When Bhagavan says that we must look within, what does he mean by ‘within’?
Last month a friend wrote me an email in which he asked me to clarify certain aspects of Bhagavan’s teachings, including what he means by ‘within’ when he says that we must look within, and whether the source of the individual self can be within that same individual self, so this article is adapted from the reply I wrote to him.
Everything other than ourself (including not only our body and breath but also all our thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions, memories, beliefs, desires and so on) is external to ourself, so what is ‘inside’ or ‘within’ is only ourself. When we attend to anything other than ourself we are looking away from ourself, so we need to turn back 180 degrees, so to speak, to look at ourself alone. This is what Bhagavan means by turning within or looking inside.
There are not two selves, a real Self and an individual self, because we ourself are one. However, so long as we experience ourself as Kevin, Michael or any other person, we are not experiencing ourself as we actually are. What you refer as ‘the Self’ is ourself as we actually are, which is pure self-awareness, ‘I am’, uncontaminated by even the least awareness of anything else, but when we are aware of ourself as if we were a person, that mixed and contaminated self-awareness, ‘I am this person’, is what is called ego, which is what you refer to as the ‘individual me’ or ‘individual self’.
What you refer as ‘the Self’ is what Bhagavan generally refers to as ātma-svarūpa, which literally means the ‘own form’ or real natural of oneself, or just as svarūpa, meaning one’s own real nature. Our real nature is ourself as we actually are, whereas ego is ourself as we seem to be. These are not two different things, just as a rope and the snake it seems to be are not two different things.
The rope is not a snake, but the snake is nothing other than a rope. Likewise, our real nature is not ego, but ego is nothing other than our real nature.
If we see an illusory snake, how to see what it actually is? All we need do is to look at it very carefully, because if we look at it carefully enough we will see that it is just a rope. Likewise, if we look at ourself, this ego, carefully enough we will see that we are just pure self-awareness, uncontaminated by even the least awareness of anything else.
When we look at what seems to be a snake, what we are actually looking at is only a rope, even though it continues to look like a snake until we look at it carefully enough to see what it actually is. Likewise, when we look at ourself, who now seem to be this ego, what we are actually looking at is only our own real nature (ātma-svarūpa), even though we continue to seem to be ego until we look at ourself carefully enough to see what we actually are.
What is the source of the illusory snake? It is only the rope. And where is it? It is inside the snake, metaphorically speaking. Therefore if we look deep inside the snake, we will see its source, the rope.
Likewise, what is the source of ego? It is only our real nature. And where is it? It is inside ego, metaphorically speaking. Therefore if we look deep inside ego, we will see its source, our real nature.
Our real nature is pure self-awareness, which is what we always experience as ‘I am’. Ego is the adjunct-mixed self-awareness ‘I am this body’ or ‘I am this person’. Within this adjunct-mixed self-awareness, ‘I am this body’, is pure self-awareness, ‘I am’. All we need do is remove all adjuncts, because what will then remain is only this pure self-awareness, ‘I am’. It is so simple.
How can we remove all adjuncts? As ego we attach ourself to these adjuncts (everything that makes up whatever person we currently seem to be) by projecting them in our awareness (just as we do in a dream), so to remove them we must try to be aware of ourself alone. This is why Bhagavan said that attention is the key. By attending to anything other than ourself we rise as ego, and by attending to ourself alone this ego will dissolve and cease to exist, and what will then remain is only pure self-awareness, our real nature.
As Bhagavan says in verse 16 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
Since our fundamental self-awareness, ‘I am’, is what now seems to be ego, the false awareness that is aware not only of itself but also of other things, in order to attend to our own fundamental self-awareness all we need do is attend keenly to ego, because when we seem to be attending to ego, what we are actually attending to is only ourself.
When we mistake a rope to be a snake, what we are actually seeing is just a rope, but with the added belief ‘this is a snake’. This added belief is like the adjuncts that we as ego mistake to be ourself. This added believe can be removed only by our looking at the snake carefully enough to see that it is actually just a rope. Likewise, all the adjuncts that we as ego mistake to be ourself can be removed only by our looking at ourself, this ego, carefully enough to see that we are actually just pure self-awareness.
Our aim is to experience and just be the pure self-awareness that we actually are, but in order to do so we must investigate ego. Since we now experience ourself as ego, we cannot attend to ourself except as ego, just as when we see a rope as a snake we cannot look at it except as a snake. However, by looking at the snake, we see that it is actually just a rope, and thereafter we can never again mistake it to be a snake. Likewise, by keenly attending to ego, we see that we are actually just pure self-awareness, and thereafter we can never again mistake ourself to be ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that we should look within, what he means is that we should look only at ourself, this ego (the subject who perceives all objects, the one who is aware of everything else), because when we look at ourself keenly enough we will see that what we actually are is not the ego that we seemed to be but only pure self-awareness.
Everything other than ourself (including not only our body and breath but also all our thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions, memories, beliefs, desires and so on) is external to ourself, so what is ‘inside’ or ‘within’ is only ourself. When we attend to anything other than ourself we are looking away from ourself, so we need to turn back 180 degrees, so to speak, to look at ourself alone. This is what Bhagavan means by turning within or looking inside.
There are not two selves, a real Self and an individual self, because we ourself are one. However, so long as we experience ourself as Kevin, Michael or any other person, we are not experiencing ourself as we actually are. What you refer as ‘the Self’ is ourself as we actually are, which is pure self-awareness, ‘I am’, uncontaminated by even the least awareness of anything else, but when we are aware of ourself as if we were a person, that mixed and contaminated self-awareness, ‘I am this person’, is what is called ego, which is what you refer to as the ‘individual me’ or ‘individual self’.
What you refer as ‘the Self’ is what Bhagavan generally refers to as ātma-svarūpa, which literally means the ‘own form’ or real natural of oneself, or just as svarūpa, meaning one’s own real nature. Our real nature is ourself as we actually are, whereas ego is ourself as we seem to be. These are not two different things, just as a rope and the snake it seems to be are not two different things.
The rope is not a snake, but the snake is nothing other than a rope. Likewise, our real nature is not ego, but ego is nothing other than our real nature.
If we see an illusory snake, how to see what it actually is? All we need do is to look at it very carefully, because if we look at it carefully enough we will see that it is just a rope. Likewise, if we look at ourself, this ego, carefully enough we will see that we are just pure self-awareness, uncontaminated by even the least awareness of anything else.
When we look at what seems to be a snake, what we are actually looking at is only a rope, even though it continues to look like a snake until we look at it carefully enough to see what it actually is. Likewise, when we look at ourself, who now seem to be this ego, what we are actually looking at is only our own real nature (ātma-svarūpa), even though we continue to seem to be ego until we look at ourself carefully enough to see what we actually are.
What is the source of the illusory snake? It is only the rope. And where is it? It is inside the snake, metaphorically speaking. Therefore if we look deep inside the snake, we will see its source, the rope.
Likewise, what is the source of ego? It is only our real nature. And where is it? It is inside ego, metaphorically speaking. Therefore if we look deep inside ego, we will see its source, our real nature.
Our real nature is pure self-awareness, which is what we always experience as ‘I am’. Ego is the adjunct-mixed self-awareness ‘I am this body’ or ‘I am this person’. Within this adjunct-mixed self-awareness, ‘I am this body’, is pure self-awareness, ‘I am’. All we need do is remove all adjuncts, because what will then remain is only this pure self-awareness, ‘I am’. It is so simple.
How can we remove all adjuncts? As ego we attach ourself to these adjuncts (everything that makes up whatever person we currently seem to be) by projecting them in our awareness (just as we do in a dream), so to remove them we must try to be aware of ourself alone. This is why Bhagavan said that attention is the key. By attending to anything other than ourself we rise as ego, and by attending to ourself alone this ego will dissolve and cease to exist, and what will then remain is only pure self-awareness, our real nature.
As Bhagavan says in verse 16 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
வெளிவிட யங்களை விட்டு மனந்தன்‘வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு’ (veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu), ‘leaving aside external viṣayas [phenomena]’, means ceasing to attend to anything other than ourself, and ‘மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தல்’ (maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdal), ‘mind knowing [or investigating] its own form of light’, means mind attending only to its own fundamental self-awareness. Just giving up attending to external phenomena is not sufficient, because we do so whenever we fall asleep, so what is required is just that we attend only to ourself, that is, to our own fundamental self-awareness, because if we do so we will thereby give up attending to anything else.
னொளியுரு வோர்தலே யுந்தீபற
வுண்மை யுணர்ச்சியா முந்தீபற.
veḷiviḍa yaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉantaṉ
ṉoḷiyuru vōrdalē yundīpaṟa
vuṇmai yuṇarcciyā mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām.
அன்வயம்: மனம் வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): maṉam veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām.
English translation: Leaving aside external viṣayas [phenomena], the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness [true knowledge or knowledge of reality].
Since our fundamental self-awareness, ‘I am’, is what now seems to be ego, the false awareness that is aware not only of itself but also of other things, in order to attend to our own fundamental self-awareness all we need do is attend keenly to ego, because when we seem to be attending to ego, what we are actually attending to is only ourself.
When we mistake a rope to be a snake, what we are actually seeing is just a rope, but with the added belief ‘this is a snake’. This added belief is like the adjuncts that we as ego mistake to be ourself. This added believe can be removed only by our looking at the snake carefully enough to see that it is actually just a rope. Likewise, all the adjuncts that we as ego mistake to be ourself can be removed only by our looking at ourself, this ego, carefully enough to see that we are actually just pure self-awareness.
Our aim is to experience and just be the pure self-awareness that we actually are, but in order to do so we must investigate ego. Since we now experience ourself as ego, we cannot attend to ourself except as ego, just as when we see a rope as a snake we cannot look at it except as a snake. However, by looking at the snake, we see that it is actually just a rope, and thereafter we can never again mistake it to be a snake. Likewise, by keenly attending to ego, we see that we are actually just pure self-awareness, and thereafter we can never again mistake ourself to be ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that we should look within, what he means is that we should look only at ourself, this ego (the subject who perceives all objects, the one who is aware of everything else), because when we look at ourself keenly enough we will see that what we actually are is not the ego that we seemed to be but only pure self-awareness.
Posts
622 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 622 Newer› Newest»sorry, there is only 1 dull witt and I am that.
Not ready to give up my crown yet.
morrison, try it again and again...,:-)
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 42
When the mind is lost in pure supreme self-consciousness, all the powers which seemed to function [through the mind], such as ‘ichha’ [willpower], ‘kriya’ [the power of action] and ‘jnana’ [the power of knowing], will cease, being found to be imaginary.
Reflections: This mind is a wonderful instrument. If we use it to interpret Bhagavan’s teachings, we will do so according to our level of maturity. I was just listening to an interview by one Arun Shourie, in which he is seen talking about his new book: Two Saints, which is about Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Ramana Maharshi.
In this interview, when he was asked about Ramana’s teachings that this world is unreal, he replies, ‘This world is unreal as we see it, but it is real; otherwise, why would he give all these teachings?’ and so on. He was obviously way off the mark. This world is absolutely unreal (full stop). Why should one qualify this statement by saying this world is unreal ‘as we see it’?
So as long as our ego exists we have freedom of will, and we can use this freedom to imagine whatever we want. Likewise, we have the freedom to act, at least to a limited extent. Also, we have the power of knowing, which we can use to focus on one particular thing and know it. However, all such powers are based on ego. If ego is destroyed, all our powers of will, action and knowing will be destroyed forever, never to return again.
Sanjay Lohia,
regarding GVK - verse 42
"...and ‘jnana’ [the power of knowing], will cease, being found to be imaginary."
Are we not taught that 'jnana' is real=true self-knowledge i.e. inhering in the self.
At least the term 'atma-jnana' means pure self-awareness which is our real nature
How can it ever cease ?
Obviously Muruganar uses 'jnana' here in a complete deviationist manner in the sense of a mind-bound 'power of knowing'. What shall I do ?
When we are afflicted with problems, should we pray to Bhagavan?
When someone asked this question to Bhagavan, he replied, ‘Why not?’ However, Bhagavan’s teachings clearly tell us everything is predetermined, then why should we pray? What can we hope to achieve by our prayers? Yes, our prayers will not change the predetermined course of events, but it may help us to surrender our problems. It may help us to lessen our worries.
If we are encountering a difficult situation, we may pray to Bhagavan, ‘Bhagavan, I am not able to bear this problem, please take it off my shoulders’. This may make us somewhat calm. Or we may pray, ‘Bhagavan, this is the position, do whatever you feel is appropriate. Ultimately, your will will prevail’. Such prayers will align our will to Bhagavan’s will. We will be able to accept whatever happens with a sense of equanimity.
Why has Bhagavan prayed to Arunachala? He has done so to demonstrate as to how we should pray to Bhagavan. Our prayers should be to give us more and more love for Bhagavan. So by our prayers, we are reminding ourselves that there is a supreme power taking care of everything. Since this power is all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful, whatever will happen will be for our highest spiritual good. This is certain.
Sanjay,
you seem to consider the all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful supreme power taking care of everything just as Bhagavan. But has Bhagavan a will ?
Hi Josef,
Perhaps "power of knowing will cease" refers again to the nirvikalpa samadhi state where body and world disappear from awareness.
Reality is complex, multi-level beyond description.
Perhaps due to knowledge being passed down by monastic traditions the aspect of withdrawing from the world and the "no world" state has been over emphasized.
Sanjay's hope to make the world disappear is simply an egoic projection fleeing from one imagined state to another. As long as the body lives we must return to our so called body and world at whatever level we know them.
Roger,
in the mentioned verse Muruganar presumably expresses that real knowledge transcends mere normal/ordinary knowledge of objects.
(from https://www.quora.com/What-do-people-mean-by-watch-your-thoughts-while-meditating-Who-is-watching-whose-thoughts-Am-I-different-from-my-thoughts-Who-is-the-one-being-watched-and-who-is-the-one-who-is-watching)
What do people mean by “watch your thoughts while meditating”? Who is watching whose thoughts? Am I different from my thoughts? Who is the one being watched and who is the one who is watching?
Answered by G Tyler Wright, Author of I Don't Care and I Do Not Exist
When I first started meditating, at 13, I used the TM method that I learned through drawings in the TM book. A dozen years later when I learned from a guru, I found the steps were essentially the same.
As a novice meditator, I focused on a mantra. This is the essence of “watching your thoughts.” It gives you a thought, and tells you to watch it.
Pretty quickly I saw that I was different from my thoughts since I could watch them. I thought the thoughts were mine, and that it was the way the mind works to be able to both watch and have thoughts watched at the same time.
When I meditated watching a mantra, I found, after a short time, other thoughts would come up when I lost interest in the mantra, and I would forget I was watching the mind. Instead of being a separate watcher, aware that I am not my thoughts, I would find myself lost deep inside a train of thought for awhile. Then I would remember and I would start listening to the mantra again in my head.
Phrases many instructions use, like “watch your thoughts,” or “become aware of your thoughts,” or even “repeat the mantra” are meant to direct attention to the thinking process.
Many of us never stop to look at what we are thinking, assuming that we are our thoughts, or that thoughts are generated by us for us. When you never pause to separate yourself from your thoughts, you never have the opportunity to know what your true nature really is, which is why meditation is such a useful tool.
When I had been meditating for many years, I began to see very clearly that I was not my thoughts. This understanding is key to why we meditate.
When I was able to watch my thoughts coming and going without caring or becoming attached to them, I found my experience of who I thought I was became clearer.
Eventually one night as I meditated, all thought ceased. I still existed, but I saw that clearly I was the space in which thought arose and subsided, independent of the thoughts that came and went. The realization was, “Wow, how could I ever have believed that I was just this tiny mind inside of this body!?”
The space of awareness that I was filled my bedroom, and I was literally everything. I was more than watching thought or aware of the surroundings, I truly was everything! My awareness permeated the whole room, much like in normal awareness it permeates the body.
Seeing life with this new perspective helped me to go beyond believing I was my mind or my thoughts or anything but all-pervasive awareness.
This is why we start by watching our thoughts, and eventually we can reach a place where we see ourselves as a limitless space in which life happens and thoughts comes and goes, leaving us as the peaceful, aware space beyond it all.
Without any doubt: Diving deep, deeper and much deeper is the same what is expressed with 'keen investigation'.
Samarender,
Given we were talking about Aparokshanubuthi, there is a dialogue between Swami Madhava Thirtha (Q) and Bhagavan (B) in the book Surpassing Love and Grace.
B: In a dream, many are seen but they are all in the imagination of the one seer. When you wake up from the dream, the dream and those seen in the dream with take care of their own prarabdha.
Q: Then there will be no others?
B: It is the same with the world. In Aparokshanubuthi, the author says: "In the state where there is no existence of seer, seeing and seen, the sight should be fixed there, and not to the tip of the nose.
Q: How can daily life go on if the sight is fixed in this way?
B: Jnanis fix their sight in the substratum (adhishtana) even during vyavahara (worldly activities) because nothing else becomes the truth except adhishtana. To feel that there is clay in the pot is the proper attitude.
Q: A pot can be filled with water, but one cannot achieve the same result by pouring water on clay.
B: I did not tell you to see clay after breaking the pot. Even when the pot is whole, you can see it in the form of clay. In the same way, the world can be seen as the form of Brahman. To have the knowledge of Brahman in the waking state is similar to having the knowledge of clay in the pot
BTW on Laskshmana Sarma's commentary on Ulladu Narpadu, it was written in Tamil; there is a recent English translation available. He also wrote Maha Yoga in English, which quotes (and explains) substantially from most of the verses of UN.
In Maha Yoga, there is a question 'Does the world exist?', and his comment is similar to the above.
"There is a difference between saying that the world exists and saying that it is real" says the Sage. The latter does not contradict the seemingly opposite one, that the world is unreal, whereas the former does so. The thoroughly ignorant man confounds the Substance - the Reality underlying the world-appearance - and the appearance, and takes the mixture to be real. The disciples of the Sage know that they have to separate the appearance from the Substance, and understand that the latter alone is real and the rest is an illusion.
In order 'to separate the appearance from the Substance' let us try to catch hold on the 'I-thought'. Only a jnani knows that he is the self and that nothing exists but the self.
Knowing what 'I' really is is being oneself and that should be our goal.
Do we see wrong or right in our deep sleep state ? But we existed in deep sleep.
So when we manage to be asleep even in the waking state we thus abide as and in the self and remain uncontaminated by what goes on around. Therefore seeking wherefrom the 'I' rises will bring direct perception of the ever present self which is said to be pure absolute jnana. Of course jnana lies beyond relative knowledge of objects (which appear only in the light of the ego-mind).
Hi Salazar, fully agree. Was it Bhagavan or Nisargadatta who said the path is also the goal.
Venkat,
Thanks for posting that exchange with Bhagavan. Nice to see Bhagavan endorsing the Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya, which also one comes across in Chandogya Upanishad Chapter 6.
Also, here Bhagavan is clearly implying that a Jnani perceives the world, contrary to what many here hold that a Jnani does NOT perceive the world. Of course, it is a no-brainer that he perceives it differently from us, that is, he sees only the clay while our attention is solely on the pot aspect or manifestation of clay.
IMO, whole of Advaita falls into place if you thoroughly understand the Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya.
Thanks for letting me know about UN.
Regarding the "existence" of the world, it is said to be "mithya"; that is, it cannot be said to be unreal because it appears, while at the same time it cannot be said to be real because it is not substantial but mere names-and-forms, hence since it is neither "real" nor "unreal", it is said to be "mithya". Remember that one-liner by Sankaracharya, which encapsulates the whole of Advaita, "brahma satyam jagan-mithyä jivo brahmaiva näparah", meaning "Brahman alone is real and this jagat (world) is mithyä, and the jiva is non-different from Brahman."
Regarding Salazar's comment in reply to venkat:
"...people do not grasp what that means. It means that any objectification of self as in "let us hold onto the I-thought" is not leading to realization."
I did not speak about holding to "I am". I clearly spoke only about holding on the 'I-thought'.
Nobody or at least very few people can start atma-vichara by holding to "I am" which is said to remain as residuum after self-investigation or surrender to the eternal 'I am'.
Is that so difficult to grasp ? (using Salazar's favourite hackneyed phrase):-)
One must of course bear in mind that only for the most advanced jivas of us - so to say the premier league - it is sufficient to hear the notion "The self is ever-attained (nityasiddha)." or "Ignorance never arose. It has no real being. That which is, is only vidya (knowledge)."
Salazar,
I always thought that there is no incurable disease, but after reading your comment I am now in great doubt if there is any remedy or curative treatment for such a pigheadedness.:-)
Good question, relevant for all - not only for the questioner alone.:-)
I read (past tense) the question above "If our ego cannot even concede to a minor thing...".:-)
Isn't it good that the 'I-thought' is absent in deep sleep ?
So take your bedtime and lie down to sleep; sleeping is very refreshing.:-)
Hi Sam,
You mention Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya: What is this? Is a document available?
Hi Salazar,
Thanks for "75 old devotees". V. Ganesan says:
He [Munagala] would then take the notebook to Bhagavan, who would edit or correct what had been written. That is how we have Talks with Ramana Maharshi. I have seen the original manuscript myself, in the form of note books, with Bhagavan’s corrections.
Also Godman says that a portion of Talks was reviewed by Bhagavan as part of a court deposition.
I agree with MJ that there are translation errors in Talks. However, that is hardly reason to entirely ignore the document which covers 4 years of teaching. Talks gives a radically different message than MJ: people have different temperaments, no single teaching works for everyone, and many other various methods are endorsed as resulting in the goal.
Salazar, regarding the sanskrit terminology "nirivikalpa samadhi" and so forth. it's used by Bhagavan and Sankara and may be useful for contemplation.
Venkat delightfully quotes RM above 'jnanis fix their sight in the substratum even during activity'.
MJ has said that the only way is when the body and world disappear from awareness (nirvikalpa).
However, placing attention on the "substratum" and thus separating from mental & emotional distraction during activity may be essential.
Sam, I also appreciate your comments on "the world".
The advaita descriptions of world as maya and world as unreal are for contemplation.
The "ego" moves towards pleasure (acquiring that which is desirable) and away from pain.
Thoughts about escaping from the world are just more ego activity.
Roger,
referring to the last sentence of your recent comment "...are just more ego activity."
Continuous misinterpretation MJ must be a big pleasure for you.
Is that real (your) happiness/ananda ?
Should there be not an end of troublemaking thoughts ? How can you ever remain as the self with cultivating such restless thoughts ?
Hi Josef,
You are making a general commentary "continuous misinterpretation".
Can you provide a specific instance?
MJ claims to have the ONLY way to God and is not realized. He implies that Buddha, Sankara et al could not have been realized because they didn't follow MJ or atma vicara.
Apparently you think we should allow such statements to go unchallenged?
What is your issue with identifying corruption ?
Roger,
may you provide a specific instance where
1. MJ claims to have the ONLY way to God.
2. He implies that Buddha, Sankara et al could not have been realized because they didn't follow MJ or atma vicara.
As far as I am concerned I am generally not exactly a friend of corruption.
If I would consider MJ as being stricken by corruptedness I would not study his articles and comments at all.
Oh Salazar,
your silence kept in sleep did evidently not last long. Your words indicate that you could not enter the kingdom of heaven. Instead you seem to be contaminated by the mind's ignorance.
As you know the mind is only the aggregate of thoughts and thoughts cannot exist but for the ego. Therefore all thoughts are pervaded by the ego. If you are wise you would seek wherefrom the 'I'-thought rises...and then all the other thoughts will disappear.
Yes Salazar,
in this regard you are completely right.
Therefore bye-bye for now!
Huike, the Second Patriarch, said to Bodhidharma, “My mind is not yet at
rest. Master, I implore you, set my mind to rest.”
The master replied, “Bring your mind here and I’ll set it to rest for you.”
Huike said, “I’ve searched for my mind, but am unable to find it.”
“There,” said the master, “I’ve set your mind to rest.”
Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya – Part 1 of 2
Roger,
Kaarana means cause, Kaarya means effect, and prakriya means analysis, or investigation or methodology. So, Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya simply means Cause-Effect Analysis, whereby one seeks to establish that the world, including one’s body-mind in it, is nothing but mere names-and-forms, the underlying substance being Brahman or Consciousness.
Below is a lucid account of it. [Roger, in the below explanation keep in mind that body-mind is like pot - mere name, form and function - while Consciousness is like clay, the substance underlying body-mind. So, Consciousness alone is the reality or sathya; and, body-mind is mithya. So, everything in the world is ONE, Consciousness, the differences being merely in name and form.]
The cause produces only name, form and function
By D. Venugopal
(Source: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/venugopal/venugopal38.html)
The question that arises out of this discussion is as to what the cause produces, when the effect is pre-existing in it. When the pot is made, what exactly is it that comes into being. The clay, which has been a lump, is now in a different form. The clay in the new form can be now put to particular uses. Since it has a specific form and particular uses, this clay now gets a new name, namely, the pot, for identifying it during the daily transactions. The effect that the cause brings about is production of name, form and function. Kärya is näma, rüpa and karma. When the clay is shaped into different forms with different uses, the same clay gets different names. Even so, many names, forms and functions do not mean many substances since all of them are made only of clay. When we say pot, there is no independent substance called the pot but only clay from which the pot is made.
Causation does not bring about any change in clay as a substance. In the following conversation, clay enlightens the pot-maker on this point:
Pot-maker to clay: See what I have done! You were earlier a lump of clay; I have now converted you into a shapely pot.
Clay: What do you mean? I have not become anything different. I continue to be the same clay as before.
Pot-maker: How is it that you miss very evident things? Earlier you were a lump. Now you are shapely. Earlier you had no particular use. Now you can be used for carrying water and for a variety of other jobs. Earlier you were called clay. Now you are called a pot. Are these not changes?
Clay: I do not understand you. With shape or without shape, I am only clay. With use or without use, I am only clay. I may be called a pot or anything else; but I continue to be only clay. Now tell me what change has taken place to me as clay? I have undergone no change at all!
The pot-maker had no answer to give to clay!
The word “pot” sits on the tongue only and does not cover any substance. Chändogya Upaniñad says: Pot is only a name dependent on speech. The product is merely a verbal distinction. In reality, only clay exists.
We have only words and their meaning. We think that there are tangible objects for which we have the words. But, these are just words and their meanings. The word, “pot” has its meaning which we understand and we can communicate it to others. This is vyavahära or transaction. But, we consider that the object that we perceive is the meaning of the word. But our notion does not give the pot, for example, that kind of tangibility. This is because “pot” has no being, as the is-ness of the pot belongs to clay. The capacity to go beyond the pot and see clay without doing anything to the pot or the clay is Vedänta. The pot continues to be pot and clay continues to be clay. But, our understanding of them becomes different.
(CONTINUED below in Part 2)
Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya – Part 2 of 2
What exists is the clay and not the pot
The reality that underlies all changes of forms is the substance itself. Change of form does not produce any change in substance. Every time we see the pot, the substance that we see is nothing but clay. When the substance remains the same in all forms and the change does not affect the substance, the change into forms cannot be considered as change, as far as the substance is concerned. So, from the angle of the substance, the change is not considered as real. For example, Devadatta, sitting, standing or lying is considered to be the one and the same person. In the case of the clay and the pot, we, however, tend to think of the pot not as an apparent change of the clay but consider the pot as a new substance and call it a clay pot. If we hold it in our hand and ask someone as to what it is, we would invariably get the answer that it is a pot. However, when we touch the pot, we are only touching clay. When we see the color of the pot, we are seeing only the color of clay. When we feel the texture of the pot, we are feeling the texture of only clay. The weight of the pot is only the weight of clay. However, we regard the substance 'clay' as a substance 'pot'. We can use the two words, pot and clay for the same thing only when both words mean the same thing. The clay must be the pot and the pot must be the clay. To arrive at this conclusion, pot must pass the anvaya-vyatireka test. Applying this test, we find that whenever the pot is present, clay is also present. Therefore, there is anvaya or invariable co-existence. However, whenever the pot is not present, clay can be present as a lump or as many other objects made of clay like the lid, bowl, and lamp. So, there is no vyatireka or invariable co-absence. Since the pot and the clay have not stood the test, they cannot be equated and used as synonyms.
Again, when we say ‘clay pot’, pot becomes the substantial noun and clay as the attribute of pot becomes an adjective. Nevertheless, in reality, clay is the substance and pot is the attribute, which is a particular form and usage of clay. Therefore, clay has to be the noun and pot has to be the adjective. The right expression would therefore be ‘potty clay’ and not ‘clay pot’. The grammatical error in the expression ‘clay pot’ arises out of the error in understanding. We confer substantiality on pot that does not have any substantiality being only a name, form and function of clay and deny substantiality to clay, which is the actual substance. When we say, “pot is”, the is-ness or existence belongs to clay and not to the pot. The is-ness of the pot is entirely borrowed from clay. Overlooking this fact is the basic error.
P.S.: Roger, Let me know if the above explanation makes it clear for you.
So much theory here about "Self" without having realized "Self" like Bhagavan Ramana who actually did. Like the "so called master and teacher" of this blog like his students.
Even the Master and Bhagavan Sri Ramana of Arunachala having actually realized Self remained silent. But there is non-stop yapping about "That Self" having not realized it.
Such Jnana from Happiness of Being Ashram I have not seen anywhere else.
Hi Sam (if that's an acceptable nick name),
I will read your posts.
thanks,
Hi Josef,
I used google advanced search looking for "no other way" and "only way" on the blog. A few quotes follow.
Clearly, Michael James knows the "only way" which is Atma Vicara and there is "no other way".
IF Atma Vicara is the ONLY way, how do we explain other greats (such as Buddha, Sankara, Krishna etc) who did not mention "Who am I?" as a technique? I do not believe that MJ's statements include Buddhism.
Also:
MJ insists that the ONLY way is to "experience the self alone" which is no body or world in awareness (nirvikalpa samadhi). This conflicts with other sages including Bhagavan (for example in Talks and Godman) and Sankara.
When an unrealized person claims "the ONLY way" this is intellectual conviction or belief and NOT from realization.
This places the speaker in conflict with virtually all other teachings and teachers.
This is called EGO.
quotes from MJ:
Ātma-vicāra is therefore a battle between our love to experience ourself alone (sat-vāsanā) and our liking to experience other things (viṣaya-vāsanās). In order to succeed we must just persevere in trying to be self-attentive as much as possible. There is no other way.
...we will be able to understand why he said so often that self-investigation is not only the direct means but also the only one by which we can experience ourself as we really are.
Self-investigation is the only way to wake up...
There is no other way, and no shortcut.
This attempt to be clearly aware of ourself alone is what is called self-attentiveness or self-attention, and it alone is the correct practice of self-investigation or ātma-vicāra as taught by Sri Ramana.
the only way to deprive our ego or mind of the nourishment that it requires to survive is to try to attend to ourself alone.
If we want all thoughts to wither away, the only way to make them do so is to try to attend to ourself alone, thereby ignoring them.
therefore investigating ourself or meditating on ‘I’, our ego, is the one infallible means to destroy all karma. Indeed, it is the only mean by which we can destroy it, because it is the only means by which we can destroy the illusion that we are this finite thing called ‘ego’.
The only way to free ourself from all thoughts, including their root, this ego, is to try to watch, observe, witness or attend only to ourself, who are what now seems to be this ego.
the only way to separate ourself permanently from all adjuncts is to destroy this ego
So long as we are attending to anything other than ‘I’, our mind is active, so the only way to keep it still (without falling asleep or into any other such state in which the mind subsides without clear self-awareness) is to attend only to ‘I’: in other words, to be aware of nothing other than ‘I’.
Roger,
You are welcome. Yes, you can certainly address me as "Sam", which has been my nickname since my teenage years.
Eventually, we recognise that whatever sadhana is being done, is being done through us rather than by us
In the course of our sadhana, two types of bhava (attitude towards God) are talked about. There is the monkey bhava and there is the kitten bhava. A baby monkey clings firmly to its mother in order to be kept safe. Whereas, the baby kitten doesn’t know how to cling, in fact it cannot cling to its mother, so it just cries out for help. In response, its mother comes and picks it up by the scruff of its neck and carries it.
Bhagavan has clarified that the spiritual path begins with the monkey bhava. First of all, we have to cling firmly to God. We have to cling firmly to self in our heart. But as we progress along the spiritual path, our ego gets more and more attenuated. As its outward desires become weaker and weaker, it surrenders itself more and more. We yield more and more to God. So we slowly progress from the baby monkey attitude to the kitten attitude.
That is, when we reach a certain stage of our spiritual development, we will think, ‘I am doing nothing; I can do nothing’. How can we cling to self-attentiveness if not by the grace of Bhagavan? So it is all entirely done by him. Eventually, we recognise that whatever sadhana is being done is being done through us rather than by us.
The effort has to be made – we have to cling – but how are we clinging? It is only because of the love that he has given us. There is nothing else we can do but to cling because he has taken away all our desires for other things. He has given us love only for himself, so clinging becomes our second nature. It doesn’t feel like ‘I am clinging; I am a great devotee’. It feels ‘I am totally worthless. He has taken possession of me. It is all his grace’.
Bhagavan used to often say ‘Grace is the beginning, middle and end’. Grace is the love that Bhagavan has for us or the love that we (as we actually are) have for ourself (as we actually are).
Edited extract from the video: 2018-10-11 Holland Park: Michael James discusses verse 4 of Śrī Aruṇācala Padigam (21:00)
Reflections: In what stage are we? Are we in the baby monkey stage or in the kitten stage? I think I am somewhat in between. I need to cling to self, but without Bhagavan pull from within such clinging can never take place.
Hopefully at the time of death, "I" being unable to cling to the body any longer, will try to grasp my substance, while being deprived of all the sense perceptions.
Our eternal 'I' is not a thought. The 'I-thought' is already the first thought 'I am this body' because the ego is always connected with the 'I am this body'-idea. In the moment the 'I'-thought rises on waking all other thoughts rush out spontaneously.
Actually, nothing is connected with anything, it is all a mere imagination. If we imagine thoughts rushing out then we can also imagine an "I" standing alone by itself.
Overall, all of these concepts will be seen as sheer BS :)
Indeed 'I am' stands alone by itself.
Regarding "sheer BS-concepts":
Why worry about anything ?
There is only one consciousness - beyond thoughts.
In deep sleep there is no 'I'-thought. It arises on waking and then the world appears.
The real 'I' is subsisting through all the three states of waking, dream and sleep.
Do not allow yourself to be distracted. :-)
Hi Salazar,
I like your talking about gross body, subtle bodies etc...
I can try to communicate this... although nothing of substance can be communicated.
IMO each of us may have different entry points, all slightly different depending on temperament.
If you say that you know the "bodies" by contemplation on "I" then I can't disagree and look forward to your discussing the subject.
The "body" is a key for me. I followed Barry Long's suggestions. I don't need to make him an unquestioned authority nor did he advise that. He says "don't accept anything I say without first finding it to be true in your experience".
His main suggestion is to go into the "sensation" or subtle energy in the body.
For example: sit meditatively and for an extended period of time (as long as necessary) put your attention into your hands (or any body part) and discover "what is the sensation there?"
There are other levels to this... but that would be a digression.
See the book "Stillness is the way" and various tapes and his web site www.barrylong.org... or ask me. :-)
A key point is: when the sensation is found in awareness, the mind is held because the sensation is subtler than digressive thinking.
I sink into the sensation all the time. That is my primary practice or simply what I am.
I say "mind is held" because "I" is occluded when thought runs away one thought leading to the next actually obscuring attention. When "mind is held" a thought may arise... but inward attention is maintained.
He didn't say this, but the sensation is the "vital body", pranamayakosha, or energy body. It is the same thing that kundalini yoga excites but in this case we are not stimulating it... just putting attention on it. Bhagavan discusses this in various places (another possible digression).
When you rest fully in the sensation / energy throughout the whole body... then the next layer may be revealed: the sensation / energy may "wink out" leaving only "I", or the causal body. In other words the physical layer has dropped away to reveal the energy layer, and then the energy layer drops away to reveal that which is finer than energy: it is as if the body is subtle as a thought... or just space.
The distinctions seem somewhat arbitrary, but yes the energy body is an outer layer. It is not necessarily pure "I". BUT is it subtler than the gross body, subtler than digressive thought, and so YOU ARE THAT at a particular level, and since putting attention on it holds thought this is extremely valuable.
Also when the energy body falls away revealing body as subtle thought or space (without physical material or energetic qualities) ... this too is not "I" as the causal body could be called just another layer (from a particular perspective). What or Who is observing these phenomena?
But "I" or "I AM" is splendidly there separate from the material body & energy bodies. When the outer layers have been reduced.. then there "I AM".
Realizing that you aren't just the physical body has been called important. To discover your relationship with the bodies... just place your attention there into the body meditatively and the reality will be known. Although... perhaps by contemplation on "I" the same can be known.
This is another perspective on the blogs title: what is meant by "within" ?
Sam
I would not rely too much on Venugopal's write-up of Vedanta. It is a sterile, rather dull book, which parrots his teachers (Dayananda and Paramarthananda), and repeats their duplicitous criticism of Bhagavan's self-enquiry.
Roger - I'd say the freshest explication of the cause-effect prakriya is still Sankara's Aparoksanubuthi.
"...visions, beautiful sounds or smell, and so on..."
I am happy when people show good comprehension:)
Bhagavan taught us definitely to ignore all of that but look for that what is experiencing it.
Roger,
I do not see any disparagement of any other forms of practices in Michael's articles. When Michael states the indispensable necessity of atma-vichara he never neglects to give sound reasons for his statements.
Regarding your criticism of Michael "IF Atma Vicara is the ONLY way, how do we explain other greats (such as Buddha, Sankara, Krishna etc) who did not mention "Who am I?" as a technique? I do not believe that MJ's statements include Buddhism." I agree what Salazar addressed yesterday to you (22 October 2018 at 21:31): "So in the end it IS vichara even when it was not particularly mentioned or acknowledged."
If this world is real then God has to be finite
While I was surfing the net yesterday, I found a video by Swami Mukundananda in it. He seems to be a famous guru in the USA. Some of our friends from America may know about him. He seems to be proficient in sastras. In this video, he was seen discussing whether or not this world is real. He started first by quoting Sri Sankara where he says that this world is mithya (unreal). However, then he quoted about 7 to 8 other acharyas who apparently have said that this world is real. Mukundananda said that he agrees with both these viewpoints.
He concluded that only our inner world is unreal. All our thoughts, desires, feelings and so on are unreal. However, he claimed that this manifested solid world is real. He said that our mental world is our creation so it is unreal, but the outer world is God’s creation so it is real. However in the course of his lecture he also stated that God is infinite and non-material, so how can our mind and intellect know God because these instruments are limited and made up of matter?
There were quite a few fallacies in his arguments. He was not able to clearly tell us the difference between the inner world and outer world, which he claimed is not alike. According to Bhagavan, whatever world we experience is unreal – these are all creations of our mind. Bhagavan has given us clear and logical arguments to prove his point. Whatever world we experience appears to be real while we experience it. Even when we dream we consider that world to be just like the present world. So how can one prove that this current world is not just another dream?
Also, Mukundananda said God is infinite and non-material, which is true. But he simultaneously claimed that this world is real. However, can these two statements be true simultaneously? If God is infinite, this world has to be unreal. It has to be nothing more than a dream. If this world is real than God cannot be infinite because a part of this infinite space will be occupied by this so-called ‘real world’. So if this world is real, God has to finite. So Mukundananda’s arguments were not in accordance with simple logic.
This is where Bhagavan is so unique. His teachings are clear, coherent and logical. He has given us the essence of all sastras. Others may confuse us instead of clarifying matters. This is how I look at it. However, some may find such lectures useful.
All the subtle bodies are also a creation and parts of mind, which operates our senses of smell, taste, sound, touch, vision and that's it. Mind works only within the realm of these senses. I can apply my 5 senses to my body, but how to apply the senses to "I"? Funny part is that we use the senses when we want to know something, they are operated by our attention to some extent, however how do we taste, see or hear I? We cannot, because I is the subject and well known to itself, it does not have to be called out by a name. Since mind operates only senses, it cannot even touch the realm of Self.
And also, since everything that mind and body has to experience has been already predetermined from the very beginning to the end like in a dream, is there anything to do and who can do anything but to humbly await the dissolution of the mind and the body while cultivating the desire to know "I" and only "I"?
Sanjay,
how can one judge the reality of the world or anything else if he cannot even say whether his own self-awareness is real or not ?
Making inferences from sense-informations is frankly short of evidence.
Without knowing the knower one gets into a risky area and is on shaky ground.
Thanks Venkat, I downloaded Sankara's Aparoksanubuthi.
Hi Josef,
you say "I do not see any disparagement of any other forms of practices in Michael's articles":
See below for disparagement. "only way" is itself a disparagement, a claim of superiority.
Competition with other teachings is an OUTWARD movement of ego into the world, it has nothing to do with a spiritual practice.
You say quoting Salazar "in the end it IS vichara even when it was not mentioned or acknowledged".
History records many people that were probably enlightened. Some of them left substantial teachings such as Buddha, Krishna, Sankara et al.
You disparage them all by saying that in their teaching they somehow missed the key element responsible for their enlightenment... and you just happen to have it.
The real question is: why do YOU have this need to feel superior in the world?
If you say that Atma Vicara is the best for you, fine, but when you say that Atma Vicara is the only way for everyone... this is ego.
Learn from Krishnamurti who MJ attacks in multiple blogs.
"K" points out that the incessant need to acquire is the issue.
We may all recognize that acquiring money, power, fame, the best sports team, the fastest car, the best meditation cushion etc.... is all just the outward movement of the ego into the world.
AND guess what, having the "only way" to Self is just another egoic acquisition.
By closely examining that which differs from our preferences... we learn!
A different spiritual teacher warned "judge not". Why is it that on this blog judging is a primary feature?
Michael says:
Which spiritual teachings are truly credible?
Why the teachings of J.Krishnamurti are diametrically opposed to those of Sri Ramana
What Krishnamurti teaches is diametrically opposed what Bhagavan teaches us
Regarding Nisargadatta, though he is reputed to be an ātma-jñāni, we cannot know what his inner state actually was. In the English books that record his teachings there seems to be a lot of confusion and lack of clarity...
Therefore generally I find that what Eckhart Tolle writes is at best only superficially similar of Sri Ramana’s teachings, and that careful scrutiny shows many glaring differences between them.
No doubt there have been many other teachers who MJ has judged... but I'd have to read ALL the blogs.
Hi Salazar,
Have you come to the conclusion that liberation from the ego is:
a) One in which Brahman alone is the witness, with no ego to have any volitional action or desire. This arguably implies an indescribable, almost 'mystical' change in state
or
b) One in which the ego is ameliorated to such an extent, that it enables the body to continue to function, but without any personal fear or desire - and without such personal fears / desires, it therefore acts 'impersonally', which means its acts will be for the benefit for the whole, because its identification is with the whole rather than the fragmentary me (but without any specific desire to do so). This is I think JK got at in terms of a radical de-conditioning of the mind.
They are both similar but also different. If (b), then arguably the ego does have a role to play in 'detaching' itself, and acting in ways that are in harmony with the understanding. If (a), then the ego has no control, and all it can do is step aside and look inwards, and leave the rest to Brahman.
I don't know the answer to this - would be interested in your perspective. Thanks.
Hi Salazar,
There seems a misunderstanding here that due to prarabdha we have no responsibility for our actions.
Perhaps this makes more sense for the seeker who has withdrawn from the world. And it makes sense from the advaita level.
But... there are multiple levels to consider. Moral restraint is a prerequisite for advaita. See the document recommended by Venkat Aparokshanubhuti where Shankara states exactly that in verses 104-105.
Michael James fails the basic moral requirement due to arrogance. A mind which insists that it knows all, that it has the ONLY WAY for all people for all time and sits in judgment of other spiritual teachers and practitioners is identified with a spiritual teaching. This may be a "good" or satwic attachment but it's still an identification.
To quote a famous interpreter (Michael James!):
As Sri Ramana taught us, enquiring about others is anātma-vicāra (investigating what is not ourself), so it will not benefit us in any way.
Making judgments about other teachers, and claiming to have the only way in a sea of different teachings are outward movements of attention.
If MJ actually believes what he teaches... then he'd withdraw from the world into full time practice.
Having always a counter-argument/reply and self-made imaginations ready - everyone will see how far he will come with such kind of self-deception.
At any rate it is Bhagavan's teaching that questing 'Who am I' within one's mind, that is questing with the mind turned inwards whence the 'I' rises, will be alone the enquiry leading to self-knowledge.
To seek and abide in the reality which is ever attained is alone true liberation, the state of non-emergence of the ego-'I'.
Hi Josef,
When you say "having a counter-argument/reply ready" you are referring to yourself?
Roger,
not exactly.:-)
Salazar,
you say "Especially that a mind is holding to something - that is nonsense."
At the moment I can't remember in what context I could have asserted "that a mind is holding something".
Salazar,
"Diving deep" by enquiring whence the 'I' springs is done certainly by the mind.
According Bhagavan: Only then when one reaches thus the heart the individual 'I' sinks crestfallen, and ...at once reality manifests itself spontaneously as 'I-I'.
Diving deep into one's mind is of course spoken metaphorically for keen investigation.
So what truly I am is therefore the supreme light, the source of supreme peace.:-)
Hi Venkat,
Regarding your question:
somewhere in the rig veda there is a description of self realization,
something like:
"I saw all of the equipments (ie mind, body, emotions) as if from a great distance forever uninvolved and untouchable."
Recently I found the same description in Barry Long's "From here to eternity":
Suddenly I am the Supreme Being, supreme consciousness. I see existence like a tiny sphere far, far away and start physically laughing because I know that nothing in existence - no sensory effort and not even love - can reach me or be what I am. I am above all.
From these descriptions the final disposition of the ego remains uncertain.
Salazar says that "There is only one self. Jesus Christ, Bhagavan and the Buddha never truly existed but as self and they are all the same one self."
If there is only one self - also called jnana - how can there be anyone excluded of it ?
Therefore a jnani sees nothing apart from him.
Are only the three mentioned sages the same one self ?
Are not rather we all included in the supreme consciousness, in eternal silence ?
Of course that has first to be realized in the depth of our heart.
Therefore diving deep within is necessary.
Our real nature is ourself as we actually are, whereas ego is ourself as we seem to be. These are not two different things, just as a rope and the snake it seems to be are not two different things. However, pure consciousness is indivisible, i.e. it is without parts and includes all. Nothing is outside or apart from it. It has no form and shape, no within and without. That is true.
Hi Venkat,
Are there other works especially of Shankara that you find compelling?
I have 2 translated by Nikhilananda which seem essential:
1: Drg-Drsya-Viveka
2: Mundakopanishad with Gaudapada's karika and Shankara's commentary
and another:
3: A Thousand Teachings translated by Mayeda
And your suggestion: Aparoksha-Anubhuti is also good.
I like these concise works. There is hardly a need to look elsewhere.
BTW, for Michael James and some others here a quote from the Aparoksha-Anubhuti: :-)
132: Only those in whom this consciousness (of Brahman) being ever present grows into maturity, attain to the state of ever-existent Brahman; and NOT others who merely deal with words [2].
[2]: "Deal with words": Engage themselves in fruitless discussions about Brahman by variously interpreting texts bearing upon It.
Because pure consciousness is indivisible even the most dull-witted are not excluded from self !!! Not even Salazar.:-)
Our destiny has brought Bhagavan into our lives; however, whether or not we try to follow his teachings depends on our freedom
A friend: Some people are making effort to know who they really are. Is this their prarabdha?
Michael: No, prarabdha is concerned with what you experience. However, whether or not you are making efforts to turn within is totally dependent on your will. Do you have the love to know the truth or not? This is independent of your destiny.
The fact that we have come to know about Bhagavan is our destiny, but what use we make of this will be decided by our will. We are free to put his teachings into practice or to ignore them. Our destiny is helpless here.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-07-14 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 8 (1:52)
Reflections: We may have the most sublime spiritual texts in our house – we may, for example, have texts such as Bhagavad Gita with us. We may even read this, but the love with we read it depends on our will. We may read such texts without trying to go deep into their meaning or may read them with full interest – all this depends on our will. Again, whether or not we try to practise what Gita teaches us depends on our will.
Therefore, our spiritual life is a warfare between the opposing elements of our will. It is our will which is keeping up bound, and the same will liberate us if we use it to turn within. Our outward directed will is our only problem.
"Nama Rupa Thinks It's Me" by Annette Nibley
Check out http://www.whatneverchanges.com/blog/files/nama-rupa-thinks-its-me.html
Is it not our good prarabdha to be allowed reading all interesting explanations of Salazar ?
Even having a vision of Bhagavan Ramana's face implies the seer. The nature of the vision is the same as that of the seer. A vision cannot be eternal, so the value of the vision is the same as that of the seer.
Perhaps even the self-forgetfulness of the ego inclusive the "end of the story" are possibly predetermined.:-)
Salazar, Roger
Thanks you for your comments. Apologies for not responding early - back from work, in the evening, so have some time now. As an aside, I wholly concur with you on Swartz and his 'enlightenment business'
S, as you know, when you describe the thoughts coming up for Bhagavan without premeditation, etc - that is true for us too. It is just that we also have the thought that I am the originator of this thought, I am the actor, etc. But this is our fundamental error.
I'm not sure if you have read Sankara's Upadaesa Sahasri? I would recommend it. Whilst Bhagavan focused on the method, Sankara focused on the philosophy of advaita. I think they are complementary. See what you think.
7.1 Because I am the one who always perceives everything that enters the mind, therefore I am the Absolute, the supreme, omniscient and all-pervading.
7.5 The object only manifests in the mind and only when the mind itself is manifest (waking or dream). When (as in dreamless sleep) the mind is not manifest the object has no existence. Therefore because the Seer is constant, duality does not exist.
7.6 As long as the mind failed to discriminate, it supposed that no Supreme (ie transcendent) being existed. But after discrimination, it apprehends nothing other than the Supreme, not even itself as mind.
8.1 O my mind, my true nature is pure consciousness, connection with taste and other objects of physical experience is due to your delusion. No result whatever accrues to me from your activities as I am free from all distinctions.
8.2 Therefore give up actions based on illusion, and attain to permanent cessation from striving for the unreal. For I am ever the supreme Absolute, liberated, unborn, one without a second.
10.13 He who though seeing duality when awake, yet on account of his awareness of non duality does not see it as if he were asleep, and who is apparently active yet really actionless for the same reason - he alone is a knower of the Self.
12.13 He only is a knower of the Self who has first known that the Self is the unbroken Witness and is not an agent, and who then gives up the notion that he is himself a knower of the Absolute.
14.23 If you know that desires and efforts and the individual sense of 'I' and 'mine' are by their very nature void of all application to the Self, then just remain established in your Self. What is the use of active efforts?
16.73 Just as one does not identify oneself with the body of another, so does one not identify oneself with one's 'own' body after vision of the Supreme. Having obtained this supremely pure knowledge one becomes totally liberated.
17.23 A man should carry out the best forms of physical and mental asceticism if he wishes to purify his mind, the highest goal. `the mind and sense should be kept constrained and under control. The body should be exposed to the rigours of the climate.
18.222 In order to perform the discrimination necessary to find the meaning of the word 'thou' there must be renunciation of all action. This is the right means. For the Veda teaches 'peaceful, self-controlled'.
19.8 O my mind, here thou art of the nature of non-existence. For when the matter is scrutinised thou canst not rationally be said to exist. The real, O my mind, cannot be destroyed, and neither can the unreal be born. Thou art both born and destroyed. Therefore thou art non-existent.
Thanks Sam regarding Annette's page.
I like those teachers that have somehow convinced me that they speak from the realized state. Even if they lived centuries ago.
I'm not sure that any of the growing crop of non-duality & advaita teachers are actually realized.
When an unrealized person teaches advaita... it is done as an intellectual conviction or belief which is entirely different than teaching from the realized state. And the neo-advaita schools ignore prerequisites (meditation to first still the mind) which seems to make realization unlikely.
BTW: the book "A thousand Teachings" aka "Upadesasahasri of Sankara" translated and edited by Sengaku Mayeda might be of interest. From the jacket: Mayeda is (or was?) professor and chairperson of the Department of Indian Philosophy and Buddhist Studies and the University of Tokyo.
Hi Salazar, Venkat, and Roger,
I agree that Annette Nibley may not be self-realised. But I find that as long as we are able to sift the chaff from the grain, we have something to learn even from those who are not yet self-realised, much like we learn from each other on this blog.
Highly recommended is studying Salazar-Upanishad, the new edition of Swami Salazarananda.:-)
Religions tell us that God has created this world, but why would God create anything?
If God is infinite satisfaction and happiness, why would he spoil all this by creating anything? Creation is an action, and all actions stem from our dissatisfaction, unhappiness or desire. God is never dissatisfied or unhappy. He does not have any desire so it would be absurd to claim that this world is God’s creation. God just is. He is what is – ulladu. Creation happens because of the power of God's presence, but it has no will or intention, and without these, it can make no effort to create anything.
Why do we create anything? It is because of our need, greed or desire. We build a house because we have the need for shelter. Some people try to create a business empire because of their greed for more and more wealth, praise or whatever. Even artists paint, sing or create some piece of art because of some need, which may not be always material. It could be an emotional need. He or she is unhappy and such artistic pursuits give them some satisfaction.
So ego is the only creator. It uses the energy inherent in God to create things, but God is not even aware that its shakti is being stolen by ego to create this world. In fact, in God’s view, there is no creation.
there is only one meditation -- the rigorous refusal to harbour thoughts.
Nisargadatta
A while ago I stated that we have no control of our thoughts and therefore we cannot control if we are happy or sad (unless there are no thoughts). Michael disagreed and wrote a long article but could never show or proof that we, indeed, could control our thoughts. He just stated what the reasons for being happy and sad are (vasanas, blablabla) and I am not disagreeing with that, however that is not explaining why we cannot control our thoughts.
I know that for a fact and that is also the experience of many fellow meditators that one cannot control one’s thoughts. It actually should be obvious to anybody who has a prolonged meditation experience.
Since we cannot control our thoughts (anybody is free to try and you’ll fail) how then could be these thoughts “our” thoughts? It is actually evidence that we are not that ego which is supposed to generate these thoughts; if we would be that ego then there would be absolute control over ANY thought. That should be obvious for everybody.
Since the ego/mind is just a bunch of thoughts according to Bhagavan, how could a thought control a thought? That is impossible! That can be verified easily.
If someone does not want to believe that I invite that doubter to try to control “his” thoughts. He must fail, it is impossible! The thoughts come up triggered by vasanas and not by "us". Unless one want to declare "I am that vasana!" If so then thoughts are controlled by vasanas and not the witness of these thoughts. The witness of these thoughts is independent from these thoughts and the underlying vasanas. So we are rather that witness than that ego/vasana. The witness is not Brahman/self since it is suttarivu without thoughts but it is closer to self than anything else!
My point is that anything about the ego is a mirage, to give it any credibility or “power” is a delusion. Even the desire and initiative for vichara did not come from the ego, it came from grace according to many sages. Without that prompt by Brahman/self vichara would never happen!
"My point is..."
Enquiring for whom is having point is good tapas.
"...it came from grace according to many sages."
What is grace ? Wherefrom will grace come ?
Is not the self our grace ? Grace is the self.
Salazar,
Do not get excited. I unfortunately cannot control my thoughts; it must be my prarabdha.
But panic-stricken I follow just your advice and do not identify with ego. So you may go home with your mind set at ease.
When the sense of 'I am the body' arises then the notions of 'you' and 'he' also arise.
Therefore the notions of 'you' and 'he' cease only when the sense of 'I am the body' is put an end.
Our brilliant graphic artist will still win the highest acclaim. What an ornate work of art ...:-)
The imbecilic nincomPOOP Salazar who is supposed to have attained Jnana and liberation as he himself claims just like Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi who ACTUALLY did, is getting very, very angry and agitated.
I wonder what for? He can kiss Papaji's no good ASS for all we care. It seems the nutcase Salazar is feeling very, very lonely in his loony bin where he has been locked up by Lord Ishwara. Alas, what a pity! Lol! Hahahaha!
Since many have posted so many worthless comments here (except a few of course), I thought I would be allowed to post a couple in praise of the absolutely "fucking moron Salazar".
In our spiritual journey, we need to be like an expert gardener
Though our will has many elements, we have the ability to weed out the bad elements and to cultivate the good ones. A gardener wants to grow certain vegetables in his garden, but so many weeds will also come along with the plants. The gardener has to constantly remove these weeds in order to make the vegetables grow. This is what we are doing in our spiritual path. We are constantly trying to weed out the bad tendencies and to cultivate the good ones.
Good ones do not mean the tendencies to do so-called good actions. Any desire to do any action is a bad tendency because our real nature is being and not doing. So we have to weed out the vasanas which draw our minds away from ourself and cultivate the vasanas which draw our minds towards ourself.
Every thought is a rising of a vasana. Our attention to that thought is like water to a plant. So by attending to our thoughts we are nourishing them, or by withdrawing our attention from our thoughts we are depriving them of the nourishment they need to flourish.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-07-07 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 18 (1:07)
Salazar,Sam, Roger
I was just reading Kena Up, and came across Sankara's commentary on v2.4:
"Being the witness of all cognitions and by nature nothing but the power of Consciousness, the Self is indicated by the cognitions themselves, in the midst of cognitions, as pervading all of them. There is no other door to Its awareness. Therefore when Brahman is known as the innermost Self of cognitions, then is It known, then there is Its complete realisation. Only be accepting Brahman as the witness of all cognitions can it be established that It is by nature a witness that is not subject to growth and decay, and is eternal, pure in essence, the Self, unconditioned and one in all beings."
"Only be [correctly it is meant 'by'] accepting Brahman as the witness of all cognitions can it be established that It is by nature a witness that is not subject to growth and decay, and is eternal, pure in essence, the Self, unconditioned and one in all beings."
So the only task remaining for the 'accepting ego' is to carry out its own dissolution.
Venkat, Salazar, Roger,
Thanks, Venkat, for quoting S's commentary on K.Up. I guess the I-thought or ego or the I-sense or ego-sense is also an "object" to that Consciousness. That is why Bhagavan says in UN that Consciousness or Self does not need to say "I", body cannot say "I", so in between these two something arises and says "I" and apprehends its limits as the body. Using kaarana-kaarya prakriya, we can say that just like the body is a name-and-form whose underlying substance is Consciousness, the "I-thought" (which Bhagavan equates with mind and ego) is also a name-and-form manifestation of the underlying substance of Consciousness. So, we, that is Consciousness, are a witness even of the I-thought or what we ordinarily mean by "I', the ego-sense. Right?
Hi Sam
That is how I understand it as well.
There is only consciousness. A separative I-thought arises that identifies with an apparent body, that is deemed to be separate from the world. From this a whole series of fear-desire based thoughts arise, and we proceed to interpret the world as good and bad, for us or against us. And this becomes so immersive, that we take all of our (environmentally-programmed) ambitions / desires / fears to be real. It is like a movie or a video game where we are closely identified with the lead character and his/her tribulations.
Advaita and Bhagavan are both teaching us that we are not, and we do not need, any of these things (neti, neti), and thus when all this is negated - thought is realised to be useless - then we 'just be' in silence. The super-imposing thought is no longer taken seriously, and so does not attach and propagate itself, and we are just left in consciousness. "Killing the ego" is poetical; it is the cessation of the super-imposition of thoughts on consciousness.
As you and I discussed previously, everything is just consciousness = energy = clay, from which arises a manifestation of energy in the shape of a form, which is transmitted through light waves (=energy), which is then captured by sense organs (also a manifestation of energy), and which transmits energy through nerve cells to the brain, which inexplicably forms an image of what is 'outside'. It is all just energy playing with itself. The kaarana-kaarya prakriya indeed. There is no birth, no death. Nothing ever happened. Nothing really matters.
Summa iru is indeed the highest instruction.
Thanks Salazar
I think we posted simultaneously. Not sure if you'd agree with what I've just written?
From your experience, when you are silent, watching the world, but also watching your body-mind-thoughts as they respond to the world . . . that watcher, which sees both the world (seemingly) outside, and the feelings-thoughts (seemingly inside), but which in itself can only be imputed as the undifferentiated substratum . . is that not what vedanta says is Brahman?
What's up with the filthy disgusting language that appears at times?
It must give one an advantage over another or make the user feel superior.
It is really pathetic that a blog like this ends up with this garbage.
Salazar,
I tend to agree with Venkat's presentation of the matter, although there is not much wrong with what you are saying, considering also the fact that you are speaking from experience. When you bring in Reflected Consciousness (Chidabhasa), that is what Bhagavan refers to as ego, and he says that this ego is unstable unless it identifies itself with a body as "I". As far as the Witness-consciousness is concerned, if it is thought-free, then thought-free consciousness has been referred to as Self by Bhagavan - I can give the quote (which I had quoted sometime back on this blog) if you are interested. But. I can see how you an I can trip over these terms and concepts. The fundamental fact to keep in mind is that Only Pure Consciousness is the real deal, and rest all, ego et al, are mere names and forms and hence unsubstantial or mithya. That perspective, which is Viveka, gives rise to Vairagya, which dovetails nicely into Nididhyasana (after of course a the above Sravana and Manana). Again, I cannot emphasize enough that once you keep the Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya in mind and mull over all its deep and subtle implications then you will be hooked on to Nididhyasana. I am quite open to your critique of these viewpoints of mine.
All the different names 'I-thought', the 'first thought 'I', 'witness', the sense of 'I', 'mind', 'ego', 'intellect', 'reflected light', 'reflected consciousness', 'inner organ' (antahkarana) and 'suttarivu' do not denote the self in its purity (atma-svarupa).
morrison,
you ask "What's up with the filthy disgusting language that appears at times?"
Do you not know that a "real jnani" has no need to feel responsible for his filthy speech.:-)
Salazar, (and Venkat)
I have reached this understanding based on Kaarana=Kaarya Prakriya. Whatever be these terms and concepts floating around, like chidabhasa, ahamkara (ego), mind, body, intellect, prana, etc., they are all after all various forms named so, with different kinds of relations between them theorised. The point is to reject all forms, that is disregard them as mithya, and focus attention (now, don't trip me by asking "who is the one who is focusing the attention) on Consciousness, which is done by being thought-free (which is the same as not paying attention to the forms, be they thoughts, feelings or perceptions), that is, summa irau (be still), which is the be-all and end-all of sadhana. Don't you think so?
Hi Venkat, Sam,
nice comments thanks.
Hi Salazar,
you say "However in the classical sense a witness is a subject-object relationship between a seer and seen. Brahman is not witnessing any objects, so in that regard Brahman cannot be the witness for me.
For me the "subject-object" relationship is the key and not well understood.
MJ teaches that all objects must be eliminated from awareness and we must experience "ourself alone" with NO objects, no world or body in awareness and this is the ONLY way (right?) But this is only one facet.
During waking state, the illusion is: ownership, doership, identification and attachment to objects. The fact that objects appear in awareness is NOT the issue.
The illusion is when awareness becomes invested in objects for example when awareness is lost in digressive thought and emotion. IF awareness can be increasingly maintained on "I" or "I AM" or "Being" in the presence of objects... then what else can be done?
I like the ancient saying (although I seem to be the only one):
I am THAT,
Thou art THAT,
All this is THAT.
This saying proposes a progressive realization.
Initially "I" realize my unbounded immortal nature... but objects still exist separately. It is only with "All this is THAT" where all of creation is realized as my essence then the subject-object relationship is eliminated totally.
Being still (as just being) is correctly called 'summa iru(ppadu)'.
Roger,
I very much agree with you when you characterize one's progress in realization as:
"I am THAT,
Thou art THAT,
All this is THAT."
Because only then there is nonduality. Anything short of that is duality. The last two statements, by the way, occur in Chandogya Upanishad (as you may already know):
Thou art THAT = Tat tvam asi
All this is THAT = Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma
The first one, "I am THAT" (Aham Brahmasmi) occurs in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.
The above three statements have to be the case because the differences between "I", "Thou", and "All this" are only at the level of name and form, and hence not really any differences at all, and not at the level of underlying substance, which in all cases is only Consciousness.
Creation of the Universe - Part 1 of 3
(from Swami Paramarthananda's Commentary on Drik-Drsya Viveka)
What is creation? Creation can be defined as the production of an effect or a product from a cause. When an effect is produced out of a cause what happens exactly? What is the mechanism? The words cause, effect, etc., are normally used very loosely. Take the example of a potter making a variety of earthenware, like pot, jug, etc., out of a lump of clay. Clay is said to be the cause and the varieties of earthenware are said to be the effect. We say that the potter has produced, created or made many pots. The author asks the question: when one says that the potter created the earthenware, what has the potter created? On enquiry we find that the potter has not produced or created anything at all. In fact, nobody can create anything. Matter can never be created or destroyed. Thus the potter has not produced even an ounce of matter. He has not produced any substance at all. Previously there was clay and now also there is only clay alone. Then why do we say that the potter has created a pot? Then we come to know that the meaning of the word ‘creation’ is nothing but adding a shape to the already existing clay. The potter cannot and does not produce anything and all his efforts are to add a shape to the wet clay. Before shaping, there was only clay and after shaping also there is only clay. Before the shaping it is called clay. When the shape is given, the very same clay is given a new name, pot. What has the potter done? He has not produced anything. He has given a rūpam (shape or form), and in keeping with the shape, a new nāma (name) has been given, either pot or jug or plate or lid, etc. Addition of varieties of nāma-rūpa (name and form) is called creation, not production of substance. Addition of configuration to a substance is called creation. Cause plus addition of nāma-rūpa is creation. Clay plus nāma-rūpa is equal to earthenware. Gold plus nāma-rūpa is equal to ornaments. Wood plus nāma-rūpa is equal to furniture. Cause plus addition of nāma-rūpa is called ‘production’ of an effect. This is lesson number 1.
Now we will go to next lesson. It was said that the potter does not produce anything but that he gives only shape. The next question that is asked is from where does the shape come. Where does the potter bring the shape from? The shape is not added by the potter. All shapes are already present in the clay itself. The spherical clay has all the geometrical shapes in potential form. Spherical shape is nothing but all the shapes in unmanifest form. Clay contains all the names and forms of earthenware in potential condition, called avyakta nāma-rūpa (unmanifest nāma-rūpa). The potter does not do anything to the substance, clay, but only brings the unmanifest nāma-rūpa into manifestation. Nothing is produced including the nāma-rūpa. Substance plus unmanifest nāma-rūpa is called the cause. The same substance plus the manifest nāma-rūpa is called the effect. What is the benefit of the efforts of the potter? He has neither created the clay nor has he created nāma-rūpa. He has only changed the unmanifest nāma-rūpa into manifest nāma-rūpa. This nāma-rūpa transformation is called creation. Creation is the manifestation of nāma-rūpa upon the substance, which substance remains the same before and after the manifestation. This is lesson number 2.
(Continued below)
Creation of the Universe - Part 2 of 3
What about the creation of the universe ? The universe must also be a basic substance with the manifest nāma-rūpa. If the universe is a created substance, a product or an effect, it must also be a substance with manifest nāma-rūpa. Before the production of the universe, the basic substance must have existed with unmanifest nāma-rūpa. The universe in the current condition is one basic substance with infinite nāma-rūpa. The basic substance cannot be created by any one including God. Nothing can be created by anyone including God. Gauḍapāda establishes this principle in Māṇḍūkyakārikā. Therefore, the basic substance must have been present with the unmanifest nāma-rūpa. What is that basic substance, mūla-vastu? What is the truth of this universe? Vedānta calls that basic substance, Brahman. Just as clay is the basic substance from the standpoint of earthenware, from the standpoint of the whole creation including the five elements, time, etc., the basic substance is Brahman. What is the nature of that substance? It is sat-cit-ānanda or Pure existence and pure consciousness which is limitless. Limitless existence-consciousness is the basic substance which was present before creation and is present after creation also. Now we have the basic substance with varieties of manifest nāma-rūpa. Bṛhadāranyaka Upaniṣad (6.1) says that everything in this world may be classified into names, forms and actions.The manifest nāma-rūpa has appropriate function. In fact, the nāma is given to refer to whatever the function of the rūpa is.
What is the universe? It is Brahman plus manifest nāma-rūpa. Before the creation Brahman must have been present with the unmanifest nāma-rūpa. Brahman plus the unmanifest nāma-rūpa is the cause and Brahman plus the manifest nāma-rūpa is the effect. The technical name for the unmanifest nāma-rūpa, which is located upon Brahman, is māyā. Brahman plus the unmanifest nāma-rūpa māyā is the cause and Brahman plus the manifest nāma-rūpa māyā is the effect. To differentiate Brahman plus the unmanifest nāma-rūpa, the cause, and Brahman plus the manifest nāma-rūpa, the effect, two distinct names are given. Brahman plus the unmanifest nāma-rūpa māyā is called Īśvara (God). Brahman plus māyā is Īśvara. Brahman plus the manifest nāma-rūpa is called jagat (universe or world). Brahman continues to be present all the time without having any transformation at any time. During sṛṣṭi, sthiti and pralaya (creation, maintenance and dissolution), Brahman is Brahman. The substance, Brahman, continues to be the same always. The nāma-rūpa that is upon that Brahman goes through the unmanifest and manifest conditions. Conversion of unmanifest nāma-rūpa into manifest nāma-rūpa is creation. Conversion of manifest nāma-rūpa into unmanifest nāma-rūpa is dissolution. This goes on and on. Kṛṣṇa describes this process in the Bhagavad Gītā:
At the beginning of the day, all things that are manifest arise from the unmanifest. At the beginning of the night, they resolve in that alone which is called the unmanifest. (8:18)
There is only Brahman. In one condition it is called Īśvara and in another condition it is called jagat.
(Continued below)
Creation of the Universe - Part 3 of 3
The author says that this māyā, which is nothing but unmanifest nāma-rūpa and located in Brahman is also known by the name brahma-śakti. This māyā is known by the name, śakti (power). Any śakti or power cannot exist independently. It has to exist in some substance. For example, the speaking power cannot exist separately from the person that has the power. Māyā-śakti rests in Brahman depending on Brahman for its very existence. This māyā-śakti has two powers. One is the vikṣepa-śakti, the power to manifest, the power that converts the unmanifest to the manifest condition. Vikṣepa means ‘throwing out’ or ‘projecting’. The manifestation of the universe is in the hands of the vikṣepa-śakti of māyā, which rests on Brahman. The second power is āvaraṇa-śakti, the power of covering or veiling the truth. First the vikṣepa-śakti of Īśvara starts functioning at the time of creation. Īśvara is not affected by the āvaraṇa-śakti of māyā. When the vikṣepa-śakti is operating, all the unmanifest nāma-rūpa gets manifested. All the universes and the individual jīvas are thrown out. Once the jīvas and the jagat come into manifestation, the āvaraṇa-śakti of māyā becomes active and because of that, every jīva is ignorant of the basic truth that everything is Brahman plus nāma-rūpa and that the jīva is also Brahman plus nāma-rūpa. This is called ajñānam and the āvaraṇa-śakti of māyā is called ajñānam. This self-ignorance leads to the fear of mortality, which is saṃsāra. Self-knowledge is the solution for this saṃsāra.
He points out that ignorance regarding one’s own nature is the cause of the bondage. This ignorance is caused by the āvaraṇa-śakti of māyā. To explain the origin of ignorance the author enters the creation topic even though it is not the main subject matter of the text. Brahman is the cause of the universe and the universe is the effect. The emergence of the effect from the cause is creation. Brahman is of the nature of sat-cit-ānanda. Thereafter we saw that any product is nothing but nāma-rūpa and does not exist substantially. Thus the world is nothing but nāma-rūpa. This world nāma-rūpa should have existed in Brahman in potential form before creation because what is in potential form alone can come into manifestation because of the law that nothing can be created or destroyed. The unmanifest nāma-rūpa is called māyā. This māyā has two powers, vikṣepa-śakti and āvaraṇa-śakti. At the time of creation, the vikṣepa-śakti operates and the āvaraṇa-śakti does not operate at the cosmic level. Īśvara is not affected by the āvaraṇa-śakti. The karmas of the jīvas determine the time of creation. During dissolution all the sañcita-karma are dormant. When a portion of the sañcita-karma of the entire cosmos is ready to fructify as the prārabdha-karma, the vikṣepa-śakti of māyā becomes operational. The vikṣepa-śakti makes the unmanifest nāma-rūpa into the manifest nāma-rūpa. All the five elements, fourteen lokas, the gross bodies, and the subtle bodies, which are all non-substantial nāma-rūpa come into manifestation. There is only one substance behind all the nāma-rūpa. That original substance, which is the only substance behind the non-substantial nāma-rūpa, is Brahman. Vikṣepa-śakti will operate until the creation of the individual jīva. After the jīvas are created, the āvaraṇa-śakti starts operating and covers the jīva with the concealing power. There is no concealment for Īśvara at the macro level. Āvaraṇa-śakti operates only at the jīva level.
I agree with Salazar that what is aware of the ego/mind is what Bhagavan calls Self....
In my opinion, the ego mind is the counsciousness that inhabits the body, and what is aware of it is the Self. To destroy the illusion caused by this ego-body appeareance we must look for the source of it, the I AM. This is the practice....
Dragos,
as you yourself say ("In my opinion"), it is at best the view of the ego that "Self" is aware of it.
Are we not taught that "Self" is aware only of itself ? So how can "Self" be aware of the wrong awareness of the ego-mind ?
Theories about creation are mere speculation. The problem of mankind is ignorance.
Therefore one has first to shake off the dirt of ignorance.
Salazar
From Poonjaji's "The Truth Is"
p.26:
Know I am inactive, the activity takes place in me,
I am That, I am the screen, I never come and I never go.
Identify as Consciousness itself.
When the mind is pure you will see Self in all beings.
Purify the mind by removing all concepts, especially the concept of purity.
Then Self reveals itself to the empty mind which is Consciousness.
If there is unhappiness you are not unhappy, you are the untouched Awareness of this happiness.
p.31:
There is the awareness which is aware of objects like flowers. True Awareness is the awareness which is aware of the awareness of objects. It is the undisturbed simple awareness in which things rise and fall.
p.153:
Your true nature is Awareness, it cannot be practised.
If you do not know, this Awareness turns outward towards manifestation and there is suffering.
Turn you face inward toward the source of 'I'.
Then the reflection of `Self falls on the mind turned toward Self, dissolving this mind into Self.
p.261:
You are the one who watches. You are the witness of thought as it rises, passes away and stops.
The one who watches is everlasting.
The mind is the habit to be involved in its objects. It can't both silently watch and be involved.
Because of this habit you forget that what you are involved in is just a projection on the screen. Due to this forgetfulness, identification goes from being the silent witness to becoming the projection itself. You forget that you are the screen on which these projections are rising and passing.
So allow the projections of the mind, which is everything you see within and without.
Like this you must remain That which is untouched, That which is before identifications and intellectual grasps. This is eternal Being.
The one who follows the thought is also a thought.
The one who follows the thought is in thought.
When you know that both are thoughts, you are Home.
Then allow thoughts to arise and allow them to be followed.
You remain as That unmoved and unconcerned Being.
This is the highest understanding.
"So allow the projections of the mind, which is everything you see within and without.
Like this you must remain That which is untouched, That which is before identifications and intellectual grasps. This is eternal Being."
"Then allow thoughts to arise and allow them to be followed.
You remain as That unmoved and unconcerned Being."
Is allowing the projections of the mind and allowing thoughts to arise and allowing them to be followed really being untouched, unmoved and unconcerned ?
Poonjaji's descriptions (and others) have puzzled me.
He says for example:
There is the awareness which is aware of objects like flowers. True Awareness is the awareness which is aware of the awareness of objects..
My concern has been... what can I do? What is my precise intention in practice?
It is possible to be aware... but how the heck to be "aware of the awareness"?
In my current opinion: my effortless "job" is simply to be aware all the time. Which is to rest in "I" or "I AM" or "Being". And to rest in such a way is the result of "who am I?" or "not this" or other methods.
The second stage "aware of awareness" is realization.
Realization is spontaneous and happens by grace not by my effort.
The second level "aware of awareness" is beyond my effort but the requirement for grace is my being "aware", that is all that I can do.
"Aware of awareness" corresponds with the earlier descriptions that I posted: "I saw all of creation as if from a great distance totally uninvolved and forever separate my essence being beyond forever untouchable by all external things".
right?
Roger
Brhadaranyaka Up has the great line "How can one know That by which all this is known". It is that awareness of awareness that it is pointing to.
And when they say, we are already that, we just don't know it, one immediately sees how true that is. We are just misled by the superimposed ignorance of the I-thought and subsequent thoughts that arise subsequential to it.
Hence neti, neti - realise that all these thoughts / feelings and not it, and keep on negating until all that is left is Silent, Unmoving Awareness. That is why they say no practice can get you there - because you are already there.
All the sages from ancient to modern, say that total, utter desirelessness is moksha. Because when there is absolutely no desire, no preference, no fear, you are that unmoving, untouched awareness, that is choicelessly aware of all that is, without any desire to move away or towards whatever is currently appearing.
So there is no practice, no effort, no stages. It is a fundamental shift in awareness from not seeing yourself as a body-mind, to BEING consciousness. But this is not just intellectual either. It is the razor's edge that Katha Up talks of.
Bhagvan's summa iru indeed is the highest instruction.
Venkat,
I upvote your sagacious answer @ 28 October 2018 at 15:19.
Hi Venkat,
"summa iru" is a practice... or a non-practice.
One must conceive of it and have the intent to be that and strip away what it is not.. otherwise why speak of it and why call it an "instruction"?
In agreement,
R
Salazar,
You are so right in writing "The problem is not truly thoughts, it is the attachment to these thoughts, if there is no interest in a thought it has no impact whatsoever."
Question can then be asked, "Why do we get attached to thoughts?" As I see it, it is perhaps because:
1. We are seeking something out of life and we see thinking as a means to achieve that end.
2. We believe we are the ones thinking those thoughts - they are "my" thoughts.
Your thoughts on this?
When Salazar writes "By the way, being "aware of awareness" is just a clumsy way to describe that we ARE awareness, intrinsically so and that needs no effort whatsoever."
it should be undoubtedly clear that so long we experience ourself as ego we must investigate this ego - in order to know our real nature.
Sam, if I may attempt an answer to your question . . .
I think that your second response comes first, and from there your first response.
However, I'm not sure that why are “we” attached is a valid question in the first place, because the 'we' itself is the attachment. It is tautological.
The ego is nothing but attachment; and attachment pre-supposes duality. As Bhagavan says, it comes into existence by grasping form, and further self-aggrandises by attaching to second and third person objects (including fame, fortune, pleasure etc.). As we become attached to something, the more that thoughts arise - about how we like it, how we can get more of it, our fear of losing it, etc, etc. And the more that thoughts arise, the more we get caught up in them.
So, utter detachment = utter desirelessness = choiceless awareness = no mind = summa iru
Then the next question “how do we become detached”, or “how do we stop thoughts" is also not valid. That in itself is a thought, a concept, a desire.
The story of the tenth man is really significant. There were always 10 men, but the counter had to realise that he had forgotten to count himself. When he got that knowledge, and was convinced of it, he was free of sorrow. Similarly, we have to, through atma vichara, investigate ourselves, such that we gain the steady conviction that we are really consciousness, with the same strength of conviction that we currently have, that we are the body-mind.
If we had that conviction, that we are not this body-mind and that we are non-separate from the world, then what attachment, desire or fear could there be?
In Mandukya Karika chp 4, Gaudapada praises Asparsa Yoga, Asparsa being ‘no touch’. Simply do not be touched by anything that is not-Self.
Three cheers, NO EFFORT AT ALL IS NEEDED.
There has even never been an ego, we not even seemed to be that wrong awareness 'I am this body or this ego.
Therefore, how could there have been any need to remove the false ego-awareness or how could there be ever any problem ?
You lucky mankind !!! Lucky You! Be just simply perfectly happy !
with "effort" (as with many things) it can be stated either in the positive or negative:
Effort must be ceaseless and untiring until the goal can be reached.
No one succeeds without effort... those who succeed owe their success to perseverance.
Conscious deliberate effort is needed to attain that effortless state of stillness.
quotes attributed to Bhagavan
Most of us are not able to reach the goal by beginning with that effortless state.
That could do at most only a couple of handfuls sages.
Salazar,
"Certain things have to be grasped/discovered by one alone".
Yep, and that is what is meant by "there is no path to realisation".
There is nothing to realize because self is anyway ever realized.
There is no path, there is nothing. Even the absence of something or anything is a matter of complete indifference to us. So mankind is completely needless.
What have we done to deserve that total disaster ?:-)
Bhagavan is the perfect outlet from which grace flows eternally, steadily, with full power and perfect control
Bhagavan will never force atma-jnana on us because if he does so it may topple our balance of mind. So we will not lose our mental balance if we take refuge in Bhagavan and his teachings. He is a perfect guru who is working from within. He is preparing us in so many ways. He is giving us countless opportunities to rectify our vasanas from moment to moment. But are we making proper use of such opportunities? We will have to admit, we are not.
Bhagavan knows us so well because he is nothing other than ourself. So he will not give us anything until we are ready for it. He is leading us gently, smoothly and as quickly as possible to our final destination. He is giving us the right doses of his most powerful grace unceasingly. Bhagavan has to control its release because, like an overdose of any medicine, an overdose of grace may harm us. By his controlled release of his grace, he is making us fit to receive more and more of his grace.
Therefore Bhagavan is the perfect outlet from which grace flows eternally, steadily, with full power and perfect control.
~ The above is a paraphrase of ideas of Sri Sadhu Om and Michael
Reflections: It is so much reassuring to know that Bhagavan is leading us with so much care and concern. It is such a cool and refreshing feeling. This knowledge makes us relaxed.
He wants us to reach our finishing line as quickly as possible, but he knows that this should not be forced. We are perfectly safe in his hands.
Sometimes I would risk an overdose of Bhagavan's most powerful grace because receiving only the usual dose of grace seems to harm me more than a proper overdose.:-)
Clay Pot Example by Swami Sarvapriyananda
Check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHYTkzoaiKU
You Can Be Free In This Very Life - Papaji
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhD5ZWOoVmY
Arise, awake and stop not till the goal is reached: Swami Vivekananda
In the booklet ‘Who am I?’ Bhagavan says that a time will come when all that has been learnt has to be forgotten. There are so many things we can learn about, but all such knowledge has to be eventually given up. Let us make good use of the limited time we have available to go deep into Bhagavan’s teachings. If we are attracted to other things, those are all diversions.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-10-28 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: discussion with Michael James on the nature of ego (1:54)
Reflections: Yes, we have very little time available with us because this body will not last forever. This life will go past very quickly. So we should not waste our time on unnecessary pursuits. As far as possible, we should spend our time reading, listening to, reflecting on and practising Bhagavan’s teachings. These are the only things that really matters. Rest everything is a distraction.
Swami Vivekananda said: ‘Arise, awake and stop not till the goal is reached’. I am sure Bhagavan would have endorsed his advice. How can we stop before our goal is reached? What is our goal? It is complete and irrevocable self-surrender. Bhagavan has made this crystal clear.
Are we not taught that the ego-mind does not really exist.
So how can the (seeming) ego/mind spoil at all the one eternal awareness ?
Salazar,
You are spot on when you talk about effortlessness. Because we are already that and we don't need to put effort because we don't need to achieve something we don't already have. Trying to put effort is like somebody who is in Ramanasramam asking what should i "do" or what exertions I should put in to reach Ramanasramam - he does not need to "do" anything, or rather he has to stop "doing" anything and just come to understand that he is already in Ramanasramam. Similarly, we are now so strongly identified with the mind that we take its defects to be our defects and so we are always on the lookout for putting in effort to overcome the defects of the mind, while all we need to do is understand that we are already That and we just need to remove ignorance, or better still realise that even the ignorance was merely imagined, there is no bondage - we are merely imagining the bondage because we are erroneously thinking we are the bound body-mind. So, as Papaji always emphasized that his only advice was "Keep quiet", and keeping quiet means dropping all forms of effort and exertions, including thinking, and just being, which is what "Summa iru" of Bhagavan amounts to. I think the reason we are always itching to "do" something is that we are always seeking, but when it comes to the Self, there is no need to seek because we are already that and we just have to give up the false notions we have about ourselves - the Tenth man is not missing; the necklace is not lost.
Two statements from Bhagavan:
1: Conscious deliberate effort is needed to attain that effortless state of stillness.
2: Here it is impossible for you to be without effort. When you go deeper, it is impossible for you to make any effort.
There is another quote from Bhagavan although I can not find it at the moment, something like: when effort is required, effort will arise, when effort is not required it will not arise.
These statements describe an intelligent use of effort which leads to effortless stillness.
Salazar, you say confirmed by my own direct experience, that awareness cannot be anything else than effortless.
Salazar, you had an experience in time of effortless awareness, and it ended.
Why aren't you this effortless stillness eternally?
Is that grasped?
Salazar wrote
"However Brahman/Self is effortless. And that is even quoted by people here but don't believe it since they think they are the ego and not Brahman."
I do not doubt that "Brahman/Self" itself "is always effortless". Is it of great practical use to think "I am not the ego but Brahman" ?
"One thought of remembrance to be aware is enough, after that the mind has to be left alone, awareness does not need the mind to be aware. In fact except of that one thought of a prompt anything else by the mind spoils vichara! "
How is the mind to be left alone ? Is it not rather to be focussed properly on its source ?
D Samarender Reddy,
your statement: "So, as Papaji always emphasized that his only advice was "Keep quiet", and keeping quiet means dropping all forms of effort and exertions, including thinking, and just being, which is what "Summa iru" of Bhagavan amounts to. I think the reason we are always itching to "do" something is that we are always seeking, but when it comes to the Self, there is no need to seek because we are already that and we just have to give up the false notions we have about ourselves".
However, experience shows that dropping all forms of effort and exertions, including thinking and giving up the false notions we have about ourselves, is just not actually managed effortlessly but only by keen and thorough attention.
Nevertheless, Papaji's peaceful radiation felt even by watching the given video (Global Well-Being) only for some minutes impressed me really. Thanks.
Salazar,
regarding your reply to Roger "there is no eternity. I do not expect you to grasp where I come from."
Where do you actually come from ?
Salazar
Your articulation of circular reference is spot on. Bhagavan told us that I is just a thought (albeit one which is the jumping off point for others), and many have conceptualised some entity 'I'. But 'I' is just a thought not an entity. But by making it an entity, it is then believed it can do something to bring about its own destruction.
JK used to critique those who talked about trying to control thoughts, by saying that the controller is the controlled, ie that the controller is just a thought, and the controlled is also just a thought. And therefore it is absurd to talk about one thought controlling another thought.
So there really is nothing we can do apart from summa iru. Thanks for the useful discussion.
Salazar repeatedly proclaims to be wise while labeling others as ignorant. This is duality, ego.
Salazar,
it is true that I am far away from the mastery over the mind and senses. Therefore I continue with faith in the compassionate grace of the Lord my endeavour to subdue them. Anyhow I do not give up my hope to become ever free from desire and delusion. Then by steadfast abidance in atma-svarupa I may know that real happiness and perfect peace is within me as my own inherent nature.
Salazar,
referring to Papaji's comparison of vasanas with writings on the beach "...i.e. when he said that vasanas are like writings on the sand of a beach, all what is needed is to take one's foot and wipe out those writings and the vasanas are gone."
Why to make that effort with one's own foot ? That task would carry out much easier the rising tide in one night.:-)
Salazar,
you wrote today (29 October 2018 at 17:20) as a reply to me: "Who is asking the question? The ego, and therefore it has spoiled awareness.
...LMAO...Is that grasped?".
Is it not clear that the immutable, all-pervasive one and absolute self cannot be polluted by the ego at all ?
It seems that someone (too) became a prey to delusion. Without sincerity and humility there can be no approach to wisdom.
Since Salazar is well versed and an expert in these matters why does he not start his own blog like Michael James has done instead of trying to show off here everyday in this blog that he is the only person here to have understood what needs to be understood correctly and others have not?
I am quite certain he will be as famous as Micheal James himself is and and will attract a lot of followers.
Salazar you are an obnoxious asshole and you stink like hell. Even if I praise you you get upset. You are fishing for followers unlike Michael James and Sanjay Lohia who are authentic and faithful in their devotion to Sri Ramana Maharshi.
Post a Comment