The ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things
In a comment on one of my recent articles, The ego does not actually exist, but it seems to exist, and only so long as it seems to exist do all other things seem to exist, a friend called Salazar wrote, ‘Did anybody on this blog wonder who is perceiving the thoughts which come into awareness? That what is aware of thoughts cannot be the creator of these thoughts, because a thought is an object apart from that “observer”’. This article is written in reply to this comment and another one written by him.
Salazar, what Bhagavan means by the term ‘thought’ is a mental phenomenon of any kind whatsoever, and since according to his teachings all phenomena are mental phenomena, everything other than our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is pure self-awareness, is just a thought. This is why he says in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, ‘நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை’ (niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam-eṉḏṟōr poruḷ aṉṉiyamāy illai), ‘Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world’, and in the fourteenth paragraph, ‘ஜக மென்பது நினைவே’ (jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē), ‘What is called the world is only thought’.
Therefore when you write, ‘That what is aware of thoughts cannot be the creator of these thoughts’, that implies that what is aware of phenomena cannot be the creator of those phenomena, or what is aware of the world cannot be the creator of it, but is this what Bhagavan taught us? What did he teach us about creation? Did he teach that creation occurs prior to or independent of perception, which is what we all generally believe, and which is what is called sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda, the contention (vāda) that creation (sṛṣṭi) precedes and is the cause of perception (dṛṣṭi)?
No, he asked us to question whether anything other than ourself exists independent of our perception of it, and he taught us very explicitly and emphatically what is called dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, the contention that perception (dṛṣṭi) is the sole cause of creation (sṛṣṭi), or more precisely, that perception itself is creation. Phenomena seem to exist only because we perceive them, so our perception of them alone creates their seeming existence. In other words, we, the perceiver, create phenomena merely by perceiving them.
We can understand this by considering our experience in dream. In dream we perceive a world consisting of phenomena of various kinds, including people, just like the world that we now perceive, and just as we now perceive ourself as a person in this world, in dream we perceive ourself as a person in that world. Why does that dream world seem to exist? Only because we perceive it. It does not exist prior to our perception of it, nor independent of our perception of it. Why? Because it does not exist at all except in our perception. It appears only in our awareness, so it would not exist at all if we were not aware of it.
According to Bhagavan any state in which we are aware of phenomena is just a dream, so the world we now perceive is a dream world. This is why he says in Nāṉ Ār? and elsewhere that the world is nothing but thoughts. Do thoughts exist independent of our perception of them? No, they seem to exist only because we perceive them, so they are created only by our perceiving them.
Thinking is a process of forming thoughts and perceiving them, but the formation (creation) of thoughts and the perception of them are not two processes or even two parts of one process, but are one and the same process, because thoughts are formed in our awareness, so they are formed by our being aware of them. Our perception of them is itself the formation or creation of them. In other words, dṛṣṭi is itself sṛṣṭi. There is no creation (sṛṣṭi) other than perception (dṛṣṭi), because there is no existence (sat) other than awareness (cit).
What actually exists is only awareness, so whatever seems to exist seems to exist only because of awareness. Therefore it is only by awareness that anything is created. Without awareness there could be no creation.
Creation is not real but just an illusory appearance, and nothing can appear except in awareness. Appearance requires perception or awareness of it, because if it were not perceived, to whom or to what could it appear? Whatever appears seems to exist only because it is perceived. In other words, whatever seems to exist seems to exist only in awareness, only to awareness, only by awareness and only because of awareness.
2. The awareness in which and to which phenomena appear is not real awareness but only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa)
However, the awareness in which, to which, by which and because of which all things seem to exist is not real awareness (cit), but is only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa), because real awareness is never aware of anything other than itself. This semblance of awareness, in whose view alone all thoughts or phenomena seem to exist, is not real, because it arises and subsides (appears and disappears) along with all the phenomena of which it is aware, as Bhagavan says in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
3. This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is the ego or mind, which is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear
This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is what is otherwise called the ego or mind, and as Bhagavan says in the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
As he points out in verse 18 of Upadēśa Undiyār, the term ‘mind’ is used in two distinct senses. In a general sense it is a term that refers to the totality of all thoughts or mental phenomena, but since the root of all thoughts is the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’, what the mind essentially is is only the ego, and hence in a more specific sense ‘mind’ is a term that refers to the ego. The ego is the root of all other thoughts because it is the subject, the perceiving thought, whereas all other thoughts are objects perceived by it.
In the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, cited above, the term ‘mind’ refers to the ego, so when Bhagavan says that it ‘causes all thoughts to appear’ or ‘makes all thoughts appear’ he means that the ego (the subject or perceiver) is what causes all other thoughts to appear. However in the next two sentences, in which he says, ‘நினைவுகளை யெல்லாம் நீக்கிப் பார்க்கின்றபோது, தனியாய் மனமென் றோர் பொருளில்லை; ஆகையால் நினைவே மனதின் சொரூபம்’ (niṉaivugaḷai y-ellām nīkki-p pārkkiṉḏṟa-pōdu, taṉi-y-āy maṉam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ illai; āhaiyāl niṉaivē maṉadiṉ sorūpam), ‘When one looks, excluding [removing or putting aside] all thoughts, solitarily there is not any such thing as mind; therefore thought alone is the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or very nature] of the mind’, the term ‘mind’ refers to the totality of all thoughts, namely the ego and all phenomena perceived by it. Therefore whenever Bhagavan uses the term ‘mind’ we need to understand from the context whether he is using it to refer specifically to the ego or more generally to all thoughts.
What Bhagavan teaches us in the second sentence of this paragraph, namely that the mind (in the sense of ego) is what ‘causes all thoughts to appear’, is further emphasised by him later on in the same paragraph by means of an analogy:
4. The ego or mind causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear only from itself, so it alone is their source or origin
Since the ego or mind alone is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear, from where or from what does it cause them to appear? ‘தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து’ (taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu), ‘from itself’ or ‘from within itself’, says Bhagavan. Since the world is nothing but thoughts (mental phenomena of a particular kind, namely sensory perceptions), when he firstly says, ‘அது சகல நினைவுகளையும் தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது’ (adu sakala niṉaivugaḷaiyum tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu), ‘It [the mind] causes all thoughts to appear’, and subsequently says, ‘மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து’ (maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu), ‘the mind also causing the world to appear from within itself’, he clearly implies that the mind or ego causes all thoughts (or all phenomena) to appear from itself.
Therefore Bhagavan teaches us very clearly and unambiguously that the mind, which in this context means the ego, is the source or origin from which all thoughts or phenomena appear, and this accords perfectly with our own experience. From where else could our thoughts come if not from ourself? Thoughts or phenomena appear only in our perception and only because of our perception of them, so their source or origin is only ourself, this ego.
5. A cause and its effect can occur simultaneously, but logically the cause comes first and the effect comes only after it
In the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? he says:
In terms of chronological sequence, a cause must either precede its effect or be simultaneous with its effect, but even when it is simultaneous with its effect, in terms of causal sequence it precedes it, because a cause is what gives rise to an effect, so logically the cause comes first and its effect comes only after it. Consider the example of a moving billiard ball hitting a stationary one. The hit causes some of the momentum of the moving ball to be transferred to the stationary one, as a result of which it begins to move. The hit is the cause, and the movement of the stationary ball is the effect. Both occur simultaneously in time, but in terms of the causal sequence the cause comes first and the effect follows on from it. That is, the hitting comes first, and only after it occurs does the stationary ball begin to move.
It is in this sense that Bhagavan says: ‘நானென்னும் நினைவே முதல் நினைவு. இது எழுந்த பிறகே ஏனைய நினைவுகள் எழுகின்றன. தன்மை தோன்றிய பிறகே முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தோன்றுகின்றன; தன்மை யின்றி முன்னிலை படர்க்கைக ளிரா’ (nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē mudal niṉaivu. idu eṙunda piṟahē ēṉaiya niṉaivugaḷ eṙugiṉḏṟaṉa. taṉmai tōṉḏṟiya piṟahē muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tōṉḏṟugiṉḏṟaṉa; taṉmai y-iṉḏṟi muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ irā), ‘the thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought. Only after this arises do other thoughts arise. Only after the first person [the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist’. That is, though the ego (the thought called ‘I’) and other thoughts arise simultaneously, in the sequence of cause and effect the rising of the ego comes first, because it is the cause, and the rising of other thoughts comes only after that, because it is the effect.
In an earlier comment you wrote, ‘the ego and thoughts appear and disappear simultaneously. To imply that one of these concepts were there before the other one is rather fishy, I believe that the question what is first, the ego or a thought falls under the category of what is first, the chicken or the egg?’ but this seems to be fishy only if we fail to distinguish causal sequence from chronological sequence. Bhagavan did say (as in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu) that ego and other thoughts appear and disappear simultaneously, referring to chronological sequence, but he also said (as in the final four sentences of the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?) that the ego is the first thought and that only after it rises do other thoughts rise, referring to causal sequence.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that the ego (the first person, the thought called ‘I’) is the first thought to appear and that only after it appears do other thoughts (second and third persons) appear, he does not mean that there is any lapse of time between the appearance of the ego and the appearance of other thoughts or phenomena, but is merely emphasising that the appearance of the ego is the cause and the appearance of all other things is its effect. The ego is the first cause, the cause of all other causes, so all chains of cause and effect begin only after the ego has appeared.
The analogy of the chicken and egg that you mention is not appropriate in this context, because chickens and eggs are links in a long chain of cause and effect, whereas the ego is the beginning or origin of every chain of cause and effect. Like both a chicken and an egg, every cause (or potential cause) is an effect of another cause, except the ego, which is the only cause that is not an effect of any other cause. It is the causeless cause, the uncaused cause, because nothing precedes it, whereas it precedes everything.
A chicken is the cause of an egg, which is in turn the cause of another chicken, and so on ad infinitum, but all such chains of cause and effect seem to exist only in the view of the ego, so they can appear only when the ego has appeared, and they must disappear as soon as it disappears. Therefore the ego is the cause and origin of all other causes and effects. This is why Bhagavan says that it is the first thought, and that all other thoughts (including chickens and eggs and all other chains of cause and effect) arise only after it has arisen.
6. Since the ego has created all that it perceives, why does it have so little control over what it has created?
You conclude that earlier comment by writing, ‘Anyway, I do not think that any clarity of that topic can be found in Bhagavan’s texts, I still favor Robert’s comment and I believe that he is in unison with Bhagavan on this matter’, but there is actually abundant clarity on this topic that we can found in his texts if we know how to look for it. The fact that the ego alone is the root cause for the appearance of everything else is one of the fundamental principles of his teachings and is therefore emphasised by him unequivocally in so many ways in his original writings, particularly in Nāṉ Ār? and Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, and also in many of the records of his replies to questions that he was asked.
Earlier in the same comment you asked, ‘Now I am wondering, since the ego cannot control these thoughts which it is supposedly “creating” how can it be the creator of thereof?’ but why do you assume that the creator should necessarily be able to control what it has created? When we dream, is the creator of our dream anyone other than ourself, the dreamer, namely this mind or ego?
Since perception is itself creation, we who perceive a dream are the one who is thereby creating it, but are we able to control all that we perceive in a dream? No, we cannot, and the reason for this is simple: when we create a dream world, we create ourself as a person in that world, and it is only as that person that we perceive that world, so though we are the creator of that world, we experience ourself as a creature in it, and by being a small part of our creation we have to a large extent lost control over it. The same is the case with this world and all that we perceive in it, including all the thoughts that arise in the mind of the person whom we now seem to be.
You are creating this world from moment to moment, but since you experience yourself as a person called Salazar, and since Salazar is a creature in the world you have created, as Salazar you have lost control of most of your own creation. This is the wonderful power of māyā (self-deception or self-delusion), which according to Bhagavan is nothing other than the ego or mind. We have created this world, but we are deluded by our own creation, so we are unable to control this demon that we have conjured up.
This is why in Hindu mythology the first three divine functions, namely creation, sustenance and dissolution, are each attributed to a different deity. According to this allegorical way of expressing the truth, Brahma has created this world, but he is unable to control or sustain it, nor is he able to destroy it, so it is sustained by Vishnu and destroyed by Siva. Of these three forms of God, which two are most highly revered? Only Vishnu and Siva, because creation is not a worthy function, so Brahma, the creator, is not worshipped in any temple, but only in Vedic rituals that are performed for the fulfilment of desires.
Suppose we have an irrational fear or an obsessive desire. That fear or desire is just a thought and it is created only by us, but we have become so caught up in our own creation that we are carried away by it and seem to be unable to control it.
This is not to say that we have absolutely no control over what we think or over other phenomena. We may have some degree of control, but that degree is limited, and the more we are deluded by our own creation, the less control we have over it. However if we patiently and persistently practise self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), our viṣaya-vāsanās (outward-going inclinations, urges or desires) will be gradually weakened, and our mind will thereby be purified. To the extent that it is purified it will be clear, and the clearer it becomes the less dense will be its delusion, so the extent to which we are able to keep a tight rein on our viṣaya-vāsanās, which are the seeds that give rise to thoughts, will increase correspondingly.
7. Thoughts come only from ourself, the ego, the one who perceives them, so we alone are the root of all thoughts
In a later part of the comment whose first paragraph I quoted at the beginning of this article you wrote, ‘So where are thoughts coming from? If patiently investigated one will discover that they come out of nowhere and disappear into nowhere’, but how can anything come out of nowhere? Nowhere does not exist except as an idea or thought, so from where does the idea of nowhere arise? Something cannot come out of nothing, because nothing does not exist, so whatever appears must appear from something.
In the next paragraph of that comment you wrote, ‘it is absolutely clear that they [thoughts] cannot come from the observer of these thoughts’, but from where else could thoughts come if not from ourself, the one who perceives or observes them? Thoughts appear only in the mind, and the source from which they appear is the root thought, the ego (which is why Bhagavan calls it the mūlam, the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause of all other thoughts). The ego rises or appears only out of ātma-svarūpa (the real nature of oneself), and all other thoughts rise or appear only out of the ego, so the ego is the immediate source and foundation of all other thoughts, and ātma-svarūpa is their ultimate source and foundation.
From what does the illusion of a snake appear? It cannot appear from nowhere or nothing, so it appears from something that (in terms of this analogy) actually exists, namely a rope. However it could not appear from a rope without the intervening medium called ego or mind, because it appears to be a snake only in the view of the ego. Therefore the immediate cause for the appearance of the snake is the ego, in whose view alone it appears, and the ultimate cause of it is the rope, because without the rope there would be nothing to be seen as a snake.
This is just an analogy, so there is a limit to the extent to which it accurately represents the truth to which it is analogous, but what it is intended to illustrate here is that the ultimate source, substance and foundation of the ego and of all thoughts or phenomena perceived by the ego is only ātma-svarūpa, but that the immediate source, substance and foundation of all thoughts or phenomena is only the ego, because it is only in the view of the ego that everything else seems to exist.
Without the ego could any other thought or phenomenon appear? It could not, because the ego is that to which and from which all other thoughts or phenomena appear. Likewise, without ātma-svarūpa could the ego appear? It could not, because ātma-svarūpa is that from which (but not to which) the ego appears.
This is why in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? Bhagavan says, ‘மனம் ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தினின்று வெளிப்படும்போது ஜகம் தோன்றும்’ (maṉam ātma-sorūpattiṉiṉḏṟu veḷippaḍum-pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟum), ‘When the mind comes out from ātma-svarūpa, the world appears’, meaning that ātma-svarūpa is the source from which the mind or ego appears, and in the previous sentence said, ‘[…] அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது’ (appaḍiyē maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu), ‘[…] in that way the mind also causes the world to appear from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself’, meaning that the mind or ego is the source from which the world and all other thoughts appear.
If other thoughts or phenomena did not originate from the ego, that would mean that they originate from something else, in which case they would be able to exist independent of the ego, which is contrary to all that Bhagavan taught us. Why should we believe that anything exists independent of the ego, or that anything originates from any source other than the ego? Since everything is perceived only by the ego, we do not have any adequate reason to suppose that anything exists independent of it or comes from anything other than it. This is why Bhagavan repeatedly emphasised that the ego (which is what he often referred to as ‘the thought called I’) is the first thought and the root of all other thoughts.
8. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: everything depends for its seeming existence on the seeming existence of the ego, so when we investigate the ego keenly enough to see that it does not exist, that is giving up everything
Since the ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things, in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan wrote:
Since the ego seems to exist only so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, it will dissolve and cease to exist only when we try to be so keenly self-attentive that we are aware of nothing other than ourself. And since all other things seem to exist only in the view of the ego, if we keenly investigate this ego in order to see what we actually are, not only will the ego cease to exist but everything else will cease to exist along with it.
This is why he concludes this verse by saying: ‘ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்’ (ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr), ‘Therefore, know that investigating what this [the ego] is alone is giving up everything’.
This is the core and essence of his teachings, so it is essential for us to understand very clearly that the ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things (all thoughts or phenomena). Everything originates from the ego and depends upon the ego for its seeming existence, so if we eradicate the ego we thereby eradicate everything.
- According to dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, perception is not only the cause of creation but is itself creation
- The awareness in which and to which phenomena appear is not real awareness but only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa)
- This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is the ego or mind, which is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear
- The ego or mind causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear only from itself, so it alone is their source or origin
- A cause and its effect can occur simultaneously, but logically the cause comes first and the effect comes only after it
- Since the ego has created all that it perceives, why does it have so little control over what it has created?
- Thoughts come only from ourself, the ego, the one who perceives them, so we alone are the root of all thoughts
- Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: everything depends for its seeming existence on the seeming existence of the ego, so when we investigate the ego keenly enough to see that it does not exist, that is giving up everything
Salazar, what Bhagavan means by the term ‘thought’ is a mental phenomenon of any kind whatsoever, and since according to his teachings all phenomena are mental phenomena, everything other than our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is pure self-awareness, is just a thought. This is why he says in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, ‘நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை’ (niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam-eṉḏṟōr poruḷ aṉṉiyamāy illai), ‘Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world’, and in the fourteenth paragraph, ‘ஜக மென்பது நினைவே’ (jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē), ‘What is called the world is only thought’.
Therefore when you write, ‘That what is aware of thoughts cannot be the creator of these thoughts’, that implies that what is aware of phenomena cannot be the creator of those phenomena, or what is aware of the world cannot be the creator of it, but is this what Bhagavan taught us? What did he teach us about creation? Did he teach that creation occurs prior to or independent of perception, which is what we all generally believe, and which is what is called sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda, the contention (vāda) that creation (sṛṣṭi) precedes and is the cause of perception (dṛṣṭi)?
No, he asked us to question whether anything other than ourself exists independent of our perception of it, and he taught us very explicitly and emphatically what is called dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, the contention that perception (dṛṣṭi) is the sole cause of creation (sṛṣṭi), or more precisely, that perception itself is creation. Phenomena seem to exist only because we perceive them, so our perception of them alone creates their seeming existence. In other words, we, the perceiver, create phenomena merely by perceiving them.
We can understand this by considering our experience in dream. In dream we perceive a world consisting of phenomena of various kinds, including people, just like the world that we now perceive, and just as we now perceive ourself as a person in this world, in dream we perceive ourself as a person in that world. Why does that dream world seem to exist? Only because we perceive it. It does not exist prior to our perception of it, nor independent of our perception of it. Why? Because it does not exist at all except in our perception. It appears only in our awareness, so it would not exist at all if we were not aware of it.
According to Bhagavan any state in which we are aware of phenomena is just a dream, so the world we now perceive is a dream world. This is why he says in Nāṉ Ār? and elsewhere that the world is nothing but thoughts. Do thoughts exist independent of our perception of them? No, they seem to exist only because we perceive them, so they are created only by our perceiving them.
Thinking is a process of forming thoughts and perceiving them, but the formation (creation) of thoughts and the perception of them are not two processes or even two parts of one process, but are one and the same process, because thoughts are formed in our awareness, so they are formed by our being aware of them. Our perception of them is itself the formation or creation of them. In other words, dṛṣṭi is itself sṛṣṭi. There is no creation (sṛṣṭi) other than perception (dṛṣṭi), because there is no existence (sat) other than awareness (cit).
What actually exists is only awareness, so whatever seems to exist seems to exist only because of awareness. Therefore it is only by awareness that anything is created. Without awareness there could be no creation.
Creation is not real but just an illusory appearance, and nothing can appear except in awareness. Appearance requires perception or awareness of it, because if it were not perceived, to whom or to what could it appear? Whatever appears seems to exist only because it is perceived. In other words, whatever seems to exist seems to exist only in awareness, only to awareness, only by awareness and only because of awareness.
2. The awareness in which and to which phenomena appear is not real awareness but only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa)
However, the awareness in which, to which, by which and because of which all things seem to exist is not real awareness (cit), but is only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa), because real awareness is never aware of anything other than itself. This semblance of awareness, in whose view alone all thoughts or phenomena seem to exist, is not real, because it arises and subsides (appears and disappears) along with all the phenomena of which it is aware, as Bhagavan says in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
உலகறிவு மொன்றா யுதித்தொடுங்கு மேனுThe world shines by this semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa), which appears and disappears, because it is perceived only by it and therefore seems to exist only in its view. Therefore though the world and this awareness appear and disappear simultaneously, it is only by this awareness that the world is created or brought into seeming existence. In other words, this awareness is the cause and the appearance of the world is its effect. Whenever this awareness appears, the world appears along with it and because of it, and whenever this awareness disappears, the world disappears along with and because of its disappearance.
முலகறிவு தன்னா லொளிரு — முலகறிவு
தோன்றிமறை தற்கிடனாய்த் தோன்றிமறை யாதொளிரும்
பூன்றமா மஃதே பொருள்.
ulahaṟivu moṉḏṟā yudittoḍuṅgu mēṉu
mulahaṟivu taṉṉā loḷiru — mulahaṟivu
tōṉḏṟimaṟai daṟkiḍaṉāyt tōṉḏṟimaṟai yādoḷirum
pūṉḏṟamā maḵdē poruḷ.
பதச்சேதம்: உலகு அறிவும் ஒன்றாய் உதித்து ஒடுங்கும் ஏனும், உலகு அறிவு தன்னால் ஒளிரும். உலகு அறிவு தோன்றி மறைதற்கு இடன் ஆய் தோன்றி மறையாது ஒளிரும் பூன்றம் ஆம் அஃதே பொருள்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ulahu aṟivum oṉḏṟāy udittu oḍuṅgum ēṉum, ulahu aṟivu-taṉṉāl oḷirum. ulahu aṟivu tōṉḏṟi maṟaidaṟku iḍaṉ-āy tōṉḏṟi maṟaiyādu oḷirum pūṉḏṟam ām aḵdē poruḷ.
அன்வயம்: உலகு அறிவும் ஒன்றாய் உதித்து ஒடுங்கும் ஏனும், உலகு அறிவு தன்னால் ஒளிரும். உலகு அறிவு தோன்றி மறைதற்கு இடன் ஆய் தோன்றி மறையாது ஒளிரும் அஃதே பூன்றம் ஆம் பொருள்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ulahu aṟivum oṉḏṟāy udittu oḍuṅgum ēṉum, ulahu aṟivu-taṉṉāl oḷirum. ulahu aṟivu tōṉḏṟi maṟaidaṟku iḍaṉ-āy tōṉḏṟi maṟaiyādu oḷirum aḵdē pūṉḏṟam ām poruḷ.
English translation: 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.
Explanatory paraphrase: Though the world and awareness [the awareness that perceives the world, namely the ego or mind] arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by [that rising and subsiding] awareness [the mind]. Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the place [space, expanse, location, site or ground] for the appearing and disappearing of the world and [that] awareness is poruḷ [the real substance or vastu], which is pūṉḏṟam [the infinite whole or pūrṇa].
3. This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is the ego or mind, which is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear
This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is what is otherwise called the ego or mind, and as Bhagavan says in the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
மன மென்பது ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தி லுள்ள ஓர் அதிசய சக்தி. அது சகல நினைவுகளையும் தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது.The verb that Bhagavan uses in the second of these two sentences is தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது (tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu), which is the third person singular present tense form of தோற்றுவி (tōṯṟuvi), which is the causative form of தோன்று (tōṉḏṟu), a verb that means to appear, rise, come into existence or seem to be, so தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது (tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu) literally means ‘it causes to appear’ or ‘it makes appear’, but in this context it is often translated as ‘it projects’ or ‘it creates’, which is what it implies. Therefore by saying that the mind ‘causes all thoughts to appear’ or ‘makes all thoughts appear’, he implies unequivocally that the mind is what creates the appearance of all thoughts.
maṉam eṉbadu ātma-sorūpattil uḷḷa ōr atiśaya śakti. adu sakala niṉaivugaḷaiyum tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu
What is called mind is an atiśaya śakti [an extraordinary power] that exists in ātma-svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself]. It makes all thoughts appear.
As he points out in verse 18 of Upadēśa Undiyār, the term ‘mind’ is used in two distinct senses. In a general sense it is a term that refers to the totality of all thoughts or mental phenomena, but since the root of all thoughts is the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’, what the mind essentially is is only the ego, and hence in a more specific sense ‘mind’ is a term that refers to the ego. The ego is the root of all other thoughts because it is the subject, the perceiving thought, whereas all other thoughts are objects perceived by it.
In the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, cited above, the term ‘mind’ refers to the ego, so when Bhagavan says that it ‘causes all thoughts to appear’ or ‘makes all thoughts appear’ he means that the ego (the subject or perceiver) is what causes all other thoughts to appear. However in the next two sentences, in which he says, ‘நினைவுகளை யெல்லாம் நீக்கிப் பார்க்கின்றபோது, தனியாய் மனமென் றோர் பொருளில்லை; ஆகையால் நினைவே மனதின் சொரூபம்’ (niṉaivugaḷai y-ellām nīkki-p pārkkiṉḏṟa-pōdu, taṉi-y-āy maṉam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ illai; āhaiyāl niṉaivē maṉadiṉ sorūpam), ‘When one looks, excluding [removing or putting aside] all thoughts, solitarily there is not any such thing as mind; therefore thought alone is the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or very nature] of the mind’, the term ‘mind’ refers to the totality of all thoughts, namely the ego and all phenomena perceived by it. Therefore whenever Bhagavan uses the term ‘mind’ we need to understand from the context whether he is using it to refer specifically to the ego or more generally to all thoughts.
What Bhagavan teaches us in the second sentence of this paragraph, namely that the mind (in the sense of ego) is what ‘causes all thoughts to appear’, is further emphasised by him later on in the same paragraph by means of an analogy:
நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை. தூக்கத்தில் நினைவுகளில்லை, ஜகமுமில்லை; ஜாக்ர சொப்பனங்களில் நினைவுகளுள, ஜகமும் உண்டு. சிலந்திப்பூச்சி எப்படித் தன்னிடமிருந்து வெளியில் நூலை நூற்று மறுபடியும் தன்னுள் இழுத்துக் கொள்ளுகிறதோ, அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது.Here again he uses the same causative verb, தோற்றுவி (tōṯṟuvi), which means ‘cause to appear’ or ‘make appear’ and which implies ‘project’ or ‘create’, saying ‘அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது’ (appaḍiyē maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu), ‘in that way the mind also causes the world to appear from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself’. Therefore in this paragraph Bhagavan emphasises very strongly and categorically that the mind or ego is what causes all other things (all thoughts or phenomena) to appear.
niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ aṉṉiyam-āy illai. tūkkattil niṉaivugaḷ illai, jagamum illai; jāgra-soppaṉaṅgaḷil niṉaivugaḷ uḷa, jagamum uṇḍu. silandi-p-pūcci eppaḍi-t taṉ-ṉ-iḍam-irundu veḷiyil nūlai nūṯṟu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉuḷ iṙuttu-k-koḷḷugiṟadō, appaḍiyē maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu.
Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world. In sleep there are no thoughts, and [consequently] there is also no world; in waking and dream there are thoughts, and [consequently] there is also a world. Just as a spider spins out thread from within itself and again draws it back into itself, so the mind also makes the world appear [or projects the world] from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself.
4. The ego or mind causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear only from itself, so it alone is their source or origin
Since the ego or mind alone is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear, from where or from what does it cause them to appear? ‘தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து’ (taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu), ‘from itself’ or ‘from within itself’, says Bhagavan. Since the world is nothing but thoughts (mental phenomena of a particular kind, namely sensory perceptions), when he firstly says, ‘அது சகல நினைவுகளையும் தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது’ (adu sakala niṉaivugaḷaiyum tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu), ‘It [the mind] causes all thoughts to appear’, and subsequently says, ‘மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து’ (maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu), ‘the mind also causing the world to appear from within itself’, he clearly implies that the mind or ego causes all thoughts (or all phenomena) to appear from itself.
Therefore Bhagavan teaches us very clearly and unambiguously that the mind, which in this context means the ego, is the source or origin from which all thoughts or phenomena appear, and this accords perfectly with our own experience. From where else could our thoughts come if not from ourself? Thoughts or phenomena appear only in our perception and only because of our perception of them, so their source or origin is only ourself, this ego.
5. A cause and its effect can occur simultaneously, but logically the cause comes first and the effect comes only after it
In the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? he says:
இந்தத் தேகத்தில் நான் என்று கிளம்புவது எதுவோ அஃதே மனமாம். […] மனதில் தோன்றும் நினைவுக ளெல்லாவற்றிற்கும் நானென்னும் நினைவே முதல் நினைவு. இது எழுந்த பிறகே ஏனைய நினைவுகள் எழுகின்றன. தன்மை தோன்றிய பிறகே முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தோன்றுகின்றன; தன்மை யின்றி முன்னிலை படர்க்கைக ளிரா.When Bhagavan says here that the thought called ‘I’ (the ego) is the first thought and that only after it rises do other thoughts arise, this may seem to contradict what he says in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, namely that the world and awareness (which in this context means the ego, the spurious awareness that appears and disappears) arise and subside simultaneously, but there is actually no contradiction here, because when he says that they arise simultaneously he means at the same time, whereas when he says that the ego is the first thought and that only after it rises do other thoughts arise he is not referring to a chronological sequence but to a causal sequence.
inda-t dēhattil nāṉ eṉḏṟu kiḷambuvadu edu-v-ō aḵdē maṉam-ām. […] maṉadil tōṉḏṟum niṉaivugaḷ ellāvaṯṟiṟkum nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē mudal niṉaivu. idu eṙunda piṟahē ēṉaiya niṉaivugaḷ eṙugiṉḏṟaṉa. taṉmai tōṉḏṟiya piṟahē muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tōṉḏṟugiṉḏṟaṉa; taṉmai y-iṉḏṟi muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ irā.
What rises in this body as ‘I’ [namely the ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’], that alone is the mind. […] Of all the thoughts that appear [or arise] in the mind, the thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought [the primal, basic, original or causal thought]. Only after this arises do other thoughts arise. Only after the first person [the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist.
In terms of chronological sequence, a cause must either precede its effect or be simultaneous with its effect, but even when it is simultaneous with its effect, in terms of causal sequence it precedes it, because a cause is what gives rise to an effect, so logically the cause comes first and its effect comes only after it. Consider the example of a moving billiard ball hitting a stationary one. The hit causes some of the momentum of the moving ball to be transferred to the stationary one, as a result of which it begins to move. The hit is the cause, and the movement of the stationary ball is the effect. Both occur simultaneously in time, but in terms of the causal sequence the cause comes first and the effect follows on from it. That is, the hitting comes first, and only after it occurs does the stationary ball begin to move.
It is in this sense that Bhagavan says: ‘நானென்னும் நினைவே முதல் நினைவு. இது எழுந்த பிறகே ஏனைய நினைவுகள் எழுகின்றன. தன்மை தோன்றிய பிறகே முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தோன்றுகின்றன; தன்மை யின்றி முன்னிலை படர்க்கைக ளிரா’ (nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē mudal niṉaivu. idu eṙunda piṟahē ēṉaiya niṉaivugaḷ eṙugiṉḏṟaṉa. taṉmai tōṉḏṟiya piṟahē muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tōṉḏṟugiṉḏṟaṉa; taṉmai y-iṉḏṟi muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ irā), ‘the thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought. Only after this arises do other thoughts arise. Only after the first person [the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist’. That is, though the ego (the thought called ‘I’) and other thoughts arise simultaneously, in the sequence of cause and effect the rising of the ego comes first, because it is the cause, and the rising of other thoughts comes only after that, because it is the effect.
In an earlier comment you wrote, ‘the ego and thoughts appear and disappear simultaneously. To imply that one of these concepts were there before the other one is rather fishy, I believe that the question what is first, the ego or a thought falls under the category of what is first, the chicken or the egg?’ but this seems to be fishy only if we fail to distinguish causal sequence from chronological sequence. Bhagavan did say (as in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu) that ego and other thoughts appear and disappear simultaneously, referring to chronological sequence, but he also said (as in the final four sentences of the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?) that the ego is the first thought and that only after it rises do other thoughts rise, referring to causal sequence.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that the ego (the first person, the thought called ‘I’) is the first thought to appear and that only after it appears do other thoughts (second and third persons) appear, he does not mean that there is any lapse of time between the appearance of the ego and the appearance of other thoughts or phenomena, but is merely emphasising that the appearance of the ego is the cause and the appearance of all other things is its effect. The ego is the first cause, the cause of all other causes, so all chains of cause and effect begin only after the ego has appeared.
The analogy of the chicken and egg that you mention is not appropriate in this context, because chickens and eggs are links in a long chain of cause and effect, whereas the ego is the beginning or origin of every chain of cause and effect. Like both a chicken and an egg, every cause (or potential cause) is an effect of another cause, except the ego, which is the only cause that is not an effect of any other cause. It is the causeless cause, the uncaused cause, because nothing precedes it, whereas it precedes everything.
A chicken is the cause of an egg, which is in turn the cause of another chicken, and so on ad infinitum, but all such chains of cause and effect seem to exist only in the view of the ego, so they can appear only when the ego has appeared, and they must disappear as soon as it disappears. Therefore the ego is the cause and origin of all other causes and effects. This is why Bhagavan says that it is the first thought, and that all other thoughts (including chickens and eggs and all other chains of cause and effect) arise only after it has arisen.
6. Since the ego has created all that it perceives, why does it have so little control over what it has created?
You conclude that earlier comment by writing, ‘Anyway, I do not think that any clarity of that topic can be found in Bhagavan’s texts, I still favor Robert’s comment and I believe that he is in unison with Bhagavan on this matter’, but there is actually abundant clarity on this topic that we can found in his texts if we know how to look for it. The fact that the ego alone is the root cause for the appearance of everything else is one of the fundamental principles of his teachings and is therefore emphasised by him unequivocally in so many ways in his original writings, particularly in Nāṉ Ār? and Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, and also in many of the records of his replies to questions that he was asked.
Earlier in the same comment you asked, ‘Now I am wondering, since the ego cannot control these thoughts which it is supposedly “creating” how can it be the creator of thereof?’ but why do you assume that the creator should necessarily be able to control what it has created? When we dream, is the creator of our dream anyone other than ourself, the dreamer, namely this mind or ego?
Since perception is itself creation, we who perceive a dream are the one who is thereby creating it, but are we able to control all that we perceive in a dream? No, we cannot, and the reason for this is simple: when we create a dream world, we create ourself as a person in that world, and it is only as that person that we perceive that world, so though we are the creator of that world, we experience ourself as a creature in it, and by being a small part of our creation we have to a large extent lost control over it. The same is the case with this world and all that we perceive in it, including all the thoughts that arise in the mind of the person whom we now seem to be.
You are creating this world from moment to moment, but since you experience yourself as a person called Salazar, and since Salazar is a creature in the world you have created, as Salazar you have lost control of most of your own creation. This is the wonderful power of māyā (self-deception or self-delusion), which according to Bhagavan is nothing other than the ego or mind. We have created this world, but we are deluded by our own creation, so we are unable to control this demon that we have conjured up.
This is why in Hindu mythology the first three divine functions, namely creation, sustenance and dissolution, are each attributed to a different deity. According to this allegorical way of expressing the truth, Brahma has created this world, but he is unable to control or sustain it, nor is he able to destroy it, so it is sustained by Vishnu and destroyed by Siva. Of these three forms of God, which two are most highly revered? Only Vishnu and Siva, because creation is not a worthy function, so Brahma, the creator, is not worshipped in any temple, but only in Vedic rituals that are performed for the fulfilment of desires.
Suppose we have an irrational fear or an obsessive desire. That fear or desire is just a thought and it is created only by us, but we have become so caught up in our own creation that we are carried away by it and seem to be unable to control it.
This is not to say that we have absolutely no control over what we think or over other phenomena. We may have some degree of control, but that degree is limited, and the more we are deluded by our own creation, the less control we have over it. However if we patiently and persistently practise self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), our viṣaya-vāsanās (outward-going inclinations, urges or desires) will be gradually weakened, and our mind will thereby be purified. To the extent that it is purified it will be clear, and the clearer it becomes the less dense will be its delusion, so the extent to which we are able to keep a tight rein on our viṣaya-vāsanās, which are the seeds that give rise to thoughts, will increase correspondingly.
7. Thoughts come only from ourself, the ego, the one who perceives them, so we alone are the root of all thoughts
In a later part of the comment whose first paragraph I quoted at the beginning of this article you wrote, ‘So where are thoughts coming from? If patiently investigated one will discover that they come out of nowhere and disappear into nowhere’, but how can anything come out of nowhere? Nowhere does not exist except as an idea or thought, so from where does the idea of nowhere arise? Something cannot come out of nothing, because nothing does not exist, so whatever appears must appear from something.
In the next paragraph of that comment you wrote, ‘it is absolutely clear that they [thoughts] cannot come from the observer of these thoughts’, but from where else could thoughts come if not from ourself, the one who perceives or observes them? Thoughts appear only in the mind, and the source from which they appear is the root thought, the ego (which is why Bhagavan calls it the mūlam, the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause of all other thoughts). The ego rises or appears only out of ātma-svarūpa (the real nature of oneself), and all other thoughts rise or appear only out of the ego, so the ego is the immediate source and foundation of all other thoughts, and ātma-svarūpa is their ultimate source and foundation.
From what does the illusion of a snake appear? It cannot appear from nowhere or nothing, so it appears from something that (in terms of this analogy) actually exists, namely a rope. However it could not appear from a rope without the intervening medium called ego or mind, because it appears to be a snake only in the view of the ego. Therefore the immediate cause for the appearance of the snake is the ego, in whose view alone it appears, and the ultimate cause of it is the rope, because without the rope there would be nothing to be seen as a snake.
This is just an analogy, so there is a limit to the extent to which it accurately represents the truth to which it is analogous, but what it is intended to illustrate here is that the ultimate source, substance and foundation of the ego and of all thoughts or phenomena perceived by the ego is only ātma-svarūpa, but that the immediate source, substance and foundation of all thoughts or phenomena is only the ego, because it is only in the view of the ego that everything else seems to exist.
Without the ego could any other thought or phenomenon appear? It could not, because the ego is that to which and from which all other thoughts or phenomena appear. Likewise, without ātma-svarūpa could the ego appear? It could not, because ātma-svarūpa is that from which (but not to which) the ego appears.
This is why in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? Bhagavan says, ‘மனம் ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தினின்று வெளிப்படும்போது ஜகம் தோன்றும்’ (maṉam ātma-sorūpattiṉiṉḏṟu veḷippaḍum-pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟum), ‘When the mind comes out from ātma-svarūpa, the world appears’, meaning that ātma-svarūpa is the source from which the mind or ego appears, and in the previous sentence said, ‘[…] அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது’ (appaḍiyē maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu), ‘[…] in that way the mind also causes the world to appear from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself’, meaning that the mind or ego is the source from which the world and all other thoughts appear.
If other thoughts or phenomena did not originate from the ego, that would mean that they originate from something else, in which case they would be able to exist independent of the ego, which is contrary to all that Bhagavan taught us. Why should we believe that anything exists independent of the ego, or that anything originates from any source other than the ego? Since everything is perceived only by the ego, we do not have any adequate reason to suppose that anything exists independent of it or comes from anything other than it. This is why Bhagavan repeatedly emphasised that the ego (which is what he often referred to as ‘the thought called I’) is the first thought and the root of all other thoughts.
8. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: everything depends for its seeming existence on the seeming existence of the ego, so when we investigate the ego keenly enough to see that it does not exist, that is giving up everything
Since the ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things, in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan wrote:
அகந்தையுண் டாயி னனைத்துமுண் டாகுIn the kaliveṇbā version of this verse Bhagavan extended the first sentence of this verse by adding a relative clause to describe the ego, namely ‘கருவாம்’ (karu-v-ām), which means ‘which is the embryo [womb, efficient cause, inner substance or foundation]’ and which therefore implies that the ego is the embryo that develops into everything else, the womb from which everything is born, the efficient cause (nimitta kāraṇa) that creates or produces everything, the inner substance of all phenomena, and the foundation on which they all appear.
மகந்தையின் றேலின் றனைத்து — மகந்தையே
யாவுமா மாதலால் யாதிதென்று நாடலே
யோவுதல் யாவுமென வோர்.
ahandaiyuṇ ḍāyi ṉaṉaittumuṇ ḍāhu
mahandaiyiṉ ḏṟēliṉ ḏṟaṉaittu — mahandaiyē
yāvumā mādalāl yādideṉḏṟu nādalē
yōvudal yāvumeṉa vōr.
பதச்சேதம்: அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும். அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum. ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr.
அன்வயம்: அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், அனைத்தும் இன்று. யாவும் அகந்தையே ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே யாவும் ஓவுதல் என ஓர்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, aṉaittum iṉḏṟu. yāvum ahandai-y-ē ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē yāvum ōvudal eṉa ōr.
English translation: If the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist. The ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this is alone is giving up everything.
Explanatory paraphrase: If the ego comes into existence, everything [all phenomena, everything that appears and disappears, everything other than our pure, fundamental, unchanging and immutable self-awareness] comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist [because nothing other than pure self-awareness actually exists, so everything else seems to exist only in the view of the ego, and hence it cannot seem to exist unless the ego seems to exist]. [Therefore] the ego itself is everything [because it is the original seed or embryo, which alone is what expands as everything else]. Therefore, know that investigating what this [the ego] is alone is giving up everything [because the ego will cease to exist if it investigates itself keenly enough, and when it ceases to exist everything else will cease to exist along with it].
Since the ego seems to exist only so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, it will dissolve and cease to exist only when we try to be so keenly self-attentive that we are aware of nothing other than ourself. And since all other things seem to exist only in the view of the ego, if we keenly investigate this ego in order to see what we actually are, not only will the ego cease to exist but everything else will cease to exist along with it.
This is why he concludes this verse by saying: ‘ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்’ (ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr), ‘Therefore, know that investigating what this [the ego] is alone is giving up everything’.
This is the core and essence of his teachings, so it is essential for us to understand very clearly that the ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things (all thoughts or phenomena). Everything originates from the ego and depends upon the ego for its seeming existence, so if we eradicate the ego we thereby eradicate everything.
Posts
1,351 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 1351 Newer› Newest»(Continued from previous comment)
Therefore, it is correct to state that as an ego, our power of attention is free, innate and inalienable. Now, some people try to dismiss this power of attention by insisting that it is illusory. But this is a truism: when the parent (the ego) is illusory, all of its offsprings are necessarily illusory.
The reason why understanding whether or not we are free to choose what to attend to is important in the context of Bhagavan's teachings, is that if we insist that we cannot attend to what we want, then the very practice of atma-vichara becomes impossible, and which further implies that what Bhagavan teaches is not within our power to choose to do. We can practice atma-vichara only if we are free to cultivate sat vasana.
Therefore, it is essential to acknowledge our innate and inalienable power to cultivate whichever vasana we want. However, this understanding should not lead us to cultivate vishaya vasanas, but instead should motivate us to use our freedom of attention to 'clings fast to uninterrupted svarūpa-smaraṇa until one attains svarūpa'.
Salazar, this blog does not need our participation; we need to participate in order to keep our mind dwelling on Bhagavan’s teachings. It is like, Bhagavan does not need us; we need Bhagavan and his teachings.
It is our love for Bhagavan and his teachings that keep us glued to this blog, isn’t it? Our individual opinions do not really matter, because we are not here to impress each another. We are here to deepen our understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings.
Wittgenstein,
I am really (but really) surprised by your reaction in this last comment of yours.
First of all, I think I never lost my respect for you or anyone in this blog that I remember. I just challenge ideas with my limited understanding, that might not be so great and even faulty, but that’s the way I learn and act. Others prefer the more secure way of quoting (not you) and that is just great also. We also have to acknowledge that the internet doesn’t help in this and the fact that is only written stuff without body language makes a big difference, I always say that the same discussion we are having around a coffee or tea table would be completely different in nature. And believe me, if I ever demonstrated a lack of respect in any way, except in presenting my thinking (as faulty, childish and controversial it might be) I sincerely apologize.
But in this exchange, I could see that I definitely touched a nerve somewhere here, because the reaction is far bigger than the harm.
Wittgenstein, with all due respect, who do you think you are when it comes down to Bhagavan’s teachings?
Threatening to walk away because someone challenges your views, even if those challenging views (those such things) are completely wacky? Where does that attitude come from?
It sounds more like Wittgenstein has an imaginary picture of Wittgenstein that has been challenged, instead of his ideas. Punishing the blog with the threat of your departure, because of my responses to you that are civil and without any profanities? It’s fine if you want to punish “me” by not addresing my comments when I ask for comments, I couldn’t care less. And I shall also not beg you to not depart, because whatever has to happen will happen regardless… and also what you do here is none of my business, as you also mention. I don’t have the sentiment "Daddy doesn’t like me any more, (sobbing) what am I to do now?”
Definitely you got irritated by my attitude of me being Mr "I know Everything Here” which I don’t deny I have, but the kind of response I got from our interaction in this last comment proves that I just put the finger on the same shared spot of our persona. Otherwise it would have been like Michael, which decided to address my query with complete silence, because I am sure (almost) he didn’t think it wasn’t worth his time. And I respect that a lot, it is also a way of responding.
When I said “enough of talking about the snake!” I didn’t mean: "Wittgenstein shut up”. What I meant (and I can be completely out of sync with reality here) is that at a certain point our intellect starts to take over threading concepts of concepts, that even if they are right in essence, they defeat their purpose and are no more tools to explore and investigate oneself but just mental gymnastics. It might not be your case, granted, but that is the way I thought the whole conversation was going.
By the way, I just saw a comment from Sanjay addressed to Salazar coming in my inbox that really touched my heart:
"Salazar, this blog does not need our participation; we need to participate in order to keep our mind dwelling on Bhagavan’s teachings. It is like, Bhagavan does not need us; we need Bhagavan and his teachings.
It is our love for Bhagavan and his teachings that keep us glued to this blog, isn’t it? Our individual opinions do not really matter, because we are not here to impress each another. We are here to deepen our understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings.”
The way Mouna expresses “itself” may not be the piece of cake everyone expects, sometimes with jokes, most of the time with nonsense, and sporadically with one or two hits that make sense. You don’t like it, who cares? you do, who cares also?
Do what you have to do, leave or not leave, read or not read my comments, it’s all in the order of things.
Respectfully,
Mouna, aka Carlos Grasso… or viceversa.
Hello all involved in the recent discussion about free will,
I ran out of energy and time to continue thinking about it, I want to thank you the ones involved for their time and energy.
I think I’ll stick to Bhagavan’s advice in this matter:
"Ulladu Narpadu - Verse 19. The dispute as to which will triumph, fate or free will, which are fundamentally different, is only for those who are without understanding as to the root of fate and free will. Those who have known the [ego] self, which is the single source of fate and free will, are free from those things. Pray say, will they resort to them thereafter?”
Regards,
M
(an interesting fact, if one does a search for free will in Bhagavan’s main literature like Ulladu N, Upadesa U, Guru Vachaka Kovai, etc.. those two words appear only in a very few rare instances, which might demonstrate Bhagavan’s lack of appeal for those two different views like free will vs predetermination)
Devotee: At what stage does the ego start erupting within us?
Michael: The ego isn’t something other than us. We who are born are the ego. It is the ego that is born. Language has its limitations. When we talk of ‘the ego’, we talk as if the ego is something other than ourself. But what we now experience as ourself is the ego.
Now we feel ‘I am a person’, ‘I am Michael’. The one who feels ‘I am Michael’ is the ego.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 14th January 2017
Mouna, brother, the more I read your comments the more I feel a strong affinity with your mind/self.
Sanjay, I concur with your last comment addressed at me. Well said!
Aseem, I do not agree with your example of my 'mind exercises' as evidence of 'free will'. I am not entirely sure how to put that down in words, right now my 'free will' doesn't feel so inclined, it may happen some time in the future [or not]. Like with Mouna, after a longer exchange about the same main concept my energy gets drained, a good example how the mind exhausts dealing with conflicting concepts.
gargoyle, my other brother-in-arms, I said in a past comment to you that I am a sinner but that is not really true. I am a sinner if I identify with this body and mind and that's is the only difference and has nothing to do with the deed as terrible it may have been.
Bad deed combined with identification or sense of doership ---> bad karma and responsibility.
[Same] bad deed combined with no sense of doership ---> no karma and freedom.
Would anybody be offensive to someone if they had the power to stop it? Not at all. That means we do not have the power to alter our unethical behavior but to not identify with it. The immature mind may feel “bad” about it and creates the desire to be a kind person what must manifest in a future life. The mature mind stops identifying with that action.
If we want to go the “ethical” route than we have to incarnate a few thousands or ten thousands times more until we've cultivated kind and considerate behavior. But then we desire to have sex and again, we may develop the desire to be free of sexual desires – now how long will that take to be “cultivated”? A hundred thousands more life times?
If we instead grasp that the problem is not the deed but the identification with the deed then we just resort to vichara/surrender and in a dozen or more life times we have transcended being good or bad and we are free.
The great pity is that one of our most acute posters - Samarender Reddy - has already asked some very insightful questions about fate and freewill, to which MJ has given some very unsatisfactory answers (heh, heh, to my mind) because of the utter inscrutability of the topic.
In my opinion, Sri Ramana says all that can be said about the matter in Talk 28 (and how beautifully profound it is...). If one's temperament is not devotional one could just say "Nature" instead of "God".
Anonymous,
I am glad you remember my querying Michael on the topic of free will and predestination. Here is what Bhagavan's final position seems to be on the matter:
from http://www.arunachala.org/newsletters/2018/jul-aug#article.2
I [Devaraj Mudaliar] also recall in this connection [about everything being destined] the following lines that Bhagavan once quoted to me from Thayumanavar on another occasion, which means: “This is not to be taught to all. Even if we tell them, it will only lead to endless discussion.”
The following extract is taken from the online journal The Maharshi Jul/Aug 2018. It appears as part of the article titled: My Heart’s Journey: A Pilgrim’s Diary by Evelyn Kaselow:
At one time he [Kunju Swami] wished to take up a study of Vedantic texts and told Bhagavan, 'Not for myself, but for the sake of others!' He had the gift of eloquence and could easily quote from any number of scriptures. Bhagavan, however, forbade him to pursue this study. In subsequent years when Bhagavan saw Kunju Swami talking to devotees, he would now and then chide him by asking, 'Are you doing it for yourself or for others?!' Thus, Kunju Swami came to understand that it was he himself who was helped when he spoke with others of Bhagavan’s teaching and life.
Reflections: So, as we were discussing earlier, it is we ourselves who are benefitted when we write about or discuss Bhagavan’s teachings. When we discuss his teachings with others they may be also benefitted, but we have no real means of confirming this.
Moreover, according to Bhagavan, there are no others in its true sense. If this is so, how can we do anything for the sake of others when others do not even exist?
Samarender Reddy, thank you for that comment and we can see this coming true on this blog. The only reason why I have initiated the topic of destiny and prarabdha several times is that it helped me to relax more and I thought it could benefit a few here too. How?
Before Bhagavan's (and Annamalai Swami's and others) comments about destiny sank in I was under the impression that I needed to "create" the things in my life (what is the common understanding for most). I needed to study hard so I could go to college. I needed to worry about many things so I could have an excellent final exam. I needed to "improve" myself (look good or whatever) so I could attract a nice woman, etc. etc. [That was in my twenties]
Thus in all of these instances I packed a huge load of baggage (what "I" needed to do or create) on my shoulders and it gave my mind a lot of frenzy.
After I've read and grasped the meaning of destiny from various sages I realized that if I'd go to college or not and how good my final exam will be and if I attract a nice woman or not IS already destined and the actions of the body MUST lead to that outcome WITHOUT me worrying about not learning enough or to not look attractive enough NOR to plan for that desired outcome.
So I dropped that mental baggage from my shoulders well knowing that that what I am supposed to experience MUST come to me absolutely independent from what my mind believes it has to do!
If that truly sinks in the mind will rejoice and life seems to take a different turn.
Salazar,
”If that truly sinks in the mind will rejoice and life seems to take a different turn.”
Great comment my friend, you just described the true meaning of surrender.
Blessings
M
Mouna,
Thanks for your comments. Ever since I read your comment, I had to spend a very long time considering the thoughts you had expressed in it. I found that it was written in a genuine spirit, straight to me and more importantly, with empathy. The long time I spent alone was for my own self-examination and I had to go through a series of emotions, starting with denial, reluctant acceptance of certain things, followed by shame. I was waiting for these emotions to settle down. I am now calm and wanted to write to you. At the outset I should thank you for the concern you showed.
You ask: “[…] who do you think you are when it comes down to Bhagavan’s teachings?” The short answer is ‘nobody’. Not only with respect to Bhagavan’s teachings, but in many aspects of life I am nobody.
When I was ten years old my father died. I still remember the day (it was a Saturday). I was reading a comic strip. He passed by me, smiled at me and went into the living room. He was on his favorite reclining chair, reading the newspaper and suddenly I heard his groaning. By the time the medical help arrived, he was gone in a massive cardiac arrest. Every day on the way back from school, I would take a short detour to visit his grave (I kept it a secret for long, even from my mother), trying to know where he really went.
Nine years ago, I was hunting for a job when my elder brother drowned in a local lake. I was traveling in a local transport (it was a Saturday) when I got the news and when I saw him brought out of the morgue, his face was so bloated beyond recognition and I still remember the moment vividly. Following Monday was my job interview, which I attended immediately after the funeral, as I needed it badly. I have a family to feed, after all.
Nearly one and half years back my brother-in-law was killed in a road accident. When we received the news, we were having lunch (it was a Saturday) and I still remember how my wife screamed and how I found her inconsolable for days later on (they were a well-knit family, siblings conversing for hours together on phone).
This life is a soap bubble, which I have seen in zoomed-in condition right from my childhood and I understand I am nobody. I have not even scratched the surface of Bhagavan’s teachings.
Definitely I got irritated by what I perceived as your attitude of Mr. ‘I know Everything Here’. It did touch a nerve in me. The nerve is called ‘perfectionist’. I know I am nobody and Bhagavan is the most complete perfectionist. Nevertheless I belong to that category of pathetic perfectionist who reads everything he composes many times before posting, looking for all sorts of errors, conveys his thoughts clearly (or thinks he is doing so!) and gets hurt (because his pride is wounded) when told ‘enough’. Now I know you did not say it that way. I do accept my pride was hurt. I needed someone to point this out and I thank you for doing that.
Continuation of my conversation with Mouna.
Regarding the quotation that really touched your heart, I need to say something. Do I love Bhagavan? Yes, very much. Do I like to share my views on my pathetic understanding of his teachings? Yes, very much. Within that ‘patheticity’ (I don’t find a suitable word here, but you get the meaning though), do I desire to be perfect? Yes, very much. Do I secretly need some appreciation to appease my ego? Yes, very much. Someone may not have this ‘secret desire’ and it is good for them.
I find myself a curious mixture of something that is good (to a limited extent) and bad (to a large extent). That is to say, my love for Bhagavan and discussing to deepen my understanding of his teachings co-exist with my other weak spots. If I accept and display only the good spots and deny the weak ones, I will be fooling myself. Bhagavan does not need me because he already has me, irrespective of my good and bad spots. I need Bhagavan and do not have him yet because I am still holding onto my bad spots.
I find you say the Mr ‘I know Everything Here’ as something you do not deny you have and call it as our persona. I appreciate your honesty. I recall Salazar talks about his not liking pseudo-humility and I share with him this taste. If the blog readers and other friends of mine come to know certain weak spots or nerves in me, it is perfectly fine with me. One day or other it has to come out. In fact I should thank you for bringing it out in a very, very effective way through your comment (whose beauty I am stuck with for the past twenty four hours). Otherwise I would have remained blind. I needed it, really. I thank Bhagavan for this scene in my script.
Am I proud of my weak spots? No, not at all. I hear Bhagavan whispering in my ears, ‘These are your weak spots. Come on, be brave, deal with them. I am with you’. Contrary to what you may object, I in fact want to own the responsibility of taking care of these weak spots. I will put in efforts to deal with them. However, Bhagavan will arrange (or has already arranged) the results. Since it is my weak spot and hence my responsibility, it need not concern anyone else.
Coming to the ‘threatening’ part, you might have noticed I am writing only on and off for the past two years. This is due to my increased work load at office and other personal problems. So even if I do not write for some extended time nobody is going to take notice anyway. That being said, ‘threatening’ is ruled out. It was just frustration.
So, Mouna, thanks once again. My eyes are open (a bit) now. Also, sorry for causing inconvenience.
Wittgenstein, it seems that a lot of terrible things have happened to you on various Saturdays. Incidentally, the last, somewhat angry, comment that Mouna wrote to you was also written on a Saturday (7 July 2018 at 17:11).
Yes, as you imply, we as this ego are nobody.
Wittgenstein,
I'll take my time to intentionally read your comment twice, but strangely enough this morning (before reading this comment) I was thinking today that one thing was missing in my comment reply to you of a couple of days ago was to thank you for taking the time to comment on my comment because I asked for comments.
That being said, I'll continue reading your new one.
Thank you
M
Michael,
thanks for deleting my comment(former nr.508) as suggested.
We are happy that you can find some time to look out over the whole mass of our comments.
So please delete also this comment.
Sanjay, brother
If I may insert a small correction on your comment, my comment to Wittgenstein was never an outcome of anger. Irritation? maybe, but not anger, how could we be angry towards our fellow devotees???
We are all fighting the same battle within the same battleground...
Yes, Mouna, we are fighting the same battle under a common Commander-in-Chief - Bhagavan Ramana'.
Wittgenstein,
I have only one word reading your posting: wow!
But that wow comes drenched in tears…
Inconvenience? what a lesson in convenience you just gave about a true devotee’s work.
my pranams and also my thanks
m
(note: I was also freaked out while you were describing Wittgenstein personality how similar we are…)
Bhagavan says, in this path, it is not a matter of learning but of unlearning. We have learnt so many things and have acquired beliefs about so many things. Bhagavan asks us to reject all our long-cherished beliefs and ideas. It is difficult to give up all these beliefs, because it is only by clinging to these beliefs that our ego can survive. Because we have a sense of reality towards this world, we want to enjoy all its pleasures. We want to constantly learn things, educate ourselves, acquire possessions, social status and so on.
We cannot experience this world as unreal as long as we experience ourself as this body. So at least we should be ready to accept tentatively, as a working hypothesis, that all this is unreal. This will help us to investigate, ‘who is the one to whom all this appears real?’
So that is why Bhagavan says that ultimately the most important thing to doubt is the very existence of the doubter. So we can leave doubting other things aside for a while - for the time being. What is the true nature of this doubter? Does this doubter really exist or is it just our imagination? We need to investigate.
If we are not what we seem to be, nothing else is what it seems to be. Who is it who says, ‘this world is real’? It is ‘I’. It is this ‘I’ which says, ‘this world is real’, ‘this body is me’. This ‘I’ is the ego. That is the wrong knowledge of ourself, the false self-awareness. So when we find out the truth about ourself, we will find out the truth about everything else, because everything is known only by me.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 14th January 2017 (0:28 onwards)
Sanjay,
Your Michael's video extract prompted me to think that Bhagavan's teachings are about learning how to unlearn! :)
(and eventually even that will have to be unlearned!!)
Wittgenstein,
On a complete different topic, I am still waiting with much interest your translation of Sadhu Om's tamilian commentary on Ulladu Narpadu that you once said you will enterprise with Michael's collaboration. I know your time is limited, hopefully one day it will see the light for us english/non-tamilian speakers. It could even be published as a book that I am certain (almost) Sri Ramanasramam would be interested in having on its virtual or concrete bookshelf...
That's all,
thx
m
Sanjay Lohia,
"Bhagavan does not need us; we need Bhagavan and his teachings."
when you refer to "Bhagavan" may I ask you as who or what "Bhagavan" you consider ?
Is he (it) both outside and inside ?
Sanjay Lohia,
"It is ‘I’. It is this ‘I’ which says, ‘this world is real’, ‘this body is me’. This ‘I’ is the ego. That is the wrong knowledge of ourself, the false self-awareness. So when we find out the truth about ourself, we will find out the truth about everything else, because everything is known only by me."
However, that wrong knowledge is our inner experience. But how to correct an inner experience ?
Salazar,
I have been reading your comments on the lack of free will and I by and large agree with your views on it. If everything is predestined, then even our spiritual sadhana, to some, or maybe large, extent must be predetermined. Consider this:
Venkataraman Iyer (future Ramana Maharshi) was born in 1879. He attained self-realization in 1896 at the age of 17. Now, let us say someone was born in 1884, that is, when Venkataraman was 5 years old. Let us say this person, upon hearing about Ramana Maharshi in 1925, decides to pay a visit to him in Tiruvannamalai. This person's bodily actions are predetermined as per Ramana's contention at the time of his birth. Which would mean, his going to meet Ramana Maharshi in 1925 was already predetermined in 1884 at the time of his birth, when Venkataraman was only 5 years old. So, when Venkataraman was only 5 years old it was already predetermined that he would be Ramana Maharshi, the realized sage, in 1925, which would entail that he must have realized his Self before that, otherwise this person would not go and meet him. So, Venkataraman's self-realization, was also predetermined. That would also be entailed even if seen from Venkataraman's body perspective. If he was predetermined to leave his house at the age of 17 and go and settle in Tiruvannamalai at the foothills of Arunachala, he would have done that only if he had realized his Self, so his Self-realization was already predetermined at the time of his birth. Which shows that he did not really have the "freedom" to identify or not with his body, but was carried along a divine current into self-realization.
IN CONTINUATION OF ABOVE POST:
Now, two questions arise: (1) Why did Bhagavan say we have freedom to identify with the body or not, when we clearly know through reasoning that we do not, and (2) Where does such a reasoning leave us with regard to effort and striving in our lives.
(1) Bhagavan did not have the freedom to say otherwise; that is, it was God himself speaking through Ramana those words, which are less of a lie and more of a truism and noble lie because by saying so, we are motivated to put in the effort, through God's guile or leela, if you will. That is how God accomplishes his plan through us, by creating the illusion that we are in control and not by putting a gun to our heads and forcing us to do what he wants. God acts in the world where we are made to see illusory causes and effects for actions that he himself does through us. So, it is just a game that God is playing. That is why the world is said to be God's leela.
(2) Where does that leave us with regard to effort. Strictly speaking, if one takes on board that everything is predetermined, then one surrenders completely and utterly to God at once (of course, you could ask at this point do we have that freedom - yes, in the sense that the very understanding that everything is predetermined occasions or causes the surrender) and that is the end of story - you will be liberated and ego, the locus of free will and fate, will be at an end. If not, if one does not believe it fully, then through the illusion that we are in control we will put in effort as per God's plan and we will carry on. If one is caught in between, that is, one is fatalistic about life without surrendering fully, life (or God, if you will) will correct that attitude in us through other series of causal mechanisms and understandings.
Prapatti, yes, Bhagavan is both inside and outside. Bhagavan is what we really are, and what we really are is infinite, immutable, unbroken being-awareness-bliss. Therefore, what exists is only Bhagavan. We say Bhagavan is inside as long as we experience ourself as this body. However, since our body is an illusion, there is, in fact, no inside or outside.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 33
Saying that sanchita and agamya will not adhere to a jnani but prarabdha will remain, is a reply which is told to the questions of others. Know that just as no wife will remain unwidowed when the husband dies, all the three karmas will vanish when the doer is destroyed by self-knowledge.
Reflections: When devotes asked Bhagavan whether they should take sannyasa to devote that entire time to meditation, Bhagavan would invariably discourage them. He would say that it is not required. If devotees asked Bhagavan, ‘But Bhagavan why did you take sannyasa?’, he would reply ‘it was my destiny’.
However, once our ego is destroyed can we have a destiny? Bhagavan used to sometimes say that he had a destiny, but this was a reply given to ‘others’. That is, it was a reply given to those who were not mature enough to understand that a jnani can have no destiny. All the three karmas can exist only for the ego, and if the ego is destroyed, no karma can continue. Prarabdha means the fruits of our actions, but if there is no experiencer (the ego) to experience such fruits, who will experience such fruits?
If this is the case, how do we understand Bhagavan’s life story after he attained self-knowledge? His life had a story, and it seemed as if he had a destiny. The truth is when Venkataraman merged in God and became one with it, whatever happened afterwards to Bhagavan’s body was just a play of grace. Since he was to be a guru for all of us, grace made him remain with a body for another 54 years after his famous ‘death-experience’.
One more question: ‘Was Bhagavan’s (or Venkataraman’s enlightenment) part of his destiny?’
Not really. One moment before his final merger all his three karmas were intact, but as soon as he merged within all his three karmas disappeared forever. The final merger was according to Venkataraman's freedom of will. When the fear of death came, he had a choice to cling to his worldly attachments (these were extremely weak but nevertheless these were there), or to leave everything external by clinging only to himself. He decided to cling to himself with all the power at his command.
Of course, at the time of the merger, his mind was extremely pure. However, the state of being is not an action (karma), so no karma can help us to merge back within. Yes, Venkataraman’s destiny (which is Bhagavan’s will) provided him with the congenial external circumstances. Grace made him encounter this great fear of death, but his response to this fear of death was according to his freedom of will.
Alasdair: We need the intellectual apparatus to get through the day, so why should we try and kill our mind?
Michael: Who needs it? It’s the ego, isn’t it? Do you think brahman needs the intellect to get through life? Who needs to function in this world? It’s the ego which says ‘I am Alasdair’. Alasdair needs to function in the world.
A: But Alasdair needs to think. He needs to do things like making tea…
M: Alasdair doesn’t think anything. It’s you (the ego) who think. Because you think ‘I am Alasdair’, you think ‘Alasdair is thinking these things’.
A: Tell me how does Alasdair get through life, even if he doesn’t have this assumption?
M: Why should Alasdair get through life? Why are you so concerned about Alasdair? It is because you take yourself to be Alasdair. When I say ‘I am Michael’, that is the ego. I am referring to ‘Michael’ as ‘I’. That is the ego. The ‘I’ that says ‘I am Alasdair’ is the ego. The pure ‘I’ doesn’t say ‘I need to function in life’.
Kavyakantha was very much into doing tapas. So one thing he was concerned about was, how to lead a very-very simple life, a very austere life? So he once said to Bhagavan, ‘It seems to me that we can live for a month for just 3 rupees’. Bhagavan replied, ‘we can live without a body, so why then 3 rupees?’
It is a completely different outlook. Kavyakantha’s outlook is like yours. He feels ‘I am Ganapathi Sastri’, so he feels ‘I need 3 rupees a month’. Bhagavan doesn’t feel ‘I am Ramana Maharshi’, so he doesn’t need 3 rupees a month.
Edited extract from the video dated 14th January 2017 (0:42 to 0:47)
Reflections: Why am I concerned about Sanjay? It is only because I take myself to be Sanjay. I am not concerned about people walking down the road, because I do not identify with those people. But am I Sanjay? If I am not, why should I be bothered about Sanjay and his needs? Bhagavan has charted out a life for Sanjay, and he will take care of Sanjay and his needs.
My duty is to break my identification with Sanjay. Why should I take Sanjay's load on my head, if I am not Sanjay? I can break this identification only by self-investigation. If my ego is destroyed, I will not be able to project a body and take it to be myself. However, as long as I experience myself to be Sanjay, I will be concerned about Sanjay’s well-being in every which way. But am I Sanjay? A million-dollar question.
Bhagavan says in verse 28 of Upadesa Undiyar:
If one knows what the nature of oneself is, then [what will exist and shine is only] anādi[beginningless], ananta [endless, limitless or infinite] and akhaṇḍa [unbroken, undivided or unfragmented] sat-cit-ānanda [being-awareness-bliss].
There is nothing other than that. So long as anything seems to be other than anadi, ananta, akhanda sat-cit-ananda, who is experiencing it? It is the ego. So the ego is the root of all these things. So there is no such thing as a benign ego, because the ego is that which separates us from that which we really are, which is infinite happiness.
So however happy our life may be, this ego is still depriving us of the infinite happiness that we actually are. It is because as this ego we cannot experience infinite happiness. As this ego, we can experience some happiness, can experience a nice comfortable life, but it is all finite.
So the ego is always cheating us. Our right is to be infinitely happy, because that is what we actually are. That is what the ego is depriving us of. So Bhagavan says that the ego is the thief. We have to catch this thief and punish him accordingly.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 14th January 2018 (1:06 to 1:08)
Samarender Reddy, your last comment is the logical culmination of destiny/prarabdha. By the way I’ve read too all of your previous comments about destiny and I had no objections and enjoyed your particular presentation of destiny.
That also the body of a Jnani is directed by prarabdha is confirmed by Bhagavan’s statement of consolation to his mother where he said that he had no choice but to go to Arunachala. Actually Sadhu Natananda, a direct disciple of Bhagavan who became Self-realized, has stated the same in his book “Sri Ramana Darsanam”. That cannot be possibly misunderstood. So either Sadhu Natananda was suffering from a mental disease and confusion or he stated clearly that the BODY of a Jnani is as much directed by prarabdha as that of an ajnani. Of course that is all within the phenomenal world, otherwise there is nothing to talk about or discuss.
For a mind the state of a Jnani cannot really be comprehended, i.e. who was talking when Bhagavan’s mouth opened? Depending on the viewpoint either nobody (huh? ;), or Bhagavan projected by our minds which take bodies for real.
When and how became Bhagavan Self-realized? Was it his ego that “willed” itself into annihilation? No way Jose as we say in the States ;-) It was, and I like Wittgenstein’s analogy, the chit aspect, or Self and not his mind/ego!
So Bhagavan incarnated being 99% Self (not a great analogy but to make a point) and it took not much for Self to get to 100%. Bhagavan’s death experience (story) is as much unreal as our mind and body and prarabdha.
Out of Self the imagination of a separate entity (our mind/body) spawns and only what can that imagination end? That imagination as in mind/ego? Of course not, that is illogical and ridiculous; it can be only chit or Self. Effort and “will” is by the mind and falls under that imagination.
Anybody: Can an imagination end that imagination?
This is an odd argument because if one really believes that enlightenment was predestined, which in itself is defined as the dropping of the illusory ego, then why did Brahman need to provide the upanishads and gurus, to teach the way to enlightenment. And why did Bhagavan ask us to do atma vichara, to strive to be detached, and to direct the sadhana of Annamalai swami, etc?
Given that there is no ego to liberate in the first place, and it is (according to this argument) is predetermined when it vanishes, why did Bhagavan go to all this effort? And why did Muruganar write thousands of verses in praise of Bhagavan? Why not just shrug his shoulders and just say it was predestined?
If one argues, that it is all part of the dream in eka jiva vada, and one truly believes that, why bother continuing to do atma vichara? It is spurious to argue that this atma vichara practice is part of the predestination. We have the thought that we should do atma vichara, and so we do it. For all intents and purposes it is our ego-will that does so. It may be that this is predestined, but having a derivative thought that says that this is part of predestination and argue thus, whilst continuing to follow the imperative of the thought to do atma vichara is self-delusional.
It seems to me that when Bhagavan tell us that everything is predestined, he means that everything that happens to the body-mind is out of our control, and that we should develop an ATTITUDE of detachment to our world travails. And that we should exercise our "free will", to the extent that there is still an ego, to do atma vichara, to be detached from our desires and to surrender to Bhagavan. Until we become jnanis, it is pointless to argue that we have no free will, because it is not the reality of our experience, as Wittgenstein alluded to. After we become jnanis, there is no ego for whom free will or destiny is any longer relevant.
Venkat, there is no “ego-will”. Show me where it is. It doesn’t exist!
The driving force behind atma-vichara is Self, but as with everything else the ego loves to claim that it is in fact itself.
Salazar,
That is theory, not practical experience. We experience the thought that we should do atma vichara, and we may or may not do it.
Bhagavan taught that first came the I-thought, and thence all other thoughts. So when a thought arises that we should do atma vichara, that is a thought of the illusory ego, because of its sense of not being complete.
The Self does not need to do atma vichara. It is already the whole. The delusion is in us - the ego and the concomitant world. And it is the ego that has to see its own illusoriness.
Hence in GVK, Bhagavan / Muruganar addresses the following guidance to the ego:
187: O mind, it is not wise for you to come out (in the form of thoughts); it is best to go within. Hide yourself deep within the Heart and escape from the tricks of Maya, who tries to upset you by drawing you outwards.
188: O mind, do not waste your life in roaming outside, pursuing wonders and courting enjoyments; to know Self through grace (self-enquiry) and to thus abide firmly in the Heart, is alone worthwhile.
If you are saying that the thought is predestined, fair enough. But I'm simply saying that rather than having a secondary thought trying to rationalise doing atma vichara as being pre-destined, which is not possible to prove, why not just do the atma vichara, without these secondary thought-concepts-beliefs of predestination?
Venkat, greetings
I just want to point some bullets of reflections on your comment, not wanting to enter into the discussion
"then why did Brahman need to provide the upanishads and gurus,…?”
Let’s keep Brahman out of the picture of doing anything at all (based on the ultimate ajati vada teachings of Bhagavan).
If we want to speak about “some-one helping” then let’s call it god, ishwara, bhagavan or the universe, chose your pic. Through the power residing called maya that actually equates ego. And as we all know, god, ishwara, bhagavan, universe are creations within the ego’s projection as we discussed in deep for several years in this blog and we understand Bhagavan’s teachings claim. Yes, god included.
”Given that there is no ego to liberate in the first place, and it is (according to this argument) is predetermined when it vanishes, why did Bhagavan go to all this effort? And why did Muruganar write thousands of verses in praise of Bhagavan? Why not just shrug his shoulders and just say it was predestined?"
Bhagavan and Muruganar “went to all these efforts” in Venkat’s dream and they don’t actually have a reality of their own. Call it drishti-srishti if you wish (main Bhagavan teaching of Ulladu Narpadu). The process is as follows: ego projects simultaneously with its arising a dream called reality or life, in that dream there are characters and a script they follow to the letter, Venkat is one of them, Bhagavan and Muruganar are other characters, what holds the whole thing together? ego taken Venkat’s body/mind (that equals Venkat the person) which borrows sentience from the source, oneself, and thinks it’s real himself. Oneself is not Venkat, oneself is self. There is not Venkat in self. So how come Venkat sees a universe? well… that’s Venkat who says that, not self… The rope doesn’t see a snake, a detached/separate observer of the rope (Venkat) under limiting lighting conditions (ignorance) to project a snake where there is none.
(Conversation continues in next comment)
(Continuation of conversation with Venkat)
”If one argues, that it is all part of the dream in eka jiva vada, and one truly believes that, why bother continuing to do atma vichara?"
In the order of things, while in the illusory manifestation, everything is determined like in a script of a movie. Certain events happen only if certain other events precede them because is run by the cause/effect law. If it is determined that one should be a lawyer with diploma, one will start having thoughts from early age that one may want to help people defend their rights and one will start “choosing” to do the necessary steps to attain that aim until one receives that diploma. Another Lady may want to be a lawyer, but it is not in her cards to be so, so even if she starts the necessary steps by her own “choosing” something will happen along the way that will make her deviate from her aim )children, accident, becosoming a santana!, etc… Both the man and this woman they do not know their future but they both want to become lawyers, so both “choose out of their own feedom of will” to start moving in that direction because to have a diploma as a lawyer there is no way you will make it without studying law, correct? One makes it the other don’t, what was the difference?… I let you draw your own conclusions.
”It seems to me that when Bhagavan tell us that everything is predestined, he means that everything that happens to the body-mind is out of our control"
Absolutely, couldn’t agree more. Now, tell me, where does the action of starting turning mind inwards, the thorn that removes another thorn if you wish, starts from?
From self? obviously not because brahman does not do anything, being beyond doing and not-doing. The mind of course! So there you have it.
”It may be that this is predestined, but having a derivative thought that says that this is part of predestination and argue thus, whilst continuing to follow the imperative of the thought to do atma vichara is self-delusional. "
To summarize my thought, since as Mouna I don’t know what is determined on the script for me, but I know that everything is predetermined, the only choice I have in this ignorance of mine is to follow the advice of "the lion in the dream”, the same as the man and lady wanting to become lawyers… the only way to find out is trying to do the actions we think are the right ones to attain our goal, ergo in this case atma-vichara. Yes, agree fully, it might be self-delusional, but I see it as the only way, since Mouna is not god to know where it ends, and by the way, isn’t self-delusion ego’s nature anyway? What do we have to loose thinking in this manner?...
Just read your second response to Salazar and I think it doesn’t contradict with what I wrote in this comment.
Thx,
m
Dear Venkat,
My reflections on this are as follows:
If the world is nothing more but a dream as it stated by Bhagavan,then everything in this dream is an illusion, including Bhagavan Himself. But this is a good sign. If everything in this dream is predetermined then it means that all the thoughts that we are experiencing are predetermined too. And that in turn means that we might be approaching the final stage since we start experiencing the urge to find out what we really are, these thoughts in themselves might be a good sign that we have already fallen into the mighty jaws of self and he is not going to release the prey.
“If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.”
quoting Albert Einstein
Thank you Mouna for chiming in here, I originally planned a longer response to venkat but my mind felt exhausted again and Bhagavan let you make that longer response. My mind is bowing before the prowess of your mind :)
Now it is said that Self is not doing anything and I agree and when I said that the driving force behind atma-vichara is Self I didn't mean Self is the doer (how preposterous) but that the presence of Self itself triggers the intention to do atma-vichara.
Carlos
When we are told everything is predestined, it is clearly true. It is teaching us the very real truth that whatever we have "achieved" or suffered in this life, is not down to us, but to forces outside our control; just as our very birth and our inevitable death is outside our control.
The point I'm making is that there is very little point in BELIEVING that one's own action in this moment are a matter of pre-destination, just as there is little point in BELIEVING that one's ego is illusory. The ego is a reality for me, and so, therefore, is my sense of choice. Consequently I have to exercise my choice to examine what I believe is my ego, until it disappears. This is why Bhagavan asked us to look at the sense of ego whenever it arises.
There is a logical inconsistency in your description of eka jiva vada. You say the ego (which has to be venkat) projects the world, including venkat as one of the characters? Eka jiva vada is a prakriya, a teaching statement, a model if you will. It is not meant to be the absolute truth. It is there to help the sadhaka to turn away from the world.
Otherwise, I think you are agreeing with me - that the ego is where the ignorance is, not the self. And it is not the self that has the impetus to turn the mind inwards, but the mind itself.
You go on to say (in agreement with my point): "the only way to find out is trying to do the actions we think are the right ones to attain our goal, ergo in this case atma-vichara". So surely this is a statement of our mind exercising its free to do "right" actions which will take it to its goal?
Hi Noob
What is a dream and what is real? The only reason that we talk of dreams is because we do not believe that the dream state is as real as the waking state, which somehow seems more concrete. If we did not have a waking state at all, our dream state would be what is "real" to us, because that is all that we would know.
But that is a diversion.
I don't disagree that free will is illusory; but for us that is a theory at this stage. I'm simply saying that it doesn't really help us, because it is inextricably intertwined with the ego. So until the ego is dissolved, we have to act, as Carlos said, to do the actions we think are right to attain our goal. In that very statement is an implicit assumption of will to do atma vichara.
venkat said, "And it is not the self that has the impetus to turn the mind inwards, but the mind itself."
Without the presence of self the mind could do nothing. Thus who really is the source of power or impetus?
Only a mind's thought:
Did the earth and universe appear according their prarabdha ?
Were they destined to bear the actions of our bodies and the mind's absurd imaginations ?
Were also the animals destined to be killed in gigantic number ?
I experience dreams, I take them as real when I am dreaming.
dear love for being said,
Objects do not have their parabdha, only the subject...
dear Noob,
there is nothing but the undivided subject. Objects are only products of the mind.
So is the mind steered by its prarabdha ?
how to experience that?
Making experience is the affair of the mind.
Venkat,
Cetainly there are many points in common and some disagreements in our common conversation.
”The point I'm making is that there is very little point in BELIEVING that one's own action in this moment are a matter of pre-destination, just as there is little point in BELIEVING that one's ego is illusory. ”
This is one of the disagreements. Holding in one’s mind that "one's own action in this moment are a matter of pre-destination” and working with the (so far) concept that "one's ego is illusory” are also prakriyas for me, not mere BELIEFS. It did help me enormously, not specially on the vichara side of the teaching but on the surrender side of that same coin. At a certain point it almost becomes a second nature and the process of accepting things as they are becomes much easier. (note: acceptance doesn’t mean approval, means seeing events and people as they are, without filters)
”Otherwise, I think you are agreeing with me - that the ego is where the ignorance is, not the self. And it is not the self that has the impetus to turn the mind inwards, but the mind itself.”
I agree with you on this (sorry Salazar, I do), but I “choose” to believe that this impulse or impetus is pre-determined. I come back again to the analogy of a movie script, where the characters are bound to perform their lines without knowing the outcome of the film.
”So surely this is a statement of our mind exercising its free to do "right" actions which will take it to its goal?”
“Right” actions don’t necessarily take to one’s goals because those actions will impact and modify enormous quantities of factors that are completely out of our control which will determine, even sometimes, the complete oppposite of our goal. My take is that the whole universe as a whole (the whole dream we are dreaming) construct our thinking and one of those constructions is the spiritual “necessity” to investigate ego.
To summarize, I heard someone once, whom I trust because it seems that he knows more than me, told me that atma-vichara and surrender are the only way to eradicate the ignorance I have about my real identity and is causing me so much inbalance and misery, so I started doing it. Was that trigger created by me? no but surely created that “desire” to investigate, which then afterwards prompted me to say: “I have the free choice of doing vichara or not doing vichara” so I shall choose to do it, and I do it. For me that doesn’t count as free will, just a chain of cause effect events out of my control.
But I still do vichara, why? because is like a prayer in a way and helps enormously to understand more and more what’s really going on. Am I being self-deluded holding in my mind concepts like "my vichara is pre-determined" and "I don’t really exist as an individual”? Maybe, but who will be more self-deluded, me thinking that way or the one that thinks it’s in “his/her” power to self realize and who believes and gives reality to his own persona?
Thx Venkat,
Carlos
Brother Sal, (Hmm… that sounds good!)
”when I said that the driving force behind atma-vichara is Self I didn't mean Self is the doer (how preposterous) but that the presence of Self itself triggers the intention to do atma-vichara. ”
There is something embedded in the concept of "the presence of Self itself triggers the intention to do atma-vichara” that doesn’t still convince me completely and I can’t pinpoint what it is. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt until I discover the nature of my discomfort… :)
Mouna, no need to be sorry, I can let alone certain concepts. Feel free to share the nature of your discomfort if you should discover it.
I keep doing vichara/surrender and it works for me. It certainly reduces the amount of suffering I am experiencing, I do it as often as I remember, what else can one expect? Am I telling myself, "oh that's not me, it is prarabdha ..."? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. I do it or I don't do it, I do not worry about why or what triggers it - I just do it. That's from the front line of my personal experience.
Salazar, I complete agree with you. I don't either say to myself "I don't exist" which will be as ridiculous as the "it's prarabdha" thing. But if I have to explain the process, I'll say those understandings are running in the background all the time, not conceptually.
To be honest, I can't still figure out this paradox. And somehow I know Mouna never will...
On another note, please receive my sincere wishes for a prompt recuperation (or diminution) of whatever ailments you have my friend. Praying for you.
Thanks Carlos for taking the time to respond. We all stumble our own way along the path, trying to rationalise it in our minds . . . Until hopefully we truly can just be.
Best wishes along your path.
venkat
Venkat,
"Best wishes along your path."
the same your way my friend, thanks.
Hello Salazar
“Without the presence of self the mind could do nothing. Thus who really is the source of power or impetus?”
I would posit that until we are jnanis, we can’t know that. It is a matter of belief. We are told that there is a “self” behind the mind, but we have not experienced that ourselves. So we are arguing about concepts. If it is a prakriya that helps you, fair enough. Vedanta has developed a variety of prakriyas to help people on the path.
The beauty of Bhagavan is that he didn’t ask us to believe anything. But rather to investigate for ourselves that which we think we are and see for ourselves how real it is. And he admittedly held out the carrot that in that process, the ego would dissolve, the self would be realised and peace would reign.
But belief in the latter is not a pre-requisite for the former. Bhagavan when he sat down in his home in Madurai, didn’t have any preconceived notions, or any real knowledge of Vedanta. For anyone who is trying to understand the purpose/meaning of life and death, one would inevitably have to turn back to investigate what it is that experiences this life and asks this question. Atma vichara.
Best wishes
venkat
Mouna, thank you for your heart felt wishes. We all have challenges throughout our lives, my sympathy is with Wittgenstein's multiple loss of family members. That is a tough one. I know, Bhagavan wants us to be detached from it and actually rejoice when someone dies instead to grief. We'll get there with vichara.
The death of a beloved spouse or child is one of the most challenging events in someone's life. It tests the innermost attachments to this world.
I have come to know that there is a Chinese proverb which goes, 'may you live in interesting times'. This is a curse and not a blessing. What is this proverb trying to say? Any guesses?
venkat my friend, I suspect that you use the “we can’t know until we are Jnanis” to your advantage to avoid to concede that the mind in fact is getting all of its power from Self.
On one hand you are correct and one should look where one is with one’s direct experience and not believe anything what one’s mind conjures up. That is the way.
On the other hand we have to trust and believe the sages who conveyed their own direct experiences as reality and we cannot dismiss that just because we don’t experience it yet. In fact that Self is the underlying reality (and the only source of power) is good to know, otherwise we’d be satisfied with the reality our mind perceives without (conceptually) knowing that there is something else.
With your argument above, when strictly adhered to, one should not ready any text or listen to the gurus since most what we read or hear, if not all of it, is not our direct experience. A carrot is definitely a must or do you believe that the ego would do anything if it cannot get something out of it ;) (Even tough at the end the ego has its ultimate disappointment ;)
Bhagavan by the way never practiced vichara in his last life, that episode in Madurai was a spontaneous event, due to his amazingly high maturity. So he followed instinctively the process of vichara during that death experience.
Anyway, if you want to give your mind any power be my guest. A bit contemplation though must question the source of that power or Shakti. Can the mind create Shakti? Of course not!
I like your approach and thinking and an important thing for sure is to be real on one’s path. I certainly do not want to end up as a Andrew Cohen or Gangaji or Mooji, God bless their hearts.
My best wishes to you,
Salazar
Sadhu Om used to say, ‘Don’t give up desires. Have more and more desire. Have desire for the infinite, rather than having all these petty desires which you have now'. These are small and insignificant desires.
The desire for what is infinite is called bhakti. Sometimes people asked Sadhu Om, ‘How to give up desires?’ He said, ‘Don’t even try to give up desires. It is impossible to give up desires, because desire is your very nature’. Realise that what manifests as small desires for this or that is all a distorted reflection of our real nature, which is infinite love.
So find out what you are, and then you will love nothing less than the infinite whole, desire nothing less than that.
Edited extract from Michael’s latest video dated 7th July 2018 (46:00 to 48:00)
Reflection: As long as we exist as the ego, we will always desire this or that. However, these desires are towards things other than ourself. We need to turn the same desire towards ourself. When we start desiring or rather start loving ourself that is bhakti. This bhakti is the mother of jnana. Without a mother no child can be ever born, likewise, without our love towards ourself we cannot experience atma-jnana.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 34
Know that for people of little learning their children and wife form one family. Whereas in the minds of those who have vast learning there are not one but many families in the form of books as obstacles to yoga.
Sri Sadhu Om: The attachment to endless book-knowledge and the pride which results from such knowledge are a far greater obstacle to the subsidence of the ego than the attachment which an ordinary person has towards his wife and children.
Reflections: We see many pundits and scholars who have sastric knowledge but have not understood and assimilated the essence of sastras. This essence is, in order to experience real peace and happiness we should turn within and abide in and as oneself. There is no other way to annihilate our ego, and without annihilating our ego we will not reach our destination.
Mere book knowledge without putting this knowledge into practice will only inflate our ego. We may start thinking on the lines, ‘I know more than others, so I am fit to guide others’. Thus we should not endlessly read spiritual books. These will only confuse us. Bhagavan’s words should be more than enough for us. In this context we may read the 16th paragraph of Nan Yar?:
Since in every [spiritual] text it is said that for attaining mukti [liberation] it is necessary to make the mind subside, after knowing that manō-nigraha [restraint, subjugation or destruction of the mind] is the ultimate intention [or purpose] of [such] texts, there is no benefit [to be gained] by studying texts without limit.
Kavyakantha was a man of huge sastric knowledge. However, Bhagavan once remarked that he will not be able to experience jnana in the foreseeable future, because his mind is too outgoing. Books are other than ourself, and if we are attracted to studying more and more books, we develop vasanas for such book learning. Thus it hampers our spiritual progress.
The choice to surrender ourself is the ultimate choice we have to make, because that is going against all our other desires. So it is not easy. We have to slowly-slowly work at it, slowly-slowly cultivate that liking to surrender ourself to Bhagavan. We need to turn within and yield ourself to Bhagavan. ‘By practising and practising our power to remain in the birth-place - in our source - will increase’. So Bhagavan has given us that assurance.
What Bhagavan asks us to practise is the simplest of all things. What can be simpler than attending to ourself? The one thing which we are all aware of is ourself. Instead of attending to other things, we just need to attend to ourself. So-so easy! It seems difficult because we have a very strong liking to attend to other things.
To do idol-worship, for example, we need temples or at least a vigraha or some other God. To do japa we need japa-mala or something. To do other sadhanas so many aids are necessary. We need actions of body, speech and mind to do other sadhanas.
However, to attend to ourself we don’t any action of body, any action of mind or any action of speech. We just need to remain still. So this is the simplest of all paths. And it is the only practice we can do anywhere, anytime and in any circumstances. If we have sufficient love, we can attend to ourself even in the midst of a battlefield.
Edited extract from Michael’s latest video shot on 7th July 2018 (1:15 to 1:18)
Reflections: Bhagavan has spoilt us. Whereas other gurus want us to this or that by our body, speech or mind, Bhagavan doesn’t ask us to do anything. In fact, he is making us lazy!
Jokes apart, any guru who wants us to do this or that is just strengthening our fetters, because no action can ever liberate us. So such gurus are like Brahma or Yama – that it, these gurus are the cause of unceasing creation (birth) and destruction (death). So we should avoid such gurus and come to a jnana-guru like Bhagavan. He says, ‘don’t do anything because your very doing is your undoing’.
What is an action or a doing? Our first action is when our attention moves away from ourself towards anything else, even to the slightest extent. This initial action compels us to do other actions by body, speech and mind. So our task is not to let our attention move away from ourself even to the slightest extent, because if it does so, we will be caught up in an endless cycle of actions. As Bhagavan warns in Upadesa Saram, all our actions obstruct our mukti (liberation).
Michael: Our very nature is pure and immutable self-awareness. So we don’t need to do anything to be ourself. We just need to be ourself. How to be ourself? By attending to anything other than ourself we rise as this ego – that is, we are not remaining as we actually are. So in order to be as we actually are, we need to withdraw our attention from everything else and attend only to ourself. By attending to ourself we subside back into our birthplace, the source from which we rose.
All that is needed is just to be. The only way to be still is to attend to ourself. So long as we allow our attention to move away from ourself even to the slightest extent we are rising, and therefore we are not just being.
Devotee: But it seems natural for the ocean to rise as waves. It seems unnatural not to rise?
Michael: Yes, the ocean is the mind – an ocean of vasanas. So its nature is to be constantly rising. But are you that? You are the aadhaara. You are that which contains the ocean, contains all these vasanas. So attend to yourself. Let the ocean take care of itself. If thoughts want to rise let it rise, what is it to you? They are not other than you, so ignore them.
That is why in verse 6 of Arunachala Ashtakam, Bhagavan describes how the internal worlds and external worlds – our seemingly mental world and our seemingly physical worlds – are all a projection of our own vasanas, and in the end he says, ‘let them appear or let them disappear’ - let them come to an end or let them continue - ‘they are not other than you’.
So what is that Bhagavan refers to as ‘you’? It is Arunachala which is nothing other than pure self-awareness. None of these things that appear or disappear is other than that pure self-awareness. Let us bother only about our self-awareness.
Why Bhagavan said that? If we are concerned about the appearance of thoughts, our attention will be on that. If we are concerned about them we are feeding them. Bhagavan says in the 6th paragraph of Nan Yar?, ‘what does it matter how many thoughts arise?’ Thoughts aren’t our concern. We should be attending to ourself; we should be indifferent to everything other than ourself. Things appear only because we are concerned about them.
Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 7th July 2018 (1:28 onwards)
Some of our friends have been sharing their understanding or views on Bhagavan’s teachings which may, for some others (like me), appear not to fall into a rigid framework of standard interpretation. The following is an attempt to relax my own rigidity.
Where do thoughts come from?
The standard answer is ‘I’. Another answer is it comes from ‘nowhere’.
If we ask where this ‘I’ is located, it is not to be found anywhere in space. Probably it is the reason why some of us say it is ‘nowhere’.
Bhagavan asked us to attend to the ‘place’ where thoughts originate.
If we say they originate from ‘I’ we need to attend to that ‘I’.
If we say they originate from ‘nowhere’ we need to attend to that ‘nowhere’.
In either case it is ātma-vicāra.
Is free will an illusion?
All our actions are through thoughts, speech and body.
When we act through these, there is no way to know if we are acting through our free will or our destiny.
While acting it appears as free will and in retrospect it appears as destiny, just like a dream that appears real as long as it lasts and imaginary after it ends.
Therefore, whatever appears now could be otherwise, like an illusion. Probably it is the reason why some of us say free will is an illusion.
What about the ‘actionless action’ of ātma-vicāra which involves no thought, no speech and no body?
It should then be ‘free’ because if we claim thought, speech and body are involved in ātma-vicāra, then we are definitely not talking about ātma-vicāra. Here, and only here, we can be sure of ‘free will’.
Do not we see that in experience? Does not ātma-vicāra ease (or ‘free up’) our physical and mental unease which no amount of thought, speech and bodily actions can do?
Does our essential self drive ātma-vicāra?
Suppose we are in a dark and cold room and find bright and warm sunlight entering into the room through a window.
Suppose being ‘driven by it’ we open the door and go out to enjoy more of sunlight. What exactly is the role of sunlight in bringing us out?
The same role is played by our essential self (called ‘Self’ in some literature) in driving us towards it. Do not they talk about the ‘unmoved mover’ in Upaniṣads?
Can we rely on our experience alone?
Bhagavan never claimed he had any new experience and he never promised us any new experience.
We all have Bhagavan in us.
We recognize good and bad in others because we have good and bad in us. Otherwise how can we recognize them at all?
If we do not have Bhagavan in us, how can we recognize him in the first place? We all have recognized Bhagavan in us.
We all experience Bhagavan, to some extent or the other, also experiencing all that is ‘non-Bhagavan’.
We can be Bhagavan when we experience Bhagavan and only Bhagavan.
The experience of Bhagavan is not new to us.
It is just feeble now.
Sanjay,
I see in your extracts of Michael's videos (example: 12 July 2018 at 08:28 hrs), you denote the speakers as 'Michael:' and 'Devotee:' which may give an impression that it is the devotee of Michael asking the question.
I think that one of the clues is that our knowledge of our very existence, that does not require anyone else to prove it and this knowledge does not require any actions of mind (thought process), body and speech. We do not even need to pay any attention to anything, including "I" to know that we exist.
Strangely it was my son some years ago who brought up this understanding when he told me that his strongest fear was if he would have lost all his sensual perceptions of the world but was yet conscious ... he asked what would then remain?
Wittgenstein, Michael doesn’t consider himself to be a guru, so, as you rightly imply, he can have no devotee. He makes it very clear through his articles, videos and if we correspond with him through emails. He makes it abundantly clear that to him there is only one guru, and that guru is Bhagavan Ramana. He is as much a devotee of Bhagavan as we all are. That is why he often addresses us as his friends.
Yes, when I denote a speaker as ‘devotee’ and another speaker as ‘Michael’, it could give an impression that I am transcribing a conversation between Michael and one of his ‘devotees’. However, this misunderstanding can occur only to those who are casual or new readers of this blog. So the majority of us should clearly understand that by the term ‘devotee’, I am talking about a devotee in general.
A devotee in this context means a person who is devoted to a God or a guru. The person who asked Michael that question was presumably a devotee of Bhagavan (or God in general), because if he were not, he would not be present in such gatherings.
Wittgenstein, I agree when you write:
Suppose we are in a dark and cold room and find bright and warm sunlight entering into the room through a window. Suppose being ‘driven by it’ we open the door and go out to enjoy more of sunlight. What exactly is the role of sunlight in bringing us out? The same role is played by our essential self (called ‘Self’ in some literature) in driving us towards it. Do not they talk about the ‘unmoved mover’ in Upaniṣads?
Yes, Bhagavan is the ‘unmoved mover’. He makes everything move while remaining absolutely still and motionless (achala). Bhagavan makes this clear in the 15th paragraph of Nan Yar? where he compares the presence of God to the presence of the sun. Like there is life on this earth only because of the mere presence of the unmoving sun, so also all our movements can take place only because of the unmoving one in our heart.
Yes, we try and go within only because of the power, warmth and guidance of our inner sun, which is atma-svarupa. This inner sun gives light to all the worldly lights, including the sun. And when this inner sun shines with absolute clarity, all the other lights will fade into insignificance. In fact, what will ultimately remain is only this pure and all-consuming light of self-knowledge. Everything else will totally vanish.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 35
For those who do not intend to destroy the letters of destiny by scrutinizing where they were born who have learnt the letters, what is the use of having learnt letters? They have acquired the nature of a sound-recording machine. Say, O Sonagiri (Arunachala), the knower, who else are they but mere sound-recording machines?
Note: The writings of prarabdha can be destroyed forever only by destroying the ego, the experiencer of prarabdha. The only purpose of reading the letters of the scriptures is to learn the path by which one can destroy the ego, and strengthen in one the liking to destroy the ego. Therefore those who have no intention to destroy the ego, learning the letters of the scriptures will be of no use. Instead of attaining the egoless state of self-abidance, such people will only attain the proud state of being able to repeat whatever they have learnt like a sound-recording machine.
Reflection: Bhagavan spoke and taught in words only to encourage us to practise self-investigation. If we take Bhagavan to be our guru but do not follow the path taught by him, we are ignoring the precious treasure given to us by Bhagavan.
Liberation has nowhere been made so easy and assessable as it has been made in Bhagavan’s teachings. It is the path, which if followed with our heart and soul, can liberate us here and now. Our bargain is, we should want to be liberated and try a bit. He will do the rest.
Sorry. There was a typo:
Liberation has nowhere been made so easy and accessible as it has been made in Bhagavan’s teachings
Wittgenstein said, “When we act through these, there is no way to know if we are acting through our free will or our destiny.”
Of course not, how could the mind possibly know? But it is easily to conclude that when the raising of an arm at an exact point of time is predetermined (according to Bhagavan) that then EVERY other action of the body must be predetermined too! That is a simple logical conclusion.
What has to be examined is the connection between body and mind. Actually is there a connection? And I am not talking about the “knot” what is a connection of chit (and not mind) to the body. I suppose we can agree that mind (as being usually understood) is not chit.
As I understand it is that the body is acting WITHOUT any input of the mind, the mind just rehearses the actions as if it is his body and imagines it is directing it with his thoughts translated as “will”. And that idea or feeling of the mind it is indeed involved with the actions of the body is part of maya.
So we have a mixed bag here, there is no “free will” in terms of what the body will be doing, but there is the possibility of “free will” within the imaginations of the mind which judges, has preferences, has likes and dislikes and expresses all of these in form of thoughts. There might be extensive stories running around the mind about the actions of the body, from being proud to be ashamed, from being angry to be exhilarated. However all of these notions and judgements are based on the erroneous belief to be or direct that body.
The “free will” of mind is strictly confined within the realm of imagination and/or thoughts and have no effect whatsoever on the actions of the body in this life! Mind seems to be able to decide if it is attending to its thought stories or to ‘I am’. That’s it.
Somebody asked me before, "if the mind is not directing the body, what then does?"
It's God or Ishwara, but the ultimate truth is that there is not really any body or mind, it is just a reflection of chit. Impossible to comprehend for mind.
We have to accept that there is plenty what cannot be captured in concepts nor can be grasped with the mind. Therefore it would be quite ridiculous to argue about that :)
Salazar,
"Mind seems to be able to decide if it is attending to its thought stories or to ‘I am’”
Not really wanting to expand anymore on the absence or not of free-will, this statement raised a question that so far nobody was able to answer to me. Maybe you could help me with this: what is the process of attending to “I am”? Could you describe it to me, in your experience, and in detail?
Let’s say at one point “you” noticed you were engrossed in phenomena (that I suppose that that “noticing” was not of your control, correct?), what happens next?
Thanks, and this is not a rhetorical question.
Mouna, I initially had composed a longer response but I am not sure if I want to post it.
Vichara is extremely simple and, looking at my initial response, the mind makes it complicated in the attempt to describe it. Because it is all mind which needs to explain how and why and yet it is simple being without attending to any adjuncts. No detailed blueprint needed!
Ideally there is no "experience" and if there is then it is not something worthwhile to mention it.
So any details are just thought products ..... could that help us with the issue who or what controls? Since your last comment "I" was looking what triggered the intention to be and it might be a subtle or unconscious thought but did "I" deliberately intended to have that thought? Not at all. But according to others, that thought must come from mind. And yet I am not aware deliberately have "created" that thought. So clearly not in my control .....
Anyway, the more my mind tries to figure it out the more it has to admit, I do not know.
Talk 64.
News of someone’s death was brought to Sri Bhagavan. He said,
“Good. The dead are indeed happy. They have got rid of the
troublesome overgrowth - the body. The dead man does not grieve.
The survivors grieve for the man who is dead. Do men fear sleep?
On the contrary sleep is courted and on waking up every man says
that he slept happily. One prepares the bed for sound sleep. Sleep is
temporary death. Death is longer sleep. If the man dies while yet alive
he need not grieve over others’ death. One’s existence is evident with
or without the body, as in waking, dream and sleep. Then why should
one desire continuance of the bodily shackles? Let the man find out
his undying Self and die and be immortal and happy.”
Talk 60.
5th July, 1935
ON MOUNA (SILENCE)
Sri Bhagavan: The silence of solitude is forced. Restrained speech in society amounts to silence. For the man then controls his speech.
The speaker must come forth before he speaks.
If engaged otherwise speech is restrained. Introverted mind is otherwise active and is not anxious to speak. Mouna as a disciplinary measure is meant for limiting the mental
activities due to speech.
If the mind is otherwise controlled
disciplinary mouna is unnecessary. For mouna becomes natural.
Vidyaranya has said that twelve years’ forced mouna brings about absolute mouna - that is, makes one unable to speak. It is more like
a mute animal than otherwise. That is not mouna.
Mouna is constant speech. Inactivity is constant activity.
Anonymous, as Bhagavan says, ‘Let the man find out his undying Self and die and be immortal and happy’. This is the very essence of Bhagavan’s teachings. If we want to be eternally happy, which is what we all aim to be, we need to investigate ourself and die. However, what has to die is our ego, the idea ‘I am this body’. Such a death will make us immortal.
Ulladu Narpadu anubandham - verse 36
Rather than those who have no humility though learned, the unlearned indeed are saved. They are saved from the demon of pride; they are saved from the disease of countless whirling thoughts; and they are saved from running in search of glory. Know that, that from which they are saved is not one.
Reflections: Humility in this context means ‘subsided’. If we want to be saved, we need to work towards destroying our ego, because as long as our ego is alive we are doomed to destruction or death.
We will have all the defects and problems as long as we imagine ourself to be the ego. If we want to give up all our defects and problems, the only way is to destroy our ego, and we can do so only by self-investigation.
We have to come to the point where the mind simply watches the actions of the body without any involvement. When the habitually thinking about the actions of the body stops (or at least diminishes) then it becomes clear that there is no connection between mind and body and that the body is acting without any input of the mind.
Proper atma-vichara leads to the recognition that in fact the body acts without any involvement of the mind.
For any action or task the body is supposed to do the mind or thoughts is not needed or necessary. In fact, according to Bhagagavan, every action the body has to perform is done much better without the mind.
Who has the courage to try that out? The prerequisite is a certain surrender of the ego to leave any outcome of the actions of the body to the Divine (or Bhagavan if you will).
The secret is that the outcome is the same with or without mind involvement. However without mind involvement there is not the preference of good and bad and as such no matter what happens there is peace and happiness. With the mind and the desire for a certain outcome, like a raise or good grades, suffering and worries ensue.
I.e. if your daughter fails to marry the rich merchant and marries a scoundrel instead impacts one's peace and happiness only of one is attached to that outcome with the accompanying thought processes. One of the many attachments which prevent our happiness.
The mind is the endless spoiler of our happiness, no matter what!
Salazar,
I was a little confused by your recent comments about mind not connected to body…
Just to clarify my understanding, are you equating “mind” with ego?
As far as I understand the “body” Bhagavan speaks about is all of the five sheaths… not just the gross one, in that sense mind as subtle stuff is included. All sheaths are interconnected.
But maybe I misunderstood your comment.
If you have time and willing, please explain.
Hugs as usual, but with new energy.
M
Mouna brother, you are correct of course, I oversimplified. The mind clings at the body and in that regard there is a connection thus my choice of words were poor and insufficient.
Time to slow down my agitated mind and give it some rest.
I’ll join you in that rest beyond words brother....
I think I need it too.
In self-investigation, what is the ‘I’ that we are trying to investigate? Is it the ego or our true self?
In my following reflections, I will try to reflect on the answer to this question, and this is based on the ideas of Sadhu Om and Michael James. However, since it is in my own words, I may not represent their views accurately.
When people asked this question to Bhagavan, often he would often say, ‘it is the ego’. Why did he say so? It is because these people considered themselves to be the ego and were not able to see beyond their ego. Thus Bhagavan used to tell them, ‘Investigate your ego (‘I’), but investigate the awareness portion of this ‘I’ and not its jada portion. It is because such an investigation will eventually establish you in pure-awareness’.
However, as our understanding becomes more subtle and refined, we come to understand that we don’t need to discriminate between the ego and our true self in this context. That is, in self-investigation, we are investigating the only ‘I’ that actually exists. There is only one ‘I’, whether we consider it to be the ego or our real self. We are trying to investigate ‘ourself’, and this ‘ourself’ in this context is a general term for ‘I’ (without specifying whether this ‘I’ is the ego or the real self).
However, as our understanding gets more and more refined, we will come to understand that it is better to consider that in self-investigation we are investigating our real self, because this is all that exists. How can we investigate the ego when it does not even exist? In this context it will be useful to consider verse 21 of Upadesa Undiyar:
That [the one infinite whole that appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’ where the ego merges] is at all times the substance [or true import] of the word called ‘I’, because of the exclusion of our non-existence even in sleep, which is devoid of ‘I’ [the ego].
We exist is sleep without experiencing ourself as this ego or body, and therefore we cannot be this ego or body. Therefore this ‘I’ denotes ourself as the one infinite whole. Since we are trying to investigate this one ‘I’, we will eventually understand that we have been all along investigating only this infinite whole, because there is no ‘I’ other than this infinite whole.
The only difference is when we start investigating this ‘I’, its clarity is not very prominent, but as we go on investigating it its clarity becomes more and more prominent until we experience ourself with full or absolute clarity. This is our aim.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 37
Even though all the worlds are renounced as mere straw and even though all the scriptures 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 difficult!
Sri 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. 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.
Reflections: Yes, we all want to be praised and appreciated, and we hate when we are criticised. Even a child doesn’t like criticism or rebuke. We think that we are always correct, and even find excuses for our misdemeanours.
When we see around us, all the rich and the famous people are particularly always looking forward to praise and appreciation. A famous film actor, a business tycoon, a politician, a famous artist, religious leaders, the list can be endless - all of them can’t do without a good dose of praise and appreciation. These people are particularly fond of praise, because they are more in the public eye.
We may have all the virtues and good qualities, but if we are a slave to ‘the vicious harlot which is praise’, we cannot progress spirituality. Who needs this praise? It is our ego. So our ego is still very strong if we actively look forward to praise.
However, if praise comes our way, we should give all credit to such praise to Bhagavan, because we as this ego are not worthy of any good qualities. Since Bhagavan shines in our heart as ourself, it is his goodness which may at times be reflected in our actions. Our ego is the root and source of everything bad or inauspicious, so it needs to condemned and criticised and not praised.
Sanjay, greetings
I shall also, through comments on your comment, try to put some thought about “what we investigate when we investigate? My views may also differ from established commentaries of the past but I don’t think they distort in any way Bhagavan teachings, please feel free to correct me if otherwise. (note: since we are dealing strictly with semantics here, let’s take the comment in context to that, it is never intended to define atma-vichara)
When we look at the snake that we are afraid of, we are definitely looking at the rope, no question about it. The thing is, we don’t know it yet, so at that point the term investigation goes better with the snake than with the rope. We try to investigate if the snake it’s real because we were told is just an illusion projected by our own misinterpretation of facts. We shed light (or someone does it for us) and we realize it was a rope, and it has always being a rope. After that we don’t need to “investigate” anymore either snake or rope because the knowledge that is not a snake is established solidly in our experience (like when we acquire or assimilate the knowledge that 2+2=4 we don’t need to revise our math each time) . At this point I’ll propose the verb changes and we speak of “abiding” (in the assimilated knowledge that it is a rope).
When it comes to verbs, we “investigate/enquire” about ego, but we “abide” as self. The former is an action initiated by ego (thorn that removes another thorn), the latter is not an action because one cannot “do” being, one is always being “being”. To my understanding, we don’t need to, neither can’t investigate self, we can and we do investigate “oneself” when we are still an ego product (person).
I think that’s why Bhagavan, and as you rightly pointed out, said in many occasions, to beginners, to “investigate” the ego, or the questioner itself, or the false groom, or the thief posing as a policeman, in order to establish what is true about ourselves and what is not. Let us remember that the definition of “investigate” is: ”carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts of (an incident, allegation, etc.) so as to establish the truth..
”Thus Bhagavan used to tell them, ‘Investigate your ego (‘I’), but investigate the awareness portion of this ‘I’ and not its jada portion.” (bold letters is mine)
Would you mind point out to me where did you find that statement in Bhagavan’s literature? I would like to understand the wording.
”However, as our understanding gets more and more refined, we will come to understand that it is better to consider that in self-investigation we are investigating our real self, because this is all that exists.”
I still don’t see why is better to “investigate’ the self we are since we are it! Maybe a better use of words is “to abide” as much as we can in that self that was recognized as who or what we are.
Again, the general idea is clear and I can see we have many points in common regarding this topic. I am just trying to fine tune to sharpen my understanding. Semantics are not the main drive of the quest, but if we don’t pay proper attention to them, we might start to drift in a slightly different direction from where the signs in the road were pointing at.
Sanjay Lohia,
when you say "Since we are trying to investigate this one 'I', we will eventually understand that we have been all along investigating only this infinite whole, because there is no 'I' other than this infinite whole."
you seem to imply that "we" as the investigating 'I' are (already) also actually only "this infinite whole".
However, this cannot be really true:
Why should there be any necessity for the infinite whole to investigate itself (the infinite whole) ?
Michael,
on the back cover of the recent issue of Mountain Path (July-September 2018) one can read as follows:
"7. What is the difference between ordinary sleep
and waking sleep (jagrat sushupti)?
In ordinary sleep there are not only no thoughts
but also no awareness. In waking sleep there is
awareness alone. That is why it is called awake
while sleeping, that is, the sleep in which there
is awareness.
--- Sri Ramana Maharshi, Spiritual Instruction, Chapter IV"
Am I correct in assuming that in the first sentence of the answer the words "no awareness" is to be understood as no awareness of adjuncts (thoughts , ego and world) only ?
For (it is generally said that) awareness as such can never be absent.
From "Conversations on Consciousness",
Sue Blackmore, 2006 Oxford University Press
Sue Blackmore:
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that in our normal life we think we’re going to do something, and then we do it, and we say ‘Oh, that means my thoughts caused it’; whereas really it’s something like this: there’s some sort of underlying brain process that simultaneously causes our awareness of an intention and also the action, and we end up thinking there’s a causal relationship where there isn’t?
Daniel Wegner:
That’s put very nicely, yes.
----------------------
Now, this is very interesting because on rare occasions, the act and thought are not nearly simultaneous, and I am actually aware of the gap between the act followed by the thought, and feel - I've already done that!!!
This may be what Salazar has been trying to get across but I could be wrong...
Daniel Wegner, Thomas Metzinger, Christoff Koch, Francis Crick, Francesco Varela et al in conversation with Sue Blackmore.
Anonymous, I am not familiar with this article and yes, Bhagavan's [explanation of] prarabdha let one conclude that there is no causal relationship with seeming intention and the [following] action as bizarre that may seem for some.
That relationship is entirely an imagination and also reinforces the false belief to be the doer [of actions].
Mouna, Bhagavan said, as recorded in Maharshi’s Gospel under the chapter Aham and Aham-vritti (page 89):
The ego functions as the knot between the Self which is Pure Consciousness and the physical body which is inert and insentient. The ego is therefore called the chit-jada granthi. In your investigation into the source of aham-vritti, you take the essential chit aspect of the ego; and for this reason the enquiry must lead to the realization of the pure consciousness of the Self.
Once we turn our attention towards our ego, it starts losing is properties of the ego. Bhagavan says that as long as our awareness is facing outwards, we experience ourself as this ego and also experience a world in front of us. That is, the subject (the ego) and all its objects (this world) come into existence only when we are facing away from ourself.
However, when we turn our attention towards ourself, we subside back into ourself. Once we subside back within, our thoughts and this world disappear from our view – that is, all the perceived objects vanish from our view. And without the objects, there can be no subject (ego) to perceive anything. So once this happens we remain as we really are, without the ego and its projections.
You say, ‘When it comes to verbs, we “investigate/enquire” about ego, but we “abide” as self. The former is an action initiated by ego (thorn that removes another thorn), the latter is not an action because one cannot “do” being, one is always being “being”’.
Self-investigation is not an action, even though it may appear to be so. Michael has made this clear. Self-investigation is the cessation of all actions. Self-investigation means turning (or returning) of our attention towards ourself to know what we actually are, and once we turn within there is no ego to act. So in this context, self-abidance and self-investigation mean exactly the same. We cannot abide in ourself without investigating or attending to ourself, and we cannot investigate ourself without abiding in and as ourself.
In the context of our discussion, it will be useful to consider verse 579 of Guru Vachaka Kovai:
Because of the non-dual nature of [our] enduring self, [and] because of the fact that excluding self there is no other gati [refuge, means or goal], the upēya [the aim or goal] which [we are to] reach is only self and the upāya [the means or path] is only self. Know them to be non-different.
Our true and enduring self is non-dual in nature, and we are aiming to subside back into this non-dual self. We can do so only be abiding as this enduring self. In other words, we need to be attentively aware of our enduring self in order to merge back into our enduring self. The following extract which is taken from the 11th paragraph of Nan Yar? can help us in context:
If one clings fast to uninterrupted svarūpa-smaraṇa[self-remembrance] until one attains svarūpa [one’s own actual self], that alone [will be] sufficient.
Svarupa means ‘our own true form’, and smarana means ‘remembrance’. Thus Bhagavan makes it clear that we need to cling to our own true form in order to experience our true form (svarupa). Bhagavan does not talk about investigating the ego here. So I think my following conclusion (based on the views of Sadhu Om and Michael) was appropriate:
However, as our understanding gets more and more refined, we will come to understand that it is better to consider that in self-investigation we are investigating our real self [svarupa-smarana], because this [svarupa] is all that exists.
Fresh Clarity of Self-Awareness, no, self-investigation is commenced by the ego in order to discover the real nature of this ego, but in this process the ego vanishes. Therefore what experiences the infinite whole is the infinite whole itself.
As long as we experience ourself to be this ego, we cannot experience the infinite whole as it is, and once we experience the infinite whole, we can no longer experience ourself as this ego.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 38
When one always abides unswervingly in one’s own state without knowing any differences such as ‘oneself’ and ‘others’, what does it matter if who says what about oneself? Even if one praises or even if one disparages oneself, what does it matter? Who is there other than oneself?
Sri Sadhu Om: The desire for being praised and the dislike of being disparaged, which are two sides of one coin, can be overcome perfectly only when one knows and abides as self. As long as the ego, the ‘I am the body’ identification, survives, one cannot but be affected in some way or other when one is praised or disparaged. In other words, since the jnani knows that he alone exists, his perfect equanimity cannot be disturbed even in the least by either praise or disparagement.
Reflections: Our aim is to abide in ourself so perfectly that we are not aware of any difference between ourself and others. As long as this difference exists, we will be affected one way or the other by whatever praise or criticism comes our way.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 40
I shall truly declare the essence of the established conclusion of all Vedanta (sarva-vedanta-siddhanta-sara). If ‘I’ (the ego) dies and ‘I’ (the real self) is found to be that (the absolute reality), know that ‘I’ (the real self), which is the form of consciousness, alone will be what remains.
Sri Sadhu Om: Therefore, when the ego is destroyed by self-knowledge, all forms of duality – the mind, body and world – will cease to exist, and the non-dual real self, whose form is existence-consciousness-bliss, alone will remain. Such is the final and established conclusion of all Vedanta, as confirmed by the experience of Bhagavan Sri Ramana.
Reflections: Bhagavan has made it absolutely clear that if the ego comes into existence everything else also comes into existence, and if the ego is destroyed everything else is destroyed along with the ego. This was Bhagavan’s direct experience. It is because of this that Bhagavan says in verse 31 of Ulladu Narpadu:
For those who are happiness composed of that, which rose destroying themself, what one exists for doing? They do not know anything other than themself; who can conceive their state as ‘like this’?
The jnani doesn’t know anything other than himself. So who can or how to conceive their state as ‘it is like that’? Bhagavan didn’t experience anything other than himself – that is, in his direct experience there were no egos, no bodies, no world, nothing. However, can we ever comprehend his state? No, because he appeared to be just like us. His outer appearance and behaviour gave us no inkling of his inner non-dual experience.
Jiva-bhoda, in reply to your question, it is necessary to bear in mind that what Bhagavan said about sleep varied according to the understanding of whomever he was talking to, so we cannot take everything he said about it to reflect the full depth and subtlety of his teachings.
‘Spiritual Instruction’ is an English translation of Upadēśa Mañjari, a Tamil text recorded by Swami Natananandar consisting of questions asked by him and answers given by Bhagavan, but at the time he asked those questions his understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings was not as deep as it later became, so the answers Bhagavan gave him were suited to his then level of understanding.
Regarding the particular answer you ask about, it was said in reply to the question ‘What is the different that exists between the state of kēvala suṣupti [ordinary sleep] and the state of jāgrat suṣupti [waking sleep]?’, so to understand why Bhagavan answered as he did we need to consider the perspective from which the question was asked. All differences exist only in the perspective of the mind, so since there is no mind in either ordinary sleep or waking sleep, there cannot actually be any difference between these two states. Therefore any difference between them seems to exist only in the view of the mind in either waking or dream.
From the perspective of the mind, one obvious different between them is that ‘waking sleep’ (jāgrat suṣupti) is a term used to describe our natural state of pure self-awareness, which is eternal and immutable, so it can never end, whereas ordinary sleep seems to end whenever the mind rises from it. Various explanations are traditionally given to explain this seeming difference, one of which is that some quality of wakefulness is absent in ordinary sleep but present in waking sleep, but this difference seems to exist only in the perspective of the mind in waking or dream.
This is the explanation given by Bhagavan in answer to the question asked by Swami Natananandar, the literal meaning of which is: ‘In the state of ordinary sleep there are not only no thoughts but also no naṉavu [waking or wakefulness] (jñapti [apprehension or ascertainment]). In the state of waking sleep there is only naṉavu. Only because of that it is called sleep in waking, that is, sleep that is waking’.
In this context the Tamil term naṉavu, which means waking or wakefulness, does not refer to awareness of phenomena, which we usually associate with that word, but only to clear self-awareness, so what Bhagavan said there about ordinary sleep seems to imply that there is no self-awareness in sleep. However in other contexts he explicitly denied this, saying that sleep is actually a state of pure self-awareness. For example in the first chapter of Maharshi’s Gospel (2002 edition, page 9) it is recorded that he said: ‘Sleep is not ignorance, it is one’s pure state; wakefulness is not knowledge, it is ignorance. There is full awareness in sleep and total ignorance in waking’.
As he explained on other occasions, the reason why the mind rises from sleep or any other state of manōlaya (temporary dissolution) but will never rise from manōnāśa (annihilation), which is jāgrat suṣupti or ‘waking sleep’, is that the mind subsides in sleep due to tiredness, which cannot annihilate it, whereas it subsides in manōnāśa due to keenly focused self-attentiveness. That is, in sleep pure self-awareness alone remains as a result of the dissolution of the mind, whereas in manōnāśa the mind is dissolved as a result of pure self-awareness, which shines forth when mind’s self-attentiveness is so keen that everything else is excluded from its awareness.
Sanjay Lohia,
thanks for your reply.
Michael,
many thanks for your prompt clarifying explanation.
As you say - in order to remain in manonasa the mind's self-awareness should be as keen as possible.
Salazar, here is a critique of Daniel Wegner's "Illusion of Conscious Will", if you are interested in reading further. There is a nice picture on p. 531 of the article. By the way, even Bhagavan has pointed out that some things Einstein said agreed with his own teaching about time, etc, so he definitely wasn't in any way averse to scientific findings.
http://www.morgenlandfahrer.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Nahmias-2002-When-consciousness-matters.pdf
Anonymous, thank you for the link. I skimmed briefly the article and looked at the diagram, however I am not attracted anymore by texts like these since they can never convey the truth. At best it is a nice model within the phenomenal world but that doesn't help us much with our goal.
I'd never use texts like these as a support for Bhagavan's teachings. You say that Bhagavan was not adverse to scientific findings, well he was not adverse or favorable to anything. I.e. he was not adverse (nor favorable) to thieves and criminals and that would include serial killers and mass murderers like Stalin and Pol Pot.
The truth can only be found with a silent mind.
I appreciate though the well meant intention behind posting that link.
Salazar,
you write "...that would include serial killers and mass murderers like Stalin and Pol Pot."
How do you know that ?
Michael,
regarding your yesterday reply to me,
with which you quote Bhagavan saying "...wakefulness is not knowledge, it is ignorance. There is full awareness in sleep and total ignorance in waking’."
Against the statement that 'wakefulness is total ignorance' one might have the simple objection that waking is not possible without (full) awareness albeit this state of waking (jagrat) is not pure self-awareness but mixed with the reception of phenomena.
drik, because a little bird told me so :)
Chirp, chirp...:)
Michael,
could you please eliminate at the next opportunity comment nr. 662 and 663 (advertising campaign of Abella Rez) together with this request.
Sanjay, a follow up on our recent conversation, didn’t have time to do it before.
In all the quotes you provided in your comment addressing mine, not in a single one of them Bhagavan mentions to “investigate the self”. That is implied a posteriori and is open to discussion on how to interpret the terms presented.
First quote you mention, the one in Maharshi’s gospel: “In your investigation into the source of aham-vritti,...” Here you assume we need to investigate the “source”. It in a subsequent paragraph he explains: “It is that Reality that you should seek during your so called waking state by tracing the aham-vritti to its Source.” So, I don’t see any investigation of the source itself as source but rather, through the I-Thought we investigate what is its source. Rather a subtle difference in semantics, “investigation into the source” is different from “investigating the source”, in a subtle manner, and explains better why we take the chit aspect (while investigating through the ego).
Quote of verse 579 of GVK (“Because of the non-dual nature of [our] enduring self, [and] because of the fact that excluding self there is no other gati [refuge, means or goal], the upēya [the aim or goal] which [we are to] reach is only self and the upāya [the means or path] is only self. Know them to be non-different.”) also doesn’t imply, unless in a very construed way, that we need to “investigate the self”. But rather that aim and means are the same. In the context we are discussing, I’d rather use verse 1054: “The pure knowledge which shines forth [as the sphurana ‘I-I'] when that deceitful ego is scrutinized [through the enquiry ‘Who is this I?’]...etc” (bold letters are mine). I take here “scrutinize” as synonym of “investigate.”
You said: “Self-investigation is not an action, even though it may appear to be so” and then “Self-investigation means turning (or returning) of our attention towards ourself”.
Question: who or what “turns” the attention? “To turn” is a verb, and if the subject is the mind, has to be an action. Do you agree with that?
Bhagavan in Maharshi’s Gospel again: “Enquiry into the source of aham-vritti is, no doubt, initiated by the sadhaka in the waking state of the mind.” Quite clear here that is an ego action that initiates investigation, unless he was giving the word “sadhaka” a different meaning...
You say at the end:”However, as our understanding gets more and more refined, we will come to understand that it is better to consider that in self-investigation we are investigating our real self [svarupa-smarana], because this [svarupa] is all that exists.”
As our understanding gets more and more refined we don’t need to investigate anything anymore. We just need to abide in our firm experience of who or what we are gained through the knowledge-fruit of our first “investigations” about the ego’s unreality which lead to the shinning forth of our true nature.
You said: “We cannot abide in ourself without investigating or attending to ourself, and we cannot investigate ourself without abiding in and as ourself.”
The first part of this phrase I agree with, but not necessarily with the second part. Again, once abiding “settles” there’s nothing to investigate anymore. Until then, we have to keep going investigating “into” the source of our illusory identity, mostly, though it.
Sanjay,
As a final thought. I want to make sure you understand that this conversation is about semantics of words like "investigate" or "enquiry" and how they are translated and interpreted in "what to investigate/enquire about", not about what vichara is or is not. So it is better to stick to this context, we don't need big dissertations on Bhagavan's teachings about what atma-vichara is in relation to this context.
That being said, I close my case here, you may have the last comment if need be or you feel like it.
Thanks my friend,
M
We are told that there is only one absolute reality which we are actually itself.
Owing to lack of sufficient self-investigation we became seemingly accustomed to be aware only of a relative reality.
For Samarender Reddy -
Sam, MJ quotes you in his article of June 17, 2017 as follows -
"There seems to a problem with what you say. If whatever is to happen is decided by my prarabdha, then whatever motions the body is to go through and whatever the mind has to “think” to get the body to do actions as per prarabdha are also predetermined and “I, the ego” have no say in it. But you also say, “therefore we need not think”. And yet the mind will necessarily think some thoughts as per prarabdha. How do I distinguish thinking or thoughts associated with prarabdha and the other non-prarabdha associated thinking I seem to indulge in? Whenever any thought occurs, how do I know if it is prarabdha or the ego thinking? If I say, ok, whatever thoughts have to occur will occur to make the body do whatever it has to do, then it would seem that one has to be totally silent and not thinking and whenever any thought arises involuntarily I have to consider that as prarabdha thought and act accordingly? Is that what you are saying? Also, in that case will only such prarabdha thoughts then occur which require the body to do something or will such thoughts also occur which do not require the body to do something? I would really appreciate if you can clarify these doubts of mine."
------+-----+------+-----
Please look at the link I gave Salazar above - a critique of Daniel Wegner - especially the diagram on p 531. I am trying to interpret your comments in the light of that model..could thinking be a complete and total 100% epiphenomenon..??? Would be very interesting to read your take on it...thanks.
Mouna, in continuation of our discussion, it will be useful if we watch Michael's video filmed on 4-3-2017 (1:00 onwards), where he says:
Firstly atma-vichara (self-investigation) is not an action. Because action is the rising of the ego, going outwards. Whereas turning back within is the subsidence of all action. So it is not an action.
I have no problem to accept that we do not know which thoughts are prarabdha and which are the ones which create new karma. Sadhu Om stated that and I have no reason to not believe him or to doubt that. Looking at my own convoluted “inner” world of thoughts with its likes and dislikes I can only state that it would be presumptuous to claim I’d know the motivations of my ego.
It keeps changing on the whim of mostly unconscious vasanas and to dive into that murky water is futile. It’s not an accident that Bhagavan patiently answered to most questions to look where the question or questioner is coming from. That is the utterly simple solution, not too palatable for especially intelligent minds.
P.S. I do not believe that even the greatest minds or scientists would be able to explain the mechanics of the ghost mind, considering that they are talking about a mirage. IMO their work is redundant but of course part of their prarabdha and, also IMO, necessary for them to have that experience in order to realize down the road of some more incarnations that it was an erroneous undertaking to make that effort.
Agnostic,
The issue you raise is very interesting, that is, whether thought(s) is mere epiphenomenon as Daniel Wegner is implying in that link, and how it relates to Bhagavan’s clear assertion that “everything is predetermined” which occasioned my comments that you quoted.
Bhagavan said in the note to his mother that “Whatever is destined not to happen will not happen, try as you may. Whatever is destined to happen will happen, do what you may to prevent it. This is certain. The best course, therefore, is to remain silent.” We are left to “interpret” what Bhagavan means by the words “destined to happen”, “try”, “do what you may”, and “silence”.
Regarding “destined to happen” and “silence” - In Day By Day with Bhagavan (3-1-46 Afternoon), Bhagavan says: “What is destined as work to be done by you in this life will be done by you, whether you like it or not.” Now, here Bhagavan is saying what is “destined to happen” is the “work to be done by you in this life”. By work, obviously, Bhagavan means the “work” of a labourer, the “work” of a scientist like Einstein etc. Let us take the work of Einstein. One way of looking at his “work” is to say that whatever the theory of relativity, both special and general, that his body wrote out in the form of equations on paper. The question to ponder here is “Could his body have written out those equations if his mind had not thought out those equations?” If thought is an epiphenomenon, you would say “yes” to that question, but would add that even though his thoughts were not causally connected to how the body held the pen and wrote with his hand those equations, still God produces those thoughts consistent with those equations to give us the illusion of free will. Such a stance is not far-fetched as per Wegner, but Bhagavan seems to be going a step further, radically further, by implying that the epiphenomenon of thought is not necessary for the body to write out those equations, and hence his advice in the note to his mother to observe “silence”, for I would assume by “silence” he meant that we should not think and let the body spontaneously do whatever actions it is destined to do, including the writing of those equations by Einstein. You may ask, is that what Bhagvan is implying? Answer is yes.
(CONTINUED IN NEXT POST)
(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST)
Bhagavan says in Day By Day with Bhagavan (1-12-45) as follows: “When we have vikalpas and are trying to give them up, i.e., when we are still not perfected, but have to make conscious effort to keep the mind one-pointed or free from thought it is nirvikalpa samadhi. When through practice we are always in that state, not going into samadhi and coming out again, that is the sahaja state. In sahaja one sees always oneself. He sees the jagat as swarupa or brahmakara.” Now, Bhagavan was said to be in sahaja Samadhi, that is, his mind was free from thought, and yet he composed in his lifetime his three principal texts, namely, Who Am I?, Upadesa Saram, Ulladu Narpadu, aside from answering various doubts of seekers, which should prove to you that yes, even if Einstein had read Bhagavan’s note to his mother and chose to remain silent and slipped into sahaja Samadhi, his body would have written out the equations of his theories of relativity, while his mind remained thoughtless in sahaja Samadhi, just like Bhagavan wrote out his texts, because those equations and texts were the “work” destined to be done by Einstein and Bhagavan, whether they remained silent or not. Relevant here is also this passage written by Gandhi, as quoted in Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (Talk 646): “How mysterious are the ways of God! This journey to Rajkot is a wonder even to me. Why am I going, whither am I going? What for? I have thought nothing about these things. And if God guides me, what should I think, why should I think? Even thought may be an obstacle in the way of His guidance. The fact is, it takes no effort to stop thinking. The thoughts do not come. Indeed there is no vacuum - but I mean to say that there is no thought about the mission.”
Of course, here you may raise a thorny doubt as to if Bhagavan had not been in sahaja Samadhi, that is, not remained silent, would his body have still written out the 3 texts I mentioned above, which seemed to issue out of his own experience of sahaja samadhi which would not have been the case if his mind was thinking all the time and he had not yet realized the self. I am not sure I have an adequate answer to that doubt. But I will say this much. Whether one is self-realised (that is in sahaja samadhi, as Bhagavan was) or not (as I would assume Einstein was not), in both cases the actions of the body are predetermined, except that in the case of those self-realised (Bhagavan) those actions of the body are not accompanied parallelly with the epiphenomenon of thoughts, whereas in the case of those not self-realised (say, Einstein) they are accompanied by the epiphenomenon of thoughts.
(CONTINUED IN NEXT POST)
(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST)
Now, regarding “try” and “do what you may” – one way of interpreting those two words/phrases is to say that one can “try” and “do” both with the body and mind, that is, either through physical action such as activity of the body or speech, or through thinking. Now, if “thinking” is unrelated to “what is destined to happen” and “what is not destined to happen”, because we can “try” to keep “thinking” that we won’t carry out a particular action or speak certain words, but we may be forced by destiny to carry out that particular action or say those words, which would mean that there are certain thoughts that are not “seemingly” causally related to subsequent actions and speech and may even be contrary to those effects. So, in that case it is clear that thought need to be present in that causal chain of bodily action or speech, which would mean that thought could very much be an epiphenomenon, one which God weaves into our life to give us the illusion of free will, so that we are deluded into “thinking” that we are the “doer” of our actions, whereas the reality seems to be more like what Gandhiji wrote, as quoted in previous post.
At this stage, you could ask, “Agreed we don’t have ‘free will’ as far as bodily actions are concerned, but what about the thoughts we think, are we free in that realm, that is, do we have “free will” with regard to the thoughts we think. I would think that we should be having that “free will”, otherwise the concept of “karma” does not find traction. Also, that is what Bhagavan seems to be implying when he uses terms like “try” and “do what you may” because those can clearly apply to the thoughts we think and “trying” and “doing” would imply agency of free will.
Feel free to agree or disagree, to discuss further, if need be.
Sam. Reddy, that was a clear and eloquent comment and I can agree with most, if not all, of it.
My thoughts to if Bhagavan’s body would have written Ulladu Narpadu not being in Sahaja Samadhi: I think we are moving here into a territory which cannot be explained or deducted with the mind, thus it shows the limits to fully explain the mechanics of prarabdha since ultimately prarabdha is an illusion.
Since the script of prarabdha is written at time of birth, Bhagavan’s Sahaja Samadhi must have been implied since his body will be writing Ulladu Narpadu. However, we are implying the mechanics of time but, as we all know, there is no time but as a movement of mind.
So prarabdha is not written to unfold in a “later” time but it all happens simultaneously: Bhagavan’s body being born, his nirvana 16 years old, his writing of Ulladu Narpadu, and the death of the body in 1950; all that is a simultaneous event which is only “put into time or chronological order” by mind.
Without mind it never happened.
Is self-investigation an action?
Bhagavan has clearly said that no action can ever liberate us – in fact, actions obstruct our liberation. Bhagavan has also said that only self-investigation can destroy our ego, and without the destruction of the ego we cannot be liberated. So if we add these two together, it is clear that that self-investigation is not an action, because if it was an action, it can never liberate us.
For example, when we start a pump to operate a water fountain, its water is sprayed into the air and this creates a fountain. This fountain is like the action of our ego - the ego comes out of us, and it is our first action. However, when we stop the water pump, the water fountain ceases to operate. This is like the cessation of our actions. When the water fountain comes down not to rise again, it cannot be called an action. It is like stopping of all our actions. Likewise, when we subside or sink within by attending to ourself that is not an action, but the cessation of all actions.
It will be useful to consider verse 4 of Atma-Vidya-Kirtanam in this context:
To unfasten the bonds of karma and so on and to bring about the destruction of birth and so on, rather than any other path, this path of self-investigation is extremely easy! When one merely remains still, without the least action of speech, mind and body, ah! The light of self in the heart will be the eternal experience, fear will not exist, and the ocean of bliss alone will remain shining. Therefore, so very easy is the science of self, ah! so very easy.
Sri Sadhu Om: According to Vedanta ‘action and so on’ (karmadi) denotes the three karmas namely, agamya, prarabdha, and sanchita, and with the afflictions which following in their wake.
All sadhanas other than self-investigation involve some action to be performed either by the mind, speech or body, and hence one may experience some difficulty in using these instruments. But in the path of self-investigation taught by Sri Bhagavan no action need be performed by any of these three instruments, and hence this path is the easiest of all paths.
Knowing self is not an action. Since self ever naturally knows itself, knowing self is nothing but being self (Upadesa Undhiyar v.26). If one merely remains still without performing any action by these three instruments, self-knowledge will automatically shine forth.
Since all actions of the mind, speech and body are due only to the rising of thoughts, since all other thoughts rise only because of the rising of the first thought ‘I am this body’, and since this first thought will vanish along with all other thoughts when one turns one’s attention towards it, in order to remain still all we need to do is to turn our attention towards the mere feeling ‘I’. Therefore, knowing self is so very easy.
Reflections: We may use various terms to describe self-investigation, like self-enquiry, self-attentiveness, self-remembrance, being still (summa-iru), turning within, diving within, self-contemplation, self-abidance, being attentively self-aware and so on, but all such terms denote our only the actionless state of remaining in and as ourself. Thus self-investigation is not an action.
Salazar,
who can know whether "the script of prarabdha is written at time of birth..." or at all at any time ?
Secret India, I was repeating what I've read from an impeccable source, most likely from a sage - I do not remember though. It makes sense for me how prarabdha works in the phenomenal world. Of course it applies the use of the concept of time which also only can be applied to the phenomenal world projected by mind.
Salazar,
in any case by attaining the immortal eternal state (liberation) we become free from all types of karma.
Sanjay Lohia,
usually we read 'Upadesa Undiyar', without "h".
Secret India, yes of course - until then the destiny of our bodies is governed by prarabdha or by the Ordainer.
Yes, Salazar, this ordainer seems to decide on our prarabdha like an independent arbitrator.
Dear Samarender Reddy,
GVK vs1165 is worth reading
"Though the jnani - how having discarded the collection of implements and instruments as the doers which perform the actions, has no contact with them, which are the doers - seemingly does actions, He is a non-doer."
Sadhu Om: Implements means the 5 sense organs and 5 organs of actions, while the word instruments means the mind, intellect, chittam and ego. Knowing that it is only these implements and instruments which are performing all actions and knowing that they are none of them 'I', the Jnani has discarded them and remains without having even the least contact with them, and hence He ever remains without any sense of doership, even though he may seem to be performing actions
He seems to be saying the apparent body of the jnani may continue to think or act, but the identification is with the screen rather than the character playing on the screen . . . ie there is no longer an I-thought, no longer an identification with the body-mind, the utter detachment of the substratum.
Salazar,
I agree with you when you say, "I think we are moving here into a territory which cannot be explained or deducted with the mind". Ultimately, the sole purpose of understanding or accepting that "everything is predetermined" is for the mind to fall silent, rather than understanding the full mechanics of how prarabdha works which anyway, as you rightly point out, is a futile exercise doomed to failure.
Venkat,
I agree with you that since the Jnani is the Self, without a sense of ego identification with body-mind, he is a non-doer. Even the Bhagavad Gita says as much in three places:
Chapter 3, Verse 27: "All actions are wrought in all cases by the qualities of Nature only. He whose mind is deluded by egoism thinks: “I am the doer”."
Chapter 13, Verse 30:"He sees, who sees that all actions are performed by Nature alone and that the Self is actionless."
Chapter 14, Verse 19: "When the seer beholds no agent other than the Gunas, knowing that which is higher than them, he attains to My Being."
Sanjay,
Thank you for the time put on your so well articulated response.
Unfortunately I still think my questions haven’t been addressed satisfactorily. At this point I have the feeling that you don’t understand my point, and at the same time you might have the same feeling towards me, that I don’t understand yours.
So I’ll propose that instead of trying to continue discussing the differences we might have in relation to the semantics of the teaching, we can continue to focus on what we agree most: our love for Bhagavan’s teachings and the efficacy of Atma-Vichara and Surrender.
Be well,
M
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 1
This light [i.e., these verses] of the guru’s teachings, which destroys the base nature of mind – ‘I’ and ‘mine’ – shines as self, illuminating our hearts, whenever we long with increasing despair for grace.
Reflections: Guru Vachaka Kovai contains 1254 verses outlining the teachings of Bhagavan in a most comprehensive manner. We can take GVK to be a joint work of Bhagavan and Murunagar. It is because even though most of these verses were written by Muruganar, these verses were corrected and improved upon by Bhagavan. Bhagavan himself wrote or dictated many of these verses. So GVK is a spiritual treasure.
Bhagavan had himself hinted that Muruganar had attained the highest, and therefore whatever he has written has great value. Of course, Bhagavan has refined these verses making them a valuable collection of his entire of teachings.
Only guru’s teachings can destroy our ego, and this ego is the root of this samsara. So we should study and reflect on our guru’s teachings as much as possible. Such a study is the foundation of our practice of self-investigation.
Mouna, yes, it is our love for Bhagavan’s teachings which binds us together. So let us cherish our association. As long as we have minds, we will have our opinions and views, and these will often clash with others’ opinions and views. So this is understandable is any discussion. Thanks.
Sanjay Lohia,
perhaps Muruganar lived actually in "Murunagar".:)
Sanjay Lohia,
"Only guru’s teachings can destroy our ego, and ...".
Of course we will have full benefit from Bhagavan's teaching only by correct understanding of them and putting them into practice.
Sam, thank you very much for your clear and detailed reply. I will comment in due course but on a first reading I noticed an error in the third page where you say -
-------
So, in that case it is clear that thought need to be present in that causal chain of bodily action or speech, which would mean that thought could very much be an epiphenomenon, one which God weaves into our life to give us the illusion of free will, so that we are deluded into “thinking” that we are the “doer” of our actions, whereas the reality seems to be more like what Gandhiji wrote, as quoted in previous post.
-------;
In the first sentence I think you meant to write "thought need NOT be present" instead of "thought need TO be present..."
--------
I am in agreement with almost everything you say except the following (last paragraph) -
"I would think that we should be having that “free will”, otherwise the concept of “karma” does not find traction."
The notion of karma and all the accompanying baggage of the soul, and past lives and reincarnation is, it seems to me, too heavy a price to pay for making sense of free will.
Anyway, more about this later.
Thanks again for your reply.
D Samarender Reddy,
regarding your reply to venkat and the quoted verses of the Bhagavat Gita:
so we have the actions done by the qualities of the three Gunas and the "Nature".
But can we rightly consider the mind and the ego as functions of the Gunas and "Nature" ?
Jiva-Karunya, yes, it should have been ‘Muruganar’. Thanks.
A small milestone...
I think this article has attracted the maximum number of comments out of all of Michael's articles. I think, the highest number of comments up to now was 733 after the article: Ulladu Narpadu: Tamil text, transliteration and translation. It now stands at 736 (with this comment) for this article and it is still counting...
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 2
The eternal one graciously took the form of guru [Ramana] and lovingly claimed me – who was a victim to the delusion ‘I am the body’ as his own, reforming me with the sense ‘I am not this filthy inert body’. May my head rest beneath the feet of the benign, gracious, silent guru.
Reflections: Through this verse, Muruganar indicates that he had attained whatever needed to be attained. This can be inferred by this statement: ‘[I] who was a victim to the delusion ‘I am the body’ […], reforming me with the sense ‘I am not this filthy inert body’’. So Muruganar cannot be more clear than this.
He had certainly experienced himself as he really is. Michael is of the view that both Muruganar and Sadhu Om were jnanis. He inferred this by the clarity of their understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings. He also inferred this by the outward lives of these two. They lived fully surrendered lives, with no sense of the ego. They lived like humble devotees of Bhagavan, even though they could have easily assumed the role of gurus.
When people wanted to take Muruganar or Sadhu Om as their guru, both of them used to say with emphasis ‘I am not a guru. Bhagavan is the guru of all. Having come to Bhagavan, how can you even think of considering anyone else as your guru?’, or something to this effect. Michael has conveyed all this.
Agnostic,
You are right that "Not" is missing in that sentence.
Regarding the extra baggage of karma and reincarnation to take on board free will of some sort, at least at the level of thinking as I meant it, I guess there is no other theory that makes more sense than that. If there is one you have in mind, I am all ears.
Of course, let me say this much. We have to ask ourselves what is it that reincranates and is subject to karma. Clearly it is the body-mind complex. But, somehow the chidabhasa (reflected consciousness) is deluded into thinking that whatever is happening to the body-mind is happening to itself because it takes itself to be the body-mind. So, in that sense, strictly speaking, there is no reincarnation or karma for chidabhasa - it is only imagining them to be so.
Sanjay Lohia,
if Michael deletes comment nr. 617, 662-663, 707 as proposed by the commentator called "control tower" the number of comments would be only 733 (inclusive this comment).
Of course Michael cannot break his present main work only for the adjustment of the statistics of all the comments on the last article of 13 May 2018. Look at his advance announcement in his article of 28 December 2017: "...because I need to devote some time to revising and editing the English translation of Sādhanai Sāram, which I should have done earlier because it is long overdue for republication. I will also soon have to do at least some minimal editing on The Path of Sri Ramana, which is likewise due for republication, so while I am working on these I will have less time to write anything for this blog...".
existing substance
You ask, "But can we rightly consider the mind and the ego as functions of the Gunas and "Nature" ?"
Yes, mind is very much a functioning of the gunas because the mind belongs to the realm of Maya, and Maya as you know is said to be like a rope with three strands, the three strands being the three gunas of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas.
Sanjay Lohia,
evidently I did not notice the 3 comments nr.736 -738 given in the mean time.
D Samarender Reddy,
is there really a "rope with three strands" ? Did you rather mean an "ocean" with three strands ?
existing substance
You ask, "is there really a "rope with three strands" ? Did you rather mean an "ocean" with three strands ?"
So, Check out https://books.google.co.in/books?id=cSy_BSaO2BwC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=maya%2Brope%2Bthree+strands&source=bl&ots=agFR0zlB-X&sig=7A3dBpdetWSFIZr9qSRb5332vDw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiv2pbk7ajcAhVHWysKHWLuAvU4ChDoAQhFMAc#v=onepage&q=maya%2Brope%2Bthree%20strands&f=false
Sam. Reddy, have you read that book in its entirety and did you like it? It looks like an interesting subject.
Salazar,
Yes, it seems to be well written. Unfortunately, I do not have that book with me. I tried searching on http://libgen.io/ (from where I get to download most of the books for free) but it is not available there. It is available on Amazon, but it is very expensive. But, it is available here for reading: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3345946.Varghese_Malpan
D Samarender Reddy,
thank you for giving that link. Sorry I simply overlooked the different meanings of the noun "strand" (here not only as shore/coast/beach but also as thread/fibre/filament/string).
Sam. Reddy, yes - it's over $ 40 at Amazon, however the e-book on Google is $ 9.99. Thank you for the info.
Mouna, I just want to let you know that the chronic pain has miraculously diminished to very tolerable levels. Even in the most desperate times I [stubbornly] never asked Bhagavan to alleviate the pain. If that is my prarabdha - so be it. However I prayed to Him to give me the strength to endure it and, more importantly, to develop a non-attachment to "my" body.
Thank you for your empathy and well-wishes.
Salazar,
I too am glad for you about the reduced chronic pain.
Another point is the above mentioned e-book " A Comparative Study of the Bhagavad-gītā and the Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius of Loyola on the Process of Spiritual Liberation" which I would like to read.
Because I am not sufficiently trained in computing may I ask you how to use an e-book ?
Is it necessary to buy the whole e-book from Google or can I make a printout of the most interesting parts free of charge ?
Which technical prerequisite is necessary to read an e-book ?
drik, in order to have access to the e-book you have to buy it from the Google Play store. You can read it on your computer, tablet, or cell phone, if a necessary app is needed you can download it from the same website you buy the e-book.
Salazar,
many thanks for your kind assistance.
I did not even know that an e-book is anything for touch:)
Sam, I prefer total predetermination (including this thought...) over free will because of what you said in part in one of your earlier replies -
"(2) Where does that leave us with regard to effort. Strictly speaking, if one takes on board that everything is predetermined, then one surrenders completely and utterly to God at once (of course, you could ask at this point do we have that freedom - yes, in the sense that the very understanding that everything is predetermined occasions or causes the surrender) and that is the end of story - you will be liberated and ego, the locus of free will and fate, will be at an end. If not, if one does not believe it fully, then through the illusion that we are in control we will put in effort as per God's plan and we will carry on. If one is caught in between, that is, one is fatalistic about life without surrendering fully, life (or God, if you will) will correct that attitude in us through other series of causal mechanisms and understandings.
--------------------------------
For me, Talk 28 - the section on freewill - says it all...only I would replace "God" with "Nature".
You are widely read and have thought deeply about this topic; we are fortunate to have you here. Thanks also to MJ for attracting you (which will give him the opportunity to say that it is Bhagavan's doing, etc, etc..!!!)
Agnostic,
Yes, you have a point. That viewpoint is also shared by Ramesh Balsekar, who constantly harped on the fact that we have no "free will", period.
You may want to check out this excellent talk on "Do We Have Free Will?" by Swami Sarvapriyananda - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzbyeU3dK4g
Agnostic, are you by any chance old buddy Roger Isaacs? You certainly share his animosity towards Michael.
Salazar, you are projecting, son. I am Agnostic, not Roger...quit your foolishness.
Just out of curiosity, what am I projecting? :)
D Samarender Reddy,
I fully agree with your reply of 18 July 2018 at 02:44 to Salazar: "Ultimately, the sole purpose of understanding or accepting that "everything is predetermined" is for the mind to fall silent, rather than understanding the full mechanics of how prarabdha works which anyway, as you rightly point out, is a futile exercise doomed to failure."
Secret India,
I am glad you agree. Not only in the case of surrender you fall silent or become still, even in self-enquiry you have to be still, as Bhagavan says in Talk 379, "All that is required to realise the Self is to 'Be Still.'" Even if one maintains that self-enquiry involves paying attention to the inner sense of I or I-ness or I-feeling, even that involves being still because you cannot pay that attention if your attention is occupied by thoughts.
Moreover, as Kena Upanishad says, "That which the mind cannot know, but because of which the mind knows, know that alone to be Brahman, and not this that people worship here." That is because, Brahman (aka Self or Consciousness - Prajnanam Brahma [Consciousness is Brahman] as Aitareya Upanishad says) cannot become an object for the mind because Brahman is you yourself who are using the instrument of the mind, and so through thinking you cannot arrive at the Truth or Consciousness. So, why get lost in thoughts or thinking when you know it does not take you to the Truth. Of course, at this point do not ask "how" can I stop thinking and Be Still. As J. Krishnamurti was fond of saying, there is no "how" because the "how" implies a method, a practice or technique, and you have had dozens of methods and techniques which have not brought you to the doorstep of Truth. What then is the way out? Instead of asking "how" can I stop thinking and become still, understand "why" you need to stop thinking and become still, that is, understand the need for stillness of the mind to realize the Truth, and that very understanding will slowly bring your mind around to stillness without your having to put in effort in that direction - and when you are still, things will begin to happen spontaneously. It is this Truth or understanding that will set you free and not your "effort" to be free.
As Nisargadatta Maharaj said in I Am That (No. 48 Awareness is Free): "My teacher told me to hold on to the sense 'I am' tenaciously and not to swerve from it even for a moment. I did my best to follow his advice and in a comparatively short time I realised within myself the truth of his teaching. All I did was to remember his teaching, his face, his words constantly. This brought an end to the mind; in the stillness of the mind I saw myself as I am -- unbound."
Samarender, may I butt in? I agree, ‘Ultimately, the sole purpose of understanding or accepting that "everything is predetermined" is for the mind to fall silent, rather than understanding the full mechanics of how prarabdha works which anyway, as you [Secret India] rightly point out, is a futile exercise doomed to failure’.
However, though we can understand that everything is predetermined and thereby accept everything that happens as God’s will and thus remain relatively calm, such acceptance cannot bring us to absolute stillness. In order to be established in total stillness, we need to investigate the ego and find out that it does not exist. Since the ego is the root of all movements, as long as it is there we cannot be perfectly still.
You quote Kena Upanishad, where it is written, ‘That which the mind cannot know, but because of which the mind knows, know that alone to be Brahman, and not this that people worship here’. This echoes what Bhagavan says in verse 22 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Consider, except by, turning the mind back within, completely immersing it in God, who shines within that mind giving light to the mind, how to fathom God by the mind?
You say, ‘Instead of asking "how" can I stop thinking and become still, understand "why" you need to stop thinking and become still, that is, understand the need for stillness of the mind to realize the Truth’. Yes, our mind needs to be absolutely still, and only such stillness will destroy the mind. However, Bhagavan has also given us a clear method of ‘how to be still?’ We can remain still by attending to ourself. Only when we arise as this ego, we indulge in actions. So in order to be still, we need to stop the ego from rising, and we can do so only by attending to the ego.
Bhagavan would have agreed with Nisargadatta Maharaj when he said, ‘My teacher told me to hold on to the sense 'I am' tenaciously and not to swerve from it even for a moment’. Yes, we should hold on the sense of ‘I am’ and not swerve from it even for a moment. Bhagavan also asks us to practise nirantara svarupa-smarana (unceasing self-remembrance). This should be enough to destroy our ego.
D Samarender Reddy,
you write:"Instead of asking "how" can I stop thinking and become still, understand the need for stillness of the mind to realize the Truth, and that very understanding will slowly bring your mind around to stillness without your having to put in effort in that direction - and when you are still, things will begin to happen spontaneously. It is this Truth or understanding that will set you free and not your "effort" to be free."
But...in order to not obscure the facts....
because for most of us that "very understanding" is not descending from the air, the struggle for keeping the heart free from all kinds of obstacles is certainly necessary and has to be done just by the mind's steadfast effort.
"...to hold on to the sense 'I am' tenaciously and not to swerve from it even for a moment" I consider only as an other way of expressing the necessity of keeping the awareness/heart clean from all trouble causing influences.
Sanjay,
You wrote, "as long as it [ego] is there we cannot be perfectly still." True. That is what even Bhagavan said (as I quoted in one of my recent posts above), that, in Nirvikalpa Samadhi (and by implication in all other states below that where one is practicing self-enquiry, that is, attending to oneself) one is holding on to stillness with effort, and only in sahaja samadhi (where obviously there is no ego) is that stillness effortless because it is one's nature.
drik,
You wrote, "for most of us that "very understanding" is not descending from the air". That may be because you are thinking that that "understanding" is something complicated and profound. Actually, it is quite simple in that it is simply the logical understanding that you cannot make Consciousness into an object for the mind and hence thinking will not get you to the truth, and whatever thinking, that is, manana, you do should finally bring you to this very understanding, and that is the only role and goal of manana.
Once you have ascertained that, the reason you still are involved in "the struggle for keeping the heart free from all kinds of obstacles" it is because your longing and earnestness to realise the Truth or discover your true nature as Consciousness is not strong and intense enough. That would mean that in addition to wanting to know the truth, you are pulled away by various other desires. Reason for those desires is your false belief that somehow happiness resides in the objects and situations outside. But a little reflection would tell you that the happiness you seem to be deriving from objects and situations outside is actually consequent upon the temporary stillness of mind upon acquiring the object desired, whereby the wellspring of inner happiness is opened up. So, as Bhagavan says towards the end in Who Am I, it is foolish to rake up desires and thus agitate the mind, and then go in search of satisfying those desires to bring about the stillness of the mind, just like venturing out into the sun and retreating back into the shade of the tree instead of remaining in the shade of the tree. So, understanding this account of how happiness is produced will enable you to cultivate vairagya and increase your earnestness to know the Truth about oneself. When that happens, your mind will automatically become still.
Sam. Reddy said, “[…] in Nirvikalpa Samadhi (and by implication in all other states below that where one is practicing self-enquiry, that is, attending to oneself) […]”
I’d like to emphasize that self-enquiry is not necessarily leading to Nirvikalpa Samadhi or any other Samadhis besides Sahaja Samadhi or the natural state. In fact Bhagavan stated that those preliminary Samadhi’s are not necessary (as a step towards the natural state) and often can become an obstacle like laya Samadhi where the yogi stays in that Samadhi for 10 years but then after coming out of it has not progressed an iota.
The only goal for a devotee of Bhagavan should be the natural state and nothing else; in fact Nirvikalpa Samadhi should not be desired at all. I for sure do not want it!
Papaji said that the biggest obstacle for a yogi is to transcend the 5th sheath or the bliss body. Since there is the experience of bliss and an expanded consciousness many confuse that with enlightenment and/or have no interest to go further.
However there is still a mind and with that freedom is far away unless the yogi rejects that bliss and asks himself, who experiences that bliss?
Salazar,
You got me there. Yes, I agree that one doesn't have to go through Nirvikalpa Samadhi en route to sahaja samadhi or the natural state. I was merely quoting Bhagavan to show that what Sanjay wrote squared up somewhat with what Bhagavan said, roughly speaking. That said, what is important is stillness of mind, and what stations one passes through or not en route to sahaja samadhi should be of no concern because they will anyway naturally unfold and one should not get caught in them but hold on to the I-feeling as Nisargadatta Maharaj did because he said he did have many visions of gods etc but he never paid any attention to them but merely held on to the "I am". Even Bhagavan said somewhere that whatever visions one gets one should totally disregard them and hold on to the seer of them.
My sister and her current family believe in some sort of Buddhist chanting. They do this chanting sometimes together and often on their own. My sister also visits a group of like-minded devotees for such chanting and reading the words by their one Japanese guru.
My father died of cancer. He took a few rounds of chemotherapy, even though some of us were quite apprehensive about this line of treatment. We wanted him to change his diet and so on. However, because it was his destiny, he soon died of cancer.
In his latest video, Michael discusses these two topics. That is, in reply to a devotee’s questions, he talks about the benefits one can derive from such chanting if one has cancer or some such problem. The following extract, which is in its edited version, is taken from Michael’s video filmed on 14th July 2018 (1:38 onwards):
Devotee: A relative of mine is suffering from cancer and she does Buddhist chanting, and she is convinced that it has given her a lot of hope and strength. But by such chanting can she change her current situation? She is confused. Sometimes she feels that she is lost, and sometimes she feels she is conquering her fear and that the chanting is going to change her destiny…
Michael: She cannot change her destiny, but she can change her fear, because the fear is an element of will. The domain of will is what we want, what we like and dislike and what we fear… So by doing that chanting, she may reduce her fears. So from that perspective it may be beneficial. However, it cannot change what is destined to happen.
When this body is going to die is predestined when it came into existence, so all that we are to experience in this life is predestined. We cannot change our destiny, but we can change our reaction to it. We can be terrified because we can see our death approaching, or we can take it as Bhagavan’s will – ‘after all this body is anyway going to die, so whether it dies sooner or later, what does it matter. What difference does it make?’
We can cultivate that attitude of surrender. ‘Thy will be done – not my will but thy will’, accepting whatever happens as the sweet will of Bhagavan. If we are in a state of surrender, it does not matter whether the body dies or not.
Devotee: So when you in a state of surrender, does that mean that you do not even take action for the cure?
Michael: Supposing I have cancer, if it is my destiny to have chemotherapy and be cured, or at least to put it into remission for some time, I will go through the chemotherapy when the doctor advises me to go for it. I will not accept other advises like changing my diet or taking homoeopathy or chanting or whatever.
Or if I am destined not to have chemotherapy, I will listen to people and try taking some herbs, do prayers or whatever. So if these are destined to help, these will help. So it is all according to destiny.
Sanjay, thank you for that last comment. I fully agree with that Michael/seeker exchange. As one gets older it is not unusual to get confronted with a cancer scare and I personally have contemplated what I'd do and I have a strong aversion to chemotherapy (since I can remember). I think I'd rather die than go go through the extreme side effects of chemo and then die anyway a few months later (depends what kind of cancer).
Of course if that should actually happen things might change and the fear of death may lead me to do things I reject now. I hope I do not have to test that premise.
My cousin who was 3 years older than I am became colon cancer and he fought that with all of his "willpower". He of course did chemo and whatever the oncologists came up with and he had many up and downs and that went on for 3-4 long years. He lived abroad and when I saw him after he started the treatment I freaked out because I almost did not recognize him.
In the end he died anyway and left a wife and 20 years old son.
P.S. Here in the U.S. cancer treatment is a huge business, the medical field cannot make more money than with that. Physicians get paid incentives from pharmaceutical companies when they prescribe chemotherapy.
The top 4 drugs for cancer treatment cost $ 100,000 a year each. Just the drug!
The main recommendation in the U.S. is to get a financial advisor in case of cancer, even with a good health insurance, because besides the threat of losing ones life it is easy to get broke "treating" it.
Salazar, you say, ‘Here in the U.S. cancer treatment is a huge business, the medical field cannot make more money than with that. Physicians get paid incentives from pharmaceutical companies when they prescribe chemotherapy’.
I think medical care is a big business in most of the advanced countries, and since we in India are growing at an extremely fast rate, medical care is becoming a huge business here as well. However, on the positive side, our medical care is not far behind other more advanced countries.
Some hospitals and doctors take advantage of our insecurities when we come into their clutches, and thus we are exploited in so many ways. However, I have heard that the UK medical care (NHS) is quite transparent and good.
Sanjay, the European health care is as good as the American but much cheaper. Also most of it is socialized health care and there is not much additional cost besides the deduction from the paycheck.
I was in the 70s in England through a student exchange program and when I was there I got sick and the family where I lived called a physician who actually came by (that won't happen here unless you pay big bucks). The treatment was free since the UK health system did not charge for any foreign visitors (at least back then, it might have changed).
D Samarender Reddy,
thank you for your reply.
I take the liberty of making a statement only on those points to which I feel (most) approached:
You are certainly correct in saying that the reason I still am involved in the struggle for keeping the heart free from all kinds of obstacles is because my longing and earnestness to realise the Truth or discover my true nature as consciousness is not strong and intense enough. It is true that I am pulled away by various other desires.
Therefore I should constantly try to cultivate vairagya and increase my earnestness to know the truth about myself.
Thanks for attending to this matter. Kind regards.
Sanjay Lohia,
"So it is all according to destiny."
If one considers that idea as true there is the danger that people become fatalistic and lethargic.
chitta-suddhi, then let the people become fatalistic and lethargic. Even if that would be true, what is it your concern? Who cares? It is irrelevant!
It is obvious that you have not grasped the basics of Bhagavan's teachings, question like these lead to nowhere because your mind keep projecting outwards with its irrelevant concerns. Bhagavan wants you to go inwards.
Salazar,
Bhagavan did not want or press people to "grasp the basics of his teachings". That's asking too much. Rather he encouraged us to doubt the doubter.
Bhagavan has no wishes; that is only by the way.
However, yes, my real nature draws my attention from within inwardly. As you propose - I will follow the prompting of my heart and go more inwards (the non-grasper).:)
Salazar,
all is one - so nothing is ever irrelevant.
Chitta-Suddhi, I wrote ‘So it is all according to destiny’. You replied to this by saying ‘If one considers that idea as true there is the danger that people become fatalistic and lethargic’.
The term ‘fatalist’ means ‘the belief that people cannot change the way events will happen and that events, especially bad ones, cannot be avoided’. So Bhagavan does want us to become fatalists, any doubt? However, as far as becoming ‘lethargic’ or lazy is concerned, it is not really our choice. If it is in our destiny to remain active we will be active, and if it is our destiny to be lazy or lethargic we will be lazy.
Bhagavan used to say that whatever we are do in this life with our mind, speech and body is already chalked out when our body comes into existence. He used to say that if it is in our destiny to work we cannot avoid work, and if work is not in our destiny we cannot get work even if we actively seek it.
Yes, one thing should always remain lethargic and that is our individual will. Our will means the collection of all our desires, our likes and dislikes, fears and so on. Our will should remain inactive, because if it is active it will create all sorts of problems for us. It is the misuse of our will in the past which is the cause of our present bondage, and therefore we should now make wise use of our will by repeatedly trying to turn within.
Our primary task is to destroy our ego which has this will. If the ego goes, everything else will go along with it – that is, if the ego disappears, all our desires, our likes and dislikes, our fears etc. everything will disappear forever. This will be the end of our story.
Sanjay Lohia,
as you say fatalism is generally the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable. What I meant particularly with fatalism is rather the excessive submissive attitude to events, resulting from such belief. In my experience there are just not all things completely outside a person's control. The predetermination of events by a supernatural power does not at all include the entire range of life. Not all things have been decided by fate before they happen. So one should not stop from making decisions or making an effort.
Even I would relativize Bhagavan's note that he wrote at Pavala Kundru for his mother in December 1898 when she pleaded with him to return home with her to Madurai: This words of comfort were emphatically stated by him possibly to mainly console his mother. I would warn people not to attach too much significance to this statement for their daily way of life.
Because I don't want here again discuss the role of free will and fate(prarabdha) we may remember Michael's translation of Upadēśa Undiyār verse 1: Karma [action] giving fruit is by the ordainment of God [the kartā or ordainer]. Since karma is jaḍa [devoid of consciousness], can karma be God?
Sanjay Lohia,
you say "Yes, one thing should always remain lethargic and that is our individual will."
On the contrary our (individual) will to experience the truth should always grow stronger and stronger !
Chitta-Suddhi, we should indeed have a submissive attitude to events, because that is what Bhagavan’s wants us to aim for. When Bhagavan is the train which is carrying all our burdens, why should we doubt his intelligence? He knows what to do, when and how. So we should try to accept everything that happens in our life as Bhagavan’s will. He is infinite love and he knows what is good for us, so we should gladly surrender to his will.
Karma theory as taught by Bhagavan is not just a system of reward and punishment. It is more a system where Bhagavan is working at attenuating our ego through various good and apparently bad events and experiences in our lives. The outside events have a purpose. Its main purpose is to make us disgusted with our external life so that we become willing to turn within. It is because infinite happiness, which is our true nature, is within us as the very core of our being.
So let us welcome all unpleasant experiences we undergo with an open arm – maybe these events are more helpful to us in the long run. All such adverse events give a blow to our ego and thus makes it weak and therefore willing to surrender.
You say, ‘So one should not stop from making decisions or making an effort’. Agreed, we are free to make whatever decision we want to make and we are also free to make efforts to implement our decisions. However, our efforts will fructify only if the results we aim for are in our destiny. I may want to become a rich man and also make tremendous efforts in that direction, but if it not in my destiny I may even lose whatever little money I may have now.
Or I may have no desire to become a rich man and therefore may be indifferent to the lure of wealth. However, if it is in my destiny to become rich, somehow the wealth will come to me. A rich uncle may die leaving a huge fortune in my name or whatever.
The note that Bhagavan wrote for his mother was not only to console her but was to give us the theory of karma in a nutshell. So definitely we should attach significance to whatever he wrote in that note.
Prapatti, as you say, ‘our (individual) will to experience the truth should always grow stronger and stronger!’ I cannot agree more. How to make this will grow stronger and stronger? It is only by more and more practice.
Sanjay Lohia,
you report that "Our will means the collection of all our desires, our likes and dislikes, fears and so on. "
According Oxford Dictionary of English:
Will is mainly the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action.
Will is control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one's own impulses.
So fears are not a factor of will.
Sanjay Lohia,
why should gladly surrendering to Bhagavan's will have the meaning of exclusion of our mental faculties ?
There are no mental faculties, that's the whole idea of surrender - to realize that. The idea of [the existence of] mental faculties is the cause of being bound.
To just blabber "all is one" is not doing it and in that regard is as irrelevant as the concern about "fatalism".
By the way, the Oxford Dictionary of English cannot accurately explain metaphysical terms, what it says about "will" is based on commonly accepted concepts which are insufficient.
It is not advised to use that as a reference or authority in regards to Bhagavan's teachings.
"Will is control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one's own impulses."
That is false and is based on the acceptance of suttarivu. A subject "me" who controls the object "will". There is neither a "me" nor a "will". Just as an imagination.
Salazar,
when you are writing a comment you certainly use your faculty of reason.
The human mind's power of understanding and reason is rightly called a mental faculty.
Before blabbering about the non-existence of mental faculties and other "irrelevances" you should have been thinking at least to a minimum.
Rather and not seldom are arrogance and lacking ability to judge simple coherences the cause of bondage.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 3
The perfect jnana-Guru [Ramana] ably and precisely presents the right meaning on many contradictory subjects, and passes apt judgement over various discussions, revealing the one supreme truth that lies in harmony among them all. May my head rest beneath his feet.
Reflections: As Sadhu Om used to say, Bhagavan has given us many correction slips. Bhagavan has clarified and refined many of the concepts which though they were there in the Vedas, were not very clear. For example, let us take what he says about the nature of sleep in the first chapter of Maharshi’s Gospel (2002 edition, page 9):
Sleep is not ignorance, it is one’s pure state; wakefulness is not knowledge, it is ignorance. There is full awareness in sleep and total ignorance in waking.
Do we think this way? Obviously not. So isn’t it a revolutionary revelation? Again he says when the ego comes into existence everything else comes into existence. It's again the most radical teaching. However, it does agree with our daily experience and therefore we have no reason to reject it altogether. We see all otherness only when we rise as this ego, so how can we be sure that things exist when we are not aware of them? We imagine that things exist when we are not aware of them, but we cannot be sure of this, can we?
So Bhagavan has revolutionised spiritual teachings in so many ways.
Salazar,
the term "will" is only common usage. There is no need of a reference to Bhagavan's teachings.
chitta-sudhi, thank you for confirming my original assessment that you have not grasped the basics of Bhagavan's teachings. Farewell.
Where is "reason" and "mental faculties" in deep sleep?
But I am afraid that question must elude confused seekers of the truth.
I wonder when it will dawn on the more confused visitors on this blog that writing a comment is an imagination [by mind] and not really happening. It just seems that way. But by Bhagavan's grace eventually clarity will come, hopefully soon.
Salazar,
where are being afraid, questions, confused seekers of the truth and discussion in deep sleep ?
Listen, mate, I agree that mind's imaginations, final dawn upon "confused visitors", seeming happenings and hope for "coming clarity" of course occur only in the limited view of mind.
However, in order to talk about philosophical issues ajata is not applicable.
In peace and quiet, may I make my farewells now ?
Everything all right ?
chitta-suddhi, you are wrong again with your conclusions but what the heck. You need to include ajata in your "philosophical issues", if not you are missing the boat. Because there are no issues but created by your confused mind. As long as your mind refuses to accept its own confusion and doesn't drop that nonsense of "rationality" and "mental faculties" it will just keep circling in irrelevant concepts.
But I guess that's an unavoidable process.
You asked, "Is everything okay with me?" What do you like to insinuate with that? Just keep personal insinuations out of this futile dialog, will ya?
By the way, since you believe that you have free will, why don't you "will" yourself to take your farewells instead to keep replying to me? :) BUT YOU CAN'T OF COURSE.
Whatever your body does, posting here or not, IS NOT UNDER YOUR CONTROL - EVER.
But you are even questioning Michael's lectures, your ego really needs the illusion of control. Maybe a dozen of more incarnations will do the trick.
Salazar,
it does not matter that we cannot convince one another of the correctness of our concepts.
According to my dictionary the question "Everything all right ?" means the same as "all right or OK ?".
There is no insinuation whatever, I only wanted to express that everything's fine.
That's all.
Sorry, but I can write comments only with the full use of an English dictionary.
Often it is not possible to express my ideas in perfect English.
Over our different beliefs about prarabdha and free will we need not fall to brooding.
chitta-suddhi, thank you for clarifying; I did not consider that you need to use an English dictionary, now some of your strangely formulated comments come under a different light.
I agree with the rest of your comment, peace to you my friend.
Salazar,
thanks, let us find peace of mind my friend:)
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 4
This clear light of supreme truth was not lit by my innocent, infant mind, which has not seen the truth. It was lit by the fully ripened supreme knowledge of my master Sri Ramana.
Reflections: Muruganar, like a true devotee, gives all credit for this work Guru Vachaka Kovai to Bhagavan Ramana. After all, Muruganar had merely recorded the teachings of Bhagavan, so all credit should rightfully go to Bhagavan. However, Muruganar was a perfect instrument, as he had fully surrendered to Bhagavan.
Furthermore, since Muruganar had perfect inner clarity, which a jnani naturally has, he was able to understand and reproduce Bhagavan’s teachings in all its purity.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 5
Many instructions to root out ignorance were given by my beloved, eternal, companion [Sri Ramana] whose real form is that [sat-chit] which exists, shines and reveals itself as ‘I’. I now recount some of those instructions which my mind has grasped and preserved.
Reflections: Muruganar again makes it clear that Bhagavan’s ‘real form is that sat-chit which exists, shines and reveals itself as I’. Although outwardly it seemed that Muruganar had great love and attachment for the name and form of Bhagavan, but it was clear to him that Bhagavan is what shines in us as ‘I’.
Sanjay Lohia,
Sri Ramana's real form is that [sat-chit] which exists, shines and reveals itself as 'I'.
Is it not said that our real form is nothing but the same sat-chit ?
Should we not therefore bow our ego's head to realize that we are in truth the same boundless ocean of grace as our beloved eternal companion Sri Arunachala Ramana, the guru of gurus ?
Is it actually within our power to eradicate the ego, the cause of all misery ?
...there is in truth no other than the self or pure consciousness.
Truly the self is neither the seer nor the seen.
The self alone is not involved as subject or object...
Love for Being, you ask, ‘Is it actually within our power to eradicate the ego, the cause of all misery?’ Certainly, because if it were not, why should we practise any sadhana? However, by our efforts, we can only travel so far, and therefore ultimately, to use Bhagavan’s words, Bhagavan’s grace has to rise up and consume us.
As we go on practising self-investigation, eventually, we will be engulfed by the clarity of self-awareness, which is the power of grace. So we should not lose sight of the might of the grace, because as this ego we have limited powers, and therefore we can make efforts only up to a certain point – beyond that we just need to yield ourself to the final pull of grace.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 6
I, being there where Ramana embraced me, will recount a little of the nature of the supreme truth which I have come to know in my life of divine union with him, my master.
Reflections: On this verse, I found the following written by Michael in the Preface of Guru Vachaka Kovai:
Sri Michael James: Sri Muruganar was one of those devotees who thus knew Sri Bhagavan as he knew himself, and it was from this stance, this identity, that he composed Guru Vachaka Kovai. This fact is revealed in verse 6 of the prefatory verses of Guru Vachaka Kovai, in which Sri Muruganar says, ‘Being there where Sri Ramana embraced me (that is, being in the state of self where Sri Ramana made me one with himself), I will recount a little of the supreme truth which I have come to know in my life of divine union with him, my master’. It is for this reason that Guru Vachaka Kovai ranks along with the original works of Sri Bhagavan such as Upadesa Undiyar, Ulladu Narpadu, Atma Vidya Kirtanam and Ekatma Panchakam, as a true jnana-sastra, a scripture teaching the path to true knowledge.
The fact that Sri Muruganar had attained jnana is clear from the 14,000 verses of his monumental work, Sri Ramana Jnana Bodham, in which he describes in an infinite variety of ways how Sri Bhagavan had bestowed his grace upon him and made him one with himself.
Post a Comment