our aim in atma-vichara is to disassociate with this corpse – in order words, to make this living body a corpse before it actually becomes a corpse. If we experience ourself as we actually are, we will discard this corpse here and now.
Sanjay,
"Anand made the journey to Tiruvannamalai...".
Anand is presumably an other name of Dr. Venkat S. Ramanan.
Sometimes when I stayed there in Sri Ramanasramam I heard the rumour that the son of
the third President V.S. Ramanan has low ambition to resign his doctor's surgery in the USA and to succeed his father in the presidentship although nominated. Probably in the meantime Dr. Venkat S. Ramanan has changed his opinion. Perhaps he will be represented by a full-time staff member of Sri Ramanasramam. Let us wish him all the best to find the required strength to fulfil his responsible task. May he by it be supported by Bhagavan's presence. (Some people are afraid that there could rise some tendencies towards commercialization). In December 2022 Sri Ramanasramam will celebrate its one hundred-year anniversary (centenary).
Sanjay,
"So each of us is like a ghost possessing a corpse."
Is it not more accurate to say that each of us is (like) a corpse possessed by the ghost called ego ?
Anadi-ananta, yes, it seems Anand is another name of Dr. Venkat S. Ramanan. I didn’t know Dr. Venkat was a surgeon in the USA. As you say, let us wish him all the best because managing Sri Ramanasramam can never be easy with thousands visiting the ashram every day in normal circumstances.
I believe Sri Ramanasramam is one of the best-managed asrams we can find anywhere. It is only because of Bhagavan’s grace. Bhagavan’s and Arunachala’s overpowering presence will always keep Sri Ramanasramam relatively corruption-free. However, some amount of commercialization cannot be avoided. However, the asram doesn’t charge for food and accommodation, which is unique. It has always been well managed, and I believe things will not change much. They have a good and dedicated team there, so the job of the President is not that difficult, so it seems.
Salazar,
"Yes, self is always present, however as long as an ego rises self is seemingly obstructed and therefore self is seemingly absent."
Therefore in the subordinate clause I would consequently insert also the adverb "seemingly" and thus say "as long as an ego seemingly rises"...
We should try to understand Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam in the light of Bhagavan’s core teachings
If you read the verses of Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, you will see the anya-bhava and ananya-bhava are beautifully blended there. That is, Bhagavan is mixing the jnana marga and the bhakti marga together. It is because though in actual practice we may aspire to practice only atma-vichara, we all have our weaknesses. We are still attached to ourself as a person, so we keep slipping down from that place of pure self-awareness and experience ourself as a person in this world. Thus we are painfully aware of our inadequacy to experience ourself alone.
So in our desperation, we turn to God as if he is something other than ourself. But there is a double meaning in almost all the verses of Stuti Panchakam. What is Arunachala? Is Arunachala just a form of a hill? Yes, it is the form of a hill, but that is the manifestation of the real Arunachala which is shining within us as ‘I’.
So if we read and understand Bhagavan’s core teachings and then we read Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, it is very very clear what is happening. It’s the condition of the soul which is trying to cling to itself, but it is swept out because of his vasanas, and then it is praying to its own self outwardly projected as a God in the form of this hill. So it is the journey of the soul in the path of atma-vichara.
Bhagavan implies in verse 8 of Upadesa Undiyar that non-dualistic devotion, devotion to God as ‘I’, is the highest of all forms of spiritual practices. But when we are not able to be in that state all the time, it is perfectly legitimate to pray to God. Bhagavan doesn’t recommend praying for health, wealth or such external things. He only recommends praying for the annihilation of ego, for ever-increasing love for him. When we pray to God for the annihilation of our ego, we are channelling our love for that. We are focussing our love as it were, and that makes it easier to turn back within.
So it’s a process, but what we should always be aiming for is what Arunachala taught Bhagavan in verse 44 of Aksaramanamalai:
Daily turning within see yourself with the inner eye; it will be known.
That’s the best form of bhakti. But we fail in that, so we pray to him – and we fail all the time, and we will continue failing all the time. We will succeed only once, and that will be the end of everything.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2015-09-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on life as a dream (01:43)
You have learnt a lot, did you listen to this?
The following song of Sri Sadhu Om has been posted by a friend called ‘A’ in the comment section of the video: 2020-07-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 3 to 8
A: Yesterday I came across this Song by Sadhu Om:
You have learned a lot, did you listen to this?
At least from now, won't you be at peace?
All that is beyond our intellect's grasp
Happens well-understood by the One Power
If you leave everything to It
Peace will reign in the heart
You have learned a lot, did you listen to this?
At least from now, won't you be at peace?
Deeds you do through constant thinking
That hurts your own heart
Are utterly unnecessary since
Guru carries it all out through Grace
You have learned a lot, did you listen to this?
At least from now, won't you be at peace?
Drop the luggage while travelling in a vehicle
Don't struggle carrying it on your head
Nothing happens through mind's mischief
Divine Grace alone orchestrates
Body and mind are not yours
Just handy instruments of God
In the act of the One Supreme
Why do you claim doership and suffer?
You have learned a lot, did you listen to this?
At least from now, won't you be at peace?
To not consider this body as I
Is to die and not be reborn
To know to die thus
Is to know oneself
If you rise up as the doer
Pleasure and pain will follow you
Then you will forget the archer
And blame and hate the arrow
Without the One who alone is
You are really nothing
Your heart free of any guile
Surrender to His hand of Grace
This mind will come in the way and block
Deeds done by the Grace of God
If this mind gets destroyed
Divine Grace will bestow realization of wisdom
Deny your ego and subside
Be without taking body and mind as I
Whatever remains after that
Is alone known as Brahman
By the Grace of the wise Guru Ramana
Let all things that happen happen
To not rise up as 'I am the body'
And to be alert is alone our duty.
https://youtu.be/2plYWYL6Gwo
My reflection: Simply beautiful… pure jnana… ‘to be alert is alone our duty’, says Sadhu Om.
Sanjay,
"In GVK, Bhagavan says that the life lived by ego is like a ghost possessing corpses in cremation grounds. This body according to Bhagavan is just a corpse - an animated corpse."
Therefore the whole mankind seems to consist of corpes, some of them animated and the other part of them not animated. :-)
Perhaps the same goes for the animal kingdom.
Salazar, yes, absolutely wonderful song by Sri Sadhu Om with deep deep teachings.
Can the puja done by Sri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa in any way be compared to the puja done by the ordinary people? (part one)
A friend: Is puja not a real expression of my love for God? I have my doubts: who am I to give these things to God anyway? How is my love for God different to my love for my family?
Michael: When you are taking care of your children, for example, you are giving them your time, you are giving them your attention and you are giving them your care. But one thing you cannot give is yourself. Likewise, when we do puja, we can give God material things, but we are not able to completely give ourself at the level of puja. Basically, puja is an action of the body, so it is a material thing. What is important in puja is the love with which do that.
Ramakrishna Paramhamsa, for example, used to do puja, but can the puja done by him in any way be compared to the puja done by the ordinary people? It cannot. It is because the ordinary people may do exactly the same ritual, but the love with which Ramakrishna Paramhamsa did puja was so much greater. So love is the key. Ramakrishna came with a certain mission: basically, he came with a mission to give his seal of approval to a wide range of practices. So in his life he did puja. He did it at a certain stage in order to exemplify all these different paths.
So what Bhagavan is talking about in these verses [verses 3 to 8 of Upadesa Undiyar] is how the love is refined. So if we have love for God, naturally we want to give to God. So, in the beginning, we offer material things. So it is at that level that puja is appropriate. But like you said, ‘who am I to give these things to God anyway’ because they already belong to God? Bhagavan used to tell a beautiful in this regard:
A travelling wayfarer – he must have been a poor salesman or something – would never take his meal without first worshipping Lord Ganesha (Ganapati). He usually carried a small vigraha of Ganesha with him. But once he somehow got separated from this vigraha. So how could he perform his worship now? He remembered that he had jaggery with him, so he moulded the cake of jaggery into the form of Ganesha, and he worshipped that form. But he wanted to offer naivedya (offering to the idol without which any puja is not considered complete). Usually, he would offer jaggery as an offering, but he had used up all his jaggery while making the form of Ganesha. So he had no jaggery left. But he had to offer something, so he pinched off the toe of Ganesha and offered it to Ganesha!
What Bhagavan illustrates by this story is that whatever we try to give to God is already God’s. So such surrender is not of much use.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 3 to 8 (01:37)
Sanjay,
Ramakrishna's honorary title was 'Paramahamsa'.
Can the puja done by Sri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa in any way be compared to the puja done by the ordinary people? (part two)
Michael: So as our love gets more and more refined, we will understand that who am I to offer all these things to God? They are all God’s anyway. So as our love evolves, we find more and more appropriate ways to express our love. Do I need to do all these outward rituals to express my love to God? Why not just repeat his name? So we come to japa, and we feel more satisfied repeating his name. This doesn’t mean we have to necessarily give up all these outward rituals, but we feel more satisfied repeating his name.
At first, it feels nice to repeat his name aloud, but after a while, we feel why should I repeat it aloud? Let me keep it within. So we speak more softly – we don’t want others to notice it. And as our love gets more refined, we find it is not necessary to say his name even softly within the mouth. Mentally repeating his name is sufficient for us. If we repeat it mentally, our mind is more focussed on it. So we find more satisfaction – we find we are expressing our love better by just repeating his name mentally. Bhagavan said mental japa is dhyana.
But when we repeat his name mentally, we find that our attention is often distracted towards other things because our love isn’t yet refined enough. So we practise this more and more until our love is more and more refined, and slowly, slowly the interruptions become less and less, and we are able to focus more keenly on his name alone.
But ultimately we come to the point when we understand that I am repeating the name of God, but God is that which has manifested as all these things. So who am I separate from him? As Bhagavan explains in verse 7 of Arunachala Padigam:
If the five elements - space, air, fire, water, earth and all material objects, which manifest as the many living beings, are not other than you, the space of light (the space of consciousness or chitakasa), who else am I but you? O blemishless one, since you shine without another in the heart as the space of consciousness, who am I who come out as another (that is, who am I who rise as I am so-and-so)? O Arunachala, placing your vast lotus-feet on his head (on the head of this rising ‘I’, the ego), come out and manifest yourself as the real ‘I’.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 3 to 8 (01:37)
Thanks, Anadi-ananta. Yes, it is spelt as 'Paramahamsa'. I will correct this in the future.
Sanjay, thanks for your recent video-transcription.
Probably you wanted to write "Bhagavan used to tell a beautiful story in this regard:"
Can the puja done by Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa in any way be compared to the puja done by the ordinary people? (part three)
Michael: So eventually from anya-bhava, we are now drawn to ananya-bhava. We recognise that God is that which is shining in us as ‘I’. All those outward forms, they appear and disappear. We can worship any name and form of God only in waking and dream, but can we do that sleep? But since we remain in sleep, our own pure existence must be the true form of God. That is pure awareness which is always shining within us as ‘I’. So, as our love gets more and more refined, we are drawn more and more away from other things back towards ‘I’. It is because we find only ‘I’ is permanent - only ‘I’ is ever-shining and ever-unchanging. So that is the true form of God.
So in these initial verses of Upadesa Undiyar, Bhagavan is not putting down puja or japa or dhyana. He is showing us that we pass through all these different stages, but when our love gets refined enough, eventually, we come to this path of self-investigation or ananya-bhava.
It is not wrong to perform puja at a certain stage of our spiritual development, but as our love gets more and more refined, we will be drawn to more and more inward practices.
The friend: Whatever I eat, I like to first offer it to God, as I like to offer the eatables to my kids. So is that OK?
Michael: It is perfectly OK. Bhagavan approves of it in verse 5 of Upadesa Undiyar:
Considering all the eight forms [the aṣṭa-mūrti, the eight forms or manifestations of Siva, namely the five elements (earth, water, fire, air and space), sun, moon and sentient beings (jīvas)] [or all thought-forms, namely all forms, which are just thoughts or mental phenomena] to be forms of God, worshipping [any of them] is good puja [worship] of God.
Bhagavan says if you are doing that with love, it’s good worship of God. But don’t stop there. Puja is good, but do not limit yourself only to puja. Also, do some japa. Also, do some meditation. And most important of all, do ananya-bhava meditation – meditate on ‘I’ because ‘I’ is the true form of God.
* Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 3 to 8 (01:37)
Anadi-ananta, yes, I wanted to write: 'Bhagavan used to tell a beautiful story in this regard:' Thank you.
Sanjay,
you wanted to write:"All those outward forms, they appear and disappear. We can worship any name and form of God only in waking and dream, but can we do that in sleep?"
Dear Michael,
In verse 25 Of Ulladu Narpadu Bhagavan says "grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly". In what way does the formless ego "grow"? In your video on verse 25 you explained this line saying that ego sustains itself by grasping and feeding on form. Ego sustaining itself is bad enough, but if ego is growing by grasping form then it is an even more urgent problem! And it must be growing steadily for about 15 hours a day, because the waking/dream world comes into existence by ego's grasping form, so all the waking hours ego is growing abundantly by grasping/feeding on form!
Can this line also be interpreted in the context of desire? The more ego indulges in desire, the more the desires grow in strength and proportion? When I was troubled by desire, this verse came to my mind and showed me some reason. I was reminded of a) Desires bring much misery and suffering in my life. b) Indulging in desire has not lessened their intensity even an iota. c) Perhaps they're only "growing abundantly" the more I indulge in them, as verse 25 line 3 seems to be saying.
Sometimes it is so helpful to consider that "the ego" is just another term for myself, that the subject of Ulladu Narpadu is I, that I am the root of all my problems and suffering and dissatisfaction!
So what Bhagavan is teaching about myself in verse 25 is that by grasping form, I, this formless phantom-ego come into existence; by holding on to this body as myself, I stand and continue; by projecting and perceiving this world I grow abundantly; leaving this body I grasp another body as myself. But if I investigate myself, I will take flight because I have no form of my own. Investigate I.
Only the last line becomes a little difficult. Because how can I take flight from myself? I can't escape from myself.
I agree.. The best way to let go of the habit of grasping form must be to simply attend to self. At least nothing else has worked for me, and I've started to lose hope in any other way, so why not try what Bhagavan taught, self-investigation..
It seems to me that one has to completely lose hope that there is anything worthwhile about this embodied existence. Then Bhagavan's teachings will shine as the one beacon of hope, because Bhagavan teaches we are not this body or mind, and we will cling then only to Bhagavan's teachings, and let go of this vast and miserable world in disgust.
To whom? To me. Who am I?,
to "consider that "the ego" is just another term for myself" is not entirely correct because the meaning of the term 'ego' depends always on the context in which it is used.
In my view the meaning of 'ego's taking flight' is that its seemingly separate existence will begin to dissolve and disappear in its source.
Regarding your question about ego's 'taking flight' you might for instance read what Michael wrote in his article of Wednesday, 5 February 2014 Spontaneously and wordlessly applying the clue: 'to whom? to me; who am I?':
"When we try thus to experience this 'I' as it actually is by attending keenly and vigilantly to the primal thought that we now experience as 'I', this thought will subside and disappear. This is why he says: ‘If sought [examined or investigated], it takes flight’ (தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்: tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum). When it thus 'takes flight' (subsides and disappears), what remains in its place is only the one pristine 'I', which is what we really are.
The reason why this ego or thought called 'I' thus 'takes flight' when it is examined or investigated is that it seems to exist only when it is grasping a gross form (that is, attending to any thought other than itself), so when it tries to grasp (attend to and experience) only itself it subsides, since it has no form of its own for it to cling to (which is why he describes it as the ‘formless phantom-ego’, உரு அற்ற பேய் அகந்தை: uru aṯṟa pēy ahandai). Thus in this verse, which is a clear summary of one of his most basic and essential teachings, he has revealed to us a unique and crucially important property of this ego or thought called 'I' (which is the primal and only essential thought that constitutes the mind), namely that it seems to exist only when it is attending to anything other than itself, and that it therefore subsides and ceases to exist when it attends only to itself."
To whom? To me. Who am I?,
regarding verse 25 of Ulladu Narpadu
one can find Michael's statement:
2017-09-24: A series of two comments explaining that the most important of all the fundamental principles of Bhagavan’s teachings is that the ego will cease to exist if and only if we investigate it, and clarifying that though ‘If sought, it will take flight’ is a suitably crisp translation of ‘தேடினால் ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கும்’ (tēḍiṉāl ōṭṭam piḍikkum), a more accurate translation of it would be ‘If one seeks [it], it will take flight’, or better still ‘If it seeks [itself], it will take flight’.
(Bold type set by me.)
Salazar,
you may offer your objection to Michael himself.
Sometimes even handicapped people are quite correct in their assumption.:-)
Bhagavan was the most natural ‘person’
People felt that Bhagavan's form radiated peace. Some felt Bhagavan's form terrifically radiated divinity. Though this was true at one level, from a deeper perspective, this was not true. There is no radiation from Bhagavan because he is our true nature. He is pure awareness which just exists without any radiation or anything. People try to glorify Bhagavan, but Bhagavan was the most natural person - if we still foolishly continue to call him a 'person'.
Bhagavan is ulladu - what is, and ulladu is without any radiation, vibration or any such other thing. In fact, Bhagavan is not even aware of his divinity. He (or it) is just aware of himself as anadi, ananta, akhanda sat-chit-ananda.
To whom? To me. Who am I?, Bhagavan teaches us in verses 25 and 26 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Grasping form the formless phantom-ego comes into existence; grasping form it stands; grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly; leaving form, it grasps form. If it seeks, it will take flight. Investigate.
If ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if ego does not exist, everything does not exist. Ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this is alone is giving up everything.
Michael often says if we can understand these two verses properly, we will not only understand Bhagavan’s entire teachings but will also understand the essence of the entire Advaita-Vedanta.
You asked Michael, ‘In verse 25 Of Ulladu Narpadu Bhagavan says "grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly". In what way does the formless ego "grow"?’ Ego is an idea ‘I am this body’, so ego ‘grows’ when this ‘I am this body’ idea is strengthened or reinforced: the more this ego grasps and feeds on forms, the more this idea 'I am this body' becomes large in our awareness. That is, the more this ego attends to other forms or thoughts or phenomena (all mean the same in this context), the more this idea ‘I am this body’ or ‘I am this person’ gains in prominence - in the sense that we become more and more attached to this body.
You ask, ‘Can this line also be interpreted in the context of desire? The more ego indulges in desire, the more the desires grow in strength and proportion?’ Yes, ego grasps forms or attends to things other than itself only because of its desires and attachments. So, it is true, ‘The more ego indulges in desire, the more the desires grow in strength and proportion?’, and the more the desires grow in strength and proportion, the more the ego also grows in strength and proportion. So the strength of ego and the strength of its desires are directly proportional to each other. If one grows, the other also grows, if the one subsides, the other also subsides.
You say, ‘Desires bring much misery and suffering in my life’. Yes, only desires and attachments can bring suffering in our life. This was Buddha’s main teaching. If we had no desires and attachments, we will have no likes and dislikes, and without likes and dislikes nothing will cause us pain or pleasure. If I have a desire for more money in my bank account, and if I am not able to get this money in spite of my best efforts, I will suffer. But if I have no desire, whether the money comes to my bank account or not, it will not make the least difference to me. So likes and dislikes are the only cause of our misery.
(To be continued in my next comment)
Sanjay,
your saying "Bhagavan is ... just aware of himself as anadi, ananta, akhanda sat-chit-ananda" sounds very promising for me, because in order to complete ulladu in me I just have to get some akhanda (unbroken, undivided, unlimited) awareness and a bit sat-chit-ananda, - and then my case has had it. :-)
In continuation of my previous comment in reply to To whom? To me. Who am I?:
In another comment, you say that ‘Sometimes it is so helpful to consider that "the ego" is just another term for myself, that the subject of Ulladu Narpadu is I, that I am the root of all my problems and suffering and dissatisfaction!’ The term ‘ego’ is indeed just another term for ‘myself’. The term ‘ego’ means ‘I’ in Latin. So ego is only this ‘I’, but this ‘I’ is what I now seem to be and not what I actually am. Ego is ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’, and what we are is simply ‘I am I’.
Yes, as you say, indeed ‘the subject of Ulladu Narpadu is I, that I am the root of all my problems and suffering and dissatisfaction!’ So the central teaching in Ulladu Narpadu is not Ulladu (what is) but ego (what is not but what seems to exist). Everything is a construct by and on this ego, so all our problems, suffering and dissatisfaction is only because of our ego and it is only in the view of ego. So if we can get rid of ego, we will get rid of all our problems forever. All our problems are part of our bodily existence, and our bodily existence is because of this ego, so if this ego vanishes for good, this ‘I am this body’ will vanish, and without this ‘I am this body’ idea, nothing else can exist.
Bhagavan teaches us in verse 25 of Ulladu Narpadu: ‘If it [ego] seeks [itself], it will take flight. Investigate’. Your doubt is, ‘how can I take flight from myself? I can't escape from myself’. Bhagavan describes ego as ‘formless phantom-ego’. Ego has no form of its own. It comes into existence by taking the form of a body as itself. So if ego looks keenly at itself, it gives up grasping the form of this body, and therefore it dissolves back into pure awareness, which is its actual form and substance.
Michael often describes this by the analogy of the snake and rope. Suppose if we mistake a rope to be a snake, how can we make this snake take flight? We can do so simply by looking keenly at the snake. If we do so, we will find that there is no snake there, and what remains is just a rope. This ego is like this snake. It seems to exist, but it does not actually exist. So ‘If it [ego] seeks [itself], it will take flight. Investigate’. We just need to investigate this ego vigilantly and it will take flight because it simply does not exist.
Does all this make sense?
Asun, no, I don’t remember in which video (or videos) Michael talks of vasanas being the army of ego. He compares ego to the General or the Commander-in-chief in charge of this army of vasanas. But he has used this analogy in many places. It’s a beautiful and apt analogy.
Salazar,
regarding your saying "...since investigating is rather being self and not scrutinizing self",
If investigating would mean "rather being self", then there were no need for self-investigation because self itself - as our real nature - has surely no reason to investigate itself because self is said to be anyway always being itself or just being.
In my view, as in the stage of a beginner, 'self-investigation' is first investigating or scrutinizing the I-thought with the instrument of the mind.
Only in later stage of self-investigation one could claim that investigating self is rather being self and not scrutinizing self.
Salazar, Bhagavan does talk about ulladu (what actually is) in Ulladu Narpadu. For example, he talks ulladu more explicitly in the first mangalam verse and verses 7 and 13 of Ulladu Narpadu:
1st mangalam verse: If what exists were not, would existing awareness exist? Since the existing substance exists in the heart without thought, how to think of the existing substance, which is called ‘heart’? Being in the heart as it is alone is thinking. Know.
Verse 7: Though the world and awareness arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by awareness. Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the place for the appearing and disappearing of the world and awareness is the substance, which is the whole.
Verse 13: Oneself, who is awareness, alone is real. Awareness that is manifold is ignorance. Even ignorance, which is unreal, does not exist except as oneself, who is awareness. All the many ornaments are unreal; say, do they exist except as gold, which is real?
However, if we read most of the verses of Ulladu Narpadu, Bhagavan is talking about ego in various ways. How it comes into existence? What is the nature of ego? How does ego thrive? How can it be destroyed? So Bhagavan is addressing these and similar topics in Ulladu Narpadu. Bhagavan does talk about what actually exists, but he is more concerned about how we can experience what actually exists? Since ego and all its creations, which is this entire phenomenal world, is what obscures what actually exists, Bhagavan focuses on the means to get rid of ego. It is because only if this ego vanishes can we experience what actually exists.
So Bhagavan is indeed discussing more about ego in Ulladu Narpadu.
(I will continue this reply in my next comment)
In continuation of my previous comment in reply to Salazar:
You say, ‘However "investigating" can be misunderstood since it implies an act in duality’. According to my understanding, self-investigation does not imply either duality or non-duality. It implies that we need to investigate and find out what we actually are. We will only know the outcome of this investigation once our investigation reaches its conclusion. You further say, ‘investigating is rather being self and not scrutinizing self’. Self-investigation is indeed scrutinizing self. Investigating and scrutinizing mean more or less the same thing.
You also say, ‘The process of a seeming "investigation" is as much maya as any action in the phenomenal world’. Ego is maya: it is maya and root of all other forms of maya. So in this sense self-investigation is also an aspect of maya. Who is investigating itself? It is ego, and anything ego does is part of maya. However, self-investigation is different from all our other outward-directed actions. When the ego or mind attends to anything other than itself, that is action, but when ego attends only to itself, it is the subsidence of action. So though self-investigation is in the realm of maya, it will eventually destroy the root of maya, namely our ego. So self-investigation will eventually enable us to free ourself of all Maya.
You end your comment by saying, ‘since there is no viewpoint of the ego in vichara’. Ego has a clear viewpoint in vichara. In vichara, ego is trying to find out ‘what I actually am?’ ‘I seem to be this ego and this person, but am I all these things?’ So ego investigates with this view in mind.
Salazar, I too speak from my limited experience, so we are all in the same boat. In fact, in this coronavirus times, we are not only in the same boat but in the same storm :)
Last night I had a dream: I saw Bhagavan walking on Arunachala - having covered his nose and mouth with a mask.
No, I was only joking.:-)
How can one be in and as உள்ள பொருள் (uḷḷa-poruḷ), the existing substance, which is our real nature, pure awareness ?
What is tapas? (part one)
A friend: Bhagavan in a way approved of all practices? So why should we say that only atma-vichara is his teaching?
Michael: Bhagavan didn’t dissuade anyone from anything. A nice example is Kavyakantha. He had been to Bhagavan before, he knew about Bhagavan, but he hadn’t actually come to him for advice. One day he was feeling dejected because, after all these years of mantra-japa and so many different types of tapas, he didn’t feel he had got all the powers and other things he wanted. So in desperation, he came to Bhagavan and asked, ‘Bhagavan, I have done so many crores of japa, so many other types of austerities like fasting and this and that, but still I don’t know what is tapas. Please enlighten me what is tapas?'
Bhagavan first answer was to keep quiet – for about 20 minutes or so Bhagavan didn’t answer anything. Then Kavyakantha said, ‘Bhagavan, I have read about such mouna-diksha (teachings through silence) in books, but I am not able to understand it. So please tell me in words’. Then the first advice Bhagavan gave was as follows:
If one attentively observes that from where what says ‘I, I’ goes out, there the mind will be dissolved; that alone is tapas.
Kavyakantha was saying ‘I have done this’, ‘I have done that’, so Bhagavan asked him to find out the place from where what says ‘I, I’ goes out. However Kavyakantha was into mantras and tantras and all these sorts of things, so he was bewildered by the unfamiliarity of this teachings, so he asked, ‘Is it not possible to attain that state even by mantra-japa?’, to which Bhagavan replied:
If one does japa of a mantra, if one attentively observes from where that mantra-sound goes out, there the mind is dissolved; that itself is tapas.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2015-09-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on life as a dream (01:34)
What is tapas? (part two)
Michael: Bhagavan’s first response was silence, which was his highest teaching, his real teaching. So he comes down to our level and gives us teachings in words by asking us to investigate ‘I’. If we are wise, we will take that advice and we will stick to that advice, but many people are not ready for this. So they ask, ‘Can I not do the same through mantra or tantra or japa or all these things’. If they ask such things, even then Bhagavan doesn't let them go too far away.
So he says, ‘OK, you do your japa, but see from where the sound of the mantra arises?’ From where does the sound of the mantra arise? It arises from ‘I’ obviously. The mantra sound does not come from outside. It comes from me. So indirectly Bhagavan gives the same teaching but in a different way. So Bhagavan did sometimes concede to other practices. If people came to Bhagavan and said, 'Bhagavan, this vichara is very difficult. Can I do japa instead?’ Bhagavan isn’t going to dissuade them because they have already decided that vichara is very difficult. So he would say, ‘yes, carry on with whatever you are doing’.
So Bhagavan didn’t dissuade people, but for those people, who really wanted to understand self-investigation, he not only explained the practice, he explained the reason for the practice: why self-investigation is the only way to liberation? He explained that so long as we are aware of anything other than ‘I’, we are feeding ego. If we want to be free of ego, the only way is to attend to ego alone because rises by attending to things other than itself. So it will subside by attending only to itself.
If we understand that then we will understand why Bhagavan says, it doesn’t matter however many thoughts arise? Whenever any thought arises, if you investigate it as soon as it arises ‘to whom it arises’, the mind will turn back to yourself. Thereby, it will destroy every thought at its very place of rising. In other words, don’t give room to the rising of any thoughts. So long as we attend to ourself, not even ego can arise, let alone thoughts.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2015-09-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on life as a dream (01:34)
Anadi-ananta, we had a great laugh reading what you wrote: 'Last night I had a dream: I saw Bhagavan walking on Arunachala - having covered his nose and mouth with a mask' -:)
Sanjay, it is fine having made you laugh. Is it not said that laugh is healthy ?
When after reading Salazar's yesterday's covid-comment the idea of this dream rose out from my mind I myself had to laugh out loud.
Therefore spontaneously I wrote that comment.
Sanjay, regarding your today's comment at 09:25,
I would insert the pronoun 'it' in the sentence "[...], the only way is to attend to ego alone because it rises by attending to things other than itself."
Anadi-ananta, yes, it should have been either ‘[...], the only way is to attend to ego alone because it rises by attending to things other than itself’, or alternatively I could have repeated ‘ego’ instead of ‘it’.
Sanjay,
"...don’t give room to the rising of any thoughts. So long as we attend to ourself, not even ego can arise, let alone thoughts."
Whose mind/attention or vigilance can refuse any room to the rising of any thoughts ?
Is it not ego's mind and is not the "we" in the above mentioned sentence already ego arisen ?
The ‘I’ in Mozart that composed all that music is the same ‘I’ in you
Friends were discussing with Michael about Bhagavan’s teachings of eka-jiva-vada (the contention that there is only one ego). The following conversation took off from this topic:
A friend: If everything is ‘I’, this one ego, then I was also once Shakespeare and Mozart!
[Laughs]
Michael: The ‘I’ in Mozart that composed all that music is the same ‘I’ in you. But you can’t be Mozart and Shakespeare at the same time because ‘I’ is always one. So you have to choose, what do you want to be now?
The friend: In my previous dream, I was Mozart.
Michael Quite possibly! Well, I am sure I wasn’t Mozart because if I was Mozart than I would have a little bit more musical ability that I have - maybe Shakespeare because I can write a lot of words. That’s my only talent.
• Edited & paraphrased extract from the video: 2015-09-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on life as a dream (01:24)
My reflection: If there is only one ego, then it was only I that was Mozart, and I was also once Shakespeare. I must have been once Hitler also. So I was responsible for all the terrible things that Hitler was responsible for. If this one ego is responsible for everything, we have to say that we as this one ego are responsible for all the misdeeds of all the evil people in the past. And we were also responsible for all the good deeds done by various good people in the past. So I can take credit for Gandhi’s non-violent freedom struggle, for example.
However, I am not sure if I can view things this way because if everything is my dream, so Mozart, Shakespeare, Hitler and Gandhi are also just part of my dream. Whatever they did is also part of my dream.
Sanjay,
"...so Mozart, Shakespeare, Hitler and Gandhi are also just part of my dream. Whatever they did is also part of my dream."
Does calling/considering all happenings as an unreal dream make all our experiences insignificant or even non-existent and possibly all the events/occurrences of mankind's history at all undone ?
Salazar,
how does one get the mind/ego out of the picture ?
Salazar,
I hope it is not an endless circle.:-)
"What remains is that what is there always, self. And according to Bhagavan, there is the realization that the mind/ego, the individual entity, has never existed at all."
Therefore let us pray: Kyrie eleison
The moment of the death of the body is a favourable opportunity to let go of all our attachments (part one)
Bhagavan asks us to slowly slowly practise daily. Though Bhagavan used the word ‘daily’, what he means is constantly. We have to turn within repeatedly. By repeatedly turning our attention within, we are refining our power of attention. Our power of attention has become very gross because, since countless lives, we are using it to know things other than ourself. But now we are trying to use the power of attention to know ourself, and we are much more subtle. So now we have to refine our power of attention – like training to focus our eyes to focus on very very minute things.
Ego is a mixture of pure awareness and jada (non-aware parts). The real element in this ego is the chit element. We are trying to focus our attention on the chit element. We are trying to isolate the chit element from all its jada parts. This is the key to get out of prison which we have got ourselves in. We just have to continue investigating. Bhagavan has assured us that we will succeed sooner or later if we continue investigating.
We can’t measure our progress. We can’t say how far or how near we are to our goal. We are so attached to our life in this world. I have been Michael for the last 60 years. I identify with so many things and experiences. So it is extremely difficult for me to let go of all my attachments. But by persevering in this path of self-investigation, we are slowly slowly weakening our attachments inwardly. It may not be very apparent, but our attachments are getting weaker and weaker if we are constantly practising.
A very good opportunity will come at the end – the moment of the death of our body when we are forcibly separated from this body. None of us wants to leave the body, none of us wants to die, but a time will come when that will be forced upon us. That’s why it is said that death is a very favourable moment. But we can’t expect to get realisation then if we are not trying now.
If we succeed at the moment of death that is because of all the practice we have done before. We don’t have to necessarily wait for the death of the body. It may happen before it, but at least that’s a favourable opportunity.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited & paraphrased extract from the video: 2015-09-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on life as a dream (00:36)
The moment of the death of the body is a favourable opportunity to let go of all our attachments (part two)
If we don’t succeed to let go of ego at the moment of death, however much practice we have done till that moment, we are building up a bank account. It won’t go to waste. It’s a bank account that can’t be squandered. If you do a lot of good karmas and you enjoy a lot of good fruits of those karmas, you lose the benefits of those good karmas. So you can squander your credits in the karma account. But self-investigation is not karma. It is non-karma – it is akarma. We are turning within and just trying to be.
So the credit we are building up is in the form of our love to experience ourself and detachment from everything else. This will never go to waste. We just have to keep working patiently. Every little effort we make on this path is worth it. Whether we reach our goal in the next few moments or a thousand births ahead doesn’t matter because it’s all ultimately just a dream.
So each moment we are faced with a choice: we can either chose to experience other things or chose to experience ourself alone. We have that choice from moment to moment in our life. We should patiently try to make the right choice from moment to moment. It won’t go in vain. Bhagavan said that just like the prey in the jaws of a tiger can never escape, those who have come under the glance of guru’s grace will never be forsaken, yet, he adds, it’s necessary to follow the path shown by the guru.
So we have to continue trying however inadequate we feel our efforts maybe. That seed of love to know ourself has been sown in our heart by Bhagavan. It’s our responsibility to water it, nurture it and cultivate it. So it’s all in our hands. Bhagavan is lovingly and unceasingly giving us all the help we need.
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa said in order to get atma-jnana, you need the grace of three people: the grace of God, the grace of guru and grace of the jiva. The grace of God and guru, which are one, is always abundant. It is the grace of ego which is lacking.
• Edited & paraphrased extract from the video: 2015-09-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on life as a dream (00:36)
Indeed, truth should be the measure of all things.
But first we need to know the truth.
Nevertheless, it should be possible to find the truth even in the territory of ego where its tentacles can easily embrace us and force us to ruin.
Thank you Sanjay for the extract from Michael's video on life as a dream. The audio is not very good in that video so these extracts are very helpful.
Rajat, yes, the audio of this particular video: 2015-09-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on life as a dream is not very good. But it is not so bad that we cannot understand it, especially if you watch it on a PC.
How to gain deep and abiding faith in God (part one)
A friend: In the 13th paragraph of Nan Ar Bhagavan says that we should not concern ourself with what we should do and what we should not do. But how do we get on with our lives without thinking about the necessity of certain actions?
Michael: God is already doing all our duties, but because we rise as ego, we claim doership for it. If we subside, if we cease rising as ego, then we are letting God do everything. The ego rises and interferes, and the only way this ego can subside is described by Bhagavan in the first sentence of the 13th paragraph of Nan Ar:
Being ātma-niṣṭhāparaṉ [one who is completely fixed in and as oneself], giving not even the slightest room to the rising of any cintana [thought] other than ātma-cintana [thought of oneself], alone is giving oneself to God.
He says in verse 26 of Ulladu Narpadu, ‘Investigating what this ego is, is giving up everything’, ego included. So, only by self-investigation can we really surrender ourself to God.
The friend: But how to give up doership?
Michael: So long as you are attending to what is happening outside, you are rising as ego, and when you rise as ego, you experience yourself as the doer. It is because when you rise as ego, you take this body and mind to be yourself, and whatever the body and mind does, you feel ‘I am doing it’.
The friend: Most of the time we keep thinking about the food, security, money . . .
Michael: Why do we turn our attention outside and worry about these things? It is because we feel we need all these things – food, security, money, clothing, shelter, but these are just an excuse. But the fact is we are more interested in these things than we are in experiencing ourself alone. We say, ‘because I have to earn money and all these things, I don’t have time for this’ or ‘I have only a little time for this’. But even if everything is provided to us, we will still not be turning within because we are not yet interested enough.
Let’s face it – we may have a little bit of bhakti, but none of us has adequate bhakti. The other side of bhakti is vairagya, and none of us has adequate vairagya. We are more interested in our life as a person than we are in experiencing what we really are. If we want to experience what we really are, we can experience it here and now - nothing is obstructing us. The only thing that is obstructing is that we don’t want it.
So we have to cultivate that liking. How to cultivate that liking? We can do so only by trying – by practising, practising and practising.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited & paraphrased extract from the video: 2015-09-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on life as a dream (01:59)
My reflection: Michael says, ‘God is already doing all our duties, but because we rise as ego, we claim doership for it. If we subside, if we cease rising as ego, then we are letting God do everything. The ego rises and interferes’. If we can even faintly understand this, it will make our life so much simpler and happier. If God is already doing our duties, why should we rise as ego and want this or that to be done? We need to drill this into our mind.
How to gain deep and abiding faith in God (part two)
Michael: By trying, trying and failing a thousand times and getting up again and trying again … we may fail a thousand times or even crore times… doesn’t matter how many times we fail so long as we continue trying. Sooner or later we will succeed.
The amount we try is the measure of the amount of bhakti we have. Bhakti is not going to temples and lighting camphor or such things. That’s the show of bhakti, not real bhakti. The real bhakti is constantly trying to turn our mind within to experience ourself alone, unmindful of the needs of our body or anything.
If we really have faith in God, if we really have faith in Bhagavan’s words, we will leave all these things to him. But we think, ‘It’s my responsibility’; ‘I have to earn money’; ‘I have to take care of my family’; ‘I have to do this’; ‘I have to do that’.
The friend: Can a common man like me think like this?
Michael: Who says you are a common man?
The friend: I am just a beginner.
Michael: Who says you are a beginner?
The friend: So I should accept all the good and bad things with equanimity. I should not worry about all these worldly things so that I have more and more time to attend to myself. Correct?
Michael: We need to acknowledge the fact that we are not succeeding because we have insufficient bhakti and insufficient vairagya. The way to cultivate bhakti and vairagya is by persevering in trying. Why Bhagavan says ‘leave everything in the hands of Bhagavan’? If we have that attitude, if we have that faith and trust, that will make it so much easier to turn within.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited & paraphrased extract from the video: 2015-09-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on life as a dream (01:59)
My reflection: This friend asks, ‘Can a common man like me think like this?’ Michael answers this by a counter-question, ‘Who says you are a common man?’ This friend then tells Michael, ‘I am just a beginner’. Michael asks, ‘Who says you are a beginner?’ Actually, Michael was trying to direct the attention of this friend towards himself. That is, Michael was trying to tell him to turn within and find out who has this idea that he is a common man and a beginner. This is how Bhagavan responded to such questions. When people asked such questions, either Bhagavan would just keep quiet or he will ask such counter questions.
Bhagavan was not interested in discussing his philosophy beyond a certain point. He always wanted the questioners to get a taste of the practice of turning within then and there. So Bhagavan would often use his brahmastra - 'Who is having this doubt?'; 'Who is suffering?'; 'Who is having this problem?' and so on. He would try to take the questioners attention away from their doubts, problems and such things, by prompting them to turn towards the one who had these doubts, problems and such things.
How to gain deep and abiding faith in God (part three)
Michael: If we really trusted God, we wouldn’t worry about all these things, but we all have got our worries. So we don’t really trust God. It’s very nice to talk about faith in God but none of us has it.
The more we investigate ourself, the more our mind will be purified. When our mind gets sufficiently pure, we will get the clarity of mind and heart in which faith in God will automatically blossom. Just telling people, ‘Have faith in God’, what good does that do? I would love to have faith in God but the fact is I don’t have faith. I am constantly worrying about my little life as this small person.
I am miserable because of my lack of faith in God, but I can’t have faith in God just because I say ‘It’s good to have faith in God'. We have a little bit of faith, but this faith is grossly inadequate.
The friend: So what should we do to develop that faith?
Michael: We try to investigate ‘who is it who has grossly inadequate faith?’
The friend: Me, of course.
Michael: Do not try to satisfy yourself by saying ‘me, of course’. Go on persevering by trying to find out ‘who is this me?’ There is no easier or more effective way than investigating ourself. Investigating ourself is not opposed to faith in God. It is the way to gain deep and abiding faith in God.
The friend: How can I develop faith in God without God’s grace?
Michael: We are responsible for the mess we are in. We ourselves have to get ourself out of this mess. Because we have chosen to attach ourself to all these things, seek pleasure in all these things, we have got ourselves into the mess. So we have got to reverse this process. The divine grace is always there. It is never lacking.
As Sri Ramakrishna said, the grace of God and the grace of guru are always abundantly there. They are never lacking in the least. What is lacking is the grace of ego. In other words, we don’t have enough love to turn towards God. To get that love, we got to persevere in trying to investigate ourself.
• Edited & paraphrased extract from the video: 2015-09-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on life as a dream (01:59)
My reflection: As Michael says, ‘Investigating ourself is not opposed to faith in God. It is the way to gain deep and abiding faith in God’. As Michael implies, if we investigate ourself deep enough and long enough, our mind and heart will be purified and clarified. As a result, we will develop deep viveka: that is, we will somehow be fully convinced that Bhagavan is taking care of everything. Thus, faith in God will automatically blossom.
Salazar, Michael said, ‘God is already doing all our duties, but because we rise as ego, we claim doership for it. If we subside, if we cease rising as ego, then we are letting God do everything. The ego rises and interferes’. You object to this by writing, ‘That could be misunderstood, it may imply that God is only doing everything if we do not rise as an ego. That is not correct, God is doing everything in any case. The rise or non-rise of the ego does not affect God [doing everything] at all’.
What you say is correct, but by rising as ego and by identifying with the actions of this body, speech and mind, we are becoming the doers. So we are claiming doership of even the actions done by God. So if this ego subsides, we will know that this ego is not the doer and that all actions of this body, speech and mind are being done in accordance with our destiny. This was the point Michael was trying to make.
Salazar, you say, ‘The ego cannot do anything, once it has risen it is in delusion’. This ego cannot achieve anything by the power of its will, but ego can want to and try to do a lot of things. It can to a limited extent use its body, speech and mind to try to change what it is destined to experience, or it can try to experience what it is not destined to experience. So it can try to do a lot of things, but it will only succeed if its actions are in accordance with its destiny.
So what is the only wise thing which this ego can do? It can turn within and subside in its place of origin, which is pure awareness. So this is the only worthwhile thing this ego can do. The sooner it understands this, the better it is for it. Everything else it tries to do or achieve is ultimately meaningless.
You say, ‘One has to come to the strong conviction that ANY thought, ANY idea is delusion and it should serve only one purpose, as a reminder for vichara’. Yes, this is true. All thoughts or ideas are a delusion, a mental fabrication. But who has this delusion? This delusion is for me, this ego. So every thought or idea should prompt us to investigate the one who has this thought or idea. Bhagavan says in paragraph 6 of Nan Ar?:
If other thoughts rise, without trying to complete them it is necessary to investigate to whom they have occurred. However many thoughts rise, what [does it matter]? As soon as each thought appears, if one vigilantly investigates to whom it has occurred, it will be clear: to me. If one [thus] investigates who am I, the mind will return to its birthplace [oneself, the source from which it arose]; [and since one thereby refrains from attending to it] the thought that had risen will also cease. When one practises and practises in this manner, to the mind the power to stand firmly established in its birthplace increases.
As our love matures, the actions by which we express our love for God will become more and more internalised (part one)
Puja, that is physical worship, is a relatively gross expression of love for God. If we have a deep love for God, we wouldn’t be inclined to even do puja.
In the early days when Muruganar came to the ashram, there were very people in the ashram. Since Muruganar was a brahmin, for sometimes he was given the job of doing puja in the Matrubhutewara temple. But Muruganar found he was completely unfit for this job. He said how to ring the bell and wave the light and such things – he found it all too confusing. Muruganar’s bhakti was at a very higher level. So, to someone whose bhakti is at such a level, to ask them to do puja, this gross form of worship, is totally inappropriate.
But for some people when they are first developing love for God, doing puja is appropriate. But as our love gets more refined, we will feel less inclined for such outward things. We will feel more inclined to just chant the name of God in our heart. At first, we may chant the name of God aloud: Ramana, Ramana, Ramana…… Arunachala, Arunachala, Arunachala……Nama Shivaya, Nama Shivaya, Nama Shivaya……or whatever. We may first like to chant aloud, but after some time we will do it softly. Then we will do it mentally, and the more our love matures, the more our meditation on the name or form of God will become undistracted.
So as the love matures, the actions by which we express our love for God will become more and more internalised. We will express our love more subtly. Eventually, we will reach a point when we would like to give ourself to God. Then we will get the clarity to understand ‘Who am I to give myself to God? Who is this I that I need to give to God? Is there anything other than God? When he alone is, who am I?’
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-07-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 3 to 8 (01:01)
My reflection: Who am I to give myself to God? Who is this I that I need to give to God? Is there anything other than God? When he alone is, who am I? Yes, we need to think on these lines.
Salazar,
yesterday 8 July 2020 at 17:39 you wrote: 'That includes to stop to think along the lines "I am an ego and therefore ...." what leads only to delusion. In the moment one identifies with being an ego/person vichara is required. Very simple.'
I your statement I would include also the opposite thought "I am not an ego and therefore ....".
Just in the moment one identifies with being not an ego/person vichara is required. Very simple.'
Salazar, sorry, it should be: In your statement...
The aim of any manana we do should be to simplify and clarify our understanding
Recently I was watching Michael’s video: 2015-09-12 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on life as a dream (01:24). At this point, friends were discussing with Michael about Bhagavan’s teachings of eka-jiva-vada (the contention that there is only one ego). I drew the following inference from this discussion. I shared my inference with Michael and requested for his comments. My inference and Michael's reply, both of these are mentioned below:
Sanjay: If there is only one ego, then it was only I that was Mozart, and I was also once Shakespeare. I must have been once Hitler also. So I was responsible for all the terrible things that Hitler is responsible for. If this one ego is responsible for everything, we have to say that we as this one ego are responsible for all the misdeeds of all the evil people in the past. And we were also responsible for all the good deeds done by various good people in the past. So I can take credit for Gandhi’s non-violent freedom struggle, for example.
However, I am not sure if I can view things this way because if everything is my dream, so even Mozart, Shakespeare, Hitler and Gandhi are also just part of my dream. Whatever things they had supposedly done are also part of my current dream.
Michael: Identifying ourself as one person is more than enough trouble. Why would we want to identify ourself with so many historical characters? No identification is real, so our aim should be just to investigate ourself here and now in order to see what we actually are. If we do so keenly enough we will see that we are just pure awareness, which is infinite, eternal and immutable, so we are not and never were any person at all.
The aim of any manana we do should be to simplify and clarify our understanding, and if we do so correctly it will reduce all unnecessary thoughts and speculations such as these.
My reflection: So very true. This reply by Michael shows me why he is so precious to me and many others like me. He will always keep our manana on track, and if are manana is on track, our practice cannot go much wrong.
What Michael says makes a lot of sense. I am already miserable because I identify myself with Sanjay, so why should I add to my misery by now further identifying myself with so many other historical characters from the past? Point well taken!
Sanjay,
as Michael said "Identifying ourself as one person is more than enough trouble."
Did not Sadhu Om aptly use the comparison of ego with a general and the persons with his soldiers ?
So the mentioned historical characters Mozart, Shakespeare, Hitler were perhaps just mere particularly striking soldiers whereas Gandhi perhaps was a sage.
By the way, it should be: "...and if our manana is on track, our practice...".
As our love matures, the actions by which we express our love for God will become more and more internalised (part two)
Bhagavan sings beautifully in verse 7 of Arunachala Padigam:
If the five elements - space, air, fire, water, earth and all material objects, which manifest as the many living beings, are not other than you, the space of light (the space of consciousness or chitakasa), who else am I but you? O blemishless one, since you shine without another in the heart as the space of consciousness, who am I who come out as another (that is, who am I who rise as I am so-and-so)? O Arunachala, placing your vast lotus-feet on his head (on the head of this rising ‘I’, the ego), come out (and manifest yourself as the real ‘I’).
So as our bhakti develops and matures, as it becomes deeper and purer, we wouldn’t even want to meditate on God. We would like to wholly give ourself to God. Meditation is the closest we can come to that, but ‘I don’t want even to give my thoughts to God. I want to give myself to God’. But then ‘Who is this I who wants to give himself to God? Who am I to surrender myself to God? When he alone is everything, what am I? Am I something separate from him that I can give myself to him?’
So at this point, that anya-bhava turns into ananya-bhava, and we understand, ‘O, I am nothing other than God. What is shining in me as ‘I’ is nothing but God’.
As Bhagavan sings in this verse of Padigam: ‘O blemishless one, you shine without another in the heart as that space of pure awareness, so who am I who have come out as if another?’ Then he adds: ‘O Arunachala, come out [that is, come out of my heart] placing your vast lotus-feet on his head [on the head of this ego]’.
So we are powerless even to surrender ourself to him because who are we other than him? He has to manifest himself and with his big lotus-feet press the head of this ego down and crush it to death. This is of course put in a metaphorical and poetic language. What it means is that Arunachala has to reveal himself as pure awareness and that will crush this ego. Ego will be crushed only when it sees ‘who am I?’ – what it actually is.
So this is a very very beautiful verse. This verse also gives a clue to the advance level of bhakti. How the anya-bhava switches to ananya-bhava. When we truly want to surrender ourself to God, then the question arises, how can we surrender ourself without knowing ourself? We have to know ourself before we can surrender ourself.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-07-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 3 to 8 (01:01)
My reflection: Michael says, ‘We have to know ourself before we can surrender ourself’. What exactly does this mean? If a soldier is captured by its enemy and if he is asked to surrender, he has to obviously lay down his arms and put up his hands showing that he is without his arms now. So that is surrender in the context of a soldier surrendering to his opponent party.
So if Bhagavan wants us to surrender ourself to him, what does he expects us to surrender? He expects us to surrender ourself: ‘ourself’ in this context means our separate individuality, this ego, this ‘I am this body’ idea. It is because it is only this separate individuality or ego or ‘I am this body’ idea which is separating ourself from God. So we have to surrender this false separateness to God. So we need to clearly identify what we need to surrender, and then we have to find out the correct means to surrender ourself.
Bhagavan has given us a perfectly scientific and an infallible means to surrender ourself to him. We will not go into this method in this comment.
Anadi-ananta, thank you. Yes, it should be 'if our manana is on track, our practice cannot go much wrong'.
Michael: 'Any help or guidance you may seem to get from me comes only from Bhagavan'
I had sent a Whatsapp message to Michael on the 5th of this month, the day of guru-poornima. He replied to my message today – that is on the 9th. The following is the extract of our conversation:
Sanjay Lohia: Sir, happy guru poornima. Though Bhagavan is our guru, you are also my guru since I have learnt so much from you and am learning so much from you. With pranams.
Michael James: If we want to follow Bhagavan's path, there is only one guru, namely Bhagavan himself. When he is our guru, what need is there for any other guru?
Please do not delude yourself by putting me on a pedestal. As a person, I am nothing. Any help or guidance you may seem to get from me comes only from him
Sanjay Lohia: Thank you, sir. All I can say is that it is a rare blessing to be associated with you. Since you are back in London, please take proper care of yourself. I believe you are back earlier than expected. Regards.
Michael James: Yes, circumstances changed faster than expected, but all happens according to his will
Sanjay Lohia: Yes, all happens according to his will. Pranams.
Salazar, you say, ‘the "will" is a delusion too since it is ego’. The will is not ego, but the will is ego’s will. In other words, this ego attaches itself to its will. It may take its will to be itself, but the will is something other than itself.
Our will consists of all our desires, attachments, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, wants and such things. This ego is not that desire; ego has that desire. We may identify we are desires. For example, I may say ‘I like sweets’. But ‘I’ am not my ‘like’. I have added that ‘like’ to me. So we can give up that ‘like’ whenever we want to give it up.
Yes, Bhagavan’s true teaching is indeed mouna (silence) This mouna means not only no thoughts but more importantly no thinker of those thoughts. So Bhagavan’s mouna is much deeper than the usual mouna of thoughts or speech.
As our love matures, the actions by which we express our love for God will become more and more internalized (part three)
Who am I other than God? God exists as ‘I’. God is that which is shining in us as ‘I’, as Bhagavan says in verse 8 of Upadesa Undiyar, ‘ananya-bhava in which he is I’. Bhagavan says ‘meditating on I is the best among all’. So there is no God other than ‘I’. Therefore, to meditate on God correctly is to meditate only on ‘I’, not on anything else. Meditating on a form of God is meditating on a thought. As Bhagavan indicates in verse 5 of Upadesa Undiyar, all forms are nothing but thoughts or mental phenomena.
So whatever spiritual practice we may be doing is beneficial only if it leads to this ultimate path of ananya-bhava or self-investigation. Of course, Bhagavan approves every other path in its proper context, but what is the best of all? It is ananya-bhava. So that is the aim of all the verses of Upadesa Undiyar.
Our bhakti can be expressed in actions, whether those actions are by our body, speech or mind. If these actions are done in niskamya-bhava and with love for God, that will purify our mind. But we have to go beyond actions because karma is bondage according to Bhagavan. Bhagavan said liberation is not attained by doing anything but by just being.
So long as we rise as ego, our rising as ego is an interruption to being, so to speak. However, in reality, being is never interrupted because even when we rise as ego, we still are. So being is the ever-present ground, the base from which we rise. Without being there could be no rising. But so long as we are rising, we are not just being. So long as we are rising, we are far from liberation.
The nature of liberation is pure awareness, and being and awareness are the same. So the whole thrust of Upadesa Undiyar, from the beginning to the end, is: Action is not the way. Being is the only path to liberation. Action, if done without desire and for love of God, will purify the mind and lead us to this path of just being.
• Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-07-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 3 to 8 (01:01)
My reflection: As Michael says, the core message of Upadesa Undiyar is, ‘Action is not the way. Being is the only path to liberation’. We may miss out this message if we do not read these verses carefully because, in Upadesa Undiyar, Bhagavan seems to be talking about various practices of bhakti, yoga and such things.
However, the message is very clear. These other practices can only take us so far and then they become powerless. We have to finally come to ananya-bhava, which is the path of atma-vichara. Only atma-vichara is the final gateway to freedom.
Salazar,
if I really had no idea [first hand experience] of "I am" I even could not write a comment. You weren't expecting that, were you ? :-)
Salazar said on 8 July 2020 at 15:41
"....thus vichara is required which prevents the rising of the ego (jada) in the first place."
I guess and hope that Salazar did not mean to term 'ego' as 'jada'. In Ulladu Narpadu verse 24, Bhagavan states this (Sri Robert Butler's translation):
"The physical body does not say 'I'. Being-consciousness does not arise [or disappear]. But in between the two something arises, the 'I', which is limited to the body. Understand that this is known as the knot between consciousness and the insentient, as bondage, as the individual soul, as the subtle body, as the ego, as this worldly condition of existence, and as the mind."
Salazar, I agree when you say, ‘The tendency to put people on a pedestal is very prevalent in spiritual circles. That's why many impostors are so successful’. So we should avoid putting people on a pedestal.
You say, ‘Bhagavan works through everyone, why singling out a specific personality? Why is a specific jiva more important/special than others?’ Yes, Bhagavan works through everyone but his grace works better through the jivas whose minds have become pure. His grace works better through those who have surrendered to him. That surrender may not be complete, but to the extent they have surrendered, to that extent Bhagavan’s acts more clearly through them. Of course, all these things are relative and cannot be measured or need not be analysed in too much detail.
You say, ‘A "will" is not independent of an ego’. Bhagavan teaches us in verse 5 of Ulladu Narpadu:
The body is pañca-kōśa-uru [a form composed of five sheaths, namely a physical structure, life, mind, intellect and will]. Therefore all five [sheaths] are included in the term ‘body’. Without a body [composed of these five sheaths], is there a world? Say, without [experiencing oneself as such] a body, is there anyone who has seen a world?
So ‘will’ is part of the body, and the body is paccha-kosa-uru, a form composed of five sheaths, namely a physical structure, life, intellect and will. Ego is that which attaches itself to this body, but ego is not this body. So will is an adjunct of ego, and therefore it is clearly apart from ego.
Yes, this will is the subtlest sheath, but it is nonetheless a sheath, which comes and goes. The contents of the sheath keep on changing, but ego remains the same as long as it exists.
When I see Michael overwhelmed with love while explaining verses from Sri Arunachala Astakam or verse 101 of Sri Arunachala Aksharamanamalai, my cold loveless heart is also little bit moved, seeing my own extreme lack of love. Ultimately this path is all about love. So we can, i think, put Michael's singular love for Bhagavan, on a pedestal, because without love We are lost. If we put our love for Bhagavan above everything else We will try more and more to turn within because Bhagavan has said he is always shining within us as I.
I wonder if and when Michael will get a chance to discuss verses from Sri Arunachala Aksharamanamalai on his YouTube channel.
Sanjay thank you for your replies above to my questions, they were helpful 🙏
Ego is the subject or perceiver, which is different from the objects it perceives. According to what Bhagavan taught in UN, subject exists only so long as it perceives objects. So alone, the subject cannot exist. But just because subject exists only so long as objects exist, that does not imply that the subject is the objects.
How can the subject be Unknown to itself? :)
Unknown, what I meant when i said that the subject (ego) is always known to us is that we are always aware of the ego. Because whenever We know objects, We are also aware, "i am aware of these objects". What Sri Ramana asked us to do, as i understand it, is to try to be aware of ego or the subject or I, in isolation. We are aware of ego along with adjuncts, and we have to try to be aware of ego in isolation.
I didn't mean to imply, as you seem to think that I did, that I find vichara to be simple. I struggle in the practice. But I meant that we already always know the subject because we are the subject.
Unknown, I do not experience myself as "subject and not the objects you perceive". If I did become aware of subject in isolation from objects, then according to Bhagavan, the world would cease to exist and the ego would be destroyed. So I am aware both of the subject and objects, and am also aware of the subject as the objects it perceives, like this body.
Salazar, an object must exist in the view of a subject. If the ego is not the subject and the self is the subject, that means self perceives these objects, but according to Bhagavan, self perceives no objects.
Anma viddai, ayye athi sulabham...
Michael: Bhagavan explains his teachings in a clear and logical manner because if we have a clear understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings, we are already half-way there, so to speak. In the sense, by understanding Bhagavan’s teachings, we are saved from so much confusion. OK, initially it is just an intellectual understanding, but that intellectual understanding saves us from so much unnecessary thoughts and confusions.
So a clear intellectual understanding is a starting point we need to have. We cannot investigate ourself without clearly understanding what Bhagavan has taught us.
A friend: It is the foundation of anma viddai, ayye athi sulabham....
Michael: Yes, it’s extremely easy. When we say it is difficult we are just trying to evade our responsibility. Bhagavan said of all paths, this is the easiest path. There is nothing easier than knowing ourself. Why it seems difficult? It is because of our unwillingness to let go. So when we say, ‘O, it is difficult’, we are trying to shift the blame from ourself onto the supposed difficulty.
How can it be difficult to know ourself? It is difficult to know other things because our attention has to move away from ourself towards those other things. But we are always aware of ourself as 'I am'. We do not need to know anything beyond 'I am'. We already know it, but we are not willing to let go of other things. That reluctance to let go of phenomena - that is the problem. So the problem lies in us, in our attachments, in our unwillingness to surrender ourself. If we are willing to surrender ourself, we will be that here and now.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (31:00)
My reflection: Yes, If we understand Bhagavan’s teachings even intellectually, it saves us from so many unnecessary thoughts and confusions.
Regarding anma viddai, ayye athi sulabham, after we come to this path of self-investigation, we will find every other path to be difficult. When we can do our sadhana by just remaining still without the least action of body, speech and mind, why to act in any way by our body, speech and mind to perform other sadhanas? So every other form of sadhana seems too cumbersome for us.
Karen Taylor,
I easily can understand how you feel.
Because you already pray to be rescued from yourself as ego/mind/separated person you should persistently continue to sacrifice ego/mind/separated person to the heart/self.
Having a family to contend with is in my experience not at all an obstacle to desire self-realisation. On the contrary you should try to integrate your sense of duty regarding your daily family-responsibilities in your striving for self-realisation.
Both do not conflict sharply or inevitably with each other.
Do not forget ego has a wide and well-stocked box of tricks.:-)
Salazar,
you say yesterday 9 July 2020 at 19:55 "So ego is not different from objects since it creates and perceives them simultaneously."
However, according Bhagavan's teaching ego is aware whereas its imaginations are jada (insentient).
Unknown, you wrote, ‘Sanjay Lohia, you said many things of the ego by denying it its adjuncts like body, person, will, thoughts etc and say ego is not this or it is not that. So then can you tell us then what is this ego by itself and when all alone without the body, person, will, thoughts etc?’
Bhagavan teaches us in verse 25 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Grasping form the formless phantom-ego comes into existence; grasping form it stands; grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly; leaving form, it grasps form. If it seeks, it will take flight. Investigate.
So this ego is just a formless phantom, which comes into seeming existence by grasping a body and by taking this body to be itself. However, to fully understand the true nature of ego, we should look at verses 23 and 24 of Ulladu Narpadu:
23: This body does not say ‘I’. No one says ‘In sleep I do not exist’. After one thing, ‘I’, rises, everything rises. Contemplate by a subtle mind where this ‘I’ rises.
24: The insentient body does not say ‘I’; being-awareness does not rise; in between one thing, ‘I’, rises as the extent of the body. Know that this is the awareness-insentience-knot, bondage, soul, subtle body, ego, this wandering and mind.
So ego is that chit-jada granthi that rises seemingly binding our pure being-awareness with an insentient body. So, ego is just an erroneous idea ‘I am this body’. This ego is not this body, but it is a false awareness which takes a body to be itself. So ego is different from a body, a person, all its thoughts, will and so on.
Ego is also a thought, but it the root of all other thoughts. Ego is the only thought which is aware both of itself and of other thoughts. All other thoughts are jada, but ego is aware, even though ego’s awareness is not the real awareness but just a semblance of awareness. Ego is awareness, but it borrows its awareness from pure awareness. So if we keenly investigate this ego, we will find that it does not exist. So ego’s awareness is not the real awareness, because it itself is not real.
Michael implies in his latest video that ego is not real as ego, but it is real as pure awareness. He says ego exists in sleep as pure awareness but not as ego. What Michael implies is that the reality of ego is only pure self-awareness. Just like the reality of the illusory snake is only the rope. So the snake exists in rope as rope but not as a snake. We can likewise say this world exists in brahman as brahman but not as this world. So these are the subtle and nuanced way of explaining Bhagavan's teachings.
To whom? To me. Who am I?, I am glad you found my replies helpful.
You say, ‘So we can, i think, put Michael's singular love for Bhagavan, on a pedestal, because without love We are lost’. I cannot agree with you more. Michael may not consider himself to be a guru, but he is a beacon of light of many like me. His love for Bhagavan and his teachings is second to none. I would have been lost without his clear guidance. Yes, ultimately all comes from Bhagavan, but we see it coming to us through the channel of Michael. Therefore, we do have a deep admiration for Michael.
You say, If we put our love for Bhagavan above everything else We will try more and more to turn within because Bhagavan has said he is always shining within us as I’. Yes, Bhagavan can be found nowhere expect in and as ‘I’. The sooner we understand it, the better it is for us. So we want to meet Bhagavan, we should just turn within and attend to ‘I’ with deep deep love. This is the direct path and the only goal worth seeking.
Sanjay,
you mean saying "Bhagavan can be found nowhere except in and as ‘I’. "
(The letters 'p' and 'c' had to change their place).:-)
Perseverance (as such) is already progress on the path.
Anadi-ananta, yes, the more we persevere on this path of self-investigation and self-surrender, the more we progress, and the more we progress, the more we automatically persevere.
So, as Michael says, it is a snow-balling effect. The momentum of the snowball rolling down the hill will carry it to the bottom of the mountain. So we are sure to reach our destination once we have commenced our journey, and we have indeed commenced our journey. So we will reach our destination - 100%.
Sanjay,
as you seem to be convinced, a healthy optimistic view is somehow always beneficial.
And yet, speaking from my own experience sometimes a boulder or a towering tree may stop the snowballeffect.:-)
Who actually is the doer?
A friend: Please speak about the concept that I am not the doer?
Michael James: When we rise as ego, we always experience ourself as the body and mind, and whatever actions as done by the body and mind, we experience as the actions done by us. ‘I am sitting’, ‘I am listening’, ‘I am speaking’, ‘I am thinking’ – all actions of the mind, speech and body are experienced by us as actions done by ourself because the body, speech and mind are experienced as ourself.
But this body, speech and mind is not what we actually are. What we actually are is just pure awareness in view of which there is no body, speech and mind at all. So as pure awareness we are not the doer, but as ego we are the doer. Actually, as ego we seem to be the doer because ego identifies itself with the instruments of actions. Actually, all actions are done only by our body, speech and mind, but because of our identification with them, we seem to be the doer of action. So we cannot give up the sense of doership so long as experience ourself as this body and mind.
So it is only by investigating ourself and thereby by experiencing ourself as we actually are that we can give up the sense of doership, and doership is always accompanied by experiencership. So long as we experience ourself as the doer of actions, we will experience ourself as the experiencer of the fruits of actions. So whatever happens to us, whatever we experiencer in this lifetime is the fruits of actions that we have done in the previous lifetime.
So in order to give up the doership and experiencership, we need to investigate ourself and know what we actually are.
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:33)
We should see what Bhagavan’s words are pointing at
A friend: Why do so many speakers on non-duality speak in dualistic language?
Michael James: All language is dualistic because the language has been developed to communicate with each other. If there was no other person, there would have been no need for any language. So language is developed for the purpose of communicating. And what do we communicate about? We communicate about phenomena.
Bhagavan wrote a small verse saying questions and answers are possible only in the state of duality. In non-duality, there is no question and answers. So inevitably all language is dualistic. However, a real guru like Bhagavan is talking about that which is beyond duality, but when he is talking in words, he can only use dualistic language. So, often Bhagavan talks metaphorically.
So we shouldn’t take the surface meaning of Bhagavan’s words. We need to understand what the words are referring to, or what the words are pointing at. Bhagavan’s words are very important, but we have to see that what Bhagavan’s words are pointing to is beyond words. So we shouldn’t just be caught up in the words. We should see what they are pointing at.
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:41)
Sanjay,
it should be: "So whatever happens to us, whatever we experience in this lifetime is the fruits of actions ...".
How do we balance creativity with surrender?
A friend: In other teachings, I have heard that God wants to create and express his creativity. I also want to create and balance my creativity with surrender. We have a natural impulse to create things, but how to reconcile surrender and our urge to create?
Michael James: In the Bible, it is said that God created us in his image. People interpret this in many ways, but the simplest interpretation is that God is ‘I am’, and what we essentially are is also ‘I am’. So we are nothing other than God. In that sense, we are God’s image. Someone once said, ‘God created us in his image, and we have been returning his compliments ever since’. That is, we create God in our image.
Because we like to create this world, we say that God likes to create this world. But why should we put the blame of creation on God? We are the ones who have created it. I understand the context in which you say that God wants to create or experiment or whatever. People whose minds are outward-going will dream of all sorts of wealth and prosperity and all the good things of the world. So their minds are still outward-going.
In Advaita, it is said that there are two paths that a person can follow: pravritti marga and nivritti marga. Pravritti marga is the path of going outwards – that’s a worldly path. Nivritti means returning within. In other words, pravritti is creation and projection. Nivritti is subsidence of everything. We have to decide what is our aim of life – whether we want to go outwards or we want to go inwards? If we want to go inwards, to that extent we will not have big ambitions or dreams in this world.
However, the person we seem to be has a certain prarabdha. We may be a person with certain creative abilities, so as such a person we may have a prarabdha to follow some creative path. We may be an artist or an entrepreneur or whatever. But that is all outward and our outward life is determined by prarabdha. We need not be concerned about that.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (01:32)
How do we balance creativity with surrender? (part two)
Michael James: If we are following the nivritti marga, the path of going within, we have to allow the external life to go on according to prarabdha because our intention is to turn within. Generally, people whose inclination is to turn within will not be given a prarabdha that is a lot of outward-going. But that does not mean that they are completely incompatible. All sorts of prarabdha are possible. Whatever type of prarabdha is most suited to us at our present stage of spiritual development will be given to us by Bhagavan.
So we cannot change whatever is to happen. Whatever is to happen will happen. That’s talking about all the outward events of life. All external events are already predetermined. So if it is our prarabdha to be an entrepreneur, that will happen whether we want it or not. The body, speech and mind will be driven to do that. But what is not predetermined is our will. So if we want to turn inwards, we turn inwards. If we want to turn outwards, then all the vasansas come into play, and we will be doing actions not only according to prarabdha but also according to our will.
But if we are drawn to this path that Bhagavan has taught us, we will be slowly-slowly trying to turn within and thereby detach ourself from the person we seem to be and its prarabdha. So we have to decide what we want. Do we want worldly achievements which are all going to be fleeting? Even if we very successful in a material sense, whatever wealth we may earn, or whatever prestige in society we may earn, or whatever power we gain in this world, it’s all going to pass very quickly.
Human life is very short. Even if we live for a hundred years or so, it still goes pass by very quickly. So if we are wise, we will not attach importance to worldly success. We will be more interested in turning within and surrendering ourself.
If we are trying to follow Bhagavan’s path, our external life will anyway go on according to prarabdha, but we will be less concerned about material success or failure. So long as we have a body and we live in this world, in most cases, it is necessary for us to earn a living in one way or another. So we will do some sort of work, and even if have sufficient money and we don’t have to work to earn a living, still some type of activity will be going on in our life.
Let all these things go on according to prarabdha. They need not concern us. If we are wise, our only concern should be to turn within and surrender ourself. If we do so, anyway our life will go on according to prarabdha. So it will make no difference what happens outwardly.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (01:32)
Sanjay,
as you quote Michael saying,
the fundamental choice we have is between pravṛtti (going outwards) and nivṛtti (withdrawing back within).
Yes, Anandi-ananta, the fundamental choice we have is between pravṛtti (going outwards) and nivṛtti (withdrawing back within). But we are 99% of the time foolishly choosing pravrtti over nivrtti. This is certainly true for me. So we should try to inculcate the habit of choosing more and more of nivrtti because Bhagavan teaches us only nivrtti – that is, turning or withdrawing back within more and more.
Ego is our enemy (part one)
A friend: Can we turn our ego from a dysfunctional ego to a functional ego?
Michael James: It is true ego is our enemy – in other words, we are our own enemy. But when we have an enemy, what is the best way to fight with our enemy? The more we fight with our enemy, the more problems we will create for ourself. The wise thing is to make friends with our enemy and to make the enemy work for us. So long as we allow ego and its attention to go outwards, it is creating problems for us, and therefore it is our enemy. But the same ego which is our enemy when it is going outwards becomes our friend when it turns back within.
The ego is not something other than ourself. We ourself are ego. When we are looking outwards, we are creating problems for ourself. When we are looking within, we are separating ourself from all those problems. The same ego, ourself, who has the potential to be our enemy, also has the potential to be our best friend. It's up to us. If we are turning within, ego is our friend, and if we are turning outwards, ego is our enemy. So we need to turn within more and more.
Regarding what you said about good egos and bad egos, functional egos and dysfunctional egos, Bhagavan has already answered that in paragraph 19 of Nan Ar?:
There are not two minds, namely a good mind and a bad mind. Mind is only one. Only vāsanās [inclinations, propensities, impulses or desires] are of two kinds, namely śubha [agreeable, virtuous or good] and aśubha [disagreeable, wicked, harmful or bad]. When mind is under the sway of śubha vāsanās it is said to be a good mind, and when it is under the sway of aśubha vāsanās a bad mind.
When we look out into the world, we see some seeming god people and some seeming bad people, but most people are a mixture of good and bad. Actually, the mind of all people is only one mind. What makes it seem good in some people and bad in some people is only the types of vasanas they seem to exhibit. We all have a mixture of good and bad vasanas, and both these terms ‘subha’ and ‘asubha’ are just relative terms.
So, a vasana which from one perspective may seem to be a good vasana, from another perspective may not be good. For example, suppose if we have a vasana to always be helping people, from one perspective, it is a good vasana, but from a spiritual perspective, even that is a bad vasana. Why? Because it is driving our attention outwards. So ultimately the only good vasana is what is sometimes called sat-vasana (the liking just to be).
(I will continue this in my next comment)
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:54)
Ego is our enemy (part two)
Michael James: We all have some good qualities and some bad qualities. It all depends upon our vasanas which are driving our minds – whether we appear to be a good person or a bad person.
So, on the spiritual path, the vasanas which we are most concerned about is what Bhagavan calls vishaya-vasanas. Vishaya-vasanas mean any liking or inclination to attend to or to be aware of or experience any vishayas. Vishayas means phenomena – anything other than ourself. So any inclination to turn our attention away from ourself is a vishaya-vasana.
The more we try to turn our attention within and surrender ourself, the weaker our vishaya-vasana will become, and this will have an effect on the type of person we currently seem to be. That is if we have very strong vishaya-vasanas - that means very strong desires and attachments, likes and dislikes - outwardly we will appear to be a very avaricious, greedy, egotistical, greedy person. It’s because selfishness is created by strong vishaya-vasanas. So the more we follow the spiritual path and reduce the strength of our vishaya-vasanas, the less we will tend to be selfish, greedy, unkind etc.
When our vishaya-vasanas are less strong, we will have more sympathy and compassion for other people. We will feel that the difference between ourself and others is less strong. It will be a less pronounced difference. So all the good qualities will come to the extent our vishaya-vasanas are reduced and our sat-vasana strengthened.
That doesn’t mean that our aim on the spiritual path is to become a good person. Our real aim is to separate ourself from the person we seem to be, by experiencing ourself as we actually are. But the more we detach ourself from the person we seem to be, the less that person will be an ego-driven person, and therefore the better that person will seem to be – that is, more virtuous etc.
We cannot do anything to change other people, but we can change ourself by turning within and surrendering ourself. The more we change internally, that means the more we give up the strength of our vishaya-vasanas, the more the person we seem to be will appear to be a good person.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:54)
Asun, you say, ‘This is where truly lies the extreme simplicity and clarity that MJ always ascribes to Ramana´s teachings, not in Ramana´s teachings’. This is not fully clear, so could you please explain more clearly? It is clear when you say, ‘This is where truly lies the extreme simplicity and clarity that MJ always ascribes to Ramana´s teachings’. But what do you mean when you add ‘not in Ramana’s teachings’?
Ego is our enemy (part three)
Michael James: It is the weakening of vishaya-vasanas which is generally called the purification of mind. The purer the mind becomes – that is the less strong its vishaya-vasanas become – the more the mind will come under the sway of subha-vasanas and cease to be under the sway of asubha-vasanas.
There are many bogus ideas going around nowadays in the name of spirituality. A collective name for all these bogus ideas is neo-advaita. One of the ideas is that there is no connection between spiritual attainment and how we behave as a person. Some people use this licence to behave in any way they want – ‘I am a spiritual person. I am enlightened, so it doesn’t matter how I behave’. This is a complete misunderstanding of what spirituality is all about. Any genuine spiritual path will be beneficial only to the extent it helps to purify the mind.
Of all types of spiritual practice, the path that is most helpful in purifying the mind is the practice of self-investigation and self-surrender taught by Bhagavan. So if we are following this path sincerely and correctly, our mind will be purified. That is our vishaya-vasanas will be gradually weakened. So even the person we seem to be will seem to be a better person than that person would otherwise have been.
So to pretend that there is no connection between spirituality and outward behaviour is a complete misinterpretation. In fact, the neo-advaitins don’t talk about the purification of mind at all. They will say, ‘Of course, you are already that – you are already brahman. All you have to do is to see that you are brahman. You don’t have to worry about the purity of mind because there is no mind. There is no ego’.
It is true there is no ego, but you don’t rid of the mind or ego by saying ‘there is no ego or mind’. In order to actually see that there is no ego or mind, we need to turn within and see what we actually are, and in order to turn within, we need to purify the mind. So long as our mind is impure – that is, so long as are under the sway of vishaya-vasanas – we will not be willing to turn within and surrender ourself.
So if you hear anyone saying that purification of mind is not necessary or that outward behaviour has no relevance to spirituality, you can be pretty sure that they are snake oil salesman. That is, they are selling false ideas – ideas that have nothing to do with genuine spirituality.
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:54)
Note: A ‘snake oil salesman’ is somebody that sells an item that claims to have some miraculous powers. This product is usually accompanied by a tremendous amount of hype. In an attempt to help push their products, the snake oil salesman will usually utilize planted accomplices who will claim that the product actually works.
Asun,
may I approach you with the same request made by Sanjay today on 20 August 2020 at 12:10 ?
Sanjay,
many thanks for your good transcription of Michael's recent (Spanish) video of 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo.
By the way, it should be :...so long as we are under the sway of vishaya-vasanas...
Sanjay,
in plural it should be: snake oil salesmen.
Thanks, Anadi-ananta.
The guru has been guiding us slowly-slowly through so many lives or dreams
We are seeking God, but because our mind is turned outwards, it is necessary for God to appear in the human form to tell us, ‘What you are seeking is within you. Turn within and know yourself and then you will know God’. Since God and guru are not different, so guru is necessary – without guru’s teachings, we wouldn’t turn our mind within. The nature of the mind is to look outwards. It is only when we come across guru’s teachings that we know that what we are seeking lies only within.
Bhagavan, for example, told us that we are all seeking happiness, but we are seeking it in the wrong places. We are seeking in the things outside ourself. We think we can get happiness from better circumstances in life. We think we are going to get happiness by having more money or a better job or a nicer house or a better car or a nicer family or whatever. We all think that happiness depends on things outside. But Bhagavan says that there is no happiness in any of the things in the world. Happiness is your real nature, so it lies only within you.
So that is the function of the guru – to turn the outward-seeking mind into an inward-seeking mind. So guru is absolutely necessary. But though guru appears in a human form, he is not that human form. Most of us were not even born when Bhagavan left his body, but that doesn’t mean that Bhagavan is not our guru. It is because his teachings are always available. And not only his teachings, but we have the story of his life. For many people, the first thing that attracted them to Bhagavan was just seeing a picture of his. So Bhagavan has been attracting us in so many ways.
So though Bhagavan’s body is not physically present now, he is still working as effectively as when he was in the body. Even before he was in a body, he was working effectively because though guru appears as a person, guru not a person. Guru is eternal. Guru is our real nature which has been guiding us slowly-slowly through so many lives or dreams. He has been guiding us in order to bring us to the stage of development that we are in now. He has now appeared in the form of Bhagavan to tell us: ‘What you are seeking lies within you. Turn within and then only will you find what you are seeking’.
So, guru is absolutely necessary, Guru must be living but not living temporarily. Sadhu Om used to say, ‘Yes, a living guru is necessary, but if what you mean by a living guru a living body, then that living guru will one day become a dead guru’. What’s the use of such a temporary guru? We want an eternally living guru, and Bhagavan is that eternally living guru.
So, if anyone feels Bhagavan is their guru, that’s 100% true.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (00:39)
What is inside is only ourself, the pure awareness ‘I am’
When we are following this path, all sorts of anxieties and concerns arise from within. When we look outside, the world is a terrifying place. We see disease, wars, poverty, extreme greed and such things. So many things in the world have the potential to create suffering, but all these things are a problem only to the extent we attend to them. That is, if we look outside, the world is a terrifying place.
But why should we look at the world? If we look at ourself and thereby withdraw our attention from the world, what do we find within? Ultimately, we find only peace within. Some people say that the more they look within, the more the anxieties and fears and so on they feel. But so long as we feel anxieties and fears, we are not looking within.
It may seem to us that fears and anxieties are within, and they are within only in a relative sense – in the sense that the world is outside and these fears and anxieties are within. But that’s taking the standard of inside and outside as the body. The world is outside the body; the mind and all its feelings are inside the body. But that isn’t what Bhagavan meant by inside and outside. According to Bhagavan, even the mind and all its feelings are outside. What is inside is only ourself, the pure awareness ‘I am’.
So if we are looking within in the sense of looking at ourself, the pure awareness ‘I am’, we are ceasing to pay heed or attention to anything else. So to the extent, we turn within and let go of everything else, to that extent we are free from the fears and anxieties that all these things create in us.
It’s easy to say this, but when we put this into practice because we have such strong desires and attachments, it seems to be difficult. It seems to be not so easy to let go.
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:32)
Sanjay,
it should be:...though guru appears as a person, guru is not a person.
Thanks, Anadi-ananta.
Salazar, yes, we need to apply Bhagavan’s teachings throughout the day. Bhagavan’s path is not a part-time job. We need to try to turn within throughout the day and night – even whenever we happen to be awake at night. However, as you imply, we are not able to do so because of our strong desires and attachments to a variety of things.
I agree we have indeed imprisoned ourself to various kinds of belief patterns. However, the root of all our false beliefs is the belief that ‘I am this body’. This ‘I am this body’ idea is ego, and if this comes into existence, all our other false beliefs also come into existence.
Yes, when we follow Bhagavan’s path all kind of garbage does come to the surface of our mind. This is natural and desirable because if they don’t come to the surface of the mind, how can we get rid of them? So the more we try to turn within, the more our deep-rooted fears, desires, anxieties, attachments and such things will arise to the surface. However, our job is to ignore all these things by turning within more and more, by withdrawing within more and more.
All these fears, desires, anxieties, attachments will eventually leave us for us. What will remain is just pure awareness, which is free of all desires, attachments, fears. A jnani is absolutely fearless because he is absolutely desireless.
Ego is trouble, so it sees itself everywhere
A friend: I use Bhagavan’s teachings to complete myself. Though I am not practising Bhagavan’s teachings much, the teaching itself is filling up a big hole in me.
Michael James: If we had not come across Bhagavan’s teachings, our life would have certainly been emptier than it is now. We would still be looking for happiness outside. Now having read and understood Bhagavan’s teachings, we haven’t given up completely looking for happiness outside, but now we understand more clearly that happiness doesn’t lie outside. So what we are seeking doesn’t lie outside. It lies within.
So in this sense, by merely understanding Bhagavan’s teachings a big hole has been filled. But though his teachings have to a very great extent filled a hole in our life, but that hole hasn’t been filled completely because the hole is a very-very big hole. The hole that exists in our life is the seeming lack of infinite happiness and infinite satisfaction. Because our real nature is infinite happiness, so long as we seem to be not experiencing infinite happiness, there is a big-big hole in our life.
Bhagavan’s teachings can fill that hole to a large extent, but nothing can fill the hole adequately until we experience ourself as we actually are. That’s what Bhagavan’s teachings are all about. So it’s true that Bhagavan’s teachings are a great comfort and solace to us, but to get the full benefits of his teachings, we have to put them into practice. We need to turn within and thereby surrender ourself completely.
At first, we may not seem to be so successful in our attempts to turn within because we still have vishaya-vasanas. But slowly-slowly, gradually-gradually, if we persevere in trying to turn our attention within as much as possible, our vishaya-vasanas will thereby be weakened, and we will be able to turn within more and more.
(To be continued in my next comment)
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (01:18)
Ego is trouble, so it sees itself everywhere (part two)
Michael James: So nothing wrong in feeling that your life is somehow filled with Bhagavan’s teachings, but it is important to recognise that even Bhagavan’s teachings as just teachings cannot fill our life completely. The only way to fill our life completely is to put them into practice. We have to put them into practice for as long it takes for us to experience ourself as we actually are.
When we experience ourself as we actually are, then we will find that there never was any hole in our life to be filled. But until then, there will always seem to be a big hole in our life.
The friend: Ego finds trouble and struggle everywhere.
Michael James: Ego is trouble, so it sees itself everywhere. Bhagavan says if ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence. If ego doesn’t exist, everything doesn’t exist. Ego itself is everything.
So, all problems and struggles are only for ego because ego is the root of all problems. So long as ego survives, problems will never come to an end. But in sleep, there is no ego and no problems. So, all that we need to do is to make that state of sleep a permanent state.
We can make it permanent by finding out what we actually are, and when we find out what we actually are, sleep will no longer seem to be a temporary state of darkness. It will shine as our eternal state of pure awareness and infinite happiness because that is what we actually really are.
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (01:18)
Sanjay,
thanks again for your untiring work of writing perfect transcriptions of MJ-videos.
:) I agree to what you said. But I also think evilness/corrupted people is another avenue set forth by Bhagavan to bring the balance in the world and within us.
Anxiety, distress and discomfort (part one)
The friend: Several people are taking seriously the fact that they want to spend more time in self-care [i.e. self-attentiveness] but share with us some cases that a lot of anxiety emerges and they end up feeling distress and discomfort. Could you develop as deeply as possible how those people who start with self-inquiry and try to remain self-aware in these types of situations should approach their practice?
Michael James: When we are turning within, we come up against all sorts of obstacles. The obstacles may be in the form of anxiety or in the feeling of distress or feeling of discomfort or any such feelings, but whatever comes up, this is because we still strongly identify ourself as a person. Because of the strong identification of ourself as a person, we feel anxiety about the person, and when we are trying to separate ourself from this person, that may create the feelings of distress and discomfort.
All such feelings are the manifestations of the strength of our vasanas. Vasanas mean all our likes, dislikes, desires, and so on in their seed form. So long as our vasanas are still strong, we will not be willing to surrender ourself. So all our feelings of anxiety, distress and discomfort ultimately are due to lack of willingness to surrender ourself. If we are willing to surrender ourself completely, we would not be anxious about anything. We will no longer feel distressed because we will no longer be concerned about the person who we seem to be.
In order to go deep within, we have to slowly weaken all our vishaya-vasanas. Vishaya-vasanas are all the outward-going inclinations of the mind. So the spiritual practice is an internal battle – a battle between our love to surrender ourself and all our other desires and attachments which make us unwilling to surrender ourself. This is the battle we all have to fight.
But Bhagavan has taught us a means to deal with these vasanas which is very gentle. That is, slowly-slowly we have to try to wean our mind off its desires and attachments and cultivate the liking to be self-attentive. We can only do so by persistent practice. We may not see immediate results. In fact, after following this path for many years it may seem to us that we have made no progress at all. We seem to be the same we were 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.
But Bhagavan said persistence itself is progress. The very fact that we are persevering means we are making progress. Just like a child cannot perceive its own growth, we cannot perceive our spiritual growth or spiritual development. In the case of a growing child, though they cannot perceive their own growth, after 10 years they can perceive that they are much bigger than they were 10 years earlier.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:00 to 29:00)
Salazar, Jai guru!
Yes, Anadi-ananta, Bhagavan has given me this very pleasant task of writing the transcriptions of Michael’s videos. It’s a task which I never tire of doing.
Anxiety, distress and discomfort (part two)
Michael James: But Bhagavan said persistence itself is progress. The very fact that we are persevering means we are making progress. Just like a child cannot perceive its own growth, we cannot perceive our spiritual growth or spiritual development. In the case of a growing child, though they cannot perceive their own growth, after 10 years they can perceive that they are much bigger than they were 10 years earlier. Not only their body has developed, but their mind has also acquired so much of knowledge and understanding of the world.
But in the spiritual path, we cannot even compare this way. So we need not try to ascertain how much we have progressed. We are on a journey. We have understood from Bhagavan what our destination is. Our destination is the eradication of ego, and the means to do so is self-investigation and self-surrender.
So long as we are following this path we know that we are on the right direction and sooner or later we will reach our goal - today or tomorrow or 10 years’ time or after 10 lifetimes. It doesn’t matter. All that matters is that we follow this path to the best of our ability. So long as we are following this path, we are progressing. We are getting closer to our goal. So we need not be anxious about anything. That is, once we have started on the path we cannot turn back. We may sometimes seem to neglect the practice, but we cannot give it up entirely.
Things will happen in this life that will drive us back to this path again and again because this is the only means we have to deal with all our problems of life. We have no control over what is going to happen in our life. That’s all destined by prarabdha. But we have control over how we view what happens and how we respond to what happens. Whatever is happening is according to prarabdha, and prarabdha is the sweet will of Bhagavan. He has selected our prarabdha is such a way that will be conducive to our spiritual development.
So whatever is happening is happening for our own good according to Bhagavan’s will. So why should we be concerned about what does happen and what does not happen? The path we are following is not only the path of self-investigation but also the path of surrender. Surrender means letting go. So part of the letting go is the letting go of our anxiety and all those feelings that lead to anxiety, distress and discomfort.
How do we let go of all these things? These things are external to ourself. Even our likes, dislikes, attachments, fear and so on, they are all things other than ourself. None of them is permanent. What is permanent is only ourself. So if we recognise the impermanence of these things, whatever reality they seem to have is the reality we give them by attending to them. Impermanence means they are something other than ourself, and they have no reality of their own.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:00 to 29:00)
Sanjay,
"So long as ego survives, problems will never come to an end. But in sleep, there is no ego and no problems. So, all that we need to do is to make that state of sleep a permanent state.
We can make it permanent by finding out what we actually are, and when we find out what we actually are, sleep will no longer seem to be a temporary state of darkness. It will shine as our eternal state of pure awareness and infinite happiness because that is what we actually really are."
Making that state of sleep a permanent state...
Finding out what we actually are...yes,yes, good ideas.
However, in our all experience waking easily triumphs over perpetuating the state of sleep. So there is no other choice than keen and persistent self-investigation although delaying actions and passive resistance of the mind seem not leave off being at work. At least there's the hope that our practice of self-investigation will ultimately emerge victorious.:-)
Salazar,
America is indeed not to be envied having only the choice between plague and cholera.
Nevertheless, I can comfort you - other continents are not a bit better.:-)
Sanjay,
it should be:...He has selected our prarabdha in such a way that will be conducive to our spiritual development.
Anadi-ananta, thanks for your tireless proofreading.
Sanjay,
if you don't raise an objection to making occasional corrections I will continue it. Usually I find that easy.:-)
Anadi-ananta, from my side, you can continue to correct my typos. I find it helpful. I hope Michael James is comfortable with such typo corrections. If he has some views on it, I am not aware of it.
Anadi-ananta, our real nature is eternally sleeping even now - that is, it is sleeping to this phenomenal world. It is not aware of any objects.
Ego is helpless as long as it is turning away from itself
The following is an extract of my Whatsapp exchange with Michael James:
Sanjay Lohia: There are no others to be helped. But there is one entity to be helped, and that is ourself. Ourself means ego, and how can ego help itself? By turning within to face itself alone. Ego is helpless as long as it is turning away from itself.
Michael James: Yes
Reflection: How is ego helpless as long as it is turning away from itself? It is because ego has to experience whatever it is destined to experience as long as it is facing away from itself. So ego is helpless to bring about any change in whatever it is to experience. But ego can help itself by turning within and subsiding within.
Sanjay,
as you write our real nature is eternally sleeping even now - that is, it is sleeping to this phenomenal world. It is not aware of any objects.
However, this teaching alone is of little consolation to the unreal person with which I am still identified most of waking and dream.
As far as I know typo-corrections of comments till now did not incur Michael's displeasure. But always he approved pointing out occasional typos in articles which he corrected at his earliest convenience.
Anxiety, distress and discomfort (part three)
Michael James: When we turn our attention within, we are turning our back, so to speak, on anything other than ourself. When we turn within, we are turning towards ourself alone, and therefore we are turning away from everything else. So by turning away from our likes, dislikes, desires, attachments and all the feelings of anxieties, discomfort that arise as a result of our likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, we are thereby surrendering or letting go of all these things.
That is, when we attend to ourself, we are clinging to what is real and letting go of everything that is unreal. Everything other than ourself is unreal. Likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, fears, discomfort, all these things appear and disappear. To whom do they appear? Only to ourself. So we remain there whether they appear or disappear. So none of these things is ourself – none of them is real.
So as we follow the path of self-investigation, all other things progressively drop off. That is, they are still there, but they have less impact on us. We may still have desires, attachments, likes, dislikes, fears and so on, but these things are less strong than they were in the past. This way we gain vairagya – freedom from desire or passion. So we will be less concerned about things other than ourself. So this is a gentle path. We cannot force the pace. All that is required is gentle perseverance.
So whatever anxiety, distress or discomfort may arise, it will all pass. None of these things is permanent. So nothing really matters. The things that we are anxious about today, we will forget about them tomorrow. Even if feelings of anxieties and distress arise in us, we shouldn’t be concerned. These are all signs of the residual strength of our vasanas, but we shouldn’t be distressed that the vasanas still retain strength. No matter how much strength they still have, they will be progressively weakened as we follow this path of self-investigation and self-surrender.
If we understand what Bhagavan has taught us and if we put it into practice, we will find that the path that Bhagavan has taught us is the path of happiness. That is, our ultimate goal is to be perfectly happy because happiness is our real nature. That is what we all want. Bhagavan often used to say that the nature of the path cannot be other the nature of the goal. If the nature of the path were other than the nature of the goal, it couldn’t lead us to the goal.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:00 to 29:00)
Anxiety, distress and discomfort (part four)
Michael James: Since happiness is our goal, happiness also is the means to that goal. How to be happy? We are happy to the extent we let go of everything. Whatever we are attached to has the potential to create problems for us, to cause unhappiness. To the extent we let go of things, to that extent they can no longer impeach on our happiness.
In Tamil, there is an ancient work called Tirukkural. It has two-two verses about how to live a good life. How to live a life of dharma? How to experience worldly pleasures and material wealth in accordance with dharma? Though superficially it about how to live in the world, it has got many spiritual truths hidden here and there. That is Tirukkural is a work of wisdom. One of its verses that Bhagavan often used to point out is:
From whatever thing you separate yourself or remove yourself, you are free of the suffering caused by that thing.
So this is the path of surrender. We are slowly-slowly letting go of our attachments to things. We are ceasing to be concerned about things because whatever we are concerned about is not real. The only thing that is real is ourself. So we are training ourself to be unconcerned about all other things. So to the extent to which we let go of things, to that extent we are free of the troubles that those things would otherwise cause us. So that verse of Tirukkural has a very simple idea, but it’s an idea that is extremely relevant to the spiritual path.
So even if we get feelings of anxieties or distress, we shouldn’t feel anxious or distressed about these feelings. We should learn to let go of these feelings. The more we detach ourself from them, the more we are free of the trouble they would otherwise bring us.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:00 to 29:00)
Sanjay,
with 'two-two verses' you mean obviously the couplets of that Tamil text.
Sanjay,
your comment of 22 August 2020 at 17:21,
it should be:"...the nature of the path cannot be other than the nature of the goal."
Anadi-ananta, thanks. Yes, two-two lines mean couplets.
Bhagavan’s teachings & sattvik mind
Michael James: Reading, thinking and discussing Bhagavan's teachings is conducive to a sattvik state of mind. Happiness comes from a sattvik state of mind. Rajas and tamas make us hanker after other things, and therefore make the mind restless.
My reflection: Michael said the above in one of his videos. What does ‘conducive to a sattvik state of mind’ mean in this context? Since Bhagavan’s teachings are all focussing on ‘I’, the more we dwell on his teachings, the more the mind will automatically return to ‘I’. Since ‘I’ in its purity is pure sattva, the more we dwell on Bhagavan’s teachings, the more our mind will become sattvik.
Sattva means 'beingness' or 'isness', explained Michael. Since our being is peace and calmness itself, the more we read, reflect and discuss Bhagavan’s teachings, the more peaceful and calm we will become. As Michael says in this quote, ‘Happiness comes from a sattvik state of mind’ So we want to be happy, we should either remain turned within or remain dwelling of Bhagavan and his teachings in one or another.
Pearls before the swine (part one)
A friend: Michael, your explanations are simply wonderful, but you are throwing the pearls before the swine. We are no better than a swine, so how do we internalise all this wisdom?
Michael James: I plead innocence. You are blaming me for throwing the pearls before the swine, but it’s not me who am going so. Bhagavan threw the pearls before all of us swines.
The friend: Why did he do that? Evolution has a history, but now I have to go beyond evolutionary history.
Michael James: Your evolutionary history is the evolutionary history of the body, but are you this body?
The friend: Yes.
Michael James: You are the body! Are you satisfied living a life according to your evolutionary history? Are you satisfied being born, growing up, getting married, having children, getting old, dying? This happens to all of us. It happens again and again and again, but are we satisfied with this?
The friend: I mean the birds and bees are satisfied.
Michael James: No, they have their desires and fears. Show me a single embodied creature that is satisfied or content. So long as we take a body to be ‘I’, we have to struggle for the survival of this body. We have to clothe the body, give it shelter and feed it - so many problems.
Embodied life is imperfect, and we all know that. But in spite of knowing that, we keep wallowing in this. So you say throwing pearls before the swine. It is better to throw pearls before swines that it is to throw pearls before human beings. According to Bhagavan, human beings are worse than swines.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2017-09-16 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 8 (01:06)
Pearls before the swine (part two)
Michael James: In one verse, Bhagavan says that those who take the body to be ‘I’ are worse than pigs. It is because this body eats pure food and converts it into filth. The pigs eat filth, but at least they are not guilty of turning pure food into filth.
So Bhagavan says we are worse than pigs. However, Bhagavan has thrown pearls before us, but he has done so for a purpose. He knows he has planted a seed now. Like it or not, we are caught in the jaws of the tiger. So we cannot escape now. We may try to struggle, but we will never succeed.
The friend: That’s good to know.
Michael James: So, we may as well give up sooner rather than later. But we are not ready to give up, are we? That’s the problem. So who is not ready to give up? We need to investigate that. Who is not ready to give up?
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2017-09-16 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 8 (01:06)
Yes, "embodied life is imperfect". I remember questioning life in school where I pointed out that life is at least 50% misery. I also remember the shocked reaction of the teacher and some students who immediately exclaimed how great and enjoyable life is and kind of implied that those who are questioning that are 'too negative'.
There was this silent agreement that happiness is a given (in embodied life) and if that is not the case then something is wrong with that person. I intuitively knew that this was wrong and that was one of many incidences where I realized how society is clinging at delusional beliefs.
Bhagavan was already then leading the way, unbeknownst to me.
Sanjay,
"According to Bhagavan, human beings are worse than swines."
Shall we therefore set our sights on being born again as a swine ? :-)
Is it not said that gaining a human body is extremely favourable and beneficial ?
Anadi-ananta, yes, the only use we can make of this human birth is to turn within and experience ourself as we actually are. Otherwise, this human birth will go wasted. We are worse than a swine, says Bhagavan, but I am sure we are in a better position to turn within because we humans are in a better position to understand Bhagavan’s and other spiritual teachings than a swine. At least, so it seems.
Sanjay,
however, a pig usually does not suffer from arrogance and self-important mind. :-)
A swine may not suffer from arrogance however it seems it needs to incarnate as a human being where it has ample time being arrogant. Thus a swine makes experiences as a swine, presumably the main interest is to feed and procreate. The experiences of arrogance, greed, vanity and deceit are reserved for the countless human incarnations after all of the animal experiences :-)
Salazar,
indeed there seem to be no better suitable fields of applications for practising all the mentioned human characteristics than an incarnation as a human being.:-)
Sadhu Om’s classification of five standards of bhakti
Sri Sadhu Om in his book ‘The Path of Ramana – Part Two’ describes our progression in bhakti in terms of the five standards of bhakti. The following is my summary of what he says there:
The school of bhakti has five standards, but only one teacher. We can take the whole of Vedas and Vedanta as one teacher.
Before talking about this school of bhakti, we should know that there are still crores and crores of people happily wandering out of the school of bhakti. They have not even enrolled in the first standard of this school. That is, these people lead a highly undisciplined life. They don’t believe in ethics or values and live a life outside all rules and regulation - whether religious or whatever.
1st Standard of bhakti: When people enrol in the 1st standard, they start believing in the Karma-Kanda of the Vedas. Karma-Kanda is that part of Vedas which relates to ceremonial acts and sacrificial rites and the merit arising from the performance of such rituals. they accept and live according to the instructions in this portion of the Vedas. However, their aim is only to enjoy the worldly objects (vishaya-bhakti). One may spend many births in the first standard before they become dejected with karmas.
2nd Standard of bhakti: Those people are admitted in the 2nd standard who realise karmas cannot yield fruits of their own accord. Karmas are insentient. They yield fruit only according to the ordainment of God. These people are attracted to many different names and forms of God who have great divine powers of bestowing upon the worshipper the many different fruits (results) through the worship of different forms of Gods.
So they will worship a variety of Gods. They may, for example, worship Ganapati to remove obstacles. They may worship Saraswati to bestow learning. They may worship Lakshmi to acquire wealth. But their love and bhakti are only towards the desired objects. So in the 2nd standard instead of various karmas, various Gods become the means to fulfil their dreams or ambitions.
3rd Standard: The worship of one favourite or beloved God is performed in the 3rd standard. 3rd standard is divided into two sections: 3a and 3b. Those in 3a worship God with love for worldly-objects only. So they merely have vishaya-bhakti.
However, those in 3b worship God for the love of God only. In 3b, discrimination dawns on people. They feel ‘Which is greater, gifts or the giver of gifts?’. If God is so gracious as to grant us so many of our wishes, should we not worship God instead of the boons he seems to give us?
4th Standard: His love towards his beloved God ripens into the love for the guru. So a person in the 4th standard has nishkamya guru-bhakti. This is the climax of all dualistic love. No other form of love excels this.
Guru Brahma; guru Vishnu; guru is Maheshwara. Verily guru is supreme brahman. To him my obeisance.
5th Standard: Love for guru matures into love for oneself (svatma-bhakti).
We pass out of school when we become atma-jnani.
In his recent video (of 2020-08-23a Yo Soy Tu Mismo)regarding agamya-karma Michael said amongst other things (up from time-mark 25:27):
"...to the extent that we are practising this path of self-investigation and self-surrender we are curbing our vasanas and are refraining from allowing ourselves to be carried away by our vasanas at least to some extent.
Our vasanas are always dragging our mind here and there, but we're slowly trying to not yield to the inclinations we have because vasanas are just inclinations. Vasanas cannot make us do any action, vasanas urge us to act in certain ways but they can never force us (to do any thing). So it is up to us because we...can either follow our inclinations or we can refrain from following our inclinations. So to the extent we refrain from following our inclinations to that extent we will reduce the amount of agamya we do, but more importantly we'll be thereby purifying our mind. Because to the extent we refrain from allowing ourselves to be carried away by our vasanas we are thereby weakening our outward going vasanas and strengthening the inward going vasanas (sat-vasanas).
We can never completely stop doing our agamy so long we rise as ego. As ego we have a will, likes and dislikes and so on. We may be able to reduce the strength of our likes and dislikes, but so long as we rise as ego we will always have likes, dislikes, desires, attachments and so on to a greater or lesser extent. So by practising self-investigation and self-surrender we are reducing the strength of our vasanas. But eventually we can get rid of our vasanas completely only by destroying their root which is ourself as ego. So only when we cease to rise as ego can we completely avoid doing agamya. [...] as long as we take god to be other than ourselves we cannot completely get rid of these outward going vasanas.
Purification of mind will be complete only when we eradicate/annihilate ego. The only means to annihilate ego is self-investigation... which is both the most effective means to reduce the strength of visaya vasanas and the only means to eradicate their root: ego".
Though ego is not actually what we actually are, it is not something other than what we actually are (part one)
Michael James: Though ego is not what we actually are, it is not something other than what we actually are. If we mistake a rope to be a snake, the snake is nothing other than a rope, but it is not what the rope actually is. If we want to get rid of that snake, how to get rid of it? If we take a stick and start beating it, it is not going to die. The only way to kill the snake is to look at it very very carefully. When we look at it carefully enough, what do we see? We see ‘O it’s just a rope’. So the snake is effectively killed.
Likewise, if we turn our attention within keenly enough, we will see that we are not this ego that we seem to be. We are just pure awareness. As soon we see ourself keenly enough, ego is destroyed and then it’s identification with the person it seems to be will come to an end. So self-investigation means trying to turn our attention back towards ourself. To the extent we turn our attention towards ourself, we are withdrawing it from all other things. Eventually, when we manage to turn our attention fully within ourself, we will experience ourself as pure awareness.
The moment we experience ourself as pure awareness, ego is destroyed, and we have achieved what we have set out to achieve. However, it’s not actually an achievement because we have not set out to gain anything on the spiritual path. What we are seeking is what we actually are. So whether we call it enlightenment or realisation or jnana or whatever, it is not something which we are going to newly acquire.
So, all that is required is to give up our false identification. On the spiritual path, we are going to lose everything. What remains alone is real. So what is called self-realisation is simply the annihilation of ego. So this person or ego is never going to get self-realised. It is a state in which we remain as we actually are.
But when we try to turn our attention back towards ourself, we at once find that there is internal resistance. That is, nothing external to ourself can stop us from attending to ourself, but we ourself are not willing to attend to ourself or not willing to attend to ourself keenly enough. It is because we still have strong likes and dislikes. We are still attached to the person we seem to be. We are attached to the whole life of this person – our friends, our family, our whole identity. We are so attached to that, so we are not yet willing to let go.
(to be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (00:09)
Salazar,
I will watch the mentioned video-passage again and use the "Subtitles" too.
Then I will reply to you.
Salazar,
it seems that I have transcribed mainly correctly what Michael said in that video-extract. I think Michael wanted to emphasize that in doing something of our own volition we in any case can or at least should use our (free) will. Therefore, if Michael would find time he could explain his statement "Vasanas cannot make us do any action" in more detail.
Perhaps Sanjay could give us too his opinion about that subject.
As per my understanding vasanas manifests as thoughts which in turn manifests into action. Our deep rooted desires - we may not be aware, but it automatically translates into action. I have observed in myself, when my state of mind changes, automatically my outlook towards world changes, thoughts disappear and then it automatically impacts action. Michael’s view on this is interesting.
Asun,
with the words "So it is up to us..." I think Michael clearly wanted to express that it is not the inclination (vasana) itself but our voluntary decision to follow this inclination what makes us following our vasana i.e. allowing ourselves to be carried away by our vasana(s). Despite of being urged by a vasana to act in a certain way we can and should use our free will to refrain from carrying out that action (towards which we may have a big desire or inclination) by our instruments of body, speech and mind.
So this perception is implying that ‘I’ as ego is powerful enough to be able to refrain from carrying out the action. Everything is predetermined. Instead of focusing our attention on ‘refraining’, which is again an egotistical activity, one should just ‘be’ and not swayed by the thought ‘I should do something to refrain from acting certain way’. Even the effort taken to refrain from doing anything is an action by itself.
Anadi-ananta, yes, as Michael says, ‘Vasanas cannot make us do any action’. What is a vasana? It is our urge or inclination to act using our body, speech or mind. So we can act upon our vasanas or refrain from acting on them. The choice is ours. To what extent we succumb to our vasanas and to what extent we avoid succumbing to them depends upon us. So vasanas cannot compel us to act if we do not want to act on our vasanas.
Regarding the example of heroin addict given by Salazar, yes, addiction to such recreational drugs may exist in someone as a vasana, but they can give up that vasanas if they want to and try to. What do de-addiction centres do? They try to wean the drug addicts off their addiction to drugs or alcohol or whatever. So these centres or clinics work on their vasanas for heroin or whatever and they succeed in weaning the addicts off their vasanas in many cases.
So, yes, we are responsible if we get swayed by our vasanas. Ego is like the owner of these vasanas, and these vasanas are like this owner’s servants. These servants cannot act if the owner does not permit them to act. So we should keep our servants – these vasanas – in strict control. We should try and curb them as and when they rise as thoughts.
The best way to curb and eventually destroy our vasanas is by trying to turn our attention within to face ourself alone. The more we turn within, the more these vasanas are weakened and eventually they die. For example, I have realised that my sexual-vasana has become very weak nowadays. So our practice of self-investigation is the most powerful way to keep our vasanas in check.
However, even when we are turned away from ourself we can try to curb our vasanas by trying to not act on them. We may succeed at times or fail at times, or we may partially succeed at times. So in the spiritual path, whether we know it or not, our fight is against our vishaya-vasanas. People think thoughts are a problem. It could be a problem from one context, but our main fight is with our vishaya-vasanas, which is our urge or inclination to be aware of things other than ourself. Vishaya-vasanas is our urge to attend to vishayas (various objects).
Bhagavan says in Nan Ar? that we should try the stone of vairagya upon our waist and try to sink within. So our vasanas will also be driving us to attend to things other than ourself. Our task is to ignore these outward going inclinations by trying to turn within. However, all our vasanas will only be destroyed when ego is destroyed. The very nature of ego is to have vasanas, so without its vasanas it cannot exist or endure. Ego is the root of all vasanas, so we need to cut this root in order to remove all its leaves and branches, namely the vasanas.
The only vasanas we need to cultivate is sat-vasana – the liking just to be. We should try to give up all our other vasanas. Even subha vasanas (good or auspicious tendencies) are in ultimate analysis asubha (bad or inauspicious) because even our tendencies to do good is taking us away from ourself. So, in the true spiritual path, we should try to give up all our vasansas – whether they are subha or asubha.
Sanjay, thank you for your expert comment.
However, I do not think that "even our tendencies to do good is taking us away from ourself."
Too bad we do not have somebody around like Bhagavan who could talk with authority in that matter. In lieu of a competent teacher (meaning being self-realized) we have to resort to our own biases and assumptions.
Of course we still have the remedy and that is atma-vichara. Any notions beyond that are biases and prejudices due to anybodies past life beliefs and habits. Nobody on this blog including Michael is free from biases, that's why this blog has a limited use and eventually people will just leave. And they must if they truly want to be free ....
Asun and Salazar,
is it really necessary that there are such sharp divisions between you both ?
Anadi-ananda, most of the things I write here pretending that these are my ideas is actually a mere reproduction of whatever I have heard and understood Michael say.
Michael said in one of his videos: ‘even our tendencies to do good is taking us away from ourself’. You do not think this is the case. However, this is clearly the case if we understand Bhagavan’s teachings correctly and clearly. In order to do even something good, we need to first rise as ego and then engage in good or agreeable activities. In order to do something good, we have to attend to things other than ourself. We have to take our power of attention and focus it on good activities.
So our subha vasanas are ultimately not that good because even they keep us bound to activities, and any action is bondage. All our actions keep us bound to ego. They create more and more vasanas to do such good actions again and again. So eventually we need to shun even our good actions in order to turn within. Michael implies all these things in his video: 2020-08-23a Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses what happens to us after death. At 06:00, he says the following:
As Bhagavan says in the 19th paragraph of Nan Ar, there are not different kinds of mind. What are different is the types of vasanas. Some vasanas are what he refers to as the subha vasanas and some vasanas he refers to as the asubha vasanas. Subha vasanas means the vasanas which are good or agreeable, and asubha vasanas means the vasanas that are bad, disagreeable, wicked or harmful.
He says in the next sentence, if the mind is under the sway of subha vasanas, we call it a good mind, and if the mind is under the sway of asubha vasanas, we call it a bad mind. So the differences we see in people, are the differences in the quality of their vasanas, whether they are subha or asubha. Subha and asubha are relative terms. What may seem good from one perspective, may seem bad from another perspective.
So if we are spiritual aspirants, we are trying to turn our mind within and surrender. So from our perspective, vasanas that draws our mind outwards is asubha vasanas. So we can say that for us, there is a very high standard of what is subha and asubha. Ultimately, the only good vasana is the sat-vasana – the vasana that draws our mind outwards.
(The end of the extract)
So do you still feel that even the tendency to do good is not taking us away from ourself?
Sanjay,
it depends with which inner attitude one does a so-called good deed:
if done in selflessness I cannot see any harm. Sometimes one has to help immediately so that you cannot even think of subha quality of vasanas.
For instance if you have to save somebody from drowning what's there to think about ? You will suddenly jump in the water (river, sea or even ocean) without hesitating for a long time.
Not if you can’t swim or are afraid to get pulled down by the drowner. Frankly we cannot know how we would react nor how someone else would react. This is way too much of empty speculation.
It is only one example for a good selfless deed. Of course, a non-swimmer is excepted.:-)
When we try to develop and maintain perfect love for Lord Arunachala we must have a free heart of pure love rich in total surrender and true devotion. Therefore we have to give up our ego-centred little personality, multiple attachments and painful mental agonies.
Though ego is not actually what we actually are, it is not something other than what we actually are (part two)
Michael James: It seems a struggle to turn our attention back towards ourself. The very nature of ego is to attend to things other than itself because we cannot exist as ego without attending to forms. That is, the ego cannot exist without attending to forms, objects other than itself. So when we are trying to turn our attention within, we are so to speak trying to turn against the current of ego or mind. The natural flow of ego or mind is to go outwards – towards things other than itself. We are now trying to turn it back within.
So because of our lack of willingness to surrender ourself completely, we find it to be a struggle. This is natural. That is why Bhagavan said that the only way to succeed in this path is patient perseverance. So how easy or difficult the path seems to depend on the extent of love we have to know ourself. We will be willing to know ourself to the extent we are willing to let go everything else.
We cannot know ourself as we actually are and be interested in other things. It’s one or the other. We cannot know ourself as we actually are - which is pure awareness - and be aware of other things. So we have to make a choice, and at every moment we are faced with a choice – either we attend to other things or we attend to ourself.
So if we are serious about following this path, we should be trying to turn our attention back towards ourself as much as possible, even though we will find that we are up against a lot of internal resistance. That internal resistance is our lack of willingness, the strength of our likes and dislikes. That’s what makes it seem difficult.
We can try to explain this through an analogy. If you got a big balloon and if you try to push it under the water, you try to push it, it will pop up this way or that way. It will always be resisting. As long as it is pumped full of air, it is not possible to push it very far under the water. You can push it a little by little but not very far. As the air starts leaking out – as there is less pressure inside – the easier it will be to push it inside.
Likewise, the air that fills our mind is our desires and attachments. So in order for the mind to sink within, its desires and attachments should start to leak out so to speak. To the extent our desires are weakened, to the extent we are able to go deeper within.
(To be continued in my next comment)
+ Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (00:09)
Sanjay,
the given balloon analogy is a very apt description of the internal resistance put up by ego/mind against turning our attention back towards ourself.:-)
An humble request from Michael James
The following are the last two paragraphs of Michael’s latest article: Praising or disparaging others is ananta-vichara. Many of our friends may not read this long article until the end. So I thought I would reproduce it here as a comment. It has a humble request from Michael:
If a new batch of trolls were to begin commenting as the previous batch did two years ago, it may be necessary for me to begin comment moderation again, but I glanced through the names of those of wrote comments on my previous article and it seems that most of those comments were written by people who have been commenting here for a long time, so most of the inappropriate comments were not written by new trolls but by certain friends reverting to old patterns of behaviour. Therefore rather than me spending undue time reading all the comments and censoring them wherever necessary, it would be more appropriate if all of you who comment here were to self-censor your own comments, making sure that none of them are in any way inappropriate.
Disparaging other people or writing derogatory comments about them is not our வந்த வேலை (vanda vēlai), the work for which we have come, so let us all desist from such petty behaviour, paying due heed to the admonishing advice given to us all by Bhagavan: ‘நீ வந்த வேலையைப் பார்’ (nī vanda vēlaiyai-p pār), ‘Attend to the work for which you have come’.
Sanjay, the correct title of Michael's recent article is
"Praising or disparaging others is anātma-vicāra" - (not ananta-vic...).:-)
Karen,
you say "This world interests me not one bit, and nothing makes sense. Who am I? ???????"
We have to learn not to take a (subjective) ego/mind-born view of "this world" but with our real eye which means by real self-awareness.
Presumably we then will have a way of looking at things cleared up from ego's ignorance.
Anadi-ananta, I thank you for pointing out this typo. Yes, it should be: ‘Bhagavan can be found nowhere except in and as ‘I’.
Karen, this is in response to your two recent comments:
You write, ‘This world interests me not one bit, and nothing makes sense. Who am I? ???????’ If this is the case, what more do you need? Why we are still stuck up in this world? It is because this world still interests us a lot. We are still attached to our bodily existence. So if you are now only interested in finding out ‘Who am I’, you are probably in a blessed state. We need such overwhelming love and dispassion to experience ourself as we actually are.
You write, ‘Can anyone please explain what Bhagavan means when he instructs us to "go back the way we came"? How has this ego come into existence? It has come into existence by grasping a form of a body and by taking it to be itself. In other words, ego comes into existence because of pramada (self-negligence), which means by looking away from itself. So now it has to go back the way it came. It can do so only if it stops grasping forms and instead grasps itself alone. Since Bhagavan says, ego is a formless phantom, if it turns towards itself and tries to grasp itself alone, it will subside back into its true nature, which is pure and infinite self-awareness. We are back in our true home!
You also say, ‘I never thought as a youngster that I would feel so weary after just fifty-six years but here I AM. Why such increased fear suddenly? however, I really don't want a return ticket here so someone please wake me up now!’ If we are weary of this world, and if we are weary of our bodily existence, these could be good signs. How can we be comfortable in this world and hope to transcend the world? So extreme dissatisfaction in this world is not bad if such dissatisfaction prompts to leave everything outside and turn within will all-consuming love.
No intelligent jiva will want a return ticket here, but, Karen, no one can help us get out of this mess we find ourself in. We have bound ourself to this ego and this world by taking interest in things other than ourself. And now only we can extricate ourself from this seemingly hopeless condition by taking interest in only attending to ourself. We do not have any other way out of this ‘jail’. We are in our self-created ‘jails’ whether we know it or not, whether we acknowledge it or not.
But we can anytime walk out of this jail anytime we want because this jail has a small doorway on the wall at the back of us. This doorway is always open, and this takes us out of this jail. So we just turn back within, and we walk out of this tiny doorway never to return again. We can now celebrate our independence day!
Does all this help to answer your questions and doubts?
Karen, I ended my comment addressed to you by writing: ‘But we can anytime walk out of this jail anytime we want because this jail has a small doorway on the wall at the back of us. This doorway is always open, and this takes us out of this jail. So we just turn back within, and we walk out of this tiny doorway never to return again. We can now celebrate our independence day!’
I would just like to add to this analogy. This is an extremely tiny doorway, so in order to get out of it, we need to really bend very very low. We cannot just walk past it. This signifies that our ego has to subside, subside, subside and subside before we can hope to get out of the prison we find ourself in. I fully erect ego can pass through this doorway.
Sanjay,
you say today 10 July 2020 at 15:38 "I fully erect ego can pass through this doorway."
What do you mean ? If 'erect' is used as an adjective, perhaps you wanted to write "A fully erect ego cannot pass through this doorway". If 'erect' is used as a transitive verb that sentence seems to be not complete.
Karen,
I too like that small book "Truth Revealed" (Sad-Vidya) published by Sri Ramanasramam, Translated from the Tamil original of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi.
Yes, the preface was written in 1935 by Grant Duff whose name was also Douglas Ainslie, a Scottish poet, translator ...
"Viswanathan's comment referring to Robert's translation of Ulladu Narpadu inspired me to go over that translation again....."
I did not mean to make you feel burdened to go though the painstaking effort of Sri Robert Butler when I gave this reference. My apologies. I thought that one can easily skip that portion if one prefers and look for word to word translation or the summary itself, which I reproduced for that UN verse. His translation of Sri Muruganar's Vrithi Vurai of Aksharamanamalai helped me to understand better the original Tamil version of Sri Muruganar since the classic Tamil of Sri Muruganar was in the beginning a bit difficult for me to absorb. Thus, it is both admiration and gratitude for Sri Robert Butler that perhaps has motivated me to refer to him here in this blog where translation of Sri Michael James itself is available in various places.
True sattvika ahara…
The following is an extract of my exchange with Michael on the matter of diet and what Sri Krishna says about sattvika diet in Bhagavad Gita. This exchange happened over Whatsapp and email. This started when I forwarded to Michael the following Whatsapp message:
MOST ANIMALS DIE BECAUSE WE EAT THEM. MOST HUMANS DIE BECAUSE THEY GET SICK FROM EATING THEM
This message triggered our conversation:
Michael James: True, but none of us can die till our allotted prarabdha is over, and none can live for a moment after that. While alive we should avoid eating animals, but whatever we do or don't do, death cannot be averted
Sanjay Lohia: Thank you, sir. So by eating healthily we cannot prolong our life. But it is written in Bhagavad Gita that if we eat sattvika food, it will increase the duration of our life. Verse 8, Chapter 17 says:
Foods in the mode of goodness increase the duration of life, purify one's existence and give strength, health, happiness and satisfaction. Such foods are juicy, fatty, wholesome, and pleasing to the heart.
How do we understand this verse?
Michael James: On average, people who eat healthily live longer than those who eat unhealthily, so if we are destined to live long we are likely to be inclined to eat healthily, namely a sattvika diet. However, though a sattvika diet is conducive to a long and healthy life, some people who eat such a diet die young, whereas some who eat an unhealthy diet live long. All depends entirely on prarabdha.
What is implied in that verse in the Gita is that a sattvika-minded person will be inclined to eat a sattvika diet, and that such a diet is generally conducive to a long life. Perhaps part of the purpose of this verse is to encourage people to like a sattivka diet, but only people who are inclined to have sattika qualities will be encouraged in this way.
If we are following Bhagavan's path, we will naturally be inclined to eat a sattvika diet, so we need not give much thought to such matters.
The most sattvika of all diets is to feed our mind with a diet of his teachings, so constantly dwelling on his core teachings and trying to put them into practice is true sattvika ahara.
Anadi-ananta, what I wanted to write was:
A fully erect ego cannot pass through this doorway.
I thank you and appreciate your keen power of observation.
How do we remember that we existed in sleep? (part one)
Michael James: Murthy, what you asked me was: ‘How do we remember that we existed in sleep?’ What I wrote in that email was as follows:
Our ‘memory’ of our existence in sleep is not a ‘memory’ like any of our other memories which are relatively superficial, because all other memories are memories of phenomena which we experience in waking or dream. So they are registered in our mind, and they can easily be forgotten, whereas our ‘memory’ of our continuity of our existence in sleep is a much deeper ‘memory’, which is not registered in our mind but in and as our very existence. So it can never be forgotten.
I particularly put ‘memory’ in scare quotes because it is not a memory in the normal sense of the term. Since we remember sleep, we take it as ‘memory’, though it is not memory like any other memory. So what we call our ‘memory’ of sleep is the very nature of our existence sat-chit. As sat-chit we are clearly always aware of our existence – not only I am aware ‘I am’ but I am also aware ‘I was’. So we call it ‘memory’ for want of any better term.
Even in waking and dream, as ego, we remember that we slept. How do we remember that we slept when we were not there in sleep? The answer is we were there in sleep not as ego but as pure awareness. The clue to this is in verse 24 of Ulladu Narpadu, in which Bhagavan says:
The insentient body does not say ‘I’; being-awareness does not rise; in between one thing, ‘I’, rises as the extent of the body. Know that this is the awareness-insentience-knot, bondage, soul, subtle body, ego, this wandering and mind.
What does Bhagavan mean by ‘in between’ or idaiyil here? How can something arise in between the body and sat-chit? Obviously, he is using ‘in between’ is a metaphorical sense here. This can be illustrated by an example. Suppose if you read a story in the newspaper and ask me ‘Is this story true?’ I may reply to you, ‘It is neither true nor false but somewhere in between’. It implies that it has got certain elements of truth in it and certain elements of falsehood – as a whole it is not true.
Ego is exactly like that. Why Bhagavan says idaiyil? It is because ego takes certain properties of the body and certain properties of sat-chit and claims them both as its own. That’s why it’s called chit-jada-granthi. It’s an entangled mixture of chit and jada, of pure awareness and the body. So just like it claims the body as ‘I am this body’, it also claims the awareness as ‘I am this awareness’.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (34:00)
How do we remember that we existed in sleep? (part two)
Michael James: When we say ‘I existed in sleep’, we are claiming that our real existence was there in sleep. We are claiming that sat-chit is ours, just like we claim that our body is ours. But ego is neither of these. It is some spurious entity that has risen grasping the properties of both. As ego we are always aware of ‘I am’, but ‘I am’ doesn’t’ belong to ego. ‘I am’ is our real nature. This body doesn’t belong to ego, but ego takes on the properties of both.
If you wake up and I ask you, ‘did you sleep?’, and you say, 'yes, I slept’. If I ask you ‘how did you remember you were asleep?’ You would probably say, ‘I clearly remember that I was in a state in which I wasn’t aware of anything’. How did you remember that? That is not a memory like the normal memory of phenomena. That ‘memory’ is our very nature of our existence sat-chit because sat-chit is that which is always existing and shining. So since I exist and shine now, I know very clearly that I was existing in sleep.
That’s why Bhagavan says even when see others dying, death is somehow never real to us. Bhagavan said even in a battlefield when a soldier sees his comrades dying around him, he doesn’t actually feel he is going to die. He may feel fear, but he doesn’t feel he is going to die because we all know very clearly that we are immortal. But the trouble is we superimpose our immortality, which is the immortality of sat-chit, on the body. So we take our body to be immortal and think that we are never going to die.
That’s why Bhagavan also told the story of an imposter who didn’t belong to either the bridegroom party or the bride’s party, but he posed to each party that he belonged to the other side. So, such is the nature of ego. Ego doesn’t belong to sat-chit. It doesn’t belong to the body. It takes the properties of both.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (34:00)
My reflection: How do I know that I was asleep? As Michael explains, I clearly recall that I was asleep because I existed in sleep. But this ‘I’ which existed in sleep was not ego but the chit aspect of ego. So since one aspect of ego was present in sleep, I as ego claim that I was asleep.
I know that I was asleep because I am clearly aware now that I was in a state in which I was not aware of any phenomena. The ‘I’ who is now aware of such a state which was devoid of phenomena is ego. So this is ego’s ‘memory’. However, this memory is different from all our other more superficial memories. All other mundane memories are impressions in our mind, but our ‘memory’ of sleep is not an impression on our mind because actually our mind or ego was not there in sleep to form this impression.
So our ‘memory’ of sleep is quite unlike our other memories, but we clearly recollect that we existed in sleep as ‘I am’. So in our true nature, we are just this ‘I am’ because only this ‘I am’ exists and shines in all our three states of waking, dream and sleep. Anything that comes and goes cannot be the real ‘I’. So this is a very crucial inference we draw by analysing our experience in our various states.
Salazar said on 11 July 2020 at 04:09:
"I bought a few years ago Robert's translation of Ozhivil Odukkam and enjoyed it a lot."
I am very thankful for this remark because it encourages me now to start reading Ozhivil Odukkam, which I learn was often quoted by Bhagavan. I could download the commentary (Vilakka Vurai) by Sri. K. Sriram (Mugavai Kanna Muruganadimai). I learn that Bhagavan has even mentioned once to Sri Muruganar that it would be good if this work is explained by someone in Vedantic terms.
Karen Taylor said on 10 July 2020 at 06:30:
"Can anyone please explain what Bhagavan means when he instructs us to "go back the way we came?......Why such increased fear suddenly? Is this part and parcel? I felt more peaceful twenty-five years ago when just entering spiritual path....."
You may find it useful the following passage taken from the article 'Encounters with Ramaswami Pillai' by Roland Olson, which appeared in Mountain Path, January-March 2014:
...When I returned to Arunachala the next year a fellow devotee, Robin, introduced me to him and I overcame my shyness by asking him a question about Self Enquiry. He responded by glaring at me and shouting, “Forget about that! That is not for you! Look at Bhagavan’s picture! Just sit quietly and look into his eyes! He will do everything! Is it a mistake that God spelled backwards is dog? It is not! Where else will you find someone who returns only good for evil, who is always your friend, who has complete trust in you? Bhagavan will do everything. Just trust him.” I tried to ask another question but it was as if he hadn’t heard. “Just go back to the Source! Water comes from the ocean as vapour, rains down into the rivers and goes back to the ocean. God to God! That bliss is there right now. Meditate in front of Bhagavan, eyes open, eyes closed, it doesn’t matter. He will do everything for you.”
The ferocity and sheer volume of his voice overwhelmed me. I had expected him to answer my question with sophistication and surgical precision and instead it felt like he was hitting me over the head with a board, but I did take him seriously enough to write down what he
said in my journal and think about it.
When I visited the Ashram again two years later with one of my daughters we walked over to the Morvi Compound so I could introduce her to him. Maria was a young woman in her early 20’s, a college graduate and rather reserved. She knew very little about Bhagavan and the Ashram. This visit to Ramanasramam was to be an exploration for her and not a deep sea dive. That did not deter Ramaswami Pillai from pushing her into the deep water! As soon as the introduction was over he began to shout. “Surrender! That’s the path for you. Nothing else is necessary. Life is full of trouble and challenges so put your cares on the Lord and surrender. Churches and temples are not necessary! He will take care of it all!” He stared at her as he went on in this vein and concluded by saying, “If you wish you may take this as initiation.”
As we walked away she looked at me and said, “Dad, can you tell me what that was all about?” How could I explain? I took care to write down what he said and sent it to her several years later when she asked me to.
Salazar said that he bought a few years ago Robert Butler's translation of Ozhivil Odukkam. Actually the first edition of this book composed by Kannudaiya Vallalar came out in the year 2019, published by Sri Ramanasramam.
Ego does exist in sleep but only as pure awareness
No words can adequately express this subject. This is why Bhagavan often used words which seemed paradoxical. He says in verse 5 of Ekatma Panchakam ‘ceppedu ceppit’, which means 'saying without saying'. Though these words seem to be paradoxical, they are very very deep in meaning. Bhagavan uses these words to stop us in our tracks as it were. He could have said 'silence', but why does he say 'saying without saying'? Such phrases make us think more deeply beyond the words. If he had said 'silence', we would have just skimmed over it without thinking over it.
Verse 5 of ‘Ekatma-Panchakam’ is as follows:
That which always exists (and shines) by its own light, is only the reality (vastu), that one self. When at that time (in ancient days) the Adi-Guru (the primal Guru, Dakshinamurti) revealed that reality without saying (that is, by teaching through silence), say who can reveal (it by) saying (through words).
Bhagavan says ceppadu ceppit – even the Adi-guru taught this saying without saying. What does he mean by the words ‘saying without saying’? In order to understand Bhagavan, we have to go beyond words. We have to see where these words are pointing towards. That is why I wrote that ego does exist in sleep but only as pure awareness, not as ego, thereby implying that what ego actually is, is only pure awareness. As such it exists in sleep, and as such, it exists even now.
Now ego exists as ‘I am so-and-so’, but actually what it is, is only ‘I am’. So all this is to see the immediacy of it. So long as we see ego and pure awareness as two things, we are not getting it. What ego actually is is only pure awareness here and now. So if you look at yourself, you will see yourself as pure awareness. Obviously, who is doing the looking? Only ego, but when ego looks at itself it sees itself as pure awareness, it thereby ceases to be ego.
Bhagavan often used to emphasise that ego and pure awareness are one and the same thing. Bhagavan says in verse 24 of Upadesa Undiyar:
By existing nature, God and soul are just one substance. Only adjunct-awareness is different.
So it is only upadhi unarvu (adjunct-awareness) that is different, and upadhi unarvu is just an appearance. In substance, the snake is nothing but the rope, but in appearance, it is something other than the rope. So the rope and the snake are just seemingly different. Likewise, the difference between ego and our real nature is just an appearance. They are one in substance. That is why if we look carefully at ego, we will see that it is nothing but pure awareness.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (44:00)
Karen, only Michael’s efforts are truly inspirational. I am learning from him every day in so many ways. So, all thanks to our beloved Sri Michael James! Of course, ultimately it is all coming from Bhagavan – Bhagavan is shining in us as absolute clarity of pure self-awareness. So anything inspirational can originate only from this clarity.
If love is coming through these transcriptions, again thanks should go to only Bhagavan because only Bhagavan is pure and infinite love. Our ego is held together by its bundle of desires, so ego is the very antithesis of love. So as ego, we are devoid of much love.
Anyway, I thank you for your kind and encouraging words.
Unknown, all thanks only to Bhagavan. Who are we to clarify anything, when we are born in confusion, exist in confusion and will perhaps also die in confusion? By 'we' I mean this ego. So clarification can only come from clarity, and only Bhagavan is absolute clarity. So all thanks to Bhagavan and Michael: Michael is our link to Bhagavan. He is our ladder to Bhagavan - our bridge to Bhagavan.
Sanjay,
"That is why if we look carefully at ego, we will see that it is nothing but pure awareness."
Therefore all appearances seem to be a case of carefully looking. In other words one may conclude from that statement that the careful onlooker is already nothing but pure awareness. However, the emphasis is on the word 'careful'. Hence all the people who are not able/ready to look carefully enough at ego have bad prospects. Ultimately humanity seems to be divided in the caste of a few good observers or careful onlookers and those who are not looking keenly enough.:-)
Salazar, you say, ‘Your two main vasanas which became obvious over the years: And that is diet and Michael, your savior :-) Once you can let go of these two strong attachments, you'll be much closer to self’. I admit that I am guilty of these crimes in the court of Salazar. Now I await your punishment. Anyway, I appreciate your concern for me because you obviously want me to come closer to self. So, thank you!
Our saviour is only Bhagavan because only Bhagavan exists. Michael has pointed out to me in clear and unambiguous terms why Bhagavan is our only saviour. So I have high regards for Michael.
The supreme power of grace is leading us along this path, and it will never fail
Michael: Bhagavan has said that all that we have to do is persevere and we will surely succeed – success is guaranteed. All that is required is perseverance.
A friend: Will we ever be able to abide in ourself permanently? It seems impossible.
Michael: It is possible for grace, and grace is driving us. What is grace? Grace is the infinite love that Bhagavan has for us as himself because he doesn’t see us as other than himself. So he loves us as himself. Because he loves us as himself, he wants us to be as we actually are, so to speak. We say Bhagavan wants but Bhagavan doesn’t want anything. We say this because we can think of it only in our terms. Bhagavan loves us as himself, so he wants us to be himself.
So that power of love is what is drawing us along this path, leading us along this path. That is the supreme power of grace, and grace will never fail. We are powerless in front of it.
Bhagavan is very very gentle. He doesn’t force things. He gently leads us until we are willing to put our head on the block and then he chops it.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (02:21 + 02:28)
My reflection: Michael says, ‘success is guaranteed’. It’s music to my ears. Bhagavan himself has guaranteed our success in so many places. But perhaps, the greatest assurance he has given us is 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 look [or glance] of guru’s grace will never be forsaken but will surely be saved by him; nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly in accordance with the path that guru has shown.
Bhagavan says, ‘so those who have been caught in the look [or glance] of guru’s grace will never be forsaken but will surely be saved by him’. Can Bhagavan give us a greater assurance than this? I don’t think so. Since we are trying to walk (albeit at our own lethargic speed) in accordance with the path shown to us by Bhagavan, now we expect Bhagavan to keep his promise and save us as asap.
As Bhagavan sings to Arunachala in one of his verses, ‘Arunachala, now do not cheat me!’ So I am confident that Bhagavan will not cheat us. His written assurance cannot be a false promise – he will not lie. It is impossible. So Bhagavan will surely save us. When? Michael has answered this: ‘Bhagavan is very very gentle. He doesn’t force things. He gently leads us until we are willing to put our head on the block and then he chops it’. So our job is to become more and more willing to put our head on the block. Bhagavan is ever ready to finish us off here and now.
Is that a good idea when one who is surely not free of attachments discovers/identifies alleged ego-feeding mistakes/attachments of an other ?:-)
Salazar, you say, ‘Sorry, ultimately that is not my business, however since you increasingly take on the role of a "teacher" in communicating with others, I am setting certain standards otherwise I have to consider you for a hypocrite’. I am indeed a hypocrite. ‘I’ means ego here – this ego is certainly the biggest hypocrite. Sometimes it poses as chit (awareness) and sometimes as a body, but it is neither. So we should welcome all condemnation or abuse coming to this hypocrite, which is the greatest imposter. So this shameless fellow should bend its head down and disappear from the scene asap, which it is not willing to do yet.
By the way, Bhagavan is our only real teacher and guru. So we are his shishyas or chelas (disciples). If this imposter ego is posing as a ‘teacher’, it needs to be shown its place. I can do so only by investigating, ‘who is trying to pose as a teacher?’
Salazar,
"Change is extremely slow...".
Is there anything else wrong ?
So instead of complain about imperfect contemporaries let us stay with the changeless pure consciousness.
Unknown,
tell me which spelling mistake correction (in this thread) were you expecting. I am full of expectation.:-)
Salazar,
it is clear that one cannot derive benefit from everybody. Because my consciousness can still be compared to murky water, I regret that my ideas were not to your advantage and did not come up to your expectations. :-)
The vasanas are the likes and dislikes in their seed form
Sanjay: Our vasanas are our collection of desires.
Michael: They are the seeds of our desires – they are desires in seed form.
Sanjay: OK, but every time we experience ourself as a new person, does it alter our vasanas in any way?
Michael: Now you identify yourself with a person called ‘Sanjay’, and you have certain likes, dislikes, attachments and so on as Sanjay. When Sanjay dies, obviously all his desires, attachments die along with Sanjay, but the seeds of those desires and attachments are carried forth by the ego that now says ‘I am Sanjay’. This ego takes all its vasanas with it, and it again projects another person as itself, and it then thinks ‘I am John’ or ‘I am Mohammad’ or whatever.
Let us take you are born as Mohammad in Arabia. As Mohammad, you will have different parents, different relations and you will be in a different place. So you will seem to have different desires and attachments, but the same seeds of vasanas will now sprout from the perspective of Mohammad. You (the same ego) will now be attached to Mohammad’s wife, his children and his children. So the seed forms of vasanas are carried forth.
So vasanas are not desires per se, but the seeds of the desires. The seeds of desires will carry on and manifest differently. Now you like a certain sort of a diet because of the culture you are born in. If you are born in a different culture, you may have a liking for a different type of diet.
Sanjay: So suppose if I have a desire for a bigger car now, and if I die and am born as a poor person, will I still have this desire for this big car?
Michael: Because you have money now and you have a car, you may have desire for a bigger car. When you are born a poor person, you may desire to have a bicycle. The object of desire may seem to be different, but still, you have a desire for a faster mode of travel.
So vasanas are the likes and dislikes in their seed form. So the form in which they manifest may be different, but the seeds remain the same.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:48)
My reflections: This ego is carrying these desires and attachments within itself since we do not know how many thousands or even crores of births. So the same sort of story must be repeating again and again. In every birth, I have a family and am attached to my family. In every birth, I am attached to a particular sort of diet. So my current life is no different from my other countless lives which I must have lived in my previous dreams.
So I should not be overly attached to this life because even this life will pass. If this ego doesn’t vanish before I die, I will be born again and the same old story will repeat itself. Why do the same things over and over again? Why not simply surrender here and now and prevent the reoccurrence of this same story - another wife or husband, another set of parents and children but the same type of desires and attachments. So aren't we being foolish by doing the same things over and over again? Why are we not weary and exhausted by such repetitive same type of life-stories? It is because of our spiritual immaturity. We are not able to see through all these things.
So reflecting deeply in this way will help us gain vairagya, and vairagya will help us to leave everything outside and turn within with greater love.
Thirukkural: Some verses from Chapter 35 titled ‘Renunciation’
Michael was referring to some of the following verses of ‘Thirukkural’ in his latest Zoom meeting organised by RMF-UK. Michael often quotes the following verses, especially verse 341:
Verse 341:
Pain, there is none,
from all those one renounces.
Whatever one renounces,
cannot cause pain.
By giving up lust for something,
one also precludes the pain it can cause.
Verse 350:
Be attached to God, who is attached to none,
only so that you leverage that attachment to let go of all other attachments.
Be attached to the One, who is attached to none.
Be so attached to be free of any attachments.
Bhagavan’s whole heart is poured out in Aksaramanamalai
Michael: I have embarked on doing a translation of Aksaramanamalai of my own, and it’s still a work-in-progress. It’s a very very important work to do because Bhagavan’s whole heart is poured out in Aksaramanamalai. So words cannot express what an important work it is. It is also extremely important for anyone following Bhagavan’s path because, in this work, Bhagavan expresses the feelings and challenges that any devotee following this path will face.
A friend: : I believe these verses can be interpreted in many ways.
Michael: Muruganar was writing a commentary of Aksaramanamalai. In this process, he came to one of its verses and he wasn’t fully satisfied with any of its meanings. So he asked Bhagavan, ‘Bhagavan, what was it that you had in mind when you sang this verse?’ Bhagavan said, 'The fellow who sang it has gone away long ago. If you want me to give a meaning I have to break my head to do so. You may as well break your head and give your own meaning'.
So Bhagavan always declined to give the meaning of these verses because Bhagavan didn’t want to limit the meaning. That is, verses that have multiple-meaning are meant to have multiple-meaning, and in different states of mind the verses may strike in different ways. So we cannot give an exhaustive list of all the possible interpretations because more meaning may come out later. Bhagavan was careful to avoid interrelating Aksaramanamalai in any way.
Sometimes when people asked Bhagavan, ‘Bhagavan, I recite these verses but I am not able to understand them’, Bhagavan said, ‘Recitation of it is itself the meaning’. Even to the people who were not fully able to understand them, he still encouraged them to recite them because the words have their own power.
The friend: Yes, we listen to these songs and even if we don’t understand them, love comes forth spontaneously.
Michael: The words coming from sages like Bhagavan have the power of a mantra. Bhagavan’s original words have such power in them. Even if we don’t understand the language, they can melt your heart. The whole purpose of Aksaramanamalai is to melt completely in the love of Bhagavan. Bhagavan sings:
Like ice in water, melt me as love in you, the form of love.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (02:12)
My reflections: As Michael has indicated that he has a plan to give a series of talks on Aksaramanamalai in these meetings. He has indicated that before starting these talks, he wants time to prepare for each verse. However, I believe Bhagavan’s grace will speak through Michael if and when he begins this series of talks.
If, as Michael says, ‘Bhagavan’s whole heart is poured out in Aksaramanamalai’, the same heart of Bhagavan will eloquently speak through Michael. So my humble suggestion to him is that he should start this series of talks without concerning himself with elaborate preparations. Why not surrender even the preparations to Bhagavan? As Sadhu Om used to say, Bhagavan is even prepared to think for us if we surrender to him. So I am sure Bhagavan will do the thinking for Michael.
Sir, what do you say? I would love to have your reaction to my humble views.
As we see Nostradamus is back. :-)
Karen, you wrote, 'It comes across clearly to this one that Sanjay knows Bhagavan is paramount while feeling much gratitude to Michael for being such a mighty instrument. Haven't been here long but this is one perspective'. I am in 100% alignment with your perspective.
Karen, as you say, 'All is Bhagavan, Bhagavan is all!' Yes, we as ego are nothing, so why to think so much about the life of this transient and ephemeral person in this world? In fact, as a person, we have only our death to look forward to. We are a passing show. Bhagavan is all - only Bhagavan is. Only Bhagavan is living. We are as good as dead.
Asun,
perhaps you wrote your "Faith song" originally in Spanish. At least for me at first reading, that what you wanted to express with your poetry in English comes through not so entirely clear. Perhaps one should read it several times.
On no account do not be discouraged to indulge in your poetric bent also in English.:-)
Firstly I apologise to anyone who has written any comments (or emails) addressed to me recently that I have not replied to. During the past few months there have been so many comments here and I have received so many emails that I have not had time to read most of them, let alone reply to them. I have been replying to as many emails as possible, but I have not had time to reply to the vast majority of them.
Secondly, Sanjay, you wrote to me recently drawing my attention to your comment of 13 July 2020 at 16:41, in which you asked for my reaction to the views you expressed in the penultimate two paragraphs, so the following is my response:
You ask, ‘Why not surrender even the preparations to Bhagavan?’, but why should you assume that preparing to do any work to the best of one’s ability conflicts in any way with surrender? If it is my prārabdha to prepare as well as I can for this task, Bhagavan will make me do so.
Surrender is not just not doing this or that, but is not rising as ego to think ‘I should do this’ or ‘I should not do that’, so what we need to guard against first and foremost is the rising of ego. If I were to think, ‘Bhagavan will speak through me, so I need not think carefully or deeply about each verse’, would that not be presumptuous and egotistic?
Whether Bhagavan chooses to speak through us or not is up to him, so it would be the height of egotism to assume that he is speaking or will speak through us, as if we were some sort of divinely commissioned channel for his grace. Sometimes in retrospect it may seem that what we have said could not have been said by us without his guidance, but we should not assume that that will always be the case, because if we allow such a big ego to rise it will surely face an equally big downfall.
As often seems to be the case, you seem to be placing me on an unrealistic pedestal, which is not good either for you or for me. In Bhagavan’s path our aim is to separate ourself from whatever person we may seem to be, because what is real is only ‘I am’ and not any person. Therefore putting any person (whether oneself or anyone else) on a pedestal is going directly against the path that he has shown us. Sanjay and Michael are both just fleeting appearances in a dream, so why attach any importance to them or delude ourself by pretending that either of them is in any way something special?
Sanjay,
"Only Bhagavan is living.
We are as good as dead."
Because we are Bhagavan we have nothing to fear.
Saying without saying (part one)
In his video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness, at 44:00 Michael quoted two verses which both had the phrase ‘saying without saying’. I wrote to Michael asking him to clearly specify the verses because he had not mentioned the exact source of the first of these verses. He has sent me an email mentioning these verses:
The verses I referred to were verse 36 of Akṣaramaṇamālai:
சொல்லாது சொலிநீ சொல்லற நில்லென்று
சும்மா விருந்தா யருணாசலா
sollādu solinī sollaṟa nilleṉḏṟu
summā virundā yaruṇācalā
பதச்சேதம்: சொல்லாது சொலி நீ ‘சொல் அற நில்’ என்று சும்மா இருந்தாய் அருணாசலா.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): sollādu soli nī ‘sol aṟa nil’ eṉḏṟu summā irundāy aruṇācalā.
English translation: Arunachala, saying without saying, ‘Stand [stop, stay or remain] without speech’, you just were [without doing anything].
and verse 5 of Ēkāṉma Pañcakam:
எப்போது முள்ளதவ் வேகான்ம வத்துவே
யப்போதவ் வத்துவை யாதிகுரு — செப்பாது
செப்பித் தெரியுமா செய்தன ரேலெவர்
செப்பித் தெரிவிப்பர் செப்பு.
eppōdu muḷḷadav vēkāṉma vattuvē
yappōdav vattuvai yādiguru — seppādu
seppit teriyumā seydaṉa rēlevar
seppit terivippar ceppu.
பதச்சேதம்: எப்போதும் உள்ளது அவ் ஏகான்ம வத்துவே. அப்போது அவ் வத்துவை ஆதி குரு செப்பாது செப்பி தெரியுமா செய்தனரேல், எவர் செப்பி தெரிவிப்பர்? செப்பு.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): eppōdum uḷḷadu a-vv-ēkāṉma vattuvē. appōdu a-v-vattuvai ādi-guru seppādu seppi teriyumā seydaṉarēl, evar seppi terivippar? seppu.
English translation: What always exists is only that ēkātma-vastu [oneself, that one substance]. If at that time the ādi-guru [the original guru, Dakshinamurti] made that vastu known [only by] speaking without speaking, say, who can make it known [by] speaking?
sollādu soli and seppādu seppi both mean 'not saying saying' or 'saying without saying'.
(To be continued in my next comment)
Saying without saying (part two)
• verse 36 of Akṣaramaṇamālai:
Arunachala, saying without saying, ‘Stand [stop, stay or remain] without speech’, you just were [without doing anything].
Sadhu Om explains this verse as follows: ‘O Arunachala, through silence you instructed me, ‘Be still, without the least action of mind, speech and body’, and you also remained in such a fashion’.
• verse 5 of Ēkāṉma Pañcakam:
What always exists is only that ēkātma-vastu [oneself, that one substance]. If at that time the ādi-guru [the original guru, Dakshinamurti] made that vastu known [only by] speaking without speaking, say, who can make it known [by] speaking?
As Michael said in one of his recent videos, Bhagavan deliberately uses phrases such as ‘saying without saying’ or ‘speaking without speaking’ to make us stop and think deeply.
What is Arunachala or Bhagavan or Dakshinamurti trying to say without saying? They are trying to tell through their eloquent silence that we cannot find what we are searching for if we do not remain silent like them. They are telling us that we can experience true and infinite happiness only in silence. But what sort of silence are they talking about? They are talking about the silence which is devoid of ego or mind: in other words, we can experience true silence only when ego does not rise to say ‘I’ or anything else.
Only such silence, which is beyond all types of the silence of body, speech and mind, will enable us to understand what Arunachala or Bhagavan or Dakshinamurti are trying to say without saying. If we want to experience ekatma-vastu as it is, we have no other option but to remain absolutely silent or remain in a state where our ego has no chance of rising even in the least. Only then Arunachala or Bhagavan will be able to teach us whatever they are trying to say without saying.
Michael, well said indeed. Trust you are doing well. Take care and the very best wishes to you. Warm Regards.
Sir, I thank you for your latest comment. I am sorry if I have gone overboard in praising you in some of my comments. Obviously, I did this because of my spiritual immaturity: that is, I didn’t fully realise that ‘putting any person (whether oneself or anyone else) on a pedestal is going directly against the path that Bhagavan has shown us’. But since you have now pointed this out to me, I will definitely from now onwards keep this in mind.
Yes, I agree. Bhagavan may want us to thoroughly prepare before we speak on his teachings, so why should we assume that every time we speak or write about Bhagavan’s teachings, Bhagavan will speak through us? Our job is to keep our ego in check and not assume that we are some divinely ordained channel for Bhagavan’s grace. As you rightly imply if we feel this way, we are clearly exposing a strong ego in us.
As you imply, Sanjay, Michael or whoever is just fleeting appearances on the screen of pure awareness ‘I am’. Only this ‘I am’ is real – this ‘I am’ in its purity is what Bhagavan actually is. So we should not be concerned with the fleeting appearances which appear on the screen of pure awareness. Our interest in these appearances is keeping us away from turning within fully to experience ourself as we actually are.
We need such clear guidance so that we don’t falter in our path. That is, we should not become a yogabrastha – one who has fallen from the practice of yoga. In our context, yoga means this mahayoga, this practice of atma-vichara. So we need to careful to walk this path with caution and utmost humility. Bhagavan teaches us in Nan Ar that the humbler we are, the better for us. This humility entails not rising as ego to praise or criticise others – at least, we should keep such praise and criticism within limits.
I once again thank you for this valuable lesson. With regards.
We always have to go deeper and deeper and deeper (part one)
A friend: I have a dispute with my cousins regarding some property which is in our joint name. They want to sell the property but don’t seem to be inclined to give me my fair share in it. So should I give in to their demands or fight for my rights?
Michael: What is required is that we don’t have the desire for things. If it is your destiny to fight for your rights, you will fight for your rights. Your destiny may prompt you to feel that for the sake of your children or your family, you have to fight for certain rights. But inwardly we need to be free of the desire for these things. So the outward actions will go according to prarabdha.
We need not be concerned about our actions. We need to be concerned about the desires that are driving us to do these actions. We don’t have to even analyse that too much. We should take care not to rise as ego – by not rising as ego, our desires and attachments are not coming into play. So whatever actions are done by our body, speech and mind are according to prarabdha. If we don’t surrender our ego, definitely our likes and dislikes will come into play. So we will feel, ‘O these cousins are cheating me. This isn’t fair’. Thus we will feel resentment and all sorts of things.
What is the root of all this resentment, all these feelings of injustice? It is our rising as ego. That is why Bhagavan focuses on the root. All such resentment, feelings of injustice, attachments is for whom? These are obviously for me – that is ego. So we thereby turn our attention back within and thereby curb the rising of ego. To the extent we curb the rising of ego, to that extent we are curbing our desires and attachments.
Maybe it the destiny of our body and mind to be engaged in litigations, but inwardly we will not be affected by the outcome. We lose the litigation and we have to pay all the opponent’s fees and everything, but we will not be affected by that because we are not rising as ego.
So the whole problem is ego. Even the vasanas are not a problem. The ego is the root of vasanas. So long as we rise as ego, vasanas will come into play. To the extent we investigate and surrender ourself, to that extent we will subside, and to the extent we subside, to that extent our desires and attachments will be weakened.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:52)
We always have to go deeper and deeper and deeper (part two)
The friend: Whatever is to come to me, will come to me. So if I tell my cousins, ‘OK, if you feel you are being fair, please take whatever you want’, but if my fair share is to come to me, it will come to me.
Michael: It will come to you, yes.
The friend: I don’t want to fight, so I leave it to them to decide my share. Whatever is in my destiny as decided by Bhagavan will automatically come to me. So I believe that’s a better attitude to have?
Michael: Yes, yes, certainly, it’s a better attitude to have, definitely. But supposing it is your destiny to fight a court case with them, you will be driven to do so, even though you may not want to. Something will prompt you – your family members may prompt you, or you may feel, ‘O this is unfair. I have to fight for my rights’. Your body, speech and mind cannot avoid doing those actions which you are destined to do. But that need not concern us.
Bhagavan says in the 13th paragraph of Nan Ar, ‘Instead of yielding ourself to the parameshwara shakti, why should we constantly be thinking ‘it is necessary to do like this; it is necessary to do like that?’ Even to think, ‘I should fight for my rights’ or ‘I shouldn’t fight for my rights’ – leave that burden to Bhagavan. He will decide whether you are going to fight with them or surrender to their demands. What you need to be concerned about is yielding yourself to him – that is, not rising as ego.
So the practice Bhagavan has taught us is the practice of turning within and letting go of all outward things. Bhagavan has greatly simplified things by asking us just to focus on self-investigation and self-surrender. We do not have to concern ourself with whether we should act like this or like that. That will be taken care of by prarabdha.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:52)
We always have to go deeper and deeper and deeper (part three)
The friend: That I agree. What I mean to say is that it is always better not to hold on to things than to hold on to things consciously.
Michael: Always letting go of things is better. Often in Scotland, people say the following saying:
What is for you will not go by you
What is destined to come to us will come to us. It will not go past us. In Thirukkural there is a verse which Bhagavan often used to quote:
Whatever we let go of, we are free from the trouble of that thing
So it is always better to let go.
The friend: That was how I was thinking. They want to give me something but not my fair share. So I say, ‘OK, whatever you want to give, please give’. Whatever I am destined to receive or not receive does not rest with my cousins. It will all happen according to my destiny.
Michael: As Bhagavan said in that note to his mother, whatever is not to happen, will not happen, however much effort we make to make it happen. Whatever is to happen will not stop from happening, however much we try to prevent it from happening. So what is destined - only that will happen. So if your fair share is to come to you, it will come to you, and you are destined to receive an ‘unfair’ share, you cannot avoid that. So we need not concern about such things.
What is important is that inwardly you let go. If you outwardly let go also that is according to prarabdha. But we have to be always watching the inward thing. We should be free of desires and attachments by not rising as ego. Then, whatever happens, let it happen according to destiny.
Outward renunciation is relatively easy. For example, you can say, ‘OK, I don’t want to fight with my cousins. Let them take whatever they want to take’, but inwardly you may still be thinking ‘O, it’s unfair. They got an unfair share. I got less’. So the problem is not the outward thing but the inward thing. So long as you feel ‘I have renounced in their favour’ or ‘I have given it up’, you haven’t properly renounced.
You should aim to remain established in a state where an ‘I’ does not rise to say, ‘I have renounced’. So we always have to go deeper and deeper and deeper.
(The end)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:52)
Congratulations to everyone for having reached the unique state where "effort is no longer needed” !
“The mind will always feel that self-attention is difficult, because it can never attend to self. Only self can attend to self.”
Yes, certainly the self has no need to attend to itself.
Therefore it is unmistak(e)ably clear: the mind has to strive for self-attention.
Bhagavan said ego is the primary disease, and the body is the secondary disease, and any disease that comes to that body is a tertiary disease (part one)
A friend: The following is an extract from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi - Talk 22 (31st January, 1935):
Mrs. Piggott returned from Madras for a further visit. She asked questions relating to diet regulation.
D: What diet is prescribed for a sadhak (one who is engaged in spiritual practices)?
M: Satvic food in limited quantities.
D: What is satvic food?
M: Bread, fruits, vegetables, milk, etc.
D: Some people take fish in North India. May it be done?
No answer was made by the Maharshi.
D: We Europeans are accustomed to a particular diet; change of diet affects health and weakens the mind. Is it not necessary to keep up physical health?
M: Quite necessary. The weaker the body the stronger the mind grows.
D: In the absence of our usual diet our health suffers and the mind loses strength.
M: What do you mean by strength of mind?
D: The power to eliminate worldly attachment.
M: The quality of food influences the mind. The mind feeds on the food consumed.
D: Really! How can the Europeans adjust themselves to satvic food only?
M: (Pointing to Mr. Evans-Wentz) You have been taking our food. Do you feel uncomfortable on that account?
Mr. Evans-Wentz: No. Because I am accustomed to it.
D: What about those not so accustomed?
M: Habit is only adjustment to the environment. It is the mind that matters. The fact is that the mind has been trained to think certain foods tasty and good. The food material is to be had both in vegetarian and non-vegetarian diet equally well. But the mind desires such food as it is accustomed to and considers tasty.
D: Are there restrictions for the realised man in a similar manner?
M: No. He is steady and not influenced by the food he takes.
D: Is it not killing life to prepare meat diet?
M.: Ahimsa stands foremost in the code of discipline for the yogis.
D: Even plants have life.
M: So too the slabs you sit on!
D: May we gradually get ourselves accustomed to vegetarian food?
M: Yes. That is the way
The friend: Bhagavan says, ‘The weaker the body the stronger the mind grows’. How do you interpret this statement?
(To be continued in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (01:16)
Bhagavan said ego is the primary disease and the body is the secondary disease, and any disease that comes to that body is a tertiary disease (part two)
The friend: Bhagavan says, ‘The weaker the body the stronger the mind grows’. How do you interpret this statement?
Michael: Whether the body is strong or not is according to prarabdha. When we are young, generally the body is strong, but as we grow old, the body becomes weaker. Regarding the strong mind, maybe something was misunderstood or misinterpreted by the recorder.
Bhagavan did say in the context of fasting: if you fast, your body thereby becomes weak and your mind will thereby become strong – meaning more outward going. It is because you will be thinking about food and such things. Bhagavan discouraged people who wanted to fast or do severe tapas. The fasting which is required is not feeding the mind with phenomena. So turning the mind within is the correct fasting. As he says in verse 16 of Upadesa Undiyar:
Leaving external phenomena, the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness.
So withdrawing the mind from the seen and turning it back to the seer – that is the correct fasting.
The friend: The following is an extract from: Letters from Sri Ramanasramam, Letter no 35, DISEASE:
Two years back, when our elder brother came to the Ashram, Mr. Manne Venkataramayya, retired Judge, was here. It seems he was sick some time back and got cured, but not completely. After listening to the details of the sickness from early morning till 8-30 p.m., Bhagavan said, ‘Yes, indeed! The body itself is a disease. If the body gets a disease, it means that the original disease has got another disease. If you really want this new disease not to trouble you, you must first take the required medicine for the original disease so that the later disease — that is, the disease of the disease — does not affect you. What is the use of worrying about the secondary disease instead of trying to find out a method of getting rid of the primary disease? Therefore allow this new disease to go its own way, and think of a medicine for the original disease’.
How do you interpret this?
Michael: When Bhagavan was in his final illness and people were asking him to cure himself, Bhagavan said, ‘This body is a disease. If a disease come to the disease, it is good for us’. So a lot of things Bhagavan said in a particular context, but we shouldn’t try to extrapolate it beyond that context.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (01:16)
Bhagavan said ego is the primary disease and the body is the secondary disease, and any disease that comes to that body is a tertiary disease (part three)
Michael: Bhagavan generally was not either for or against taking medicines because according to him, the disease comes according to prarabdha and if the medicines come, that’s also according to prarabdha. So we shouldn’t concern ourself too much about these things. It is natural that when we are sick, we go to a doctor and he gives us medicines, and we take the medicines.
A lot of people become overly concerned about physical health. Obviously, Bhagavan didn’t encourage that. As he said in verse 12 of Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham:
Cease considering the wretched [base, deficient, defective or impure] body to be ‘I’. Investigate [or know] yourself, who are ever unceasing [or imperishable] bliss. Thinking [intending or trying] to know oneself while cherishing the perishable body is like grasping a crocodile [as] a raft to cross a river.
So Bhagavan never said ‘don't take medicines’ - Bhagavan never went to extremes. He would advise not to attach too much importance to these things. We should ensure that we don’t let our health become an obsession because there is nothing like perfect health. And we know that the body is going to die one day. Whatever disease is to come to the body is according to prarabdha, and whatever cure is to come is also according to prarabdha.
Obviously, when we have a body, we take care of it. We feed it, we give it sufficient exercise, but we shouldn’t be obsessed with our bodily health. We shouldn’t attach too much importance to it.
About the passage you read, actually, Bhagavan said ego is the primary disease and the body is the secondary disease, and any disease that comes to that body is a tertiary disease. The original disease we have to deal with is ego. So this may be the missing link in that passage from Letters. Maybe it was not perfectly recorded because Bhagavan wouldn’t have said that the body is the first disease.
Regarding diet, Bhagavan very clearly encourages a sattvik diet because a sattvik diet increases the sattvik quality of the mind, and the sattvik quality of the mind is favourable to self-investigation. But what determines whether the food is sattvik or not is partly the quality of the food, but it is also how the food is produced. So in the passage from Talks, Bhagavan considers milk to be sattvik, but today’s milk is produced in factories with a lot of cruelty, so it cannot be termed sattvik. Today’s dairy industry is anything but sattvik.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (01:16)
Salazar, you say, ‘Even quoting Ulladu Narpadu is stupidity when it is kept on the level of mind’. Michael says in his latest video that Bhagavan’s original works, like the verses of the Stuti Panchakam, Ulladu Narpadu and Upadesa Undiyar, have the power of mantras. So even if we do not understand them, even if they are kept at the level of the mind, it is beneficial to quote them or remember them or chant them.
It may be particularly beneficial to remember them in their original form because his original words cannot be matched. But those of us who do not know Tamil, it is still beneficial to remember the translations - especially when they are word to word translations without additions or deletions of words. Such translations, I am sure, still have the mantric power albeit in a somewhat diluted form.
My next comment will say exactly what Michael said on this topic.
Bhagavan’s verses of Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, Ulladu Narpadu, Upadesa Undiyar and other original words of Bhagavan have mantric powers (part one)
A friend: Do you believe that certain words when chanted before the food changes the nature of the food we eat – like the Vedic chants and so on? Do you chant them?
Michael: I don’t do it. Mantras have their own power – not all words but certain words. I think the words that have the mantric powers are the words that come from the jnani. Bhagavan’s original works like Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, Ulladu Narpadu, Upadesa Undiyar and so on – these words have their power. The power is not in the words themselves but is in the source from which they arose.
So I think there is such a thing as mantra-shakti. All Bhagavan’s original works are for the annihilation of ego. The very first verse of Aksaramanamalai says, ‘Arunachala, you eradicate ego of those who think of you in the heart (or those think Arunachala is only ‘I’)’. So the very first verse he is connecting with the annihilation of ego. The whole of Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, Ulladu Narpadu, Upadesa Undiyar and so on – all his original works – have one aim in mind: the annihilation of ego. So these are mantras which are conducive to the annihilation of ego.
Someone couldn’t understand the verses of Aksaramanamalai and asked Bhagavan, ‘Bhagavan, I recite these verses every day but am not able to understand the meaning. Could you explain the meaning?’ Bhagavan said, ‘Recitation of it is itself the meaning’. It is because even if we do not understand the meaning, these words have certain power – but the power of these words is for the annihilation of ego.
But there are many tantric-mantras, the aim of which is just to gain power. They have that power, but that is not the power we are seeking. If we are following Bhagavan’s path, our sole aim is the annihilation of ego.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (01:31)
Who says that the mind does not exist ? The mind.
Bhagavan’s verses of Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, Ulladu Narpadu, Upadesa Undiyar and other original words of Bhagavan have mantric powers (part two)
The friend: When I was in Vaishnavas temples, they chanted mantras when they prepared food. They chanted mantras like Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya Namah…
Michael: Those are bhakti-mantras. Those mantras are conducive to the path of self-surrender, so those are good. They are not chanting those mantras to gain shakti or siddhis or anything. It’s to cultivate more devotion, so that is good.
The friend: They believe that when they chant such mantras on the food, the Lord purifies the food because they invoke the Lord.
Michael: Yes, yes, again this is a matter of belief, but if they believe that then that belief has its own power.
The friend: So, do you chant anything?
Michael: I used to chant Arunachala Stuti Panchakam when I used to go around the hill every day. Nowadays, I don’t regularly chant anything, but sometimes I do chant certain verse of Arunachala Stuti Panchakam or even a verse of Ulladu Narpadu if it comes to my mind. I just go through that in the mind, but I don’t take that as a practice or anything. The problem with regular recitation is that it can become very mechanical. The verses appeal to me, but the regular recitation doesn’t appeal to me so much.
But sometimes when the verses come to the mind, it can have a very good effect on the mind. We can’t generate that effect. So, yes, words have their power. They are so beautiful verses - the whole of Stuti Panchakam is a gem.
However, the practice that appeals to me the most is self-investigation and self-surrender. But all of Bhagavan’s works are connected with these practices, so sometimes these verses come to my mind. There are so many verses of Arunachala Stuti Panchakam that I really love, but I don’t regularly recite them.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (01:31)
Salazar, the sole aim of whatever Bhagavan wrote is to motivate us to turn within. But even if we do not understand his original words, the mere recitation of them have their power. Of course, if we chant his works with love, that will give us extra points so to speak.
"One can lose oneself in Ulladu Narpadu ....".
However, the aim of Ulladu Narpadu is to find oneself...
Salazar, I also believed that mere recitation of mantras can have no powers, but I have changed my views. As you imply, all power resides in ourself – that is, since only atma-svarupa exists, all power exists only within atma-svarupa. However, as long as we experience ourself as ego, we seem to derive power from mantras and such things. All these could be our beliefs in worst cases, but in some cases, it could have some relative reality.
The following is what Michael wrote to me in an email yesterday:
As I mentioned in one of my recent videos, when someone once told Bhagavan that they regularly recite Aksharamanamalai but are not sure whether they understand the meaning of all the verses correctly (or something to that effect) and therefore asked him to explain their meaning, he replied: 'Recitation of them is itself their meaning'.
It is up to each one of us to understand what he meant by saying this, but it does seem to imply that the words have their own power even if we do not fully understand their meaning.
[The end of Michael’s email]
What power can Bhagavan’s words have? They have the power to stop our mind in its tracks. They have the power to prompt us to turn within. Obviously, we need to act on the prompting, otherwise, the prompting is of no use.
God saves us by promoting us to follow his path
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 look [or glance] of guru’s grace will never be forsaken but will surely be saved by him; nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly in accordance with the path that guru has shown.
Today morning, I was listening to one of Michael’s videos. In this video, he said that God or guru saves us by prompting us to follow his path. Michael said this while explaining paragraph 12 of Nan Ar. And how do we know whether we are caught in the look of guru’s grace or not? Michael explained that if we are attracted to Bhagavan and Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation or self-surrender, we are well and truly in Bhagavan’s net of grace – now there is no escaping.
God saves us by promoting us to follow his path. Why is God so sure that we will follow his promoting? It is because he knows that his promoting has so much power and love that we cannot resist it for long. Sooner or later we will do what he is so lovingly asking us to do.
What does Bhagavan want us to do? He wants us to turn within and experience ourself as we actually are. If we are wise, we will do as he wants us to do because there is no safely outside. There is coronavirus and death outside, whereas there is fearlessness and immorality inside.
Sanjay,
of course you mean "immortality".
Sanjay, you mean "there is no safety outside".
Is there any outside or inside for Bhraman?
Anadi-ananta, yes, it should have been 'immortality' and 'safety'. I thank you for pointing this out to me.
Saravanapavan, you have asked, ‘Is there any outside or inside for Bhraman?’ It is usually spelt as 'brahman'. Brahman in Indian spirituality means God without forms and attributes. Brahman is distinguished by the term Ishvara in the sense that Ishvara is usually taken to mean a God with a form and attributes.
So Brahman is what actually exists, and since what actually exists is only atma-svarupa, brahman is therefore nothing other than atma-svarupa. Bhagavan says in verse 28 of Upadesa Undiyar that our real nature is anadi, ananta, akhanda sat-chit-ananda. That means our real nature is beginningless, infinite, unbroken being-awareness-bliss. So in this sense, nothing exists outside or inside brahman, because brahman alone exists – ekam eva advitiyam (one alone without a second).
However, Bhagavan teaches us in paragraph seven of Nan Ar?:
What actually exists is only ātma-svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself]. The world, soul and God are kalpanaigaḷ [fabrications, imaginations, mental creations, illusions or illusory superimpositions] in it, like the [illusory] silver in a shell. These three appear simultaneously and disappear simultaneously. Svarūpa [one’s own form or real nature] alone is the world; svarūpa alone is ‘I’ [ego or soul]; svarūpa alone is God; everything is śiva-svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature of śiva, the one infinite whole, which is oneself].
Therefore, the world, ego and God are merely imaginations or mental creations which exists within brahman or atma-svarupa, but these imaginations or mental creations are actually nothing other than brahman or atma-svarupa in substance. So in this sense, we can say that the world, ego and God exist inside brahman but as mere projections of ego or mind.
However, in the context of our practice of atma-vichara, we have to take that the world, ego and God (as a separate God) are something which our outside brahman or atma-svarupa. All this – that is, the world, ego and God are thoughts or mental phenomena – are external or extraneous to ourself. Why this is important is that when we practice atma-vichara, we need to completely reject all such thoughts or mental phenomena and attend only to our fundamental awareness ‘I am’.
So everything is inside brahman or atma-svarupa from one perspective, whereas everything is outside brahman or atma-svarupa from another perspective.
Do you find this reply useful?
Sanjay,
How is Michael so confident that the guy who interpreted Bhagavan in Talks may be wrong and his interpretation is right? I do see Michael’s mind playing some tricks and there is a chance that he may in the process getting more delusional.
Strength of mind by Bhagavan from talks(could be right too, implies Michael’s understanding is wrong):
M: What do you mean by strength of mind?
D: The power to eliminate worldly attachment.
Sanjay,
You being indian know very well how fasting is prescribed by certain type of physicians. So there is a higher probability of Talks being right.
Anonymous, you say, ‘You being indian know very well how fasting is prescribed by certain type of physicians’. Firstly, let us recollect what Michael in that extract said which I had paraphrased. He said there:
Michael: Whether the body is strong or not is according to prarabdha. When we are young, generally the body is strong, but as we grow old, the body becomes weaker. Regarding the strong mind, maybe something was misunderstood or misinterpreted by the recorder.
Bhagavan did say in the context of fasting: if you fast, your body thereby becomes weak and your mind will thereby become strong – meaning more outward going. It is because you will be thinking about food and such things. Bhagavan discouraged people who wanted to fast or do severe tapas. The fasting which is required is not feeding the mind with phenomena. So turning the mind within is the correct fasting. As he says in verse 16 of Upadesa Undiyar:
Leaving external phenomena, the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness.
So withdrawing the mind from the seen and turning it back to the seer – that is the correct fasting.
[End of the extract from Michael’s video]
In this context, we can refer to the verses of GVK which talk about diet and fasting. The following are verses 678 and 679 from GVK:
Introduction to verse 678: The word ‘upavasa’ has two meanings, namely (1) its literal meaning, ‘living near’ (upa=near; vasa=living), that is, living near God or self, and (2) the meaning which is generally applied to it, ‘fasting’. In this verse, however, Sri Bhagavan uses upavasa in its literal sense, and he uses another word, unna-vratam, for fasting.
verse 678: Wise people, knowing that not yielding to the taste for the five sense-pleasures is the truth of fasting and that abiding unceasingly in self is the truth of upavasa [living near God], will always observe [both fasting and upavasa] with great love.
Sadhu Om: The true fasting is not refraining from feeding the stomach, but refraining from feeding the five senses [by not providing them with the objects of pleasure]. Since the word ‘upavasa’ literally means ‘living near’, the true upavasa is ever abiding in self without leaving it.
(I will continue this reply in my next comment)
In continuation of my previous comment in reply to Anonymous:
Verse 679: Since diet-regulation develops the sattvic quality of the mind, it will help a long way in self-enquiry. Therefore, what is the need for one, due to confusion, to long for any other observances [niyama]? Diet regulation alone will suffice.
Sadhu Om: Diet-regulation [ahara-niyama] means taking only sattvic food in moderate quantities.
Sri Muruganar: Aspirants on the path of self-enquiry often concern themselves about the many other observances [niyamas] which may aid their sadhana. But diet regulation alone will be sufficient, since it is the highest of all observances.
So I believe there is the common consensus here that Bhagavan doesn’t recommend extreme fasting. He does recommend refraining from feeding the five senses by not providing them with the objects of pleasure. So we can say that in this sense Bhagavan does recommend fasting to a limited extent. However, Bhagavan’s teaching is clear. We need to consume sattvik food in limited quantity, and as sadhakas that is the only thing we need to be concerned about.
However, fasting is beneficial if we want to get over some bodily disease. It is said in Ayurveda ‘langanam param aushadham’, which means fasting is the best medicine. So fasting (no intake of food for long durations – one, two, three days and more) can be extremely beneficial as a medicine. It really works. However, severe fasting is not recommended as an aid to our sadhana.
However, I do intermittent fasting every day. That is, I am without food and water until 12 noon every day. So there is no harm in such limited fasting, but I believe Bhagavan was against long fast of many days and such things as an aid to our sadhana.
Bhagavan did say that we should ensure that our digestive tract is kept clean. So limited fasting can help us in this regards. We can turn within with relative ease if our stomach is clear.
Moreover, as sadhakas, we should not be too concerned about our food and such things. Ideally, we should eat what we are given to eat according to our prarabdha. So some days we may enjoy a feast and some days we may have to fast. We shouldn't be concerned about our food and such things beyond a point. Our main concern should be, are we putting into practice what Bhagavan has taught us - rest everything is of secondary importance.
Sanjay
You seemed to have missed my point. May be I was not clear. My point was to not blindly use Michaels posts as the most authoritative source, but use our intellect to what to follow and what not to follow. I see many of them here who don’t consider Michael as Guru still referring to ‘only’ Michael’s posts as reference and ascertaining their understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings. And then , also insisting how other sources cannot be relied on , because it doesn’t conform to ‘their beliefs’ and ‘their interpretation’ of Bhagavan’s teachings.
Michael’s favourite verses from Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam (part one)
Michael: There are so many verses of Arunachala Stuti Panchakam that I really love. It is difficult to put in words, but words have their power.
A friend: Would you recommend certain verses which you enjoy chanting?
Michael: Yes, in Arunachala Stuti Panchakam there are certain verses which are particularly appealing. But it also depends on the time and the state of mind. In certain states of mind, certain verses are particularly appealing. In other states of mind, other verses are particularly appealing.
The friend: Does anything come to your mind?
Michael: [laughs] So many of verses from Aksaramanamalai come to my mind. Some of my favourite verses are:
(a) Turning within daily see yourself with your inner eye, and it will be known; thus you said Arunachala
(b) Like ice in water melt me as love in you, the form of love
(c) So that this mind that wanders around the world may subside, show your beauty
(d) Completely removing all my defects, giving me all good qualities, take me as your own and shine as guru, Arunachala
Defects mean the rising as ego and good qualities means subsidence of ego.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (01:37)
My reflection: One of Michael’s favourite verses is: ‘So that this mind that wanders around the world may subside, show your beauty’. If we see the real beauty of Arunachala our mind will remain with that beauty, and therefore it will become absolutely still. A still mind actually means no mind.
So Bhagavan is prompting us through this verse to see or experience our own inner beauty. Once we experience what we actually are, our mind will give up its infatuation with the things of this world. So the only way to give up our desires and attachments is to have more and more love for our real nature. The more we turn within, the more we will become captivated with our own inner beauty. Eventually, nothing outside will seem beautiful to us.
Michael’s favourite verses from Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam (part two)
Michael: There are many other verses from Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam – verse 7 of Arunachala Navamanimalai comes to my mind:
Sri Arunachala Navamanimalai verse 7 (as it appears in the book ‘Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam’ by Sri Sadhu Om)
O Annamalai, the very moment you took me as your own, you took possession of my soul and body. Therefore, is there now any shortcoming (defect, want or grievance) for me? (Since my shortcomings and virtues cannot exist apart from you) I will not think of them, my shortcomings and virtues but only of you. O my life, whatever be your will, do that alone. O beloved, bestow upon me only ever-increasing love for your two feet.
[In the video, Michael translated this verse as follows]
The very day you as Annamalai took me as your own or took possession of me, you took my body and soul, so now is there anything lacking? Both my lacks and good qualities are not apart from you. I will think only of you and not think of the shortcomings or defects or good qualities. My soul [that is, Bhagavan is addressing Arunachala as ‘my soul’], whatever you think, do that [your will be done]. O my eyes [he is addressing Arunachala as ‘O my eyes’ – that is something precious. ‘Eye’ means the physical eye], do whatever you will. Just give me an ever-increasing flood of love for your two feet.
So do whatever you want. Just give me ever-increasing love for you.
So beautiful verses! The whole of Arunachala Stuti Panchakam is full of gems.
Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (01:37)
My reflection: So we should also likewise pray to Arunachala. In the context of our practice of self-attentiveness, we should not worry about what is happening in our outward life. As long as we are turning within and attending to ourself with more and more love, our outward bodily existence should not concern us. Bhagavan is taking care of everything outside. Our only - I repeat 'only' - responsibility is to turn back within and attend to ourself.
Anonymous, yes, I agree. We should use our intellect to decide what to follow and what not to follow. But more often than not our intellect is driven by our will: that is, we follow what we like to follow. So more often than not our heart rules over our head.
Even Bhagavan does not ask us to blindly follow his teachings. So we are free to decide whom to believe or what to believe.
Why do we wake up in the morning?
A friend: We say the world is being projected by ‘I’, but I don’t see any autonomy. I don’t see myself as an autonomous being having the power to control and project.
Michael: Why do we wake up in the morning?
The friend [silence] Why do I wake up? [laughs] That’s a good question. Why do I wake up at all?
Michael: That’s where the will comes in. We may not like the particular thing we project – now we have projected this world and there are so many things in this world that we don’t like. There is so much injustice, suffering, coronavirus pandemic – so many things that we don’t like in this world. But why do continue to wake up every morning to see this world with all its problems?
It is because we have a liking to experience form, a liking to experience phenomena. We have a liking to rise as a separate entity and see all these things. The fundamental of all desires is the desire to rise as ego. Of course, it is only as this ego that we have this desire. I am not saying that there is a desire before we rise as ego. We rise as ego of our own volition.
# Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (00:15)
My reflection: When Michael asked this friend, ‘Why do you wake up in the morning?’, it was like a koan to me. The friend who asked this question had no answer to this so he kept quiet for a few seconds, and I also was not able to formulate the answer to this question. If we project this world, and if this world is full of problems, misery, dissatisfaction and such things, why to project this world in the first place? It’s a koan-like puzzle. Such question stops our mind in its tracks because we cannot immediately answer this question.
However, Michael answered this question. We project this body and world because of our fundamental desire to rise and exist as ego, which is a desire to exist as an individual entity. Without rising and grasping a form as itself, this ego cannot come into existence. Since this ego wants to exist, it rises and grasps a form and takes it to be itself.
Obviously, ego’s desire to exit as ego comes into existence along with the rising of ego, because even this fundamental desire cannot exist before ego comes into existence.
As Michael says, ‘Of course, it is only as this ego that we have this desire. I am not saying that there is a desire before we rise as ego. We rise as ego of our own volition’.
1)My simple answer is, morning is waking time for most of our egos, but shift workers egos wake up according to their shift!
Will this analysis help us to turn with in?
2)May be A reminder for us to “turn with in” for the day.
Saravanapavan, whatever our shift may be and whatever time we wake up in the day or night, why do we wake up? When this dream comes to an end, we will stop identifying ourself with Saravanapavan or Sanjay or whatever, but sooner or later we will wake up with a new identification. I may become John or Saraswati or whoever. The basic question is if all this is our projection, and if we know that we do not like many of things we project, why do we still continue projecting this world? Why should we create a Frankenstein when we know this Frankenstein will only give us endless troubles and will eventually kill us.
This world which we have projected and created is nothing but a Frankenstein. It will give us endless problems, endless miseries and will eventually disappoint us thoroughly. It is because there is no happiness or satisfaction in this creation. Happiness or satisfaction is our real nature, so if we want happiness or satisfaction, we need to turn within and experience it as our actual nature.
So back to our original question: why do we wake up from sleep or death? As Michael says, ‘It is because we have a liking to experience form, a liking to experience phenomena. We have a liking to rise as a separate entity and see all these things’. So, all our desires and attachments drive us to wake up, to rise as ego, whenever we rise as ego after a state of laya. The most basic or fundamental desire we have is the desire to exist as this ego. However, all these desires come into existence along with this ego.
So first this ego comes into existence, but why does this ego come into existence? It is because it has a desire to exist as ego. So we have to say this ego rises along with this most fundamental desire for its self-preservation. Once this ego and its fundamental desire for its self-preservation come into seeming existence, all of ego’s other desires also come into play as and when their seeds, our vasanas, get the opportunity to raise their head.
You ask, ‘Will this analysis help us to turn with in?’ Yes, in Bhagavan’s teachings whatever analysis we do will help us to turn within provided we do the analysis correctly. If we keep things to the basics of Bhagavan’s teachings, all our sravana and manana of Bhagavan’s teachings will eventually prompt us or motivate us to turn within. So our above analysis will also help us to turn within because it shows that we are unnecessarily creating a Frankenstein by rising and creating this world.
So it is foolishness to rise as ego and bring all this unnecessary trouble upon us? The best thing is not to rise as ego, or in other words, the best is to turn within and be as we really are.
As we get a greater and greater degree of clarity, we will automatically be able to see through all these transient experiences
A friend: Some people go a little bit along this spiritual path, have some experience, take that experience to be the real thing and think they have achieved everything. They think they have become jnanis and they try to become gurus, and they want to teach others. How can we guard ourself against making similar mistakes?
Michael: To avoid that, I think, a deep and clear understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings is possibly the best protection. If we understand Bhagavan’s teachings, we will not take any phenomena and mistake it to be ourself. So whatever great experience we have, it is something which has come, and it will also go. It is not real. What is real is what is always present.
Bhagavan often used to say there is nothing new to be achieved. That jnana is always shining within us as ‘I’. All we need to do is to give up ajnana. If we give up awareness of everything other than ourself, we remain as pure awareness. If we understand this correctly, our aim is not to attain any experience. Our ego is to get rid of the experiencer – that is this ego.
So if we have a clear understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings, we will not be misled by whatever experiences may come. We will not attach importance to them because who is it who is experiencing all this? So we will try to go deeper within.
Moreover, if we are following this path correctly, the more we turn our attention within, the more clarity will shine in our heart. This clarity is already within our heart, so we are uncovering the clarity so to speak. The more we follow this path, the more we are turning our attention back to ‘I’. This ‘I’ is the original light that illumines the mind, thereby illumines the whole world. So the original light is the light of pure awareness that is ever-shining in our heart as ‘I am’.
So if we are constantly trying to turn our attention within, our mind is purified and clarified. As we get a greater and greater degree of clarity, we will automatically be able to see through all these transient experiences. So only the more superficial aspirants will be misled thinking that some experience is the final thing. So long as there is an experiencer, we haven’t yet reached our goal.
What we are seeking is beyond experience – experience in the sense of an experiencer and something that is experienced. So our aim is to go beyond that triputi – that triad of knower, knowing and known.
# Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (01:06)
My reflection: Yes, indeed, correct understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings will protect us in all possible ways. Obviously, we are not aiming to become gurus because there is only one guru – Bhagavan Ramana. He is the eternal guru and real guru-tatva in all other manifested gurus.
Somebody commented that I am trying to act as a teacher. I do not think this is my aim in posting all these comments or why I try to answer some of the questions put on this blog? I am clearly a student of Bhagavan’s teachings. I just love to dwell on Bhagavan’s teachings – it has become my passion. I am sure this passion is keeping me away from doing many unnecessary things.
Moreover, the more one dwells of Bhagavan’s teachings, the more one will be inspired to turn within. This is the main benefit of trying to keep our mind constantly on Bhagavan’s teachings.
Sanjay, today you write at 12:42:
"So, all our desires and attachments drive us to wake up, to rise as ego, whenever we rise as ego after a state of laya. The most basic or fundamental desire we have is the desire to exist as this ego. However, all these desires come into existence along with this ego."
Certainly our destiny (prārabdha) has considerable influence on our wake up from sleep.
If a baby's or a child's mother would not wake up every morning, what fate would take its course ?
Anadi-ananta, you say, ‘Certainly our destiny (prārabdha) has considerable influence on our wake up from sleep. If a baby's or a child's mother would not wake up every morning, what fate would take its course?’
Does our destiny (prarabdha) make us rise from sleep? No, our destiny comes into existence only when we rise as ego and look away from ourself. Bhagavan used to say that prarabdha is only for an outward turned mind. The mind which is in-turned is not affected by prarabdha.
So we rise as ego due to our own volition and not due to prarabdha. Only when we rise as ego, do we experience our own prarabdha and also the prarabdha of our baby or child or whoever. So we should take responsibility for our rising as ego and not blame it on prarabdha.
When this ‘I am this body’ is a false awareness, all our knowledge about the world is equally false because it is based on this false awareness 'I am this body'
Michael: Why does this world seem to be real? So long as we are dreaming, the dream world also seems real. Why does it seem to be real? What is real is only ‘I’, but as long as take a body to be ourself, that body seems to be real. It is because if this body is ‘I’, then this body is real. Since this body is part of the world, the whole world seems to be real.
When we wake up from our dream, our identification with that dream body is severed. So when we wake up from that dream, that dream world no longer seems to us to be real. Why? It is because the dream body no longer seems to be ‘I’. So likewise what makes this so-called waking world seems to be real is only our identification with this current body.
Though this body has changed so much since we were a small baby, throughout that time, all those years in the waking state we have been experiencing this body as ‘I’. Though this body is changing and ‘I’ remains unchanging, we still take this body to be ‘I’. So this body cannot be what we actually are.
Moreover, if I were this body, I cannot be aware of myself without being aware of this body. But when I am dreaming, I am not aware of this body. I am aware of some other body as myself. So neither of these bodies can be what I actually am. And in sleep, I am aware of myself without being aware of any body, without being aware of any phenomena. So I cannot be any of these phenomena. I must be that which is aware in all the three states. I must be just that fundamental awareness ‘I am’.
All our experiences are based upon this fundamental experience ‘I am this body’. Only when we are aware of ‘I am this body’, are we aware of this world. So when this basis of all our awareness ‘I am this body’ is a false awareness, all our knowledge about the world is equally false. That’s why Bhagavan says in verse 13 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Oneself, who is awareness, alone is real. Awareness that is manifold is ignorance. Even ignorance, which is unreal, does not exist except as oneself, who is awareness. All the many ornaments are unreal; say, do they exist except as gold, which is real?
So the real awareness is only the fundamental awareness ‘I am’. That alone is real.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:43)
My reflection: So true. If the awareness ‘I am this body’ is a mistaken awareness of ourself, and if our awareness of this world is entirely based upon this mistaken awareness, everything we know about this world has to be false. Simple, simple logic!
Salazar, ego and its volition to rise appears simultaneously. Obviously, the buck stops with ego because, without ego, there can be no volition of the ego. However, if we investigate this ego keenly enough, we will see that this ego has never risen. So ultimately ego and its volition are false. They don’t actually exist even when they seem to exist.
Dear Salazar
You may be correct. But this way of communication keep the people with the same vibration to share the views and avoid our mind to deviate from Bahawan teaching. Finnaly may help us to reach the destiny. My opinion is to limit one comment per day and concentrate on Athma vichara in the rest of the time
What may be the reason for the remarkable procedure that Salazar deleted more than 140 of his comments on Michael's article of 7 October 2018 ? (When Bhagavan says that we must look within, what does he mean by ‘within’?)
Ah, Salazar engineered a big general covering his tracks on many MJ-articles. I'm not all surprised.
next time write: ad hominem
Asun, Karen or whoever it may concern:
I don’t remember his or her name, but one of our friends had asked me about the particular video where Michael talks about the analogy of our vasanas being like the soldiers in an army and this ego being its General or Commander-in-chief. Michael has talked about this analogy in detail in the first half an hour of the following video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās
What is love for God? (part one)
A friend: I get from your lectures that love for God is the key, but can love for God itself be defined, or is it just abstract and subjective? In other words, what is love for God?
Michael: [laughs] Some things cannot be expressed in words. We all know ‘I am’ – that is, ‘I am’ is an expression of our self-awareness. But can we describe self-awareness? We can’t even describe a gross thing like the taste of chocolate or taste of mango. We can’t really describe it because only when we experience it, can we know it. So if we can’t describe even such gross things, we certainly can’t describe ‘I am’.
Love is our real nature according to Bhagavan, so to know love, we must know ourself. How can we describe love? To the extent we surrender ourself, to that extent we will know what love is. However, though I cannot say what love for God is, I can say what the measure of true love is. If we truly love any person, whether a friend or a relative or whoever, we are not looking to what we can get from that person. We want to give to that person, not to take from them. Love is all about giving, and the highest form of love is to give ourself.
So what is love for God? True love for God is nothing but self-surrender. To the extent we are willing to surrender ourself or give ourself wholly to God - that is the indicator of true love for God. So love for God is our willingness to surrender ourself. Even when we are doing anya-bhava worship like puja, japa and dhyana, the same principle is true.
Puja, japa and dhyana are not bhakti. They can be expressions of bhakti, but bhakti means love. Most people who do puja, japa or dhyana are not doing it for the love of God. They have some kamya motive – it’s kamyata. So it’s not the action that determines whether it is love for God. Only if the actions are done without desire for any personal gain, purely for the love of God – that is bhakti.
If we are practising nishksmya puja, japa or dhanya, we are trying to give to God whatever we can. When we are doing puja, a lot of ritualistic puja entails offering things to God. You offer food to God. You give a bath to God. You give clothing to God. You may garland God and finally, you wave light. So all this is symbolically giving to God. It is because surrender is about giving.
However, we must be willing to surrender not only everything which is 'mine', but we must finally be willing to surrender 'I' - the 'I' whose 'mine' it is.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 3 to 8 (01:14)
My reflection: As Michael implies, if we love a person or any other jiva or any cause, we will be willing to give to that person or jiva or that cause whatever we can without expecting anything in return. Suppose my country is under occupation by some imperialist forces, if I really love my country, I will be willing to make any sacrifice to free my country from these imperialist forces. I will give my time for this cause, and I will give my money for this cause without expecting anything in return. So we give in love. This is the true measure of love.
If I love my daughter, I will try to give her whatever I can. I will give her care, attention, money, food without expecting much in return. Likewise, if we love God, we will try to give to God and not expect things from God.
I have not had time to read most of the comments that have been posted here recently, but a friend has written to me pointing out that of late many of the comments have been blatantly transgressing the Guidelines for Comments, so could I please ask you all the abide by these guidelines for the sake of all who read your comments. That is, please do not allow any discussion about Bhagavan’s teachings to deteriorate into a series of ad hominem attacks and abuse. If you disagree with any idea expressed by anyone else, you are welcome to explain why you disagree with it, but please do not criticise personally whoever has expressed whatever ideas you disagree with.
Unknown,
I was only by chance flicking a bit through the Article Archive 2018 and then I was astonished how many comments were deleted with the note "This comment has been removed by the author". In doing so the mentioned author did a good job.:-)
What is love for God? (part two)
Michael: When we start on the bhakti-marga, we become aware why we are not thinking of God. It is because we have so much desire for other things. So we try to give up our desires and attachments and have love only for God. So slowly, slowly we try to give up our desires and attachments. As we progress on the path, we are seeking to give more and more to Bhagavan. But how can we give up all our desires so long as we retain this separate individuality? So the path of bhakti comes closer and closer to surrendering ‘I’.
First, we surrender the gross things. In puja, we offer material things to God. In japa, we try to focus our love on God. We are trying to give our love to God. In meditation, we try to focus even more on God. We try to give our love to God even more. But our mind gets distracted when we try to meditate on God because we are more concerned about other things than about God. So we keep leaving our meditation on God and keep on thinking of other things.
So as we progress on the path of bhakti, we come closer and closer to giving up our desires and attachments and thinking only on God. But then we understand, if God is everything, who am I separate from God? If God is all eight forms, who am I separate from God? As Bhagavan says in verse five of Upadesa Undiyar:
Considering all the eight forms [the aṣṭa-mūrti, the eight forms or manifestations of Siva, namely the five elements (earth, water, fire, air and space), sun, moon and sentient beings (jīvas)] [or all thought-forms, namely all forms, which are just thoughts or mental phenomena] to be forms of God, worshipping [any of them] is good puja [worship] of God.
So in the initial verses of Upadesa Undiyar, Bhagavan beautifully describes how the love for God matures in different stages and is expressed in different stages. But our surrender is not complete with the surrender of 'mine'. It will be complete when we become willing to surrender ‘I’. That is the ultimate self-surrender. But how do we surrender ‘I’?
(To be continued in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 3 to 8 (01:14)
My reflection: If bhakti means giving, what are we giving to God? In puja, japa and dhyana, we are giving our love to God? We are focusing more and more on the name, form and other stories about God. Thus, in effect, we are giving up our desires and attachments for other things. So this element of giving is what gives meaning to any of the forms of worship, whether our worship is anya-bhakti or ananya-bhakti.
What is love for God? (part three)
Michael: When we want to surrender our ego, Bhagavan shows us the correct way to do so. He teaches us in verse 25 of Ulladu Narpadu:
[By] grasping form [that is, by projecting and perceiving the form of a body (composed of five sheaths) as itself] the formless phantom-ego comes into existence [rises into being or is formed]; [by] grasping form [that is, by holding on to that body as itself] it stands [endures, continues or persists]; [by] grasping and feeding on form [that is, by projecting and perceiving other forms or phenomena] it grows [spreads, expands, increases, ascends, rises high or flourishes] abundantly; leaving [one] form [a body that it had projected and perceived as itself in one state], it grasps [another] form [another body that it projects and perceives as itself in its next state]. If it seeks [examines or investigates] [itself], it will take flight [because it has no form of its own, and hence it cannot seem to exist without grasping the forms of other things as itself and as its food or sustenance]. Investigate [this ego] [or know thus]
This is something that is nowhere emphasised as clearly as Bhagavan has done it. I don’t know if it has been explicitly stated in any of the old texts. Since ego has no form of its own, if it tries to grasp itself, it subsides. Bhagavan says it takes flight. So ego can surrender itself only by self-investigation. That is why Bhagavan says in the first sentence of the 13th paragraph of Nan Ar?:
Being ātma-niṣṭhāparaṉ [one who is completely fixed in and as oneself], giving not even the slightest room to the rising of any cintana [thought] other than ātma-cintana [thought of oneself], alone is giving oneself to God.
That is if we attend to ourself so keenly that we give no room to be distracted by anything else, no thoughts can arise. Thoughts can arise only when we attend to them. Without our attention to them, no thoughts can arise. So when we attend only to ourself, we thereby remain fixed in ourself. That alone is giving ourself to God.
So that’s why Bhagavan says in verse 8 of Upadesa Undiyar that ananya-bhava is the best of all. All that Bhagavan said about puja, japa and dhyana is to show us how they gradually purify our mind and lead us to self-investigation.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 3 to 8 (01:14)
My reflection: If we want to understand Bhagavan’s teachings clearly, we should try to understand verses 25 and 26 of Ulladu Narpadu as clearly as possible. These verses are not only the heart of Ulladu Narpadu but the heart of the entire Advaita-Vedanta.
Ego comes into existence by grasping a form of a body, and it stands by grasping the very form of this body. Ego grasps other forms through this body – that is, ego grasps other thoughts or phenomena through the five senses of this body. Such grasping of phenomena makes the ego fat and strong. Ego leaves the form of one body and grasps the form of another body in its other dreams. However, if ego tries to grasp itself, it subsides and dissolves back into pure awareness from it arose.
Since ego is a formless-phantom, it cannot exist without grasping any form as itself. So the only way to make this ego subside is to attend to it so keenly that it has nothing left to grasp.
Rhetorical impact of some of the verses by Bhagavan (part one)
A friend: This verse of Aksaramanamalai says, ‘when will these waves of thoughts cease, O Arunachala’. So Bhagavan not only shows us the path, but he is also so kind as to depict our mind-set and get us back in a surrendered mode.
Michael: Yes, yes, because he knows the practical difficulties that we face. But all difficulties arise only when we rise as ego. So how do we rise as ego? We rise as ego by clinging to forms, which is the very nature of ego. How to prevent the rising of ego? If we seek it, it takes flight.
The friend: I believe we are unnecessarily giving a huge responsibility to the ego. We know that ego does not exist.
Michael: Even the distinction between ego and our real nature is useful only in certain contexts. But in atma-vichara what is that atma? We think in terms of two things, but there is only one thing there. That is why Bhagavan repeatedly emphasised that there are no two selves. There is only one self.
So when I wrote to you that ‘mind or ego is present in sleep, but only as pure awareness, not as mind or ego’, what does that mean? The real nature of ego is pure awareness, and in sleep, ego remains as pure awareness. Bhagavan often used to express things in this way. Though there is a seeming contradiction, it is expressed this way to make the reader stop and think.
So a lot is conveyed when I wrote, ‘mind or ego is present in sleep, but only as pure awareness, not as mind or ego’. What it actually says is that what ego actually is is just pure awareness. It is only in waking and dream that it seems to be ego, but even when it seems to be ego, what it actually is is just pure awareness. They are not things.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~+~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (9:00)
My reflection: Michael says, ‘mind or ego is present in sleep, but only as pure awareness, not as mind or ego’. This indeed has a rhetorical impact. It does have a koan-like impact. What is a koan? A koan is ‘a paradoxical anecdote or riddle without a solution, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and provoke enlightenment’.
Perhaps the most famous Buddhist koan is, ‘Two Hands clap and there is a sound, what is the sound of one hand?’ This koan illustrates how difficult it is for us to reduce dualistic things (the two hands) into a singular whole (the sound of one hand). Buddhist koans are meant to be contemplated and focused on completely.
However, though koans may be paradoxical anecdote or riddle without a solution, what Michael says does have a logical base. So it is much simpler than a koan.
The following are some excerpts from Guidelines for Comments:
Though I would prefer to keep this blog as a free and open forum for discussing Bhagavan’s teachings, during recent months the comments on each article have been increasingly dominated by trolls and others making ad hominem attacks rather than engaging in serious and reasonable discussions of his teachings, thereby deterring others who may wish to engage in (or just read) such discussions, […]
All comments are welcome provided that they are relevant to Bhagavan’s teachings and do not contain personal criticism or abuse. Since we do not all understand his teachings in exactly the same way, any open discussion of them will naturally involve disagreement, but any disagreement should be expressed in a polite, respectful and reasonable manner. By all means criticise ideas that you disagree with, but please explain clearly why you disagree with them and do not allow your criticism to deteriorate into an attack on the supposed character, motive or other qualities of any person who expressed them.
My note: I have reproduced the above so that we read it carefully and respect the Guidelines for Comments laid down by Sri Michael James. Michael has requested us through his comment earlier in the day to adhere to these simple guidelines. These guidelines were laid down a few years back, so when Michael formulated these guidelines he was not referring to our recent comments on the blog. However, I believe we have again started making ad hominem attacks on each other. These attacks should stop!
Unknown,
yes, I too would approve of removing "the option of deleting comments made by us because it damages the sense of the entire thread. If there is no option to delete then the original purport of that thread remains intact."
Additionally it would have some effect of education to write with greater care.
Rhetorical impact of some of the verses by Bhagavan (part two)
The friend: I got the point: ego is ourself. That is why I don’t like the term ‘ego’. It seems it is something other than ourself.
Michael: But Bhagavan has clearly defined what this ego is. Ego is the false awareness ‘I am this body’, but in that false awareness, the real awareness is there. The real awareness is ‘I am’. In our practice of self-investigation, we have to focus on the chit aspect of ego. However, we need to remember that there are no two things there. That is, what seems to be ego is what we actually are. Bhagavan expresses things in a very clear and precise manner. Ego is not something other than ourself. In verse 24 of Upadesa Undiyar, Bhagavan refers to ego as jiva and he refers to our real nature as God. He says:
By their existing nature, God and souls are only one substance. Only their awareness of adjuncts is different.
So the difference between ego and our real nature is not a difference in substance. It's a difference in appearance. When we talk about ego, we have to remember that ego is a false awareness, but that false awareness doesn’t exist apart from our true awareness. Bhagavan describes this beautifully in verse 13 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Oneself, who is jñāna [knowledge or awareness], alone is real. Awareness that is manifold [namely the mind, whose root, ego, is the awareness that sees the one as many] is ajñāna [ignorance]. Even [that] ignorance, which is unreal, does not exist except as [besides, apart from or as other than] oneself, who is [real] awareness. All the many ornaments are unreal; say, do they exist except as gold, which is real? [In other words, though ego or mind, which is the false awareness that sees itself as numerous phenomena, is ignorance and unreal, the real substance that appears as it is only oneself, who is true knowledge or pure awareness, so what actually exists is not ego or mind but only oneself.]
So the reality of ego is only that pure awareness. So if we look within, what is shining as ego is nothing but pure awareness. Just as what is shining as a snake, if we look at it carefully, we will find it is just a rope. So, there are no two things there – only one thing. So that’s why I emphasised in that sentence: ‘mind or ego is present in sleep, but only as pure awareness, not as mind or ego’.
It is true that the mind or ego is not present in any forms in sleep: that is, the mind or ego is not present in either of its gross, subtle or causal aspects in sleep. But mind or ego is present in sleep as pure awareness, which is its reality.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~+~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (9:00)
Rhetorical impact of some of the verses by Bhagavan (part three)
Michael: I can point out two examples where Bhagavan said very similar to this – verses 17 and 18 of Ulladu Narpadu:
For those who do not know themself [their real nature] and for those who have known themself, the body is actually ‘I’ [or only ‘I’]. For those who do not know themself, ‘I’ is [limited to] only the extent of the body, [whereas] for those who have known themself within the body, oneself [called] ‘I’ shines without limit [boundary or extent] [as the one infinite whole, which alone exists and which is therefore the sole substance that appears as the body and everything else]. Consider that the difference between them is only this.
For those who do not have knowledge [of their real nature] and for those who have, the world is real. For those who do not know [their real nature], reality is [limited to] the extent of [the forms that constitute] the world, [whereas] for those who have known [their real nature], reality pervades devoid of form as the ādhāra [support, foundation or container] for [the appearance of the forms that constitute] the world. This is the difference between them. Consider.
Bhagavan’s fundamental teaching is ‘I am not this body’ and ‘this world is not real’, but he begins verse 17 by saying, ‘For those who do not know themself [their real nature] and for those who have known themself, the body is actually ‘I’ [or only ‘I’]. Likewise, he begins verse 18 by saying, ‘For those who do not have knowledge [of their real nature] and for those who have, the world is real’. Why does he speak in these terms? He speaks in such terms to make us think.
What he says in verse 17 is that for the jnani the ‘I’ shines without limits. If it shines without limits, that means it has no external limits and no internal limits – internal limits means division. So for the jnani ‘I’ is undivided. So Bhagavan is not saying here that the jnani is aware of the body and world. What he is implying is that what we see as the body, he sees as himself: himself means just pure anadi, ananta, akhanda sat-chit-ananda.
Many people take these verses to mean that the jnani is aware of the body and he is aware of the world. That is not what Bhagavan means. He says ‘oneself [called] ‘I’ shines without limit [boundary or extent] [as the one infinite whole, which alone exists and which is therefore the sole substance that appears as the body and everything else]’. So it means there is no body, there is no world.
In verse 18 he says even more clearly, ‘reality pervades devoid of form as the ādhāra [support, foundation or container] for [the appearance of the forms that constitute] the world’. So if the reality shines devoid of forms, there is no world, there is no body. What we mistake to be body and world, the jnani sees as pure awareness.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~+~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (9:00)
When one tells us "This blog gets more comical every day ....." he overlooks evidently himself acting as the stage director in this comic theatre performance. :-)
Rhetorical impact of some of the verses by Bhagavan (part four)
Michael: That is like saying that both the jnani and the ajnani the snake is real. But for the ajnani, the snake is real as the snake but for the jnani, the snake is real as rope. The jnani doesn’t see the snake. He sees only the rope. But what we see as a snake, he sees it as a rope. So what we see there is real but not as a snake but only as a rope.
So that is what Bhagavan is implying in these two verses of Ulladu Narpadu. He is not implying that the jnani is actually aware of the body or actually aware of the world. What we mistake to be a body or a world is what he sees as himself, as ‘I’, as what is real.
So what I said there, ‘mind or ego is present in sleep, but only as pure awareness, not as mind or ego’, if you think carefully, Bhagavan is saying the same thing in these verses.
Bhagavan is saying there the world is real but not as the name and form but as the adharam (the base or substratum or container). Only that adharam is real. That adharam is pure awareness, our real nature. So the world is real as brahman. The world is not real as the world.
~+~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (9:00)
Sanjay,
"So the world is real as brahman. The world is not real as the world."
Because we see the world wrongly as the world we have first to examine our pair of glasses. In order to get the right view only the best optician in town will be able to repair our glasses. :-)
Sanjay,
many thanks for your recent video-transcription.
"What we mistake to be body and world, the jnani sees as pure awareness."
Is there anyone who not wants to be the jnani or at least to have the view of such one ?
Sanjay,
"...ego is a false awareness, but that false awareness doesn’t exist apart from our true awareness."
It's a mystery to me why I/we cannot immediately convert that advantage.
Sanjay,
"So the reality of ego is only that pure awareness. So if we look within, what is shining as ego is nothing but pure awareness. Just as what is shining as a snake, if we look at it carefully, we will find it is just a rope. So, there are no two things there – only one thing.
...‘mind or ego is present in sleep, but only as pure awareness, not as mind or ego’."
So if I examine the world-appearance or ego under the microscope of my attention ...
my real nature must remain. However, that did not happen at all ...
Perhaps my microscope is heavily soiled. Where is my cleaning cloth ?
Anadi-ananta, you say, ‘Because we see the world wrongly as the world we have first to examine our pair of glasses. In order to get the right view, only the best optician in town will be able to repair our glasses’. Who is this ‘best optician in town’? The best optician in town is also the best optician in the entire world. He is none other than our Bhagavan.
Bhagavan says since we are seeing this world through the glasses of ego, we see this world as world. If we remove this ego-glasses, this same world will appear as brahman. What is brahman? It is anadi-ananta-akhanda sat-chit-ananda.
How to remove this ego-glass? We can do so only by turning within and looking at ourself very very keenly. This best optician in town has given us such a simple and direct method of freeing ourself of this ego. Namo Ramana!
Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation and self-surrender will cure all the diseases of our body, mind and emotion
A friend: How to get over traumatic experiences which are deeply embedded in our psyche since our childhood? These traumatic experiences may manifest in us as strong likes and dislikes, strong desires.
Michael: Traumatic experiences as a child can have a lasting effect on us as a person. But ultimately, all desires, all attachments, all passions, they may be of different degrees and they seem to have different causes, but they all present essentially the same problem. That is, any desire, attachments or strong passion is drawing our attention away from ourself towards other things. So the way to deal with all types of desires, attachments, traumas, everything is the same practice of self-investigation and self-surrender.
That is, traumas from our childhood can leave scars until long after the trauma is over, but the more we turn our attention back towards ourself and surrender all our likes and dislikes, the more the scars from the past will heal. The root of any problem is ourself as ego. Who has a traumatic experience? It is ourself as ego. So if we want to completely heal the trauma, we can do so only by eradicating ego.
So Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation and self-surrender will solve the root of all diseases. If we get rid of ego, we get rid of all our problems along with ego. So self-investigation is the only medicine that will cure all the diseases of our body, mind and emotion – everything will be completely healed.
~*~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (02:00)
Sanjay,
"If we get rid of ego,then...".
If---------------------------then...
Without if there will be no then.
Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiffffffffffffffffff is the keyword.
It is very iffy whether I will be ever able to fulfil that condition - to practise sufficiently keen self-investigation.
Anadi-ananta, someone came to Bhagavan and said something to the effect, ‘Bhagavan is there any hope for me? I have not done any spiritual practice, so I am asking this question’. Bhagavan kept quiet and then looked at this person with eyes full of love and just said, ‘Yes, there is hope, there is hope’, and he went out for his walk.
So we also hope to practise sufficiently keen self-investigation one day and merge in Bhagavan. This will surely happen if not today then tomorrow. We start with self-investigation, then this self-investigation becomes keen, then it becomes sufficiently keen.
So whatever stage of practice we may be in, we just have to unfailing walk at our own speed. Bhagavan has assured us we will reach our destination by his grace. If we are moving in the right direction, how can we not reach our destination? It is impossible not to merge in Bhagavan.
Pure love is not a problem; the problem is impure love or selfish love in the form of strong attachments and strong expectations
It is natural that we love our children, but if we have a strong attachment to them, it can be harmful. We see parents who are strongly attached to their children and they have a strong expectation of their children. They want their children to be as they want them to be, and if their children turn out against their expectations, they are not happy. They may want their children to follow the same profession or follow a career path or whatever it is.
So it is natural to love our children, but our love should be as selfless as possible. Our children may not want to live a sort of life we want them to live. We need to respect their choice. They have their own life, so we shouldn’t have a high expectation of them. As parents, we give so much to our children – not only material things but we give them our time, we give our attention. But if have the expectation that our children should return our love, they should be as we want them to be, then our love is not pure love.
Many many parents are disappointed by their children - may be the children live a life that the parents are not happy with, or maybe when the children grow up, they lose interest in their parents. So it is naturally very disappointing for a parent after giving so much love to their child. But if our love is selfless, we will not expect anything from them. If they want to keep up friendly relation with us, well and good, and if want to ignore us, we have to accept that also.
So even the love and attachment we have for our children can be more or less selfish. The more selfless our love is, the less expectation we have of getting anything in return, and therefore our love is purer. Pure love is not a problem. The problem is impure love or selfish love – which is love in the form of strong attachments and strong expectations.
~*~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (01:51)
Yes, Salazar, as you say, 'it is impossible to not merge with Bhagavan'. We all will eventually merge in Bhagavan. Bhagavan illustrates this through two analogies in verse 8 of Sri Arunachala Ashtakam:
The water showered by the clouds, which rose from the ocean, will not stop even if obstructed until it reaches its abode, the ocean. Similarly, the embodied soul (the soul which rises as 'I am this body') rises from you and will not stop, though it wanders on the many paths which it encounters, until it reaches or unites with you. Likewise, the bird though it wanders about the vast sky, in that sky, there is not any abode or place of rest for it. The place for the bird to rest is not other than the earth; therefore, what it is bound to do is to go back the way it came. O Aruna hill, when the soul goes back the way it came, it will unite with you, the ocean of bliss.
Salazar,
it is surely more accurate that Bhagavan said "whatever is destined to happen will happen"...
Sanjay,
thanks for your reply. Hope springs eternal in the human breast.:-)
Karen,
what Salazar recommended:
Sri Ramana Maharshi Ashramas in the USA & Canada
Home/Books/Records and Dialogues/Maharshi’s Gospel
Maharshi’s Gospel: A collection of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s answers to questions that cover a vast range of spiritual topics, arranged and edited by subject into thirteen chapters. This forms a brief but comprehensive record of his oral teachings. p. 78
Salazar,
you say "you may want to get over your dislike of me resulting into all of these confused comments by you addressed to me."
My dislike was always directed not to you personally but to your evident behaviour never reflecting upon your own behavioural patterns and even disturbances.
However, as we all know, to critisize oneself needs a lot of courage. :-)
If we sincerely practise self-investigation, a subtle inner process will go on internally – a slow breaking down of our attachments and identification (part one)
So long as we are living in this world, we need to do certain actions. But it is not the actions that we do that matters, but the passion with which we do them that matters. We may have to take certain disciplinary actions against some persons in certain cases. Taking that appropriate action is not a problem, but we shouldn’t get angry and upset while taking that action. That is, if the actions we do disturbs our peace of mind and we feel agitated by it, then we are succumbing to our vishaya-vasanas.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do what is necessary, but we have to do it with inward detachment. We shouldn’t allow ourself to get angry. Sometimes we may have to show anger but inwardly we shouldn’t feel anger.
As we follow this path of self-investigation and self-surrender, slowly, slowly we are reducing the importance we attach to outward things. The more we try to wean our mind away from its concerns for these outward things, the more we are weakening our likes and dislikes – weakening their strength. So actually the outward actions that need to be done, we will do it better because we will be doing it without being swayed by our individual likes and dislikes. To the extent our likes and dislikes are reduced, we will be able to act in a more appropriate way.
What I am now saying is just generalisations, but if we follow this path, we will find that all these things will automatically take place.
Yes, as long as we act in this world, we should try to behave in an appropriate manner. Sometimes it becomes clear that we need at times to do things that we ourself are not naturally inclined to do. But sometimes being soft-natured is not appropriate, so at times we may have to take a firm stand. But we can take the firm stand in outward things without it being detrimental to our inward practice.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
~*~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (00:52)
Dear Sanjay
Can you clerify to the viewers about the "we" in the explanation whether it is pure awareness or the ego
Pure awareness doesn't have any anger, stress or worries (emotions). Ego only got all these. Do the real nature or "I"concern about the ego?
So only way to destroy the troublesome ego by using it to distroy itself.
If we sincerely practise self-investigation, a subtle inner process will go on internally – a slow breaking down of our attachments and identification (part two)
Who is acting? It is the body and mind that are doing the actions, and each of us has a certain role. We may be a parent, and we may have parents of our own. So, as children, we have certain duties to our parents, and, as parents, we have certain duties to our children. We may have a job, so we may have certain duties to our employers, certain duties to our clients, certain responsibilities to our colleagues and so on. So all these are outward roles, and we have to act in these roles in an appropriate manner.
But though we have a certain role as a child, as a parent, as a teacher, as an office worker or whatever, that is not what we actually are. So, in the spiritual path, we are trying to separate ourself from the person we seem to be. The person that we seem to be has to act outwardly in an appropriate manner, but we have to inwardly separate ourself from that person.
So all this is a subtle inner process that is going on - the slow breaking down of our attachments and identifications. If we follow sincerely what Bhagavan has taught us, all these things will happen automatically. If we follow self-investigation and self-surrender to the best of our ability, everything else will fall into place. That is, we will be able to allow the person that we seem to be, continue acting in an appropriate way, but inwardly we are separating ourself from that person.
This will all happen naturally and automatically the more we follow the path. So we don’t have to concern ourselves with these matters. The only thing we need to be concerned about is turning our attention within, and thereby surrendering our likes and dislikes. If we surrender our likes and dislikes, or rather to the extent we surrender our likes and dislikes, to that extent the actions of our body and mind will be according to the will of Bhagavan.
So our job is just to surrender our will to him. Everything else he will take care.
~*~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (00:52)
Saravanapavan, Michael said, ‘So long as we are living in this world, we need to do certain actions. But it is not the actions that we do that matters, but the passion with which we do them that matters. We may have to take certain disciplinary actions against some persons in certain cases’.
Whenever Michael says ‘we’ here, he is talking about ego. Why? It is because only ego seems to be living in this world. Only ego needs to do certain actions and so on. Yes, only ego has anger, stress, worries and emotions.
You ask, ‘Do the real nature or "I" concern about the ego?’ I would say the answer is both ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Firstly, why ‘no’? It is because our real nature is not even aware of the ego, so how can it be concerned about ego. Why ‘yes’? It is because ego in its real nature is one with our real nature. Since our real nature has infinite love for itself, it loves ego as itself. So in this sense, our real nature has infinite concern for ego. So our real nature wants ego to subside back within because it wants ego to be happy because happiness is only in our real nature.
Yes, we need to use ego to destroy ego, and this where the difficulty lies. Though ego may have understood that happiness lies only in its real nature, but it is still not willing to kill itself. It has become extremely fond of its separate existence, and it has become attached to so many other things. So it is finding it extremely difficult to abandon all these attachments. So though it is trying to turn back within, it is still holding on to many of its attachments.
Ego has to give up holding to itself and all these things if it wants to experience itself as it really is. Every time it turns towards itself, it is giving up its desires and attachments to some extent. This is a very subtle process which is taking place, but ego is slowly but surely moving towards its own destruction.
Bhagavan expressing his unworthiness in his heartfelt prayers to Arunachala
The following is an extract of my email to Sri Michael James:
In your latest video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence, you say something to the following effect from around 00:29:
As we progress along the path, the mind becomes purer and purer, but at the same time, we become more clearly aware of the strength of our desires and attachments. If we read what Bhagavan has written in some of the verses of Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, Bhagavan is lamenting so much in these verses. He says he is so unworthy, and he is talking about what low state his mind is in. Like that, so many great poet-saints have sung songs deploring their unworthiness.
In Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, Bhagavan is reflecting the state of mind of a very advanced spiritual aspirant. When one is very advanced, one will be very painfully aware of their unworthiness. That we can see clearly expressed by Bhagavan in many of the verses of Stuti Panchakam. Bhagavan is expressing that with so much feeling there.
[End of the extract from the video]
I scanned through the verses of Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam and found the following verses where Bhagavan is seen lamenting about his unworthiness. Bhagavan sings such verses quite freely in Aksharamanamalai and Padigam, but I found one such verse in Navamanimalai also.
Aksharamanamalai: In verse 18 Bhagavan prays to Arunachala to destroy his lowness (his impure nature). In verse 19 and 38 he prays to destroy his defects. In verse 42 he called himself a blemishfull wretch (a contemptible person). In verse 58 he calls himself an ignorant person lacking spiritual knowledge. In verse 78 he calls himself a person of little intelligence. In verse 81 he calls himself a noseless (ugly) person. In verse 84 Bhagavan prays to Arunachala to remove his dense delusion.
Navamanimalai: In verse 5 Bhagavan prays to Arunachala and asks for forgiveness for all the great wrongs he, the insignificant person, has done.
Padigam: In verse 1 he prays to Arunachala to remove his darkness (ignorance or mental delusion). In verses 3 and 4 he again calls himself a wretch. In verse 8 he calls himself worthless because Arunachala has destroyed his intelligence to know the way of making a living in the world. In verse 9 Bhagavan calls himself the foremost among those who do not possess the supreme wisdom to cling to Arunachala’s feet without having other attachments.
Sanjay,
regarding Bhagavan's lamenting so much in some verses of Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, and deploring his spiritual unworthiness we safely could comfort him: "there is hope, there is hope". :-)
Asun,
many thanks for your recent video-transcription (2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence).
Because it is not clear to me, could you please explain the meaning of the last clause "..., confidence doesn´t enter the matter." (35:02)?
Asun, I had written by hand whatever Michael had said in his talk 2020-07-19 (23:54), but before I could type it and post it, you have already posted it. So thank you. But after Michael said, ‘so the more our desires and attachments are weakened, the purer and clearer our mind will become and the purer and clearer it becomes, the more clearly we will be aware of the strength of our desires and attachments’, Michael had given an analogy to explain this. You have not mentioned this analogy in your transcript. So what he said after this was as something to the following effect:
To give an example, if you got a white cloth that is entirely stained with mud. Because it is stained with mud, it all looks just one big stain. Only when you begin to clean it can you begin to see more deeply rooted stains. Against a very dirty background, the deeply rooted stains were not visible. But the more you clean the cloth and more the superficial dirt is removed, the deeply rooted stains will then become clearly visible.
[End of the extract]
I think it is a very apt analogy.
Sri V. S. Ramanan, the former President of Sri Ramanasramam, was absorbed in Bhagavan at 9:21 am today (IST).
Asun, ah, that is meant, thanks.
What are we yielding ourself to? To infinite love, infinite happiness and infinite peace
A friend: I felt unworthy of Bhagavan’s love and this path, so I tried abandoning the path. I turned away from this path to lead a normal life, but the path has come back to me. This seems to be happening over and over again. Please help me with this situation and pinpoint my mistakes.
Michael: Firstly, we can try leaving Bhagavan, but Bhagavan will never leave us. Bhagavan has said we are the prey in the jaws of the tiger – so we cannot now escape. We can delay things, we can struggle, and so long as we are struggling the tiger will not swallow us. The tiger will swallow us only when we surrender ourself. But however much we struggle, the tiger will not leave us because the tiger is the embodiment of love.
You said how unworthy we are of Bhagavan’s love. No one is worthy of Bhagavan’s love, but Bhagavan’s love is infinite, all-embracing. However unworthy we may be, Bhagavan loves us because Bhagavan doesn’t see us as this unworthy ego or the person we seem to be. Bhagavan sees us as himself and therefore loves us as himself. Bhagavan’s very nature is infinite love, so how can he ever not love? Sadhu Om often in his songs refers to Bhagavan’s love as ‘love (or grace) without any cause’ or ‘causeless compassion (or love)’. So Bhagavan doesn’t need any cause to love us because he is love.
Once we have come to Bhagavan’s path, the nature of ego is to struggle, to try to resist. But by slowly, slowly practising Bhagavan’s path, we are slowly but surely learning how to give up resisting his grace. His grace is always abundantly available because his grace is his love. So that love is always there, but we are resisting it by rising as ego and desiring so many things that seem to be other than ourself. So we are turning our back on his love so to speak.
But however much we ignore his love, his love is ever-shining in our heart as ‘I am’. So if we want to surrender ourself to his love, we need to cling firmly to ourself, to ‘I am’. The more we cling to ‘I am’ and thereby surrender ourself, the more he will swallow us, until finally there will be no one left to surrender anything.
So now we have started on Bhagavan's path of self-investigation and self-surrender, we cannot turn back. We may delay things by our struggling, but we are on our death row. Our death is assured. So all we have to do is to yield ourself to Bhagavan because what are we yielding ourself to? To infinite love, infinite happiness and infinite peace.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence - (01:02)
Sanjay,
thanks for your information regarding V.S.Ramanan, absorbed in Arunachala.
Sanjay,
"No one is worthy of Bhagavan’s love,...".
Do I read correctly ?
Yes, Anadi-ananta, you read correctly.
Sanjay,
is it not said that in our real nature we are just Bhagavan ?
Who has created this world?
A friend: My doubt is who has created this world? Bhagavan says ego has created it, but according to my view, God has created this world. How can this ego create this vast, unfathomable world? Seems impossible!
Michael: Who says there is creation? Creation is in whose view? Creation seems to exist only in the view of ourself as this ego, so why should we blame God for this creation? Every time we dream, we are creating a whole world and when we dream not only do we create a world, we seem to create ourself which seems to be part of the world we have created. That is, we as ego have created the world and we project ourself as if we are a person in that dream world. Then we lament, who has created this world which is giving me so much trouble?
Bhagavan says our present state is also just a dream. When people asked Bhagavan about creation, he said, ‘first investigate and find out what you actually are. If you still find the world or creation, then you can come to me and we can talk about it’. The dream world is a problem only as long as we're dreaming. When you wake up from the dream, where is the dream world?
Likewise, if we wake up from the present dream by knowing what we actually are, no creation will remain. Creation exists only in our mind, just like the dream exists only in our mind. This whole universe exists only in our mind. It seems to exist only because we see it. That is why Bhagavan taught us, ‘investigate to whom does this world appears?’ It appears only to us, ourself as this ego.
If we investigate this ego keenly enough, then we will see ourself as we actually are. Consequently, we will wake up from the sleep of self-ignorance in which this dream seems to exist. Then we will see that what exists is only pure awareness. Ego never existed, and therefore creation never happened. In other words, our current state is just another dream. We can wake up from this dream only by knowing ourself as we actually are.
So let us not worry about the creation. Let us worry about ‘who is aware of this creation?’ Who am I?
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence - (01:26)
How to experience the one without a second?
A friend: Bhagavan and Advaita say the reality is one without a second. How do you experience this one reality which is without a second?
Michael: If we attend to anything other than ourself, we are perpetuating duality. When we attend to anything other than ego, we ego are there as the subject or the perceiver, and whatever we are attending to is there as the object or the thing perceived. So we have the basic duality of the subject and the object, but when we attend only to ourself, to our ego, the subject is attending to itself. So, only one thing exists there, not two things.
So if we want to bring an end to all duality, the only way to do so is to attend to ourself. Duality cannot come to an end so long as we are attending to anything other than ourself. The ultimate reality is described as eka eva adviditya, which means ‘one only without a second’. But by attending to anything other than ourself, we are perpetuating the illusion of duality. If we attend only to ourself, we are putting an end to that illusion. If we truly attend to ourself alone, there is absolutely no duality.
But the problem is we are not yet willing to let go of other things entirely. So even when we attend to ourself, we are still clinging to a greater or lesser extent to the awareness of other things. So long as we are aware of anything other than ourself even to the slightest extent duality remains because there is ourself and whatever we are aware of. Only in that state in which we are aware of nothing other than ourself is there no duality at all.
In sleep, we not experience duality because we are not aware of anything other than ourself. In waking and dream, we experience duality because we have risen as ego and are consequently aware of other things. The very nature of ego is to look at other things. So if we want to destroy ego, we have to train ourself to look at ourself. The more we look at ourself, the more the ego subsides, and the more the ego subsides, the more al duality subsides along with it because duality exists only in the view of ego.
So the means to bring an end to duality is to attend to ourself alone. This is Advaita in practice.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence - (01:17)
Why does God allow so much evil in this world?
A friend: We see so much of evil in this world – so much violence. If everything is happening according to God’s will, how can God allow all this to happen?
Michael: Firstly, what is God’s will? God is infinite love, so what will God want? He will want us to be happy, so God’s will is that we should be happy.
What is called evil is what obstructs what God wants us to experience. The root cause of our seeming lack of happiness is our rising as ego. So if we want to say something is evil, the root cause of all evil is ego. In sleep, we don’t rise as ego, and we are perfectly happy. We have no complaints in sleep, but when we rise as ego is waking and dream, we experience pleasure and pain. We have so many problems. We are dissatisfied. So the root of all problems is our rising as ego.
So if we want to put an end to all evil, the only way is to cease rising as ego. The nature of ego is such that we rise as ego by attending to things other than ourself. If we attend to ourself, ego will subside.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence - (01:15)
Sanjay,
thank you for your video-transcription of 21 July 2020 at 15:19;
incidentally it should be:...‘investigate to whom does this world appear'.
(because that instruction is no question put with an interrogative clause, therefore no question mark stands at the end).:-)
Salazar said: One can Bhagavan's pointer use in many forms,[...]If you still find love, then you can come to me and we can talk about it".
Can one really adapt (t)his instruction "first investigate and find out what you actually are" for any (old) experience ?
Salazar,
"Once we've found who we actually are, we won't be "finding" or experiencing...
Yes, then, only then, not before. To one's/our great dismay.:-)
That ego does not want to die is quite natural. The thought of its total annihilation strikes fear into it. Who or what could dispel its severe misgivings/doubts about the sage's assurance that in the moment of its eradication then it will be embraced and absorbed by heaven ?
Salazar,
I mean absorption in the sense of total annihilation or getting swallowed up, eradication/vanishing without trace, burning without remains/ash - as it is metaphorically symbolized in India by the burning of camphor.
Which other viewpoint do you seem to prefer ?
Asun
Nice explanation. I always understood self enquiry to be : purify the mind and with the mind turn inwards. The only instrument we have is the mind . But at the end, this instrument itself will be found to be non existent, as it keeps getting purified. The more purer mind becomes, more it becomes insignificant.
How to respond to trolls and ad hominem comments?
If Michael prefers keeping this blog to be a free platform for everyone to express their views, and if some of the people commenting here still continue to post ad hominem comments, what is the way out? According to me, the best is not to respond to such comments. Trolls usually enjoy the attention they receive, but if we deprive them of our attention and response, how long can they keep trolling us?
We should not be put off by their personal attacks but should continue discussing Bhagavan’s teachings with as much freedom as we can. In other words, we should not stop commenting on the blog just because we are being personally criticised for our comments. If we stop commenting, this is again playing into the hand of our abusers. Bhagavan says that our desires and attachments thrive the more attention we pay to them. If we ignore our desires and attachments, they will lose their strength and eventually die. Why not use the same principle here? Why engage in tit for tat with the trolls?
Do you agree?
Asun, I am glad you agree with my views. At times, Bhagavan gives us a good opportunity to practice self-restraint. Why not use such opportunities and gain inner strength?
Asun,
thanks for giving this really appropriate comments of 21 July 2020 at 23:56 and 22 July 2020 at 00:00.
As the river never knows its ultimate fate of merging in an unknown basin/pool/sea/ocean the formerly separated individual does not know its fate.
Declaring all its experiences as to be a waste of time or all for nothing makes the individuality feel rather uneasy, because the jiva anyway loses his/her most valuable treasure namely its own consciousness never to be seen again.
[If I would figuratively compare my life with the waters of the river for instance of the second-longest river of the Iberian peninsula, Ebro, pouring more than 900 kilometers from its source in the Cantabrian Mountains/Cordillera Cantabrica till its fusing/merger at its mouth in the Mediterranean/Balearic Sea in Cataluña/Costa Daurada/provincia Tarragona/Comarca Montsià/Parque natural del Delta del Ebro), how can I be now really happy about losing my form and now considering my life as all for nothing or even as never happened.:-)]
At least in the moment of my melting into the sea of pure awareness I must trust the assurance of the sages that I now and herewith have achieved my destination which is my own death in favour of remaining in my real nature. We must, can and do safely have confidence that real sages, particularly our Bhagavan Sri Ramana of Arunachala, are definitely never wrong.
As you beautifully write (or quote), "When with the pure mind, which alone can turn selfwards, the real 'I' is clearly known, the false 'I' will disappear, merging in that real 'I' like a shadow disappearing in the light.
Our only duty is to keep a careful eye on the rabbit hole, to make sure the rabbit doesn’t pop out (part one)
Rahul: I am a singing teacher. Bhagavan says we shouldn’t worry about the things which we feel we need to do. I agree at some level but I get confused. It seems to me that I need to make decisions and I need to do certain things. It’s hard for me to let go of that control. So to what extent do I have to intervene in worldly matters?
Michael: Control is an illusion. We have no control over the outward events in our life. The only thing we have control over is our rising as ego and our likes, dislikes, desires and attachments. That is, Bhagavan has made it very clear that whatever is destined to happen will happen, however much we choose to avoid it. Whatever is not destined to happen will not happen, however much we choose to achieve it. So we can leave all outward things to take their own course.
That doesn’t mean that the body and mind have to become inactive because in order for certain things to happen, certain actions of our body, speech and mind are required. So we will be made to do those actions which are necessary for us to experience our prarabdha. For example, in order to become a singing teacher, you must have studied, practised and developed your skill in that field. Without all that qualification, you wouldn’t be qualified to teach singing. So because it was your destiny to become a singing teacher, you had to do all those preparations which were necessary to become a teacher.
Likewise, in order to become a successful singing teacher, you have to continue doing certain actions. You may sometimes have to discipline your students and expect high standards of them because you want to get the best out of them for their own sake. So if you destined to be a successful music teacher, you will naturally do whatever is necessary to help your students to be the very best they can. All these actions of body, speech and mind are driven by destiny.
But we have a problem. The problem is we rise as ego, and as ego, we have endless likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, hopes, fears, aspirations and so on. So though everything is happening according to destiny, with our desires and attachments we are trying to achieve things which are not destined to happen and to avoid things which are destined to happen. In other words, the problems lie within us.
Those actions which you are destined to do, you will be made to do. So you should not be concerned about such actions. All you need to be concerned about is not rising as ego and your likes and dislikes. That is what needs to be given up, and the means to give it up is the path of self-investigation and self-surrender that Bhagavan taught us. Bhagavan says we can deal with ego and its desires only by turning within.
So let the outward life take its own course because anyway it’s going to take its own course, whether we interfere in it or not. Our work lies within.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
~ Edited and paragraphed extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence (00:41)
Asun, I believe we should simply ignore all comments which are not relevant to Bhagavan’s teachings. We should take it that they are not meant for us.
Our only duty is to keep a careful eye on the rabbit hole, to make sure the rabbit doesn’t pop out (part two)
Michael: We can curb our desires and attachments to a certain extent by following the path of outward devotion to an outward God, but that is only a partial solution. It doesn’t solve the root of the problem. However much you try to surrender your will to God, so long as you remain separate from God, you will have likes, dislikes, desires, attachments and so on to a greater or lesser extent. So even these likes, dislikes, desires, attachments and so on are your secondary problems.
The primary problem is you, but you are the problem and you are also the solution to the problem. That is, our rising as ego is the problem, and the way to deal with this problem is to investigate this ego: who am I? So we can curb this ego only by investigating it.
I will give you an example to illustrate the nature of ego. Supposing you see a rabbit hole, and in that rabbit hole, there is a rabbit living. If no one is watching the rabbit hole, the rabbit will come out and play. But the rabbit is very shy, so it will only come out to play when no one is watching its hole. So if you don’t want the rabbit to come out of its hole, all you need to do is to keep a careful watch on this rabbit hole. The rabbit is this ego, and the rabbit hole is ‘I am’. If we constantly keep our attention on ‘I am’, this ego won’t pop out. As soon as you allow your attention to be distracted here and there, this ego pops out as ‘I am Rahul’. So you are the problem, and you are also the solution.
You don’t have to worry about the outward actions or the work you do. That work is not done by you but by the body, speech and mind, and that body, speech and mind will do whatever they are destined to do. The only thing you need to be concerned about is yourself: the rabbit that keeps popping out. Keep a watchful eye on yourself and the rabbit-ego will not pop out. This is the path of self-investigation and self-surrender taught by Bhagavan. This is also so unique about Bhagavan’s teachings.
I don’t think anyone before Bhagavan has explained the nature of ego. That is, as soon as we allow our attention to go away from ourself, ego rises and flourishes. That is, the nature of ego is to rise when we don’t watch it, but if we keep a careful eye on this ego, it won’t come out of its rabbit hole. This is the unique clue that Bhagavan has given us. If we understand this secret, this is the only secret we need to know. This is the key to the whole spiritual path.
So let the body, speech and mind continue to do whatever they are destined to do. Your only duty is to keep a careful eye on the rabbit hole and make sure that the rabbit doesn’t pop out and starts playing mischief.
~ Edited and paragraphed extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence (00:41)
Sanjay,
as you say ego must keep a watchful eye on itself. So let us be a fierce watchdog with sharp claws and teeth.:-)
Asun , Sanjay,Bob and maybe Anadi- ananta,
I wouldn’t trust unknown too. The way he flatters few and triggering them to go against others- really I see some maliciousness there. The world is becoming dirtier day by day. Just my observation.
Salazar being so stubborn on his views and trying to distract everyone from core teachings- I don’t trust him anymore. I don’t see any evidence of him practicing self enquiry.
I guess to stay sane, one should keep reading all teachings attested by Bhagavan repeatedly.
Anonymous, As if you are so clean, transparent and pure. Get off your high horse.
In a way you are right. I am not pure, so how can I judge others? But for some reason, if someone says I cannot be trusted, it doesn’t affect me at all, not because I don’t give importance to that person. It’s actually because I am so confident about my trustworthiness.
Anonymous, you just judged others in your earlier comment and then are now denying that you did. So you are a lair and a hypocrite also besides being extremely untrustworthy, conceited, arrogant, dirty and malicious. You are the last woman one can trust about the teachings of Sri Ramana. Don't act as if you are spiritually superior to anybody here because you are not. Get off your high pedestal in order to judge others.
I get you Bob, it's ok to let it out, no need to apologise. You're only saying what many of us who don't post regularly are probably thinking.
Ramana will take care of everything.
Bhagavan is our own self – our innermost reality, so by attracting us to himself, Bhagavan is attracting us to turn within (part one)
A friend: Our sat-vasana is our liking just to be – to remain without rising as ‘I am XYZ’. However, does this sat-vasana belong to ego or our real self?
Michael: Good question! Both in a sense. That is, it is we as ego that like to turn our attention within, so in that sense, even the sat-vasana is ego’s vasana.
But from where does that liking to turn within arise? Like all our likes and dislikes, it arises from our fundamental liking to be happy. That liking to be happy – that love for happiness – is our real nature. Happiness is our real nature, and it is the nature of ourself to have love for ourself. So our real nature has perfect love for itself. That love that our real nature has for itself is called grace.
Let’s call our real nature Bhagavan because that’s what Bhagavan actually is. Bhagavan is what we actually are. So Bhagavan doesn’t see us as separate from ourself. He sees us as himself, and because he has infinite love for himself, he loves us as himself. That love that he has for us as himself is what draws us to him.
The outward form of Bhagavan has attracted all of us. His teachings have attracted us. But what Bhagavan actually is, is not that person out there. He is our own self – our innermost reality. So by attracting us to himself, Bhagavan is attracting us to turn within. So the love that he has for us is what draws us to him. So the love he has for us is what manifests in us as sat-vasana. Sat-vasana is just the love to be as we actually are – the love just to be Bhagavan.
So we cannot separate our love for him from his love for us. Our love for him grows out of his love for us. In the Middle Ages, there was a German mystic called Meister Eckhart. He said a very nice thing:
The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me.
Here 'eye' means awareness. Since awareness and love is the same thing, we can say the same thing in another way. The love that Bhagavan has for us is the same love that we have for Bhagavan. That love for Bhagavan is what we experience as sat-vasana.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (01:09)
Bhagavan is our own self – our innermost reality, so by attracting us to himself, Bhagavan is attracting us to turn within (part two)
Michael: So though this sat-vasana is ego’s liking, it is nothing other than the infinite love that Bhagavan has for us. Aksharamanamalai has 108 beautiful beautiful verses – very very rich and deep in meaning and full of love. One of my favourite verses is verse 101, where Bhagavan sings:
Like ice in water, melt me as love in you, the form of love.
So Bhagavan or Arunachala is the form of love. He is the infinite ocean of love. Our hard and unloving hearts are like icebergs in that ocean. This iceberg will slowly slowly melt and ultimately dissolve and become one with the ocean. The more we love Bhagavan, the more we attend to ourself, the more we will melt and eventually fully dissolve back into Bhagavan. So in this verse, Bhagavan is taking our standpoint and praying to Arunachala: ‘Like ice in water, melt me as love in you, the form of love’.
That is, ice is nothing but water, but it seems to be separate because it has taken a solid form. Likewise, we are nothing but Bhagavan, but we seem to be separate from him because we have attached ourself to this form of a body. We take ourself to be ‘I am this person’. So to become one with him, he has to melt us in himself – melt us as love in him, the form of love.
So the liking we have to melt in him – that liking is nothing but his love for us. So we are nothing, and he is everything. All he asks us to do is to surrender ourself to love, which is his real nature.
The friend: Thank you very much, Michael, thank you very much. Bhagavan’s love manifests through you, and we are very grateful!
Michael: It’s all his love. You and I are nothing. Bhagavan alone exists.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (01:09)
How do we distinguish true love from ego’s love? (part one)
A friend: How do I know if my love for someone else is pure?
Michael: In true love, we don’t want or expect anything from the person we love. We want to give to that person. So love is pure to the extent it is selfless. It is natural for people to love other people, but often we love someone because of what we can get from that person – ‘If you are kind to me, I will love you because I like your being kind to me’. This is ego’s love. If I love you because I want to give myself to you, expecting nothing in return, that is true love. That is the love of our real nature.
So in the path of bhakti or love, in the beginning when we start praying to God, we ask this or that from God. So our love then is for the things we can get from God. But when our love becomes purer and purer, we do not ask anything from God. We just ask him to enable us to give ourself to him. That is why the pinnacle of the path of devotion is self-surrender. So, all the different forms of bhakti ultimately lead to self-surrender.
This is how we can distinguish true love from ego’s love. Ego always wants something from love, but true love is when we want to give and surrender.
We progress from a love that is totally selfish, where we love only that which is beneficial to us, towards the love which is totally selfless, where we want to give ourself. We experience a whole range of spectrum between these extremes. So, on a spiritual path, we are moving away from the selfish love to the selfless love. We are moving away from the love that makes us seek things for ourself towards love for God’s sake alone.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (01:23)
How do we distinguish true love from ego’s love? (part two)
Michael: So most of us experience love in so many different forms, but it’s a mixture generally of selfishness and selflessness. That is, we love someone because that person is kind to us. That is the selfish side of it. But because the person is kind, we also want to give in return. So the selfishness and selflessness are mixed together. That is true of most of our worldly love. We want to give ourself but at the same time, we have certain expectations. So if our love is not returned, then our love begins to diminish.
But as we progress on the spiritual path, our love becomes more and more selfless, and love becomes perfect only when we give ourself entirely to God. God, of course, is nothing that our real nature – what we actually are. So when we give ourself to ourself, when we give ego to our real nature - that is perfect love. That is when we melt in Arunachala, the form of love.
The friend: When I love someone and if that love gives me peace, is it selfish or selfless love?
Michael: To the extent our love is selfless, to that extent it will give up peace and happiness. If our love is wholly selfish, it will never satisfy us. We will always want more and more. But to the extent our love becomes selfless - to that extent it is truly satisfying. To that extent the love makes us truly peaceful.
But any peace that we as ego may experience is limited peace. If we want to experience infinite peace, infinite happiness, we have to give ourself entirely. We have to melt as love in the ocean of love.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (01:23)
Sanjay,
thank you for your recent video-transcription.
"So when we give ourself to ourself, when we give ego to our real nature - that is perfect love. That is when we melt in Arunachala, the form of love."
However, I assume that Arunachala in its entirety/as the whole reality is not in need of any growth. :-)
By the way, I think you wanted to write: "God, of course, is nothing but our real nature-...".
Yes, Anadi-ananta, I wanted to type, ‘God, of course, is nothing but our real nature’. Thank you.
We as this ego project everything, but why do not experience ourself as the projector of this creation?
My reflection: It is because though the projection is the work of our vasanas, which is our will in its subtlest form, but we don't identify with these vasanas. We identify with some vasanas but not with others. That is, we as ego project and create this world, and this world is nothing but a collection of our thoughts, according to Bhagavan. And these thoughts originate from our vasanas. However, what vasana is projected from moment to moment is decided by Bhagavan, so we have no control over what we create even though we project this world.
We may identify with some of our vasanas but all. I may have a vasana to create a restaurant, and I think a lot about it and do all that it is necessary to set us this restaurant. This restaurant finally comes into existence. So I think it my vasanas and my efforts which have made this possible. However, though I may identify with this creation, it all happened according to my prarabdha. So this restaurant would have been created even if I had no desire to create it. So this vasana which resulted in this creation was actually projected according to Bhagavan’s will. My will just happened to coincide with his will.
We can answer this question in another way. Though this ego has created this world, I do not experience myself as the creator of this projection but a creature within this creation. So we have forgotten, so to speak, our own powers of projection and creation because we now take ourself to be a little person in this creation. So as this little person, we are oblivious of our powers of creation. So though we (this ego) have projected this Covid-19, we cannot will away this coronavirus, because as a person we are powerless to remove it from our projection.
~ Disclaimer: My above reflection is based on Michael’s ideas – what I have heard him say or read in his articles. However, all this is based on my understanding and memory. So I do not claim that I have reproduced Michael’s ideas in its purity.
Strange event again : On this article till now 528 comments were left. 125 of them were published by Salazar and recently deleted by him. On their former place we find the note "This comment has been removed by the author". Perhaps one had to reckon with that action which seems to be a kind of paying off old scores.
Sanjay,
you put a good question. However, the technically detailed sequence of the perception/creation or projection of the "world" is obviously inconceivable by our mind.:-)
That we will know not before we melt in Arunachala, the ocean of love.
.
Mr James began moderating comments in Dec 2018 because of Salazar. Since he has stopped moderating (in May 2020?) the quality of the comments has once again degenerated.
....I rarely come to this blog anymore, and doubt I will visit much in the future.
.
The more we follow the path of self-investigation and self-surrender, the more we will find that actions are not a dilemma (part one)
A friend: We are at times in a dilemma about certain actions. It is difficult to decide whether we should act or refrain from acting. So what should be our attitude at such times?
Michael: All actions are done by our body, speech and mind, but the problem arises when we identify this body, speech and mind as ‘I’ and feel ‘I have to do this’ or ‘I am doing this’. In each of our lifetime, Bhagavan decides what actions we have to do to experience our destiny. So our body, speech and mind will automatically act as and when they need to act if such actions are needed to bring our destiny to fruition. Bhagavan wrote in his note to his mother:
He who is for that being there-there will cause to dance [that is, according to the destiny (prārabdha) of each person, he who is for that (namely God or guru, who ordains their destiny) being in the heart of each of them will make them act].
So Bhagavan will make us do certain actions. The problem is because we identify ourself with our body, speech and mind, we feel we are doing these actions. However, our will, which is the collection of all our desires and attachments, also prompts us to act using the same body, speech and mind. But these actions will not bear fruit in this lifetime. So we need to detach ourself from actions. That means, we need to detach ourself from this body, speech and mind, and the means to do so is turning within.
However, at present, we are not able to turn fully within because of our strong desires and attachments, so we are not able to fully surrender ourself now. The more we turn our attention away from all phenomena back towards ourself, the more our desires and attachments are losing their strength. So every time we turn within we are coming closer and closer to our goal, which is complete and irrevocable self-surrender.
So the more we follow this path, the more we will find that actions are not a dilemma. The more our likes, dislikes, desires, and attachments are losing their strength, the less they are driving us to act. So whatever actions are going on will be according to destiny. So by reducing the strength of our desires and attachments, we are reducing the strength of the actions we do by our will. As a consequence, we are also making it easier for ourself to yield ourself to what is anyway going to happen according to destiny. That is yielding ourself to the will of God, as it is sometimes said.
So let us not be concerned with actions. Bhagavan says in paragraph 13 of Nan Ar?:
Even though one places whatever amount of burden upon God, that entire amount he will bear. Since one paramēśvara śakti [supreme ruling power or power of God] is driving all kāryas [whatever needs or ought to be done or to happen], instead of we also yielding to it, why to be perpetually thinking, ‘it is necessary to do like this; it is necessary to do like that’? Though we know that the train is going bearing all the burdens, why should we who go travelling in it, instead of remaining happily leaving our small luggage placed on it [the train], suffer bearing it [our luggage] on our head?
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-06-13 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses the practice of self-investigation (02:10)
verse 7 of Aruṇācala Padigam, sorry.
Asun, I thank you for your reply. All our discussion about Bhagavan’s teachings should motivate us to practice turning within more and more. If it is not motivating us to do so, then perhaps we are not discussing his teachings in the right spirit.
The more we follow the path of self-investigation and self-surrender, the more we will find that actions are not a dilemma (part two)
Michael: So the more we subside, the more we yield ourself, the more we surrender, the less concern we will have about actions. Anyway, those actions that our body, speech and mind are destined to do, they will be made to do. So we shouldn’t be overly concerned about actions.
So long as we have a sense of doesrship, we should act in a moral and ethical way. We should avoid causing harm to others and everything. Those are the basic principles but apart from that, we shouldn’t be concerned about actions. What we should be concerned about is surrendering our likes, dislikes and desires and ultimately surrendering ego which has those likes, dislikes and desires.
So we have nothing to worry about. Our only concern should be to surrender ourself. The only responsibility Bhagavan has given us is to surrender ourself – not to carry the luggage on our head but to put it aside and travel happily.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-06-13 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses the practice of self-investigation (02:10)
@ Asun, I agree with your sentiments. Although last time i was speaking up for Godman, he's not really a friend though.
@ all - as for the troll and lack of moderation it's quite simple, as Sanjay said 'don't feed him'
🙏🏼
Sanjay,
you mean ...sense of "doership".
It seems everyone is ostracising Salazar. Is this necessary? I do not see ill will in his commentsl. Being challenged is useful.
Sanjay,
Meister Eckhart ("The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me".) evidently escaped maya and ignorance.
correction: escaped from ...
Salazar,
I did enjoy responding to your comments in the past. I didn’t read all of your comments in this blog post, but I did realize that you have not understood Bhagavan’s teachings nor I. Bhagavan’s teachings has infinite layers. As one evolves more and more, some of the treasures in his teachings will keep getting revealed. The very fact that someone wants to post something in this blog means that he/she has still lot of ego left. If a person really practices self enquiry he/she will not find a need to convince others about anything nor will feel a need to express anything. Regardless, I don’t have any ill feelings against you.
No offence to anyone. If this Unknown guy is southern indian, he could be a Christian fanatic too. I am from south too.. I am hearing lot of stories nowadays on that side of the world. Just his way of writing is sooo creepy.
Anonymous, you are a clueless idiot as well besides being an abject spiritual moron. Keep guessing and imagining stuff. That is your pastime anyways. You are full of shit.
Salazar, you never left this blog and never will. You are full of shit as well besides being a shameless charlatan, a total mental case, an evil person, a fraud, a pathological and habitual liar, a lousy actor, pretentious jerk, and much, much more. You know nothing of Sri Ramana's teachings as do Michael, Sanjay and Asun do. Go to hell.
Salazar, you are a vicious fu**ing troll. You deleted most of the comments in this thread. You seriously belong in a mental asylum for the criminally insane. Take that arrogant, malicious South Indian "Anonymous" Christian fanatical woman along with you to keep you company. You both worthless trolls are made for each other.
Salazar, you are a low life cyber criminal.You will continue to post in this blog under a different moniker also for a while (like you did as Rafael) just as you post your comments as Salazar and then delete them all like you did in this thread. You are not fooling anyone here, not in the least anadi-ananta or Asun or AHAM. You are a shameless crook and you can fool no one here with your total misunderstanding and distortion of Bhagavan's authentic teachings.
Salazar, the reason you delete your all of your comments is because you yourself know that they are all junk, trash, lies and worthless crap like you yourself are and they all deserve to be deleted anyway. Good riddance.
Salazar, since you are so addicted to this blog you will continue to post here using the same moniker or a different one or you may hijack someone else's moniker as you have done in the past. If you do that then people here will know that it is you who is posting as someone else whose moniker has been hijacked by you. People now know what kind of a person you really are and they will not be fooled by your devious and fraudulent activities. Of course you will delete those posts also to cover your tracks, like anadi-ananta said earlier.
Sri Arunachala Pancharatnam, verse 3:
"Having scrutinized with that pure mind which is facing Self-wards (ahamukham) “where does this 'I' rise ?” and having (thereby) clearly known the form(or real nature) of 'I', one ceases to exist (by merging) in You like a river (which merges and loses its form) in the ocean. Know thus."
I would see a difference between a river and a person, namely that a river has no own free will and being supported by the gradient/drop of the scenic riverbed must unavoidably and inevitabely merge in the ocean whereas a person may wander/stroll/roam around for aeons without much understanding the wrongfulness of his acts and ideas.
The waters of a river do naturally never flow upstream.
I am reposting some comments of Salazar which he has not deleted yet.
Salazar said...
It's quite obvious I am not welcome here. I never went anywhere uninvited.
Bye my friends.
24 July 2020 at 16:41
Salazar said...
Col, it's plain likes and dislikes, that's it. In the past I bruised the egos of Rob P, Aham, anadi-ananta, Asun, and a few others. That is what causes their reaction re. "Salazar".
If they would be truly fair then they must acknowledge that Asun has at least as much trolled as me in the last few days and before. That they look away of Asun's smug hypocrisy and violations of blog rules shows their own bias and hypocrisy. And yet they call themselves 'devotees of Bhagavan'.
Also their "threat" to not come to this blog anymore. If somebody would really care if they come or not. Anyway, just some drama unfolding, and as you said, people want to be (secretly) flattered and not criticized. Look at Asun's smug rationalizations and how she misapplies Bhagavan's teaching to discredit your comment. What a bitch.
24 July 2020 at 19:15
Salazar said...
Anonymous, I have no ill feelings to you either. You have your own specific view of things and I respect you for that. You also correctly identified "Unknowns" deceptive flattery, like his praise of Asun's mediocre 'poem' and how he emphasizes her "sincerity". By the way, he is the same guy (he is a southern Indian by the way) who called Michael and Sanjay Jnanis and other flattering adjectives. He is the one who posted under several monikers personal attacks at me (consecutive at the same thread so to create the illusion several different people are attacking me) until Michael changed the way so that only one moniker can show at the same time.
It's interesting to see how his crude flattery has an effect on people like Asun who gobbled it up like ice-cream and returned the flattery of Unknowns "sincerity". That Asun is giving in that easily to flattery shows where she comes from and that some people here consider her as worthwhile to talk to shows their poor judgment.
There is nothing sincere with Asun nor Unknown. It's so obvious I am amazed nobody else is seeing that.
I am on my way out, there is no benefit in endlessly regurgitating Bhagavan's teachings and arguing with the members about the "right" interpretation.
I'll still read Michael's articles and some of Sanjay's transcriptions, the rest is just white noise of some self-important egos.
24 July 2020 at 23:05
To add my 2 cents to the excitement built up:
We generally should not react over-sensitively to verbal attacks of aggressive contemporaries - it is not worthwhile. The waters of the river flow constantly in direction of their mouth into the sea.:-)
Asun, please, give the endless judgement a rest for your own sake.
Take care
Asun,
as you imply, the resoluteness of Michael's tone of voice in his response of 14 July 2020 at 11:38 (comment-no.314)we don't see everyday. But I easily understand the determined manner when surrender is the subject of discussion.
Asun,
sorry, I never studied the New Testament let alone the Epistle/Letter to the Romans of Paul the Apostle, written in the Greek city of Corinth,(though I have been there some years ago).:-)
As your quotation implies, justice comes alone from God - though we all have the sense and love of justice.
Hello all,
By lack of time, I don’t really visit the blog anymore, except to read Michael’s writings when he post them.
But two days ago I thought I was going to visit the blog and read what was going on with the comments. What I encountered wasn’t a pretty picture but rather a very desolate emtional landscape. Insults galore, both of a very explicit nature and other of a subtle but not less harmful one. Sad state of affairs.
In the past I always had a positive emotional connection with this blog, since I really gained in understanding not only from Michael’s comments but from fruitful exchanges with many that are almost all gone.
I know is human nature in many cases just to let the steam off and have heated discussions, but there is a line that when crossed (insulting and demeaning others) is not even about being right or wrong, it feels like it’s about trying to “hurt the other” in a very raw manner.
I am not sure if my pledge to come back to a certain level of common decency in the exchanges will have any incidence, specially when I don’t plan to attend the comments in the future, part because of lack of time, and in part because of the degradation ocurring at the moment. But still is yet my intention to ask many of you to reflect what can we gain from such exchanges in relation to the destruction of our own vasanas. Golden rule, do not do unto others what you wouldn’t like others do unto you. Who would like to be bullied and call names?
Yes, we may always ask, inquiring: “Who" is being nasty? and then go about our day as if nothing happened, insulting here and there everyone who doesn’t agree with our viewpoints, but let’s be honest, is that an honest practice of atma-vichara or just a passing thought without any significance?
Anyway, all these food for thought but mostly directed to the heart of us all.
Bye friends, wishing you all well.
Carlos (aka Mouna of past times)
Hello Mouna, Carlos greetings, old soldier,
yes, of course it is not a glorious picture which was left in the last week.
And thanks for appealing to our conscience.
Because this blog has always overcome critical phases at the comment box, I hope we survive also the present turbulence. :-)
Bye my friend, wishing you well too.
Karen,
your ability "to see Bhagavan dwelling in this phantom "Salazar" is in some way quite astoundingly. At present I do not have easy access to that view.
Nevertheless, we are well-advised to follow the quoted invitation of Bhagavan "Are there any others? Know the real Self."
Karen,
thank you for your honest reply and reminding me to study again paragraph 19 of Nāṉ Yār? The meaning of paragraph nineteen is discussed in chapter 10 of Happiness and the Art of Being (1st edition pp. 588-609; 2nd edition pp. 448-63).
" ... Therefore in the last two paragraphs of Nāṉ Yār? Sri Ramana gives us some valuable tips regarding the inward attitude with which we should interact with other people and conduct ourself in this world. In the nineteenth paragraph he says: There are not two [classes of] minds, namely a good [class of] mind and a bad [class of] mind. The mind is only one. Only vāsanās[impulsions or latent desires] are of two kinds, namely śubha [good or agreeable] and aśubha [bad or disagreeable]. When [a person’s] mind is under the sway of śubha vāsanās [agreeable impulsions] it is said to be a good mind, and when it is under the sway of aśubha vāsanās[disagreeable impulsions] a bad mind. However bad other people may appear to be, disliking them is not proper [or appropriate]. Likes and dislikes are both fit [for us] to dislike [or to renounce]. It is not proper [for us] to let [our] mind [dwell] much on worldly matters. It is not proper [for us] to enter in the affairs of other people [an idiomatic way of saying that we should mind our own business and not interfere in other people’s affairs]. All that one gives to others one is giving only to oneself. If [everyone] knew this truth, who indeed would refrain from giving? The only thing that we should truly dislike is our own likes and dislikes, because they agitate our mind and disturb our natural peace and equanimity. We dislike certain people because we feel they are the cause of the irritation and annoyance that we feel when we interact with them or think of them, but in fact the real cause of our irritation and annoyance is only our own likes and dislikes. If we were completely free of likes and dislikes, no other person could make us feel any aversion or other negative emotion. What truly disturbs us when we interact with a person we dislike is not actually that person’s aśubha vāsanās or disagreeable impulsions, but is only our own aśubha vāsanās, because our aśubha vāsanās are what manifest as our likes and dislikes. Our likes and dislikes are both forms of
desire, and like all forms of desire they drive our mind outwards, away from the infinite peace and happiness that exists in the core of our being. Therefore if we truly wish to turn our mind inwards and thereby dissolve it in our perfectly clear consciousness of being, we must reject all our likes and dislikes, and develop instead a love only for being. All our selfish attitudes, feelings, emotions, reactions and behaviours, such as our possessiveness, greed, lust, anger, jealousy, pride and egoism, are rooted in our likes and dislikes. Therefore to the extent to which we are able to free ourself from our likes and dislikes, we will accordingly free ourself from all forms of selfishness and from all the disagreeable feelings and emotions that they arouse in us. Since our interactions with other people tend to bring to the surface of our mind all our deep-rooted likes and dislikes, they are God-given opportunities for us not only to identify our likes and dislikes but also to curb them. By practising the art of self-attentive being, we cultivate the skill to restrain not only our likes and dislikes but also their root, which is our mind. Hence our practice of self-attentiveness will make it easier for us to recognise and curb the likes and dislikes that arise in our mind when we interact with other people. Conversely, by curbing our likes and dislikes when we interact with other people, we are cultivating our vairāgya or freedom from desires, and this will in turn help us in our practice of self-attentive being...".
Karen,
who of us can claim to have no likes and dislikes ?
As you imply we have no other option than to keenly inquire "into the source of all these things".
I just read in the Mountain Path (April-June 2020) in the article of Kays "The Maharshi and Mantra" Bhagavan saying:
"In the interior of the Heart-cave Brahman alone shines in the form of Atman with direct immediacy as 'I-I'." *) Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham, v.9.
('I-I' means 'I am I').
[...]
"As 'I-I' dances in the Hearts of all - both sinners and saints - as the ultimative embodiment of love, Vallalar calls this 'the Dance of Altruistic Love' or 'the Dance of Charity'. Bhagavan hails it with the delectable phrase, 'achala natanam' - 'the dance of stillness of the radiant ocean of limitless Grace - the Self'.*) Arunachala Ashtakam, v.7.
It is the vibration of the experience of svarupa that is immovable by virtue of its Perfect Wholeness. It is pure experience without any distinction between the experience and the experiencer. It is Pure Awareness, the form of Grace that keeps blessing all."
As I just read the Mountain Path (April-June 2020) in Michael's recording of Sadhu Om's The Paramount Importance of Self Attention (Part Thirty Three), 6th December 1978:
"...firstly because what we now take to be waking is actually just a dream, and secondly because we who experience all dreams are one and the same ego. This one ego is the dreamer of all dreams, and dreaming entails both projecting and perceiving a dream....we, the dreamer, are not whatever person we dream ourself to be. The person we seem to be in a dream is a part of our dream, so it is not the dreamer but something dreamt by us.
This is what Bhagavan implies in verse 160 of Guru Vacaka Kovai:
The spurious being who roams about as 'I' is just something that occurs as one among the shadows [images or pictures].
[...] ego is the formless seer whereas the person it mistakes to be 'I' is an object seen by it, so Bhagavan says here that this person is 'one among the shadows', thereby comparing it to one among the shadow pictures on a cinema screen.
It is necessary for several reasons to clearly understand this distinction between ourself, the dreamer, and whatever person we dream ourself to be. Firstly, it explains why, though we are the creator of all that we see, we seem to have no control over what we are creating, because as soon as we begin to dream any dream, we mistake ourself to be a person in our dream, and thus we seem to be just a small part of our creation. In other words, instead of experiencing ourself as the creator, we now experience ourself as a creature, and as such we have no control over our own creation.
Secondly and most importantly, we need to distinguish ourself, the seer, from everything we see, including the person we seem to be, because unless we do so, we will not be able to effectively investigate what we actually are. In order to investigate ourself, we need to focus our entire attention on ourself, thereby withdrawing it from everything else, so to do so we need to understand clearly that we are just the seer and not anything seen by us.
By attending to anything that is seen, we are nourishing and sustaining ego, whereas if we attend to ourself, the seer, ego will subside and dissolve back into its source. Then we will see that we are not even the seer, but only the pure awareness from which the seer and everything seen by it appear and into which they disappear."
This above teaching seems to arrive now slowly in my poor understanding. Now I gradually seem to begin to understand why till now I could not really deep and keen investigate what I really am...
Yes.. very beautiful. In the past few days, I realized something too.. I have started understanding what Salazar is trying to convey. If one thinks that mind should be purified by getting rid of desires, that implies one is still nourishing the ego. My realization lately has been ‘who am I(not enquiry, but a humble thought questioning my arrogance ) to take effort to get rid of desires or attachment. Taking any effort itself is an act and effect of egotistical nature. It is because of ‘him’ , a person is seeing all the actions of the world. Even the projection is ‘his’ play. Even the assumption that one is the person in the movie as ‘I’ is ‘his’ play.
All I ‘can do’ (not ‘have to do’ ) is ‘to be’. Everything is already happening according to how ‘he’ has ordained.
We absolutely cannot change anything nor we can delude ourselves by taking any effort. If I think I am doing something, I am fooling myself. Firstly, activities just appear to be happening (not really happening) . Secondly activities take place just as how it should be happening, not because ‘I’ am doing it.
Salazar,
Hope you are reading this . Unfortunately I have to agree with you, if I have understood you correctly. You are indeed practicing self enquiry in the right way.
Anonymous, yes - you have understood me correctly.
Asun,
as you quoted Sadhu Om saying "...Such courage and faith are necessary...".
I can only strongly recommend you to take it to your heart.
Regarding your complaint "that the whole thing is a farce" I have sometimes the impression that you are generally easily offended.
When Michael told you that in reply to you he will write a very long article on the subject sleep, he will certainly do it - when he will have sufficient time for it.
Take it as a test of your patience.:-)
In order not to have to look back in the comments, can you repeat what exactly did you find regarding sleep ?
Though many German foxes may sniff around, I am not one among them.
Oh, what is that lovely and refreshing smell in your kitchen, hmmmm ?
I just noticed today when I visited this blog today that the mentally retarded a**hole Salazar has hijacked my moniker again and posted two comments as "Unknown", one addressed to Asun on 25 July 2020 at 18:10 and the other one on 28 July 2020 at 00:35 which he has since deleted. Fuc* you a*hole Salazar and like I said earlier you are full of crap and know absolutely nothing about the teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana.
Asun, I will not it be mentioning you anymore in my future comments and if any post from any "Unknown" mentions you, you can rest assured it is from the same fu**ing a**hole Salazar who is posing and posting as "Unknown" trying to make you believe it is from me.
Unknown,
the comment of 28 July 2020 at 00:35 was not posted under "Unknown" but under "Anonymous". As you say, this comment is now seen as deleted with the remark "...has been removed by the author".
Hijacking of Google accounts is presumably only possible with the help of Google.
Karen,
thanks for your reply. May you melt in peace and silence.
Asun,
To make things clear this comment which I reproduce below was not from me.
Unknown said...
Asun, please, give the endless judgement a rest for your own sake.
Take care
25 July 2020 at 18:10
End quote
The above post was posted by the a**hole Salazar having been hijacked my moniker to make it look as though posted by me.
anadi-ananta, do not rule out Salazar posting comments under the HIJACKED monikers of anadi-ananta, Asun, Anonymous and the regular monikers of others who post daily here.
Unknown, what you write I cannot confirm.
Where is that mentioned comment shown as deleted from "Unknown" ?
Yes, comment - no. 575 of 28 July 2020 at 00:35 is deleted but on its former place
I can see only the text: "This comment has been removed by the author".
Karen Taylor, It is now getting to be obvious you are Salazar himself posing and posting as Salazar under the moniker of Karen Taylor and praising Salazar all the time, meaning praising yourself whoever you are. Such is your humongous ego.
Karen Taylor a k a Salazar you can only fool yourself with your ever changing stupid monikers. Any one here disagree with me that impostor Karen Taylor is not the same impostor Salazar?
A**hole Salazar, under what other monikers are you going to start posting your nonsensical B S crap next since all your stupid monikers point towards you? LOL!
Unknown,
what suspicious circumstance lets you cast suspicion on Karen Taylor to be Salazar ?
Possibly you self are Salazar ! :-)
Unknown,
regarding your comment of 2 August 2020 at 01:52,
On the original, regular or main thread there is no indication to the moniker of "Unknown".
Well put Karen, and I concur - Michael deserves our utmost respect.
Realise that you are the formless one,
that pure and imageless awareness.
Know this with your entirety
and let the life force and consciousness dance
in the presence of that unmoving vastness.
Intuitively you will know
there is neither limit nor end
to that which you are.
Asun,
Thanks. My point is: when we truly try ‘to be’, we will automatically not do anything that is manipulative nor say anything we want nor we will do anything to hurt others. Evil people who were born evil can never practice self enquiry, unless everything breaks apart for them. Now if a personality type is such that he/she talks bluntly, I think that should be ok. If someone’s writing shows evilness or hatred, still, if I am practicing ‘to be’, I would ideally not take it to heart. I don’t get affected by Mr. Unknown’s posts. it is just written material. If someone is physically going to attack me, I would definitely take it to heart:) . Hope I understood what you were trying to convey.
Bhagavan is not interested in what we do but in what we are
The friend:: Bhagavan says that karma doesn’t give us the fruits of its actions but God gives us the fruits of our actions. But how does this information help us in our spiritual journey?
Bhagavan: The law of karma is not central to Bhagavan’s teachings because Bhagavan is not interested in what we do but in what we are. We need to discover what we actually are. Action is of peripheral interest. But why Bhagavan taught us the law of karma. He taught us for a practical purpose. If we understand the law of karma, it will help us in the path of self-investigation – particularly it will help us in the path of self-surrender.
Our prarabdha is the will of Bhagavan. So firstly, we cannot change our destiny and therefore it is futile trying or wanting to do so, Secondly, whatever is ordained by Bhagavan is for our spiritual benefit. Bhagavan selects only those fruits that will be conducive for our spiritual good. So we shouldn’t try to add to it or subtract from it. We should just accept it as it is.
We may not understand why we should be suffering in this way. We wouldn’t even ask why we should be suffering because we have a firm conviction that everything that is everything is by the will of God for our good. We won’t need to question or need an explanation of anything. Everything is happening in our life due to Bhagavan’s abundant grace, his abundant love for us.
If we understand this, this will make life so much easier for us. We will accept both the good and bad things of life so much more easily. So we will be ever at peace and happy. The more we turn towards ourself, the more ego subsides, the more ego subsides, the happier and peaceful we will be – the more satisfied we will be.
So the teaching that the fruits of actions are according to the will of Bhagavan is not complete teaching in itself, but it is a very key part of the law of karma taught to us by Bhagavan.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract: 2020-06-06 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 1 to 3 (00:54 & 01:10)
Nice post Sanjay, and yes - that is Bhagavan's teaching as paraphrased by Michael. Good to see you posting again.
This one is good Sanjay. Was thinking about you yesterday :)
The desire to be appreciated may take different forms, but it is a very strong desire of ego (Part one)
The desire to be appreciated may take different forms, but it is a very strong desire for ego. It is potentially one of the most dangerous desires. It is for this reason that Bhagavan warned us in verse 37 of Uladdu Narpadu Anubandham:
Even though all the worlds are (renounced as mere) straw and even though all the scriptures are in hand (that is, have been thoroughly mastered), for those who have come under the sway of the vicious harlot which is praise, ah; to escape from slavery to her is indeed very difficult!
Sadhu Om: Among the three desires, namely the desires for relationships, possessions and praise, it is the desire for praise that is most difficult to renounce. Even though one has renounced the desire for relationships and the desire for possessions, regarding them as mere straw, if one falls prey to the desire for being praised or appreciated by others, it is very difficult to renounce it. Therefore, of all the evils which threaten to befall people of vast learning, it is the desire for praise and fame which is the most dangerous.
‘Praise’ covers everything – praise, appreciation, fame – to be liked or appreciated or highly regarded by others. If one falls prey to such praise, if one comes under the sway of the wicked prostitute, it becomes extremely difficult to keep oneself away from slavery to her.
So even if we are able to renounce everything, even if we are learned and have renounced all pleasures of the world, so long as we still have that liking to be liked, to be appreciated, to be famous, to be highly regarded, that’s a very strong desire of ego. Why Bhagavan wrote that verse? It is because so many people who come to the spiritual path and seemed to have renounced the worldly pleasures, there would be lots of people who would be ready to appreciate you, to worship you, to put you on a pedestal. This happens more frequently particularly if you are learned and you are able to explain spiritual texts, or even if you are able to explain Bhagavan’s texts like I am doing now.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-01 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 8 to 10 (01:34)
The desire to be appreciated may take different forms, but it is a very strong desire of ego (Part two)
Michael: Sometimes people put me on a pedestal, and it’s a very dangerous place to be in. If we believe that there is something special in us and that is why people appreciate us, that’s going to be our downfall. So we have to be very very careful not to fall prey to the desire of that type of appreciation. We cannot prevent people from appreciating us or putting us on the pedestal, but we shouldn’t be fooled by it.
We have to look within and see, yes, I have got so many desires. My mind is still so very imperfect. So why people are able to see something special in me, God only knows. So long as we take ourself to be a person, we are imperfect. If we are following Bhagavan’s path, we should be indifferent to both praise and blame. We should also refrain from praising or blaming other people because no person is worthy of praise.
We are a person as long as we rise as ego, and as long as we rise as ego, that’s the fundamental defect. So we need to recognise our total unworthiness. That’s the only safeguard to falling prey to this wicked courtesan called flattery.
Sadhu Om used to say 'Humility is divinity'. In GVK, Bhagavan says how God has attained that position where he became worthy of being worshipped by the whole universe? It is because he sees himself as the lower than the lowest. Bhagavan said something to that effect. In other words, God is supreme because of his supreme humility. So we should be always very very careful never to think of ourself as better than anyone else.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-01 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 8 to 10 (01:34)
Good one Sanjay!!!
Eventually, all we need to know is ourself – we don’t need to know anything else because we are the only thing that actually exists
A friend: What is your advice to the younger generation? Should I tell my ten-year-old son about Bhagavan’s teachings?
Michael: We should follow Bhagavan’s advice on this: Bhagavan didn’t give any advice of its own accord. When people asked him questions, he answered, otherwise, he was happy to sit quietly. If our children show interest in this subject, we can answer their doubts. If they are not interested, it’s not our business to interfere in their internal matter. Every jiva who is born in this world is born with a certain purpose, and whatever they go through in life is all part of the process of gradually preparing for this. But we shouldn’t impose these teachings on people who are not interested in this.
Ultimately, we should be concerned only about ourself. We shouldn’t be concerned about others. OK, as a father we have certain responsibilities, but those are worldly responsibilities. In the spiritual path, if we save ourself, that is sufficient. According to Bhagavan, there is only one ego. Who is that one ego? We are that. The one who is seeing all this, the one who perceives this world – that is the one ego. The one who is dreaming this dream is the one ego, so if that one ego wakes up, that is sufficient.
In the dream, we don’t have to worry about waking up other people in the dream. If we wake up that is sufficient. We can save all the people in the dream just by waking up ourself.
The friend: What is our aim in life? We see so many things going around in the world in the name of spirituality.
Michael: We have to decide our aim in life. So having come to Bhagavan, having read Bhagavan, we have to decide what Bhagavan is pointing to us. Then we have to decide whether we want that or not. Do we want to surrender ourself? Do we want to lose ourself entirely in pure awareness? Obviously, we do not want to lose ourself entirely. But those of us who are attracted to this path, we want to surrender ourself. So that is what we have to decide.
So we shouldn’t think that people who are following other spiritual paths will be drawn to Bhagavan’s path because Bhagavan’s path is extremely deep and radical. It wouldn’t appeal to all people. Even people who read his teachings, interpret his teachings according to their preconceptions.
So we have to decide for ourself what is our goal? If our goal is to surrender ourself completely, we should follow this path. We shouldn’t worry about others who have so many other ideas about what spirituality is. They are following what they feel is appropriate at their level of spiritual development. Eventually, all we need to know is ourself. We don’t need to know anything else because we are the only thing that actually exists.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-06-27 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses self-realisation and karma (01:17)
I agree to some extent Asun, if I understood your post. The problem is: I am tamilian and I have read Bhagavan’s teachings in tamil. I never understood anything. Even Guru Vachaka Kovai in tamil is so difficult to understand. According to me , Tamil is the most difficult language. Sadhu Om and Michael James have done great work in being that channel and simplify his teachings. Are they aiming to be a Guru? I really don’t care. Reading the posts in this blog helps me a lot. So thats all that matters to me.
After so many years, only now I understand the depth of these teachings. Forget the terminologies.. if a person is very comfortable with the mere existence of himself/herself and always be with that existence, nothing else outside of that existence will matter anymore. I am slowly experiencing it myself. I am neither superior to anyone else nor inferior to anyone else no matter where I am placed in the society. If someone has a different opinion or if someone contradicts his/her own teaching, all that wouldn’t matter to me. Because, I am content with myself. If one really follows this, then one will start understanding what surrender means, what ‘not taking the burden’ means, what ‘not getting affected by abusive people’ means. Hope you still remain active in this blog and not leave.
Love does not need an intention or object to love.
It is the highest expression of the being
in recognition of itself.
It is the unity of being.
Just as the fragrance and the flower are one,
your being radiates this love—effortlessly.
You are the Self.
Silence, wisdom and joy are your perfume.
It is here when you leave your luggage aside.
Luggage means identity, desire, memory, projections
who you think you are and who you want to be.
This beauty awakens in you
when there is space for the beautiful One.
Surrender.
Be entirely empty of ‘you’,
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: The idea of entering within yourself and discovering the divine presence in your own heart – this indeed is fundamental (part one)
Michael James: Can you tell us about the orthodox view of the deep heart, and how can one enter the deep heart? This is closely related to the spiritual path I am following, which is the path of Advaita as taught by Bhagavan Ramana.
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: Yes, indeed. The concept of ‘heart’ is of great importance. In the Old Testament and the New Testament, the heart is seen as a symbol of unification of the human being. The heart in Biblical and mystical understanding is not just emotions, feelings and affections. The heart means the deep self. The heart is the point of unity within the human person – which consists of the body, soul and spirit. The heart provides contact between the created human being and the uncreated energies of God.
So the heart is to be seen as the living centre of the human personhood. When we talk about the prayer of the heart, we mean the prayer of the total person. We often talk of entering the place of the heart. This would mean achieving full personal integration.
Michael James: In the teachings of Bhagavan Ramana, he talks about the deep heart, which is the absolute centre – the meeting point between us and God - the point where God is always available to us, where God is always present within us. So the heart is at the same time the absolute centre. It is also that in which everything else is contained. So the heart is God itself. So, ultimately, God is not just in the heart, God is heart – the heart in each and every one of us.
So if we are to unite with him in any sense, we can do so only by turning within and searching for him within ourself. As Christ said, ‘Behold, the kingdom of God is within you’. From my perspective, the keyword here is ‘behold’. He is asking us to look within. So that is what we are doing in the path of Bhagavan Ramana. We are looking within to see the reality within us - that which is within us – God, brahman or atma – whatever we choose to call it.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-05 Theosis and Jñāna: discussion between Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and Michael James (20:00)
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: The idea of entering within yourself and discovering the divine presence in your own heart – this indeed is fundamental (part two)
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: Here, I do notice a difference in approach or traditions. We would not say that the heart is God. We would say that the heart is in the centre of the created human person, so when we say ‘heart’, we see this as a part of our created human person - the point of union between the body, soul and spirit. We enter into communion with God through the heart, but cannot, therefore, say that the heart has become God. We would say that that the heart is where we meet God.
Michael James: I think you have written at one place you more or less enter the heart through silence. Be still and know that I am God. This is more or less what you were saying.
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: The whole tradition in the Orthodox Church is known as hasychasm, which comes from the Greek word which means stillness, inner silence. Here it is good to ask ‘what do you mean by silence?’ Silence doesn’t mean an absence of speech or a mere pause between words. By silence, we mean more than that. Silence is not negative but positive. It is not emptiness but fullness.
Michael James: Yes, absolutely.
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: Silence, therefore, is the way through which we enter into communion with God. Silence is the same as the attitude of waiting upon God – listening to him.
Michael James: Yes, I would agree with that absolutely. Though we may view it in different ways, silence is the very centre of the teachings of Bhagavan Ramana and to the path he has taught. As we enter deeper within ourself, we come to the deeper levels of silence. And as you say, within silence we find fullness. Silence is not emptiness; silence is fullness.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-05 Theosis and Jñāna: discussion between Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and Michael James (20:00)
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: The idea of entering within yourself and discovering the divine presence in your own heart – this indeed is fundamental (part three)
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: Here I might say how the Orthodox Christians enter into silence and that is through the invocation of the holy name or through what is known as the Jesus prayer. These are short invocations addressed to the second person of the trinity, most commonly known as Lord Jesus Christ – ‘Jesus Christ, son of God have mercy on me’. We can say. ‘have mercy on me, the sinner’. Or we may say ‘have mercy on us’. So we can have variations of this invocatory prayer.
This short form of prayer is given to us in the Hesychast tradition for frequent repetition and it is for many orthodox Christians the way into silence. It’s not helpful to say to people ‘stop thinking’. What we can do is to give our overactive mind a very simple task, which is the repetition of the Jesus prayer. Sometimes people call Jesus prayer a mantra, but I am not sure if that is entirely appropriate.
Michael James: There are different types of mantras that are used for different purposes. But the most basic mantra is the name of God or short prayers to God. Such prayers are very prevalent in Hindu tradition. So, I can understand clearly the appeal such a prayer has.
In my tradition, the efficacy of such prayers is acknowledged. The central practice as taught by Bhagavan Ramana is what is called atma-vichara (self-investigation), which basically means looking deep within oneself. This is now the mind is silenced. As you say, ‘you just can’t stop thinking' because the very effort to stop thinking is counterproductive. But if you look within yourself, the mind will automatically stop. It is because the mind is going outwards, it is thinking about outside things. When we turn our attention within to look deep within the heart, the mind is thereby silenced.
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: Yes, we too would attach importance to the idea of entering into ourselves. One of our saints said, ‘Enter eagerly the treasure house that is within you, for that is also the treasure house of God'. This is something which all our masters would affirm. So the idea of entering within yourself and discovering the divine presence in you – that is indeed fundamental.
Michael James: Yes, yes.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-05 Theosis and Jñāna: discussion between Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and Michael James (20:00)
Good one Wigbert..
Thanks :) i thought wigbert wrote it ..
When we go very deep in the practice of self-investigation, the breathing and the activities of the body will reduce to a considerable extent (part one)
A friend: I just read in your book HAB that the activities of our body, speech and mind come to a standstill when we are fully self-attentive. Could you please elaborate?
Michael: The context in which this subject arises is that of yoga. In yoga, they aim to restrain the mind by restraining the breath. Bhagavan says that the breath and the mind arise from the same source, so if one is restrained, the other is automatically restrained. Suppose, if you hear any shocking news, you say, ‘It took my breath away’ because at that moment your mind is so stunned, it doesn’t go anywhere else. So, if your mind is stunned, your breath also stops.
So the activity of the breath and mind are very closely related. If a person is in a very agitated or emotional state, they will be breathing rapidly, whereas if a person is in a calm state of mind, their breathing will be calm. So, yoga tries to take advantage of this and tries to calm the mind by restraining the breath. But Bhagavan doesn’t recommend the practice of breath-restrain because according to his teaching, if we turn our attention within, towards ‘I’, the mind will calm down automatically. The activity of the mind is outward-going, but when we turn our attention within, it automatically calms down, and to the extent the mind calms down, the breath also calms down.
When we go very deep in the practice of self-investigation, the breathing and the activities of the body will reduce to a considerable extent. When young Venkataraman had that death experience, he turned his mind within so keenly that for about 20 minutes his body lay there lifeless. It is written in many books that Venkataraman enacted death – that is he lay down like a corpse and enacted death. It wasn’t enactment.
When the fear of death came, Venkataraman wanted to know with the death of the body, will he also die. So he wanted to know whether ‘I’ will die along with the body. So he left his body as if it were a corpse and he turned his attention within so keenly that he thereby experienced himself as he really was, and he merged forever in his source. The ego that took that body Venkataraman to be ‘I’ merged forever in its source and what remained was Bhagavan.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~^~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (00:42)
I can truthfully and honestly tell you that once in I merged with with a memory. I was me at 43 and I had this memory come up that had always been with me. The recall of this memory happened only when a certain song played. I would remember the memory but just discard it.
This memory appeared out of nowhere and upon examination I found my self IN the memory. The feeling of “aliveness” the state of no-mind, no subject, no object.
The perceived and the perceiver are the same.
It was incredible. Here’s what I can tell you:
I heard music but it wasn’t separate from the background.
I had depth of field although there was no one to know that.
There was no differentiation between anything.
I cannot say there was any difference between “object” and “subject” because there was no recognition of there even being a body with which to “compare”.
There was color and it appeared 3D without the ability to even know any difference.
There was a sound which sounded distant (like someone doing the dishes) and the sound was heard as “further away” so that there was built in recognition of this sound being further away.
It was night.
The windows in the living room were open. Several table lamps. The atmosphere was warm (the lighting or hue of the bulbs) no recognition of comfort or no comfort.
Now I’ve saved the best for last: While merged with this memory I felt what it was like in that “body”looking through those eyes!!!
It was an energy that surged like a nuclear fire! It burned with beingness and that beingness was pure love. Incredible!
When ‘I’ became both the memory of “that”. I was also this ‘mind’! I can confirm true nature is that! And yet, the recognition of the “blank nothing” is also there. The instantaneous nothing/something was not reacted upon. Because the apparent manifestation was unable to be realized as something different than non manifestation.
It just wasn’t there.
Then it appeared.
Then it disappeared.
Only in this current ‘state’ can the mind give words or concepts to a ‘happening’. That is to say, this merging of what is seemingly two separate entities had to be felt as dualism in order for there to be recognition of “THAT”. Or any ability to even know there was that! So being completely ‘that’; it is not possible to know existence!!
How WILD!!
I do not know what to do about this it just happened. I wasn't meditating. Although I had been trying to figure out why this memory kept occurring. Now its just a shell of the memory. Insight gave way to words and all thats left is the resonance.
When I have posted this other places. I said I was meditating because it seemed to only avenue with which to not sound completely insane.
Im posting this here because I'm looking for insight. If I could get that from a disciple of Ramana that would be valid for me.
I understand this 'I' is a dream. So I know I am that which had been sought.
How could this happen?
please help me to understand.
When we go very deep in the practice of self-investigation, the breathing and the activities of the body will reduce to a considerable extent (part two)
Michael: Bhagavan sometimes spoke from the onlooker’s point of view. From onlooker’s point of view, his body was lying lifeless for about 20 minutes. But because that body had the destiny to play the role of a vehicle through which the guru would function, so after about 20 minutes suddenly there was a shock and the body came back to life. But what now shone through that body was only Bhagavan, our own real nature, the eternal guru.
That happened when Bhagavan was 16-years-old. During the next 16 years, such episodes happened occasionally because Bhagavan was so inward drawn that his body would become lifeless. But it was witnessed only on one occasion by someone else - that is in 1912 when Bhagavan was 32 years old (this was 16 years after Bhagavan’s first death experience). In most books, it is recorded that that was Bhagavan’s second death experience, but in later years Bhagavan clarified that was his last death experience. His last death experience happened on the rock called Aamai paarai or tortoise rock. But what happened in Madurai was the final – the end of the story, but what happened to his body later several times was a similar thing.
Such intense bodiless experiences can be experienced by us if we are able to turn our attention within very very deeply. Obviously, this won’t happen if we are driving a car or walking to work or waiting to catch a bus or something. But when we set aside time and we try to go deep within, and if we keep our attention fixed steadily on ourself, the breathing will subside and come almost to a standstill. But if we notice our breathing, it will start again because if we have noticed our breathing, our attention has gone away from ourself towards the body. So we won’t notice the lifelessness of our body if our attention is firmly fixed only on ourself.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~^~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (00:42)
When we go very deep in the practice of self-investigation, the breathing and the activities of the body will reduce to a considerable extent (part three)
Michael: So it is not something which is very significant, but it just something that happens. Just as if you restrain the breath, you will restrain the mind, if you restrain the mind, you will restrain the breath. By turning our attention back towards ourself, we are thereby restraining the mind, the outgoing activity of the mind. So if we turn our attention within so keenly, it may seem to the onlookers that our breathing has stopped – it may or may not, it doesn’t matter. But from our perspective, we will be lost forever in pure awareness. We will merge forever in pure awareness.
So for us, there will be no world or body or anything. What will remain is best described by Bhagavan in verse 28 of Upadesa Undiyar:
If one knows what the nature of oneself is, then [what will remain existing and shining is only] anādi [beginningless], ananta [endless, limitless or infinite] and akhaṇḍa [unbroken, undivided or unfragmented] sat-cit-ānanda [existence-awareness-happiness].
So eventually we will be aware of only anadi-ananta-akhanda sat-chit-ananda and nothing else. The body and the mind of the jnani exist only in the view of the ajnani. So when we say Bhagavan’s body lay there lifeless for about 20 minutes - that is only from our perspective, not in the view of the jnani.
~^~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (00:42)
Have the ancient texts described the correct meaning of the term ‘atma-vichara’? (part one)
Sanjay: Bhagavan teaches us in paragraph 16 of Nan Ar?:
Atma-vichara means keeping the mind in (or on) self.
I was wondering if other ancient Vedantic texts or Adi Shankara or others other sages have ever described atma-vichara is such clear terms. I believe Sri Adi Sankara says in verse 11 of Vivekachuḍamaṇi:
Karma [action] [is only] for cittasya ṣuddhi [purification of mind] but not for vastu-upalabdhi [acquisition or knowledge of the reality]. Vastu-siddhi [attainment of the reality] [is only] by vichāra [and] not in the least by karma-koṭi [tens of millions of actions].
Adi Shankara says, ‘Vastu-siddhi [attainment of the reality] [is only] by vichāra [and] not in the least by karma-koṭi [tens of millions of actions]’. Though this is in perfect accord with Bhagavan’s teachings, did Shankara describe what vichara is? One may easily take vichara to mean studying and thinking deeply about all the Vedantic texts and their commentaries and so on.
Michael: OK, it is true. Many scholars of advaita, which include many sannyasis and heads of mutts and so on, take vichara to mean studying Vedantic texts and commentaries on them. They think that these are the means to experience the direct experience of reality. Bhagavan has clearly repudiated this idea in the same 16th paragraph of Nan Ar?:
Since in every text [of advaita] it is said that for attaining mukti [liberation] it is necessary to make the mind cease, after knowing that manōnigraha [restraint, subjugation or destruction of the mind] alone is the ultimate intention [aim or purpose] of [such] texts, there is no benefit [to be gained] by studying texts without limit. For making the mind cease it is necessary to investigate oneself [to see] who [one actually is], [but] instead [of doing so] how [can one see oneself by] investigating in texts? It is necessary to know oneself only by one’s own eye of jñāna [knowledge or awareness]. Does [a person called] Raman need a mirror to know himself as Raman? ‘Oneself’ is within the pañca-kōśas [the ‘five sheaths’ that seem to cover and obscure what one actually is, namely the physical body, life, mind, intellect and will]; whereas texts are outside them. Therefore, investigating in texts [in order to know] oneself, whom it is necessary to investigate [by turning one’s attention within and thereby] setting aside [excluding, removing, giving up or separating from] all the pañca-kōśas, is useless.
So Bhagavan says very clearly here that it is ‘useless’. So the textural enquiry or investigation – the study of texts – that is taught as a means by many scholars and heads of advaitic mutts, according to Bhagavan, is ‘useless’.
(To be continued in my next comment)
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:27)
Have the ancient texts described the correct meaning of the term ‘atma-vichara’? (part two)
Michael: In the next sentence of the 16th paragraph of Nan Ar, Bhagavan says:
[By] investigating who is oneself who is in bondage, knowing one’s yathārtha svarūpa [actual own nature] alone is mukti [liberation]. The name ‘ātma-vicāra’ [refers] only to [the practice of] always keeping the mind in [or on] ātmā [oneself]; whereas dhyāna [meditation] is imagining oneself to be sat-cit-ānanda brahman [the absolute reality, which is being-consciousness-bliss].
That is a lot of people who think they can get jnana by studying texts. They think they have to read these texts and think very deeply ‘I am brahman’ or ‘I am pure awareness’ or ‘I am not this; I am that’. They think such thinking will take them to their goal.
An analogy is often given. A prince grows up among the peasants and when he grows up to a certain age, he is then told that ‘You are a prince, so you are the rightful owner of the kingdom’. But he will not become the king by merely repeating ‘I am the king’, ‘I am the king’. He has to go and assert his rights to the throne. So, likewise, we have to turn within and investigate ourself. Merely thinking ‘I am brahman’ or ‘I am pure awareness’ doesn’t enable ourself to experience ourself as such. We can experience ourself as such only by turning our attention within and by fixing our mind only on ourself.
So the question is whether this is clearly described in the ancient texts? I have limited knowledge about the ancient texts, so I am not qualified to answer this. But I would say if it had been clearly explained that vichara means turning the mind within and fixing it on ourself, then all the scholars of advaita who teach that vichara means to investigate and study the texts would not interpret it that way. Their own texts would tell them, ‘no, that is not vichara’. So I suspect it hasn’t been explained so clearly elsewhere.
However, though it is not referred to as ‘vichara’, the practice that Bhagavan taught us has very clearly been expressed by Sri Krishna in the two verses of Bhagavad Gita (chapter 6, verses 25 and 26). Bhagavan included these verses in his Bhagavad Gita Saram, which is a collection of 42 verses from the Bhagavad Gita.
Bhagavad Gita verse 6.25 (verse 27 of Bhagavad Gita Saram):
By [an] intellect [a power of discrimination or discernment] imbued with firmness [steadfastness, resolution, persistence or courage] one should gently and gradually withdraw [one’s mind] from [all] activity. Having made [one’s] mind stand firm in atman, one should not think even a little of anything else.
Bhagavad Gita verse 6.26 (verse 28 of Bhagavad Gita Saram):
Wherever the ever-wavering and unsteady mind goes, restraining [or withdrawing] it from there one should subdue it [by always keeping it firmly fixed] only in atman.
So slowly-slowly we have got to wean our mind off its habit of going outwards and turn it within and achieve motionlessness. How to achieve motionlessness? We can do so by making the mind or attention fixed in ourself. So fixing our attention on ourself – that is the practice that Bhagavan has taught us, and that is what Krishna teaches us here.
(To be continued in my next comment)
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:27)
Have the ancient texts described the correct meaning of the term ‘atma-vichara’? (part three)
Michael: Sri Krishna says, ‘one should not think even a little of anything else’. So we have to fix our attention only on ourself and withdraw it from everything else. But this is not something which we can achieve overnight. We need a slow and steady practice. So however many times our attention wanders away towards other things, we have to withdraw it from those things and fix it on ourself. That is how we make the mind achieve motionlessness.
So the practice of atma-vichara is very clearly described in these verses of Bhagavad Gita. So it is there in the ancient texts, but many of the scholars don’t understand that this is what is meant by the term ‘vichara’.
But there is a clue in verse 11 of Vivekachudamani that you refer to. Krishna says that vastu-siddhi or attainment of reality is only by vichara and not in the least by any crores of karmas. From this, we have to understand that vichara is not a karma or action. Here ‘action’ can be interpreted in two ways. One way is to interpret it as a ritualistic action, but that’s rather a limited way. Karma or action actually means all types of actions. So action of any kind whatsoever will not enable us to achieve vastu-siddhi. What does it imply? It implies that vichara is not an action.
So studying texts, listening to lectures, these are actions. As long as our attention goes away from ourself, that’s an action. Vichara is turning our attention back towards ourself. That’s not an action. That’s the cessation of all actions. Actions are done by ego. So first, ego must rise and then act. When we turn our attention back towards ourself, ego begins to subside. So vichara is the cessation of action and not an action.
That’s why vichara is the key to liberation – the key to attaining vastu-siddhi.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:27)
Sanjay, from your last comments, "But if we notice our breathing, it will start again because if we have noticed our breathing, our attention has gone away from ourself towards the body. So we won’t notice the lifelessness of our body if our attention is firmly fixed only on ourself."
Yes, that is a very significant point and one of the core elements of Bhagavan's teaching. There are many spiritual practices where the attention is supposed to go to a variety of things but self. How can one realize self when the attention goes elsewhere [but self]? If that is the breath, a visualization, or simply "watching phenomena" as a witness. These practices cannot work, they can only be a preliminary technique until one switches to atma-vichara.
The depth of Bhagavan's teaching is incredible, simple and simultaneously extremely deep and all-encompassing.
Salazar, I fully agree, 'The depth of Bhagavan's teaching is incredible, simple and simultaneously extremely deep and all-encompassing'.
Human birth is special, so we shouldn’t waste the opportunity we have now (part one)
Sanjay: As I had informed you, Bhagavan’s grace is enabling me to discuss Bhagavan’s teachings with a friend called Saravanapavan who is based in New Zealand. He also attends your Zoom meetings and watches your videos.
Today, he explained that it is said in the scriptures we need three things to know God, and these are a human birth, an intense desire for liberation and a competent guru to guide us on this journey. He said we are fortunate to have all three. I told him that such things are written in the scriptures, but Bhagavan didn’t consider human birth to be anything special. Obviously, the other two criteria are important. That is, we do need an intense desire for freedom and a real sadguru to guide us back home. I gave him the example of cow Lakshmi. She attained liberation being in the cow body, so our human body is not a must for liberation.
I told him that the human body is different from any other types of animal bodies only because we have a superior intellect. But such an evolved intellect is a two-way sword. It can help us by showing us the correct path to liberation, but it can also lead us astray if it acts like brahma flying high and high in search of the peak of the Annamalai. So the intellect more often than not becomes a hindrance.
My friend was not fully satisfied with my answer. If you consider fit, could you please give your views on our discussion and give your opinion on this matter?
Michael: I don’t think it would be correct to say that Bhagavan didn’t consider human birth to be anything special. Generally, it is said that human birth is something special. That doesn’t mean that it is absolutely essential for liberation. However, cow Lakshmi was a rare exception. We may hear other examples like that, but generally, it is said that human birth is most favourable for liberation.
Lakshmi probably had a human birth prior to her birth as Lakshmi. She was born as a cow because of her love for Bhagavan. Bhagavan never confirmed but whenever he talked about Lakshmi, he would also talk about Keerai Patti. Keerai Patti was an old lady who would wander over the hill and collect keerai – keerai means spinach and other edible greens. She used to cook those greens for Bhagavan and serve Bhagavan. She had a great love for Bhagavan. Shortly after she passed away, Lakshmi was born. Because when Bhagavan talked about Lakshmi, he also talked about Keerai Patti, many believed that Lakshmi was Keerai Patti returned as a cow to continue her devotion to Bhagavan.
The love between Bhagavan and Lakshmi was extraordinary. Bhagavan’s love was totally impartial – he had equal love for all. But somehow Bhagavan’s bond with Lakshmi was something special. Some remarkable things happened. For example, every year for several years in a row, the day Bhagavan’s jayanthi was celebrated Lakshmi gave birth to a calf. Some people may take that to be miraculous and some people may take that to be a coincidence, but it’s significant because it shows the strong and close connection between Lakshmi and Bhagavan. So Lakshmi is a very very exception.
(To be continued in my next comment)
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:40)
Correction:
So Lakshmi is a very very rare exception.
Human birth is special, so we shouldn’t waste the opportunity we have now (part two)
Michael: Generally, it is said that human birth is very favourable for attaining liberation, and we have different explanations for this. One of the explanations is that in human birth, we can clearly distinguish between our three states of waking, dream, and sleep, whereas animals cannot distinguish waking and dream. For them, when they wake up from a dream into this present waking state, it seems to be a continuation of the same state. But we are able to distinguish – ‘Oh, that was a different state and this is a different state’. Though according to Bhagavan, this is also a dream, we are able to distinguish ‘that was a different dream, and this is a different dream’. So that’s about animals.
About the devas, the higher beings who dwell in heavens or wherever, it is said that they never experience sleep. So they are in a state of perpetual waking. Since waking means dreaming, so they are perpetually dreaming. So because they don’t experience sleep, they are not able to distinguish as we can that we exist and are aware of our existence even when we are not aware of this body and world. So that is why human birth is said to be superior.
But we don’t have to be concerned about all these things. Obviously, it is necessary to have an intense desire for liberation, and for the vast majority of us, having a guru in human form is also necessary. In the case of Bhagavan, his guru was Arunachala, so he never had a guru in a human form. This was because Bhagavan was able to understand the silent teachings of Arunachala, so even before coming to Arunachala, Arunachala worked within his mind and turned his attention within at the time of his fear of death.
So Arunachala did its work even before Bhagavan had seen the physical form of Arunachala. But that again is an exception. For most of us, we need a guru in a human form. That is because since our attention is turned outwards, the guru has to appear outside in a human form to tell us, ‘Turn within. What you are seeking doesn’t exist outside. It exists in you as you. You are that’. So guru in human form is necessary for most of us.
Regarding human birth, one of the reasons why it is stressed about the importance of human birth is that we shouldn't waste this opportunity we have now. Whether human birth is superior to birth in an animal body or not, let us not be concerned about that. Now we have a human birth, so every moment we have is a precious opportunity to turn within. That is most important.
Regarding what you say about the intellect, yes, if we allow our intellects to go outwards, to do anantma-vichara or to investigate the world (loka-vichara) or to investigate anything other than ourself - that is a misuse of our intellect. Intellect means the power of discrimination and judgement. In the clear power of discrimination or judgement, we will know the correct use of our intellect. We should use it to investigate ourself alone and not to investigate things other than ourself.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:40)
Bhagavan’s death-experience
Sanjay: While explaining Bhagavan’s death experience, you often say that when young Venkataraman had that intense fear of death, he feared to lose his own existence and did not fear to lose anything else. That is, as a boy of 16 when he had that intense fear of death, he clung to himself with so much intensity only because he was only concerned about losing his existence. All his other desires and attachments were like a thin veil, and therefore these vasanas were not a hindrance to his clinging to himself.
My question is what you mean by ‘he feared to lose his existence’? Since he experienced himself as Venkataraman at that moment, did he fear to lose his existence as Venkataraman or did he fear to lose his pure existence ‘I am’? I would be grateful if you could clarify this.
Michael: Well, we don’t know what exactly Bhagavan said, but what has been recorded about what he said about his death is as follows. He clarified that when the fear of death came to him it didn’t happen in thoughts, but it all happened in a flash. But he described it in terms of his thought – ‘Now this body is dead. With the death of the body, will I also die?’ So what he wanted to know was ‘When this body dies, will I also die?’
So he clearly understood the distinction between his body and himself. He had clearly decided that his body is dead, so Venkataraman is dead, but with the death of the body, will ‘I’ also die? So when I said Venkataraman feared to lose his existence, his existence as Venkataraman was not his real existence. That was only a seeming existence. His real existence and the real existence of all of us is the pure awareness ‘I am’. So that is what Venkataraman feared to lose.
The context in which I sometimes explain this is normally when people get the fear of death, they begin to think about what is most dear to them. So they may begin to think about their family, their job, their status in society and such things. Those things are important to them, so they cling to those things. Whereas, in the case of Bhagavan, he wasn’t attached to anything external to himself, so when the fear of death came, he turned his attention within and clung to himself alone.
So Venkataraman clearly knew the distinction between ‘I’ and Venkataraman. So when this body dies, what happens to this ‘I’? That is what he sought to find out and that is what he found out. That what is shining in each and every one of us is the eternal reality. That alone is what is always real, ever unchanging. Bhagavan gave us the definition of reality as follows. What is real has to be eternal, unchanging and self-shining.
So what is eternal is only ‘I’. What is unchanging is only ‘I’. All other things change. ‘I’ alone remains unchanging, so that is what he clung to.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:01)
Bhagavan’s blessing
A friend: Michael, more than a question, I seek your blessings because the ultimate answer to every question is ‘who is asking this question?’ I really need your blessing, so that I can follow this path.
Michael: The only one who can bless you is Bhagavan. I am in the same boat as you are. I am just an ordinary spiritual aspirant, so I am unqualified to bless you.
Bhagavan is always blessing us, but we derive the benefits of his blessings to the extent we turn within and subside. However difficult it may seem to be, we just have to continue trying. So long as we are trying to the best of our ability, he would take care of everything else. So Bhagavan’s grace and blessing are never lacking. They are always there. He is always providing us with all the help that we require.
He has given us a small responsibility – 'try to follow what he taught us, try to surrender ourself to him'. He will take care of everything else. Even if we don’t turn our attention within and don’t surrender ourself, he is still taking care of everything. But the more we yield ourself to him by turning our attention within, the less we are obstructing the work of his grace.
The friend: Thank you very much, Michael.
Michael: So if you want blessings, ask Bhagavan. Bhagavan is always blessing you, but the benefit of asking his blessing is that to that extent you are willing to yield yourself to his blessings. So we are asking Bhagavan not because he does not know that we need his blessings, he knows what we need better than we know it. But by praying to him we are giving our consent. We are accepting how dependent we are on his grace.
The friend: Thank you.
Michael: And prayer definitely has its place. Bhagavan has sung so many beautiful prayers in Arunachala Stuti Panchakam. If we want to know how to pray properly, Bhagavan has clearly taught us how to pray properly. Bhagavan has clearly taught us in ASP, what we should pray for and how we should pray for.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:47)
The basis of all experiences is consciousness
Michael James: A lot of scientists believe nowadays that everything is physical or material. They believe even consciousness is the product of the brain and if consciousness is the product of the brain, so is love and compassion and everything else. But if we understand Bhagavan’s teachings, we will understand the absurdity of that type of view.
What do we experience first? The basis of all experiences is consciousness. So to say that consciousness is a product of physical evolution is obviously absurd. We are aware of the appearance of the physical world only because we are conscious. So we cannot doubt consciousness. This material world could be doubted because it could be no more than just a dream. Bhagavan has given us sufficient reasons to understand that our real nature is consciousness and not anything physical.
What we actually are is just the fundamental nature of our own existence ‘I am’. That is what is real. That is what we actually are. That is what remains in sleep when we have severed all our connections with our body and mind. So love and compassion are our real nature, they are not a product of evolution. The scientific theory of evolution applies to the evolution of physical matter, but if all this is just a dream, all our ideas about evolution is not correct.
Science is fine within a certain sphere. So long as this world seems to be real, science seems to be real, but if all this is just a dream, which Bhagavan says it is, then all science is just meaningless. Science can tell us about the world-appearance. It cannot tell us about the reality that lies behind this world-appearance. The reality is pure awareness or consciousness, which is infinite happiness and infinite love. Science has no clue about this reality.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-25 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:57)
Are onions, garlic, tea, coffee and pungent foods sattvic or non-sattvic? (part one)
Michael James: What is meant by sattvika food is interpreted differently by different people, but I believe the most important criteria is ahimsa (non-harming of other living beings). Whatever food we consume should have been produced without causing harm to other living beings. So, obviously, meat, eggs and other such foods are out. Bhagavan said that eating meat, eggs and such foods is definitely non-sattvic and against all spiritual paths. Causing harm to others because we relish eating such foods is totally unjustified.
Some people, particularly in yoga, do far more research on these things. They believe onions, garlic, radish and other similar vegetables are not sattvic. Bhagavan didn’t attach importance to that. He used to cook onions and garlic in the ashram. Though orthodox brahmins consider onion and garlic to be very wrong, Bhagavan by his example showed us that he didn’t attach too much importance to such things.
As I said, my own interpretation is that what is most important in ahimsa. It’s the ethical criterion that is most important. If we are eating food which is being produced by causing harm to other sentient beings, that cannot be sattvic. About onions and garlic, if they don’t agree with you, by all means give them up. We should not have hard-and-fast rules here. Obviously, we each have to find out for ourselves which types of food are conducive to our sattvic state of mind. To some onions and garlic disturb them but to many of us, it doesn’t really make any difference.
I think yogis attach a lot of importance to these things because their path is different. They are trying to forcibly control their mind; whereas, the path of self-investigation is the true path of love and surrender. So in this path, we are not trying to control the mind by force. We are trying to turn our attention within by love. So by the example Bhagavan set, we should not be concerned about onion and garlic.
(To be continued in my next comment)
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-25 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:46)
Are onions, garlic, tea, coffee and pungent foods sattvic or non-sattvic? (part two)
Michael James: You say that when you eat meat you feel less proud spiritually and less holier-than-thou. The way to feel less proud spiritually and less holier-than-thou is not by avoiding eating meat. For this, we need to keep our ego in check by trying to turn it within as frequently and as much as possible. If we are truly following the path of self-investigation and self-surrender, we will give no room for the feeling of pride or holier-than-thou.
Yes, we don’t eat meat, but other people eat meat. That doesn’t make us better than them. We have been given the clarity to understand that eating meat is causing harm to other people. To some people, this just doesn’t strike, so we shouldn’t feel holier-than-thou. Grace has enabled us to understand that eating meat under any circumstances is bad.
Regarding the plant-based foods, not all plant-based foods are sattvic. Cocaine is a drug which comes from plants, but it’s obviously not sattvic. So just because your food is a plant-based food doesn’t make it sattvic. However, generally, most of the plants that we consume as foods rather than as drugs are more or less sattvic.
A lot of people take tea and coffee. Very strict yogis would say that is not sattvic. I personally don’t take tea and coffee because it doesn’t appeal to me. However, Bhagavan drank tea or coffee in the ashram. So I don’t think these are seriously non-sattvic foods. Another thing people say is about pungent foods. Some people advice not to take food with a lot of chillies or salt or such things. That is where mita (moderation) comes in. Taking chillies and such things in moderate quantity may be OK, but it may not be good for the body and mind if consumed in excess.
So all Bhagavan said is mita sattvika ahara-niyama is the best among all aids. We have to interpret this according to our own understanding. All teachings are open to interpretation. We understand them according to our own level of understanding.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-25 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:46)
Salazar, I think our (human being’s) natural food is fruits, vegetables and nuts in its natural form. Of course, we cook food because of our addiction to cooked food. I believe we can adapt ourself to consuming a fully uncooked or sun-cooked diet. It is a matter of will power and habit. However, as spiritual aspirants, we cannot be fussy about this. We should accept whatever grace provides to us. However, if given a choice we should tend towards choosing unprocessed food in its raw form.
Our human bodies are best suited to digest fruits in their natural form. Moreover, fruits are the most sattvic fruits because nature provides us with fruits for our consumption. We have a symbiotic relationship with fruits. When we consume fruits, we get the best possible nourishment, but we also help the fruits in the distribution of its seeds. So our natural food is fruits in its natural form. Not everyone may agree with this.
Bhagavan’s body was a temple in which he lived for fifty-four years
A friend: If we 'realised' one leaves his body, we build a samadhi on his tomb and do rituals on it. What is the significance of building a temple on his samadhi and worshipping it? We know Bhagavan was not that body, so why worship that remains body?
Michael James: Yes, Bhagavan is not his body, but that body was the temple in which he lived for fifty-four years giving us his teachings. So according to Tirumular, one of the ancient Tamil siddhas, the body of the jnani should be considered the temple of God, and hence it’s not appropriate to cremate it. In India, Hindu custom is generally cremation, but for the jnani, they don’t cremate the body. They at least follow this custom in South India, especially those who follow Tirumular. They bury the body of the jnani and build a temple over it. They consider the body of the jnani to be a temple – a temple on which God walked on earth, so to speak.
So it’s appropriate to worship the tomb or the samadhi of the jnani. That’s why the body of Bhagavan and some of his close devotees have been buried and are duly worshipped. That is appropriate, but again if we worship Bhagavan’s shrine and we are doing it out of love, we need not consider that to be a ritual. It’s just a simple expression of our love. Ritual worship also goes on there, and that is also appropriate for those who do it. However, we need not give much importance to the rituals if we are following Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation and self-surrender.
If we are fortunate to go to Tiruvannamalai, we can go to Bhagavan’s shrine. We can prostrate before it. We can walk around it or sit quietly in front of it. We can worship it whatever way appeals to us. However, we need not consider all these to be rituals. We are just expressing our love for Bhagavan. Just as if we had been there in his bodily lifetime, we would have liked to spend some time in his company. We would have liked to sit at his feet, look at him or whatever because of our love for him. So it’s natural that it continues even now.
~•~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:56)
When the fruit is ripe, it drops from the tree
A friend: Bhagavan had the immense fear of death at the point of his manonasa. I am concerned that if we reach that point, we will turn back and not go through with it and end it all. How can we make sure that fear doesn’t hold us back at that stage?
Michael James: So long as there is desire, there will be fear. So fear and desire are inseparable. If you desire life, you will fear death. If you desire to be very rich, you will fear to lose all your money. So fear is inseparable from desire. So long as we have desires and attachments, we will not be willing to surrender ourself. Only when our desires and attachments are reduced considerably and only when our love to be as we actually are overwhelms those desires and attachments, will we be finally willing to surrender completely.
So even now it is fear that is holding us back. We could experience our real nature here and now if we are willing to let go of everything else. It is only because we have desires for everything else that we fear to lose everything else. So call it fear or call it desire, it amounts to the same thing. That is what is holding us back. By practising self-
investigation and self-surrender, by repeatedly trying to turn our attention within, we are slowly weakening our desires and attachments and strengthening our love to know ourself.
So, eventually, if we follow this path with perseverance and diligence, we will certainly reach a point where we will be willing to surrender ourself. So we shouldn’t be concerned about ‘will fear hold me back?’ When we are ready, the fear won’t hold us back. When the fruit is ripe, it drops from the tree.
The friend: Yes, Michael, but I have a whole lot of fear that I don’t want to come back again. I want this to be my final life.
Michael James: If we are wise, we would fear to continue existing as ego even now. Why think about the problems which may experience in the future if we come back again? Being here and now as this ego is a problem, and we should tackle this problem here and now. It is because as long as like to exist as ego, we would also like to come back as ego again and again and again. So surrender cannot be in the future. Surrender has to be here and now.
So we can do sadhana only in the present moment. We shouldn’t be thinking about ‘Do I have to take rebirth? or ‘How many rebirths will I have to take?’ Such thoughts are anatma-vichara. That’s turning our attention away from ourself. We need to turn our attention back towards ourself – ‘Who am I now?’ We should not think ‘Who will I be in the future? or ‘Who was I in the past?’ Who am I here and now? So only at the present moment we can experience what we actually are.
The friend: That’s true! But even the fear not to be born again and again is a very strong desire to get it done this time.
Michael James: That’s good. If that motives you, that’s very good, but don’t think about the future. Think about the present. That’s the solution.
# Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:05)
Bhagavan is the guru of all gurus
Michael James: Some teachers of Advaita, who consider themselves traditional Vedantins, think that Bhagavan is not a proper guru because he never studied Upanishads and the commentaries on them. They do not consider Bhagavan to be guru because, according to them, he never had a guru. But actually, Bhagavan is the guru of all gurus. Bhagavan is Arunachala himself, and Arunachala is Dakshinamurti, the adi-guru. So if anyone feels that Bhagavan’s path is in any way inadequate, they are just expressing their ignorance. So we need not be concerned about them.
Yes, eventually, according to Bhagavan, we will all return to our source, but how quickly we will return to our source depends on the degree to which we have surrendered.
Some of us have got a strong ego and feel that ‘I am following a superior path’. But we are not really on a superior path as long as we such an attitude. So long as we have such an ego, we are delaying our progress. We progress on the spiritual path to the extent our ego subsides. So we are in no better position than anyone else. Only when we understand that, are we beginning to follow the spiritual path.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:59)
Thanks, Karen. As you say, 'All praise to Arunachala Siva!'. We are nothing. What is real is only Arunachala Siva.
The greatest good we can do for this world is to turn our attention within and thereby subside back into our source
Michael James: Actions are not love. Actions may be expressions of love. If we want to do good in this world, we have to be good. In the last paragraph of Nan Ar, Bhagavan says:
To whatever extent sinking low [subsiding or being humble] we proceed [or conduct ourself], to that extent there is goodness [benefit or virtue].
So if we want to do good in this world, the greatest good we can do is to turn our attention within and thereby subside back into our source. Instead of that if we rise as ego and think that ‘I am going to do good in this world’ or ‘I am going to help this person’ or ‘I am going to help that person’, we will face all sorts of difficulties. The greatest good we can do is to surrender ourself completely. If we surrender ourself completely, then we can leave it to Bhagavan to take care of the world.
He knows how to take care of the world better than we do, so we shouldn’t be concerned about the world. In the 19th paragraph of Nan Ar Bhagavan says:
It is not appropriate to let [one’s] mind [dwell] excessively on worldly matters. To the extent possible, it is not appropriate to intrude in other’s affairs.
So the work that has been given to us by Bhagavan is to turn within and thereby surrender ourself completely. Of course, when we rise as ego we interact with the world and there are problems. In the ordinary course, we try to help other people when our help is needed. Even if we want to help others, we can’t help those who are not willing to be helped.
What we think is good for others, but they may not think it is good for them. So helping others and trying to do good to others is a minefield. We are walking through a minefield. So it is best to follow the path that Bhagavan has taught us, which is devoting our attention to turning within and trying to know ourself thereby surrender ourself completely.
This is not being irresponsible. This is leaving the entire burden to Bhagavan, who knows how to solve the problems of the world better than we do. What the problems of the world? Problems come and go. Every problem has its own solution within it. What was a problem last year is no longer a problem this year. What is a problem now, we would have forgotten about it in a year’s time. So the world is ever-changing. The one thing which is constant and real in this unreal world is ‘I am’. That is what we should cling to. That is what we should be concerned about.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:54)
Help to others
A friend: Please comment on helping others or charity work – doing punya. These will bring good karma to us, but we have to be born again to experience such karma.
Michael James: We shouldn’t go out seeking to help others, but when the occasion arises, when someone comes for our help, we help in a normal way. But that is not our aim. If it is our destiny to help others, we will help them. If it is their destiny to be helped by us, they will be helped by us. We need not be concerned about such things. Our only concern should be to surrender ourself.
Bhagavan says when one parameshvara Shakti is driving all karyas, why should we instead of surrendering ourself to that be constantly be thinking ‘it is necessary to do this; it is necessary to do that’? What is to be done he will make us do. Let us leave to him all concerns about actions. Our only concern should be to turn our attention within and surrender ourself to him.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:51)
Shraddha ceremony
A friend: Will our shraddha ceremony which we are asked to do for our ancestors liberate them or benefit them in any way. What benefit will it bring to us? What will be the consequences of not doing it?
Michael James: Hindus do certain rituals when their elders pass away - first 10 days and then yearly ritual ceremonies. These are called shraddha or sraddha ceremony. When someone asked Bhagavan whether it is good to do such things, Bhagavan replied, ‘yes, it is good for those who do it’. That is these rituals are good for the doers of these rituals. They are doing it someone else, so the action which we do for others is good for us. Bhagavan says in the final sentence of the 19th paragraph of Nan Ar?:
All that one gives to others, one is giving only to ourself. If everyone knew this truth, who indeed would refrain from giving?
So we are in effect doing these shraddha rituals only for ourself, so it will benefit only ourself. For example, if we are born in a brahmin family, all these things may be expected of us. But these rituals are no longer important if we come to the true spiritual path. Once we come to the path of surrender, all such rituals become superfluous. If we continue doing them due to the expectation of our family, there is no harm in doing them, but these are no longer needed or important.
If we are on the path of surrender, we have gone beyond the need of all rituals. But there is no harm in the rituals continuing if that is appropriate to the circumstances in which we find ourself in.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:53)
What is for you, won’t go by you (part one)
Michael James: Sue referred to Sanjay’s question regarding a dispute in the property with his cousins and whether Sanjay should fight for his rights. She says ‘listening to the gentleman who has this dispute with his family over land, I think bullies seem to always benefit. It may be a challenge when this happens, especially to forget injustice’.
The world is full of injustices, and most of us see injustice even in our own family. Some people get more than their fair share. This is just the way of the world. If we are following the spiritual path, we shouldn’t attach importance to material things. What we are destined to get we will get, and what we are not destined to get we will not get. So nobody can get what they are not destined to get.
As I mentioned to Sanjay while answering his question, a proverb is often repeated in Scotland: ‘What is for you, won’t go by you’. That is what you are destined to get, you can’t fail to get. It will definitely come to you.
So if we understand that everything is happening according to prarabdha, and prarabdha is Bhagavan’s sweet will, we don’t have to be concerned about these things. Ultimately, how does it matter if someone gets more than their fair share? How long will they be able to keep that? People spend their whole life trying to accumulate wealth and property or whatever, but one day we have to leave all these things. So why should we struggle so much for these things? Why should we have so much concern for these things?
If we want to live a peaceful and happy life, we need to surrender ourself completely – surrender all concerns about things other than ourself. Generally speaking, Bhagavan provides for all of us what we need. So long as we have got food, clothing and shelter, what more do we need? So long as the basic needs of our life are provided, we shouldn’t bother about other things. And if the basic needs of our life are not provided, that is also our destiny. So we should take that also to be Bhagavan’s sweet will.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:25)
What is for you, won’t go by you (part two)
Michael James: The world is full of injustice. Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, has a net worth of 193 billion USD. He is wealthier than many countries, but what is the use of all that wealth? He is still greedy. He is still exploiting people who work in his warehouses. However much wealth people may have, they are never satisfied. So why should we hanker for wealth and all these things? These are all trivial, insubstantial things.
Sue: It was not so much about wealth. It was more about personal attitude.
Michael James: Yes, I understand, but we just have to accept people as they are. If we are not as greedy as our siblings or cousins, we have to take to be a blessing. By Bhagavan’s grace, we are freed of that greediness. We should take it that way and feel sorry for our cousins for their greediness (if such is the case). In every family, we find people who are more avaricious. The avaricious people are not the happy ones. To the extent we are free of avariciousness, to that extent we are happy. So we should feel pity for our cousins.
As Bhagavan said, however bad other people may seem to be, it is not proper to dislike them. Likes and dislikes are both fit to be disliked. That’s what Bhagavan says in the 19th paragraph of Nan Ar. So we should learn to love people in spite of all their shortcomings.
We are all to a greater or lesser extent selfish. That’s human nature. So long as we rise as ego, the seeds of selfishness are there in us. By Bhagavan’s grace, we may be a little bit less selfish than others, but the seeds of selfishness are still within us. So let us focus on getting rid of our ego. We cannot solve other people’s problems. We can only solve our own problem by investigating ourself and thereby surrendering this ego.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:25)
Who knows God?
The principle way taught by Bhagavan Ramana is atma-vichara, which means self-attentiveness or looking deep within ourself. Vichara means an investigation. So we learn the way as we go within. The deeper we go, the clearer the way becomes. So it is not possible to adequately express it in words.
But if we enter the heart seriously, it seems to be difficult. Our mind seems to be drawing us out towards other things. So the other side of the coin of self-investigation is self-surrender. We cannot truly practise self-investigation without self-surrender. The deeper we go within, the more we are letting go of our desires, attachments, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears and so on. Not only that, but the deeper we go within we are also letting go off the ‘I’ who has these desires, attachments, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears and so on.
In this process, we approach the point of total self-surrender, where according to traditional Advaita as taught by Bhagavan Ramana, we merge like ice in the water. We melt back into the source from which we have come and cease to be anything other than that. It is not that we know God. We give ourself wholly to God, and God alone remains. And who knows God? Only God knows God, and we partake of that by losing ourself in God, by merging in God.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-05 Theosis and Jñāna: discussion between Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and Michael James (49:00)
Spiritual significance of Arunachla (part one)
A friend: What is the spiritual significance of Arunachala? I guess Bhagavan says it is Shiva itself, but what does that mean?
Michael: So long as we experience ourself as a form, we cannot experience God as formless. If we want to experience God as formless, we need to experience our real nature, which is formless. Then we will find that God is nothing other than ourself. So because we have limited ourself to the form of a body, it is appropriate to worship God in form because we can’t know God as formless until we know ourself as form. So it is appropriate to worship God and guru also as a form.
Just like Bhagavan is the human form of God and guru for us, Arunachala is seen as God and guru in the form of the mountain. Bhagavan very explicitly in some of his five hymns to Arunachala addresses Arunachala as his guru. In one verse he sings: ‘Arunachala, shine as my guru destroying all my defects and giving me all the good qualities’. Here ‘defects’ means rising as ego and ‘good qualities’ means being just as we actually are. So for Bhagavan, Arunachala was his guru.
In another verse, Bhagavan reveals what Arunachala taught to him, He says, ‘Turning within, daily (or constantly) see yourself with the inner eye; it will be known. Thus you taught my Arunachala’. But obviously, Bhagavan didn’t teach that in words. Arunachala teaches through silence, so Bhagavan was able to understand the silent teachings of Arunachala, and what Arunachala taught through silence, Bhagavan taught through words. So Arunachala is God and guru.
So when Bhagavan said Arunachala is Shiva himself, it means Arunachala is God himself. Just like Bhagavan appears to us in a human form, but he is not that form. He is the formless reality, but so long as we take ourself to be a body, that body is what seems to us to be Bhagavan. So Arunachala and Bhagavan are one and the same. Our own self has appeared outwardly in the form of Bhagavan and the form of Arunachala to act as the guru to turn our attention back within.
Why does Arunachala appear in the form of a hill? It is in order to turn our attention back within. Bhagavan revealed that the form of Arunachala has an extraordinary power to turn the mind back within. So that’s the importance of Arunachala. In verse 11 of Padigam, Bhagavan sings:
I have seen a wonder, this magnetic hill which forcibly attracts the soul! Having suppressed the mischievous activities of the soul who has thought of it even once, having drawn that soul to face towards Itself, the one, and having made it motionless (achala) like itself, it feeds upon that sweet (pure and ripened) soul. What a wonder this is! O souls, be saved by thinking of this great Arunagiri, the destroyer of the soul (the ego) who shines in the heart!
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:20)
Spiritual significance of Arunachla (part two)
Michael: So we can see in Arunachala Stuti Panchakam that Bhagavan is constantly mixing the seeming devotion for an outward form with the seeming devotion for turning within. Though in verse 10 of Padigam, he refers to Arunachala as the great Aruna hill, he says it shines in the heart. So he is referring both to the outward form of Arunachla and the reality of Arunachala what is shining in us as ‘I’. He refers to Arunachala as a killer of the soul.
In Hinduism, there are many Gods and each form has its own speciality. So if you want wealth, you go and worship Venkateshwara in Tirupati, and if there are obstacles in your life, you worship Ganesha, and he will remove the obstacles. So every name and form has some speciality. The speciality of Arunachala is the destruction of ego. In the very first verse of Arunachala Aksharamanamalai, Bhagavan sings, ‘O, Arunachala you root out the egos of those who think of you in the heart (or those who think Arunachala is ‘I’). So the sole purpose of Arunachala is to destroy ego.
The friend: OK, so was Arunachala more special than other hills around? If it is all a dream and if it is all a projection, why is one hill better than another?
Michael: It’s all a dream. It’s all a projection, but don’t you think Bhagavan is in some way special?
The friend: Yes!
Michael: Just like Bhagavan is special for us, Arunachala is special for Bhagavan. So since Arunachla is special for Bhagavan, Arunachala is special for us. One of the holiest mountains is said to be Mount Kailash in the Himalayas. But Bhagavan used to say that whereas Mount Kailash is the abode of Shiva, Arunachala is Shiva himself. As far as I know, there is no other mountain that is worshipped as a form of God – not just as an abode of God but as God in the form of a hill.
We easily relate to Gods in human forms. For most people, it is easy to relate to the forms of Rama, Krishna, Jesus and so on. But Arunachala is a very abstract form. To worship a mountain as God is a very abstract form to attribute to God. But a mountain is something which is motionless and is silent. So it is an outward symbol of our real nature, which is motionless pure awareness.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:20)
Spiritual significance of Arunachla (part three)
Michael: So we cannot adequately answer in words ‘What is the spiritual significance of Arunachala?’ We can only explain by our mind, but Arunachala is something beyond the mind. Arunachala is special, but we cannot adequately explain it in rational terms.
But we should remember the great love that Bhagavan had for Arunachala, so if we want to understand what is special about Arunachala, it is only by love that we can find it out. Many of us would not have been attracted to Arunachala if it were not for Bhagavan. So the more our love for Bhagavan deepens, the more we will come to understand his love for Arunachala.
According to Bhagavan, Arunachala is pure love. He says in one verse of Aksharamanamalai, ‘Like ice in water, melt me as love in you, the form of love’. So Arunachala is nothing but our real nature, So only when we know ourself as we really are, will we really know BHagavan, will we really know Arunachala.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:20)
Correction:
So Arunachala is nothing but our real nature. So only when we know ourself as we really are, will we really know Bhagavan, will we really know Arunachala.
Sanjay,
thank you for your recent three extracts of video-transcriptions (2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang).
Regarding the headings of the three comments you mean of course "Spiritual significance of Arunachala".
Sanjay, regarding your today's comment of 14 August 2020 at 12:43
you mean:
"So he is referring both to the outward form of Arunachala...".
"So since Arunachala is special for Bhagavan,...".
Sanjay,
re. your comment of today's comment of 14 August 2020 at 12:09,
presumably it should be more correctly:
"In another verse, Bhagavan reveals what Arunachala taught to him,He says, ‘Turning within, daily (or constantly) see yourself with the inner eye; it will be known. Thus you taught me Arunachala’." (not 'my' Arunachala).
Sorry,
it should be "re. your today's comment of 14 August 2020 at 12:09".
Anadi-ananta, since I am not even careful to spell Arunachala correctly, this shows how shallow my devotion to Bhagavan is. I cannot even honour our guru’s guru in a proper way, so to speak. Anyway, thank you for pointing out my typos.
We are only discussing with ourself
Ted: If our life is nothing but a dream, then whose dream is it? When two or more people are discussing the subject of non-duality, who is discussing with whom?
Michael: We could be having this discussion in our dream. Actually, if our mind is on the subject in our waking state, then it is very probable that we would be talking these sorts of things in our dream also. In our dream, we may be talking about Bhagavan's teachings - we may be discussing with a friend. Sometimes our friend may say something and we may feel ‘O that is a new way of looking at this thing'. It may seem to us that we are learning from a friend, but when we wake up, who were we discussing with? We were only discussing with ourself. Likewise, even in this so-called waking state, we are discussing only with ourself.
When we look outwards, there are so many people, but in whose view these people exist. In the dream, we see many people, and those people seem to be real so long as we are dreaming. Even the person we seem to be so long as we are dreaming, but when we wake us we realise that all the people, including the person we seem to be, were our own mental projection.
Ted: How would you view this discussion?
Michael: In a dream, people would respond in their waking state. Suppose if you ask me this question in your dream, I would say, ‘O I feel just as you feel’ or ‘I see things just as you see things’, but when you wake up how much importance would you attach to my statements? You will know that Michael to whom you were talking to was just your mental projection. Not only the Michael in your dream was your mental projection, but even the Ted in your dream was also your mental projection. You have nothing to do with either Michael or Ted.
It seems to you that you experience yourself as ‘I am Ted’, but actually Ted is also an object perceived by you. Ted is the object and you are the subject.
~*~ Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:52)
Sanjay,
"...but actually Ted is also an object perceived by you. Ted is the object and you are the subject."
Who is the subject ? If the subject is ego, to whom appears this ego-subject ?
Who am I ?
Anadi-ananta, the subject is only ego, this first thought ‘I am this body’. This ego-subject appears only to the ego-subject. Our real self, which is pure and infinite awareness, is not aware of this ego-subject.
Sanjay,
my question "to whom appears this ego-subject ?" is evidently complete nonsense because any appearance can never be more than an object appearing to an ego-subject.
The awareness of the ego-subject seems to include both elements of pure self-awareness (chit-aspect) which is aware only of itself and on the other hand of a consciously object-perceiving subject (insentient jada-aspect).
As you correctly imply real pure self-awareness is never aware of the object-perceiving ego-subject which (the latter) is not real awareness but only seeming or borrowed awareness (jada). Though it is said that ego could not even appear to be without being supported by real awareness (atma-svarupa).
Why Bhagavan is fit to be the guru for all of us?
A friend: Does it matter if your teacher is supposedly enlightened but displays the behaviour of a negative ego?
Michael James: Many people believe that an enlightened person can behave in any way because they are enlightened and we can’t judge them. We cannot know who is enlightened but we can have a pretty good idea of the people who are not enlightened. If anyone who behaves in an egotistical manner or behaves in an unethical manner, there is still an ego there.
So whatever they claim about enlightenment, whatever experiences they may have had, we should be sceptical about them. Some people genuinely believe they are enlightened because they have had certain experiences, but that is not enlightenment. The real enlightenment is only the annihilation of ego, which is the goal that Bhagavan has taught us. So though we cannot say definitely who is egoless, there are a lot of people who behave in such an egoistical manner that it’s fairly safe to assume that they are not egoless.
Many people claim that they are enlightened, and we don’t have to disrespect them. But it is always good to have a healthy degree of scepticism. We should not just believe someone because they claim to be enlightened or because others claim them to be enlightened. If a person is behaving in an inappropriate manner, then even if one is ‘enlightened’, it's better if we avoid them.
If we see Bhagavan, what a perfect life he lived. Egoless was evident in many of his actions. That’s why Bhagavan is worthy to be a guru for all of us. I can only say for myself, to me, there couldn’t be any guru other than Bhagavan. I have never seen anyone as perfect as Bhagavan. I am not saying there are no others who are enlightened, but Bhagavan is something very-very special.
The friend: There are degrees, I suppose.
Michael James: Well, not degrees of enlightenment. Bhagavan obviously came with a divine mission. He had a role to play as the guru, so he lived such an exemplary life.
It’s not really a person who is enlightenment. If a person is egoless let’s say, you will see that in their behaviour. You will see a certain quality in their behaviour. You won’t see them behaving negatively or egoistically. You won’t see greed or jealousy in them. Basically, you won’t see bad qualities in the ‘person’ who is genuinely egoless.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (02:10)
Yes.. Bhagavan is only Guru who was perfect in every aspect. All events that took place in his life is a teaching for us. Life of devotees that he attracted is also a teaching to us. I happened to read about a devadasi who was a sincere devotee of Bhagavan. Him taking birth on earth is such a great blessing for all of us.
But in talks, Bhagavan has narrated a story where a jnani has relationship with multiple women. That confused me little bit.
Personal growth and healing of trauma
A therapist: I would love to hear about what you have to say about personal growth and healing of trauma wounds? I am a therapist.
Michael James: Does personal growth matter? Yes and no. On this path, our aim is to know ourself as we actually are. In order to know ourself as we really are, we need to distinguish ourself from the person that we seem to be. So on this path of self-investigation and self-surrender, we are slowly detaching ourself from the person that we seem to be. So we shouldn’t be seeking personal growth. We shouldn’t be concerned about this person.
However, if we are sincerely following this path, personal growth will take place. That is, since we are turning our attention within, we are slowly-slowly weakening our desires and attachments. We are weakening our vishaya-vasanas, and the more our vishaya-vasanas are weakened, the more we will grow as a person so to speak.
So we should not go out to heal our trauma or mental wounds. It should not be our aim to heal our trauma and our mental-scars. But as we are following this path, we will find that as we go along this path, our traumas will naturally be healed without our being even concerned about them. That is, the more we detach ourself from this person, the more this person will be a well-rounded and a well-developed person.
The therapist: Trauma mostly creates avoidance or even addiction or desires.
Michael James: Trauma therapies may be beneficial at a certain level, but Bhagavan’s path is a very-very deep path. As I said, the fundamental thing is, now we experience ourself as a person, but this person is not we actually are. So to the extent we separate ourself from this person, the traumas of this person will be naturally healed.
What feeds the traumas or what identifies with these traumas? It is ego or ‘I’ that identifies itself with the person and with this person’s experiences. It is ego or ‘I’ that identifies with this person’s likes, dislikes, fears, hopes and so on and whatever this person has been through. The more detach ourself from this person, the more this healing process will happen automatically.
The therapist: Thank you, Michael.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (02:05)
Is telling lies a part of my prarabdha? Should we always attempt to be more honest with others?
Anonymous, you write, ‘But in talks, Bhagavan has narrated a story where a jnani has relationship with multiple women. That confused me little bit’. Can a jnani ever have such a relationship with multiple women? The jnani doesn't have any relationship even with his body, so how can he have any relationship with several bodies? If a supposed 'jnani' is having sexual relations with several women, we can be almost sure that he is not a jnani. The jnani will always behave in an ethical and exemplary manner.
It is said that Sri Krishna had a relationship with several women, but it is also said that he was a brahmachari (one remaining without any sexual relationship with women). How to reconcile this? Sri Krishna loved everyone as himself, and in his divine play, it was seen that many women were attracted to him and likewise, he was attracted to them. However, these are allegorical stories. This is depicting the love between God and his devotees.
So the jnani is above all inappropriate behaviour, as Michael said in one of his recent videos.
In his comment of 16 August 2020 at 12:35 presumably Anonymous wanted to express "multiple relationship(s) with women" (instead of "relationship with multiple women").
The Paramount Importance of Self Attention part 5:
"We are told that we project the world, but this does not mean that the seer is the projector. We, the seer (the mind or ego), are part of the projection, as Bhagavan says in verse 160 of Guru Vachaka Kovai:
The false person [or soul] who behaves as ‘I’ occurs as one among the shadow pictures [in this world picture, which is like a cinema show].
Who is this ‘I’ we say is the projector? By our investigating ‘who am I?’ the non-existence of both the projector and its projection will be exposed."
But isn't the ego not part of the dream, but only the person is part of the dream? Ego takes itself to be the person and therefore part of the dream, but actually it isn't part of the dream?
To whom? To me. Who am I?,
the person is only an imagined/projected (bodily) adjunct of ego which is the [actually non-existent] dreamer of all dreams.
This is the story Sanjay
THONDARADIPODI (Bhaktanghrirenu) ALWAR: One who
delights in the dust of the feet of devotees. A devotee (of this name)
was keeping a plot of land in which he grew tulasi, the sacred basil,
made garlands of it, and supplied the same to the God in the temple.
He remained a bachelor and was respected for his life and conduct.
One day two sisters, who lived by prostitution, walked near the garden
and sat under a tree. One of them said, “How disgusting is my life that
I soil my body and mind every day. This man’s life is most desirable.”
The other replied, “How do you know his mind? Maybe he is not
as good as he appears to be. The bodily functions may be forcibly
controlled and the mind may be revelling in riotous thoughts. One
cannot control one’s vasanas as easily as the physical frame.”
The former said, “The actions are only the indices of the mind. His
life shows his mind to be pure.”
The other said, “Not necessarily. His mind has not been proved as yet.”
The first challenged her to prove his mind. She accepted. The second
desired to be left alone with only a shred of garment in which to clothe
herself. The first sister returned home, leaving the other alone with
flimsy clothing. As the latter continued to remain under the tree, she
appeared penitent and humble. The saint noticed her and approached
her after some time. He asked what had happened to her that she
looked so lowly. She pleaded penitence for her past life, desired to lead
a purer and nobler life and finished with a prayer to him to accept her
humble services in the garden or attendance on himself. He advised
her to return home and lead a normal life. But she protested. So he
detained her for watering the tulasi plants. She accepted the function
with delight and began to work in the garden.
One rainy night this woman was found standing under the eaves of
the thatched shed in which the saint was. Her clothes were dripping
and she was shivering with cold. The master asked why she was in
such a pitiable state. She said that her place was exposed to the rains
and so she sought shelter under the eaves and that she would retire as
soon as the rain ceased. He asked her to move into the hut and later
told her to change her wet clothes. She did not have dry cloth to put
on. So he offered her one of his own clothes. She wore it, still later
she begged permission to massage his feet. He consented. Eventually
they embraced.
The next day she returned home, had good food and wore fine clothes.
She still continued to work in the garden.
Sometimes she used to remain long in her home. Then this man
began to visit her there until he finally lived with her. Nevertheless
he did not neglect the garden nor the daily garlands for God. There
was public scandal regarding his change of life. God then resolved to
restore him to his old ways and so assumed the shape of the saintly
devotee himself. He appeared to the dasi and secretly offered her a
rich present, an anklet of God.
She was very pleased with it and hid it under her pillow. He then
disappeared. All these were secretly observed by a maid servant in
the house.
The ornament was found missing in the temple. The worshipper
reported the loss to the proper authorities. They offered a tempting
reward for anyone who would give the clue for the recovery of the lost
property. The maid servant afforded the clue and claimed the reward.
The police recovered the ornament and arrested the dasi who said
that the devotee gave her the same. He was then roughly handled. A
supernatural voice said. “I did it. Leave him alone.”
The king and all others were surprised. They fell prostrate at the man’s
feet and set him free. He then led a better and nobler life.
anadi-ananta yes ego is said to be the dreamer. But is ego part of its dream?
The ego and its dream are both unreal according to Bhagavan. I think the dream is more unreal than the ego because dream is only a projection of the ego, and moreover the ego has an element of reality which is its chit aspect.
Perhaps my asking whether ego is part of its dream or apart from the dream is not of much use because in any case We have to investigate it.
Sanjay,
Having relationship with prostitute.. Isn’t that an act ego?
Col,
regarding your questions:
a.) telling lies is not part of prarabdha but using your free will.
b.) We should always attempt to be honest with others because actually - seen from the viewpoint of truth - there are no others but you, because only pure unlimited and infinite self-awareness does really exist. :-)
:) right..
To whom? To me. Who am I?
re. your question: "But is ego part of its dream?"
Is not ego as the dreamer always fully involved in the midst of its dream ? How can it be apart from its own dream when it is the only perceiver of that dream and sometimes even the main actor or principal character in it ?
Re. lying: I do not believe that this is that easy. Lying is a vasana and past habit and as such can be prarabdha, a liar in a previous life will lie in the next. Can a jiva prevent to lie? No, if that is his prarabdha he will lie no matter what.
He can only use his "free will" to realize that he's lying and "will" to not lie anymore. That will gradually change the habit to lie.
To presume one has the power to always say the truth is a fallacy since it focuses on a doer and the jiva. So it is much better to look for the entity who is lying (or telling the truth) than to "improve the personality". When it is realized that there is no liar or "doer" then automatically no more lies will unfold ....
So for a devotee of Bhagavan one should not be overly concerned about virtues and sins but about "who" is the one who has virtue or sins? Let's go the direct path and do not make unnecessary detours.
Col, you ask ‘Is telling lies a part of my prarabdha?’ It could be but in most cases, we tell lies because we want to tell lies, so our will is prompting us to tell lies in most of the cases. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of our telling lies as part of our prarabdha. Our mind, speech and body are driven to act as propelled both by our will and destiny. So we cannot clearly make out which force is making us to utter lies.
Suppose, if someone is caught stealing and he is produced in court. When the judge asks whether he admits to stealing, the person replies ‘no, I was not present there’. However, if it is later proved that he indeed is the culprit, he will obviously face the necessary punishment. Since he had lied to the court, his punishment will be more than if he had admitted to his crime. Since his jail term is according to his prarabdha, we can say that his lying in court was also according to his destiny. So we may lie according to our destiny.
However, in most cases, I believe, our will – our desires, attachments, fears, hopes and so on – prompts us to lie and do other unethical things.
Should we always attempt to be more honest with others? The answer is an obvious ‘yes’.
Anonymous, all acts are only the acts of ego, so having a relationship with a prostitute is also an act of ego. This act may be driven by our destiny, but we may also like to be in such a relationship. So our will may also it's part in such acts.
It is advised to be not too much concerned about virtues and sins, these are attributes of a jiva. Are we truly a jiva? No. Then why being concerned about lies etc.?
Of course that doesn't mean to think it is okay to lie. However ethics etc. are for beginners of a spiritual path, for those who have not grasped Bhagavan's teaching. Because with Bhagavan's teaching the actions of a jiva are of very little concern.
The question if a lie is prarabdha or new karma is a waste of time. We cannot know, then why giving it any attention?
A Jnani can kill a person and that would not create any karma. Would a Jnani kill a person? Actually that question and many others relating to topics like that are irrelevant. So rather to keep imagining concepts like that, why not look for the "doer". Is there a doer? Only that matters, nothing else.
Thank you for your replies regards the matter of lying. Knowing that I can put down concerns regarding virtue and sin is helpful. Virtue and sin can cause us both pleasure and pain and in turn increases our concerns for it. Knowing that a Jnani could commit harmful acts/could be part of prarabdha is helpful if only to clarify that that is a possibility and satisfies the concerns I had that went with it. Focusing on the ego investigation is the only concern worth investing time on.
Col, as far as I understand it a Jnani does not have any prarabdha. Prarabdha rises simultaneously with the mind. If there is no mind (like with a Jnani) then there is no prarabdha or any other karma.
Then what moves the body and who talks? Is is often said it is God or self or the movements of the body after self-realization is like when one switches of the power to a ventilator and the blades still keep spinning after the off switch. When the blade stops then the body "dies".
However this is all the unreal imagination of a jiva. There are no bodies but by the projection of the mind. From the absolute viewpoint there are no and never were bodies and nobody ever has done any action. Phenomena and bodies and "people" only exist simultaneously with the mind. Bhagavan described that in several texts like Nan Yar.
Also regarding sin, it is enough to know and believe that it is a good idea to avoid sin. However to *try* to avoid sin is a detour, it is much better to look for the "sinner". Also, only the ego revels in condemnation and praise. To feel guilty (I sinned) or to feel proud (I did not sin) are qualities of the ego. They deserve to be ignored.
The alwar in the story was a Jnani Sanjay.. there isno ego left in him.. so how can one justify his actions?
Anonymous, you ask, ‘The alwar in the story was a Jnani Sanjay.. there isno ego left in him.. so how can one justify his actions?’ How do you know Alwar was a jnani? Why should we believe this just because it is said in books that he was a jnani? Of course, we cannot know the inner state of the jnani by his actions, but we can be sure that a true jnani will not act any inappropriate way. His actions may baffle us at times because he is beyond our grasp.
A jnani is nothing but pure jnana, so he or she is without any desires and attachments. Since it is only our desires and attachments which prompt us to act in an unethical or inappropriate manner, the jnani’s conduct will always be full of love and concern for others. So the jnani is perfection itself in which no defect can ever exist.
Everything is perfect (part one)
A friend: Please talk about the concept that everything is perfect and that we have not erred.
Michael: Everything is perfect because there is only one thing. What actually exists is just pure awareness, and pure awareness is always perfect. However, now we have risen as ego, and rising as ego itself is the first error. Our rising as ego is not real. If we investigate ourself, we will find that we have never risen as ego, so we have never erred. But now it seems to us that we have risen as ego and we are experiencing this body and mind as ‘I’. So this is a great error, so we have erred and everything seems to be imperfect. When we look outwards, everything seems to be imperfect.
However, all imperfections, including our rising as ego, are just an appearance. So the reality that lies behind all this imperfection is perfection. But to experience that we need to turn our attention within and experience ourself as we actually are.
The friend: Thank you, Michael. That makes sense. When I heard these things previously, in context it always sounded that they were really talking about our perception of the world.
Michael: Well, look at the world. Is the world perfect? When we look at the world, we see so many imperfections. We see egoism. We see birth, death, disease, so nothing is perfect about the manifestation. If we want to find perfection we have to look within ourself, and when we look within ourself and find the perfection within ourself, we find everything is perfect. But we first have to find that perfection within ourself.
But there is another context in which it is said that everything is perfect. Bhagavan’s path is not only the path of self-investigation, but it is also the path of self-surrender. We experience so many pleasures and pains, so many good things and bad things. We have to accept everything as the will of God or guru. Whatever we experience in our life is the fruit of action that we have done in the past.
We have done so many actions in the past and accumulated vast store of fruits that we have not yet experienced. God or guru selects for each lifetime which fruit we are to experience in each lifetime. It is the fruits of our past actions selected by Bhagavan for our true spiritual benefit. So whatever happens in our life, whether seemingly good or seemingly bad, is actually all for our good. So in that sense, everything is perfect.
Nothing that happens in this world – all the suffering and difficulties we undergo – it’s all perfect in the sense that it’s all ordained by Bhagavan. So God always puts us in the most favourable circumstances for our spiritual development. So that’s another perspective through which we can explain that everything is perfect.
(To be continued in my next comment)
# Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:35)
Everything is perfect (part two)
The friend: So I understand you to say that guru, God or atman ordains the experiences which we experience so that we learn to annihilate ego.
Michael: Exactly. In other words, everything is conducive to surrender. What is called the annihilation of ego can also be called self-surrender – complete giving up of ego. So the sole purpose of life and the sole purpose of everything we experience in life is leading us towards or preparing us to be willing to surrender ourself completely.
The friend: Thank you. Perfect!
Another friend: So all happenings in our life seems like a catalyst which is asking us to look within or practise self-investigation. What do you say?
Michael: Everything that happens to us, we should accept as the will of Bhagavan for our own good. We have to be a little bit careful about one thing. Some people misapply this and they justify wrong actions saying that ‘O it is all the will of God’ or whatever. That is wrong because we are responsible for our actions. We need to act in an appropriate manner. When we are engaged in actions, basic morality and ethics, particularly the principle of ahimsa (non-harming of others), are very important.
So we shouldn’t justify wrong actions by saying ‘everything is perfect’ or ‘everything is the will of God’. That is just giving the license to ego to act in whatever way it wants. Though everything we experience is according to destiny, not every action we do is according to destiny.
So it is very important to understand that the action of the body, speech and mind is to some extent driven by destiny. That is, we are made to do certain actions that are necessary for us to experience our destiny. If it is our destiny to have an accident, we will make an error in judgment. We will cross the road at the wrong time, and we will be hit by a car or something.
(To be continued in my next comment)
# Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:35)
Everything is perfect (part three)
Michael: So certain actions are driven by destiny, but our will is also interfering all the time. So long as we rise as ego, we have likes and dislikes, so we cannot distinguish which actions are driven by destiny and which are driven by will. Many actions are driven by both. So we cannot say to what extent they are driven by destiny and to what extent they are driven by our will.
So we need to keep a curb on our desires, our likes and dislikes. If we are keeping a curb on our desires, the actions we do will be to a large extent according to destiny and not according to our likes and dislikes. To the extent we curb our likes and dislikes, to that extent our actions will not be driven by those likes and dislikes.
So in the path of surrender, we are trying to surrender our will to the will of God. Of course, ultimately, we want to surrender ourself to God, but in order to surrender ourself, we need to begin by surrendering our will to God. However, we cannot wholly surrender our will to God without surrendering ourself to Bhagavan, but we need to begin by surrendering our will. That is, we need to keep a curb on our likes and dislikes, our desires and attachments. We need to prevent these likes and dislikes, desires and attachments influencing our actions. To the extent we curb these likes and dislikes, the actions will go according to destiny.
The friend: Isn’t karma, including destiny, all maya?
Michael: Yes, it is, but what is maya? Maya is nothing but our mind. So all this is our own mind. It’s all the creation of our own mind. So when we experience the laws of physics, it’s maya. But if you jump from the top of a tall building, you will die. So within maya, there seem to be certain laws. We cannot go against these physical laws.
Just like we cannot go physical laws, we cannot go against the spiritual laws. That is, we can call the law of karma a spiritual law in a sense. So though the law of karma is operating within maya, we cannot change how this law of karma works.
The friend: Thank you. I really appreciate your answer.
# Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:35)
Sanjay, re. your comment of 17 August 2020 at 13:21,
you wanted to write obviously: "Just like we cannot go against physical laws,...".
anadi-ananta, thank you for your comment of 16 August 2020 at 15:02.
It is clearer now. Indeed the ego must be part of this dream because it is fully involved in the dream and is the only perceiver of the dream as you say. I was reminded of the cinema screen analogy. The screen may not be a part of the movie in the same way as the actors in the movie are, but still it is always there in the background and we only have to turn our attention towards it.
Sanjay,
I think the story has different hidden messages. Since Alwar was a sincere devotee, God stepped in and protected him from evil force. Another perspective is: if he was jnani, the prabadha made him fall for the pleasure, but since he didn’t sway away from being the true self, he didn’t end up bearing the fruits of his karma. God saved him ..
Anadi-ananta, yes, it should be, ‘Just like we cannot go against physical laws, we cannot go against the spiritual laws’. As always, thank you for pointing out my carelessness.
A Jnani does not have prarabdha, impossible.
Col,
regarding your conclusion ("...Jnani could commit harmful acts/could be part of prarabdha"), I am thinking also of the story of one of the greatest Tibetan yogis, the famous Milarepa, who had to do penance or atone for his acts of revenge (murder of his greedy relatives). However it is said in his biography that he committed these murders before becoming the disciple of his guru Marpa.
Anonymous, Bhagavan says that what exists is only atma-svarupa, so actually no evil force exists in reality. However, in our context, the evil force is our vishaya-vasanas because these drag our mind away from ourself. These vasanas take us away from the state of pure and unalloyed happiness, so they are indeed evil.
The question is does God steps in to protect us from this evil force, our vishaya-vasanas? The answer is yes and no. ‘Yes’ because grace or God is unceasingly drawing us towards itself. So grace is automatically making us fight against our outward going vasanas. ‘No’ because grace or God cannot destroy all our vasanas without our support and cooperation. In other words, we need to be willing to curb and eventually destroy all our vishaya-vasanas by repeatedly trying to turn within to face ourself alone.
You say, ‘Another perspective is: if he was jnani, the prabadha made him fall for the pleasure, but since he didn’t sway away from being the true self, he didn’t end up bearing the fruits of his karma. God saved him’. Does jnani have any prarabdha? No, in his view he has no prarabdha. Bhagavan has made this clear in verse 38 of Ulladu Narpadu:
If we are the doer of action, we will experience the resulting fruit. [However] when one knows oneself [as one actually is] by investigating who is the doer of action, [ego, which is what seemed to do actions and to experience their fruit, will thereby be eradicated, and along with it its] kartṛtva [doership] [and its bhōktṛtva, experiencership] will depart and [hence] all [its] three karmas [its āgāmya (actions that it does by its own free will), sañcita (the heap of the fruits of such actions that it is yet to experience) and prārabdha (destiny or fate, which is the fruits that have been allotted for it to experience in its current life)] will slip off. [This is] the state of mukti [liberation], which is eternal [being what actually exists even when we seem to be this ego].
Since the jnani is egoless, he has no prarabdha. However, the jnani’s body may seem to have prarabdha or a life story, but that is only in our view. He has no body or life, so he has no destiny or life story.
Salazar, Bhagavan has clearly stated in verse 31 of Ulladu Narpadu that we cannot understand the state of the jnani. He says in this verse:
For those who are [blissfully immersed in and as] tanmayānanda [happiness composed of that, namely brahman, one’s real nature], which rose [as ‘I am I’] destroying themself [ego], what one [action] exists for doing? They do not know [or are not aware of] anything other than themself; [so] who can [or how to] conceive their state as ‘[it is] like this’?
If that is the case, post by Sanjay -16 August 2020 at 12:20 is also incorrect.
Sanjay,
regarding verse 31 of Ulladu Narpadu,
"...tanmayānanda [happiness composed of that, namely brahman, one’s real nature], which rose [as 'I am I'] destroying themself [ego],...".
I find the word "rose" here a bit irritating. That our real nature is described as something which rose implies subliminally that it could/would not be there before and perhaps could set again.
Are we not taught that brahman is the ever existing or remaining pure self-awareness ? How could the ever present rise at all ?
So I consider that wording as rather metaphorical.
Sanjay, re. your comment of 17 August 2020 at 16:17,
it should be: "...does God step in...".
Anadi-ananta, Bhagavan wrote in verse 31 of Ulladu Narpadu:
"...tanmayānanda [happiness composed of that, namely brahman, one’s real nature], which rose [as 'I am I'] destroying themself [ego],...".
You wrote, ‘I find the word "rose" here a bit irritating’. Yes, tanmayananda does not literally rise, so, as you say, Bhagavan is talking about metaphorically here. Tanmayananda alone exists – it is eternal and immutable, so it cannot rise and set. However, when the ego is destroyed, tanmayananda seems to rise. But that is just saying that if ego is destroyed, tanmayananda alone shines with all its splendour and brightness.
We are not experiencing pure awareness or tanmayananda because it is obscured by ego. So it will seem to arise when ego is destroyed.
Salazar, who wrote GVK? Technically it was written by Muruganar, but according to Michael, we should take Bhagavan to be the co-author of GVK. It should be considered a joint-work of Bhagavan and Muruganar because most of the verses of GVK were written after due discussion between Bhagavan and Muruganar. I believe, Bhagavan even corrected the proof of this work.
You say, ‘I have to say that I am appreciating Ulladu Narpadu more and more’. To me, Nan Ar and Ulladu Narpadu are pure gems. These two works along with Upadesa Undiyar and Arunachala Stuti Panchakam contain everything we need to know on the spiritual path.
Anadi-ananta, I wrote, ‘The question is does God steps in to protect us from this evil force, our vishaya-vasanas? You wrote, ‘it should be: "...does God step in..."’. You were correct. I verified this with a friend. She wrote:
Does God step in? When it is in question form. Yes God steps in. That is affirmative. English is a strange language.
Today early morning, I was very disturbed by anxiety about things and not able to sleep. I had the idea to read Nan Yar. In those 20 paragraphs Bhagavan has given us such a treasure. He has covered everything it seems to me.
He teaches us this world is a dream. But he doesn't dismiss our problems just saying that this world is a dream, he also gives us the assurance that whatever burden we surrender over to him, he will take care of it and that we can travel in the train happily and peacefully. He teaches us the importance and practice of both self-surrender and self-investigation in those 20 paragraphs in such a simple manner.
To whom? To me. Who am I?,
it seems you had not only the good idea to read/study Nan Yar?(Who am I?) but you actually read it.:-)
Sanjay,
you write "Tanmayananda alone exists – it is eternal and immutable, so it cannot rise and set. However, when the ego is destroyed, tanmayananda seems to rise."
We should clearly see: when ego is destroyed i.e. melt in tanmayananda or brahman there is or will be then no other subject to which/whom tanmayananda could seem to rise.
One cannot seriously assume that tanmayananda would seem to rise to tanmayananda. :-)
By the way, because the title Nan Ar is literally a question it should be written with a question mark: Nāṉ Yār? (Who am I?): Even in both the Tamil texts நான் யார்?(Nāṉ Yār?) and நானார்?(Nāṉ Ār?) there each time are set a question mark.
Sanjay, sorry correction,
it should be: when ego is destroyed i.e. melted in tanmayananda...
Thanks, Anadi-ananta, for your corrections and suggestions.
We are standing on the solid ground
Michael James: Bhagavan said that we are like a person standing on the ground and holding the branch above our head. We are afraid to let go of this branch thinking that if we let go of the branch, we will fall down. But if we let go of the branch, we will not fall down because we are already standing on the solid ground. That branch is like the world, and all our desires, attachments, likes, dislikes, anxieties, everything – all these are like holding the branch.
Because we identify ourself with the person we seem to be, we are not willing to let go of the branch. It seems to us that if we let go, what will happen to us. However, if we turn within and let go of all these things, we will find that we are not only standing on the solid ground, but we are that solid ground. That solid ground is our real nature, which is pure awareness - that which is always shining in us as ‘I’.
So we are nothing other than that solid ground. All that is required is our willingness to let go. The world is not binding us; we are binding ourself to the world. The mind is not binding us; we are binding ourself to the mind. Why? It is because we are not yet willing to let go. How to become willing to let go? By patiently and persistently trying to follow the path that Bhagavan has taught us.
That is, the more we try to turn within, the more we will be willing to let go of other things. So all we have to do is to persevere in the practice. Our progress may seem to be slow, but that doesn’t matter so long as we are progressing, and we are progressing so long as we are trying.
So slowly slowly by following this practice, all our fears and anxieties about the world will drop off. But it requires patient and persistent practice. For how long? For as long as it takes. We shouldn’t be concerned about whether it is going to happen sooner or later. Our only concern should be that we are following the path. When the fears and anxieties arise in us, we should recognize that it is all part of the path we are following.
If these fears and anxieties do not arise in us, we cannot let go of them. So even the obstacles and difficulties we seem to face are all part of the part that we are following.
~#~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:36)
Correction: So even the obstacles and difficulties we seem to face are all part of the path that we are following.