tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post1732062604290110178..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: The difference between vivarta vāda and ajāta vāda is not just semantic but substantiveMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger184125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-82399843031945604742016-11-27T13:00:26.636+00:002016-11-27T13:00:26.636+00:00Ken, I have replied to several of your comments on...Ken, I have replied to several of your comments on this article, such as the <a href="#c385804996924653127" rel="nofollow">one</a> in which you wrote, ‘The vasanas exist in the relative sense, but not the absolute sense. The ego does not exist in either the relative sense or the absolute sense’, in a separate article: <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/11/when-ego-seems-to-exist-other-things.html" rel="nofollow">When the ego seems to exist, other things seem to exist, and when it does not seem to exist, nothing else seems to exist</a>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-58975086110482833582016-11-23T16:44:37.044+00:002016-11-23T16:44:37.044+00:00Thank you very much Michael.
In appreciation.
Bob ...Thank you very much Michael.<br />In appreciation.<br />Bob Bob - Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-76802430909811611732016-11-23T13:16:20.695+00:002016-11-23T13:16:20.695+00:00Bob, regarding the comment in which you suggest th...Bob, regarding the <a href="#c1446641429727282450" rel="nofollow">comment</a> in which you suggest that I may be able to ‘shed some light on the deep meaning’ of a passage that you quote from <a href="http://www.happinessofbeing.com/The_Path_of_Sri_Ramana_Part_One.pdf" rel="nofollow">Part One</a> of <a href="http://www.happinessofbeing.com/path_ramana.html" rel="nofollow"><i>The Path of Sri Ramana</i></a> (2005 edition, p. 212), I have attempted to do so in a separate article: <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/11/why-does-bhagavan-sometimes-say-that.html" rel="nofollow">Why does Bhagavan sometimes say that the <i>ātma-jñāni</i> is aware of the body and world?</a>Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-73539130985986249672016-11-21T14:44:06.075+00:002016-11-21T14:44:06.075+00:00Michael,
section 1. and 2.,
"If we look at an...Michael,<br />section 1. and 2.,<br />"If we look at an illusory snake carefully enough, we will see that it is not actually a snake but just a rope. Likewise, if we look at this illusory ego carefully enough, we will see that we are not actually an ego but just pure self-awareness, which alone actually exists and which is therefore aware of nothing other than itself."<br /><br />The careful onlooker at this illusory ego is itself this ego.<br />How can an illusory onlooker see that he is not an ego but just pure self-awareness.<br />Is it not repeatedly said that an illusory eye can see only illusory phenomena whereas only the limitless eye has the clear view to be aware of our infinite and formless awareness ?<br />In accordance with that statement would not only our pure self-awareness be able to recognise/know that it is just pure self-awareness ?vivartanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-43668657460882529502016-11-21T14:25:19.875+00:002016-11-21T14:25:19.875+00:00Venkat, I have replied to your first comment, in w...Venkat, I have replied to <a href="#c5939527199829045429" rel="nofollow">your first comment</a>, in which you question my understanding of the meaning of <i>ajāta vāda</i>, in a separate article: <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/11/what-is-correct-meaning-of-ajata-vada.html" rel="nofollow">What is the correct meaning of <i>ajāta vāda</i>?</a>Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-60522260751450598282016-11-21T09:40:05.256+00:002016-11-21T09:40:05.256+00:00Ken, I am actually the limitless eye which is form...Ken, I am actually the limitless eye which is formless awareness. So as such I cannot be aware of anything that is not infinite and formless. I am therefore eternally aware only of myself and of nothing else whatsoever. ajatanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-22617586218281493742016-11-21T09:27:16.909+00:002016-11-21T09:27:16.909+00:00Ken,
I do not give a single glance to this ego-tho...Ken,<br />I do not give a single glance to this ego-thought called 'I'.vivartanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-60298244529662255342016-11-21T09:16:54.723+00:002016-11-21T09:16:54.723+00:00Ken,
I am shining as the birthless and deathless I...Ken,<br />I am shining as the birthless and deathless I am I which is the infinite whole.<br />Why should I cross a fictitious ocean of birth and death ?<br />Did I ever leave the self ? At most this ego-phantom was involved in identification-problems and has to make use of an one-pointed mind in order to know that supreme self.<br />vivartanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-44698507250834881282016-11-21T03:22:32.853+00:002016-11-21T03:22:32.853+00:00vivarta asked:
"how can we as this non-exist...vivarta asked:<br /><br />"how can we as this non-existent ego investigate what does not at all exist"<br /><br />A good question. This is how semantics gets involved.<br /><br />As Ramana teaches, the physical body is insentient - "it does not say 'I' ". So, we can consider it to be a tool that we use.<br /><br />As I stated in the previous post, the "ego" is simply a mistaken identity.<br /><br />So, there is "I" and then there is a tool, the physical body, with its brain and thoughts and feelings (including what the scriptures call the "intellect").<br /><br />The "I" uses its tool and encounters words from Ramana and his followers, words that say to investigate "Who Am I ?" by simply putting attention on "I" (or more precisely, by just "being I" without attention to thoughts or sense perceptions).<br /><br />Since the normal situation for human beings (and other creatures) is to make the mistake of misidentifying itself due to the "I am the body" thought, then it is difficult to create words that are both easy to understand and are without seemingly paradoxical statements (such as the ones you often find).<br /><br />Shankara wrote something which concisely states the above - here is the translation of his words by Ramana Maharshi:<br /><br />"It shines as ‘I-I’, as ever-present, direct experience. Know that supreme Self by<br />means of a one-pointed mind and know ‘This ‘I’ is Brahman’. Thus through the intellect you may know the Self in yourself, by yourself, and by this means cross the ocean of birth and death and become one who has achieved his life purpose and ever remain as the Self."Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-46719789708976110022016-11-21T00:40:18.442+00:002016-11-21T00:40:18.442+00:00Michael,
when Bhagavan taught us that until we exp...Michael,<br />when Bhagavan taught us that until we experience ourself as we really are, we should accept vivarta vada as the most appropriate and beneficial working hypothesis.<br />But do we not experience ourself as we really are yet right now even when we experience us as this seeming ego or seem to be this ego ?<br />vivartanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-36884280882008370942016-11-20T23:48:06.749+00:002016-11-20T23:48:06.749+00:00Ken,
our seeming existence as an ego is an error.
...Ken,<br />our seeming existence as an ego is an error.<br />We are not at all an ego but brahman alone !<br />Do not forget your own identity as pure self-awareness !vivartanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-38276972024946643412016-11-20T23:40:04.207+00:002016-11-20T23:40:04.207+00:00Ken,
how can you investigate the non-existent wate...Ken,<br />how can you investigate the non-existent water of a fata morgana when your mind/ego itself does not even seem to exist ?vivartanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-6734154385525091762016-11-20T23:35:57.105+00:002016-11-20T23:35:57.105+00:00Ken,
how can we as this non-existent ego investiga...Ken,<br />how can we as this non-existent ego investigate what does not at all exist and according ajata not even seems to exist?vivartanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-39729409861779744472016-11-20T22:30:09.075+00:002016-11-20T22:30:09.075+00:00vivarta -
What you said is certainly true.
Howev...vivarta -<br /><br />What you said is certainly true.<br /><br />However, remember that - as stated in the upper left, this blog "is dedicated to discussing the philosophy and practice of the spiritual teachings of our sadguru, Bhagavan Sri Ramana."<br /><br />The word teachings implies verbal instruction, from someone who is considered by students to be an expert. Generally, students later put teachings into practice, at which time they discover whether the teachings are accurate.<br /><br />Ramana strongly emphasized that students should investigate for themselves, rather than accept other people's remarks. He would say, quote "Find out yourself".<br /><br />===<br /><br />You asked "But why should we investigate a from the outset non-existent mind ?"<br /><br />Because we need to investigate it, in order to discover that it <b>is</b> non-existent.<br /><br />I find that the English word "mind" is not the best word to use in this context. We often use the word "mind" to include our capacity to think, which is largely dependent on our physical brain. But here "mind" refers to the contents of the mind, or what is often referred to as "ego".<br /><br />When speaking, as you say, "in an absolute sense", then everything other than the Self, satchitananda, is non-existent.<br /><br />However, one of the major clues of Advaita, is that the ego - what is here referred to as "mind", is also non-existent "in a relative sense".<br /><br />In a relative sense, the world and the bodies of human beings, seem to exist. If we investigate the body, we usually find two feet, two hands, a head, hearbeat, etc. It seems to exist in a relative sense.<br /><br />However, if we investigate the ego, we find that it does not even exist in a relative sense. When we actually experience this, we will identify ourselves with the Self. When that identification occurs, we then will experience that everything else is non-existent "in an absolute sense".<br /><br />Suppose we graduate with a degree in architecture. Jobs are scarce, so we work as a barista at a coffee bar. Then we are called by Acme Corporation and are told that we got the architect job for which we interviewed, and to report for work next week. We spend the whole weekend telling people " I'm an architect at Acme Corporation ", and in our minds, that is our identity.<br /><br />When we get to Acme Corporation on Monday, after some embarrassment, we are told that the office clerk called the wrong person. It's back to Starbucks. <br /><br />So, our mental identity over the weekend, " I'm an architect " was a mistake.<br /><br />Similarly, Ramana says that we should investigate our own identity, as our current mental identity is a mistake.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-6393482733370612032016-11-20T21:01:06.363+00:002016-11-20T21:01:06.363+00:00Michael,
section 5.
now we hear the glorious messa...Michael,<br />section 5.<br />now we hear the glorious message that "in an absolute sense" there is one ultimate and absolute truth which is inconceivable and defies logic because it denies the very existence of our mind even as an illusory appearance. But why should we investigate a from the outset non-existent mind ? Why should we see (even) only after having it investigated that it actually does not exist when it is from the beginning true that it does already (anyway) not exist ? Will not be your answer if at all that ajata, the sole reality, is left up to the absolute view of sages whereas we or most of us as the inhabitants of the vague and confused space of the relative perspective have to carry out possibly all our life kneading heavy dough (self-investigation) which seems to be a task like a hamster running incessantly in its wheel ? No, your answer would be we have to experience it by own investigation.<br />Only a sage knows if ajata is true. So as you say all we can do now is to accept at least tentatively that ajata is the absolute truth.vivartanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-8720574831275600982016-11-19T23:29:36.198+00:002016-11-19T23:29:36.198+00:00Michael,
I clearly understand:
"As we actuall...Michael,<br />I clearly understand:<br />"As we actually are we are never aware of anything other than ourself, and since we are eternal and hence beginningless, this experience of ourself as we actually are called ajāta (which means not born, not begotten, not arisen or not appeared), but as this ego we perceive the appearance of phenomena and are consequently aware of ourself as a separate perceiver, and according to Bhagavan this experience is just vivarta (an illusion or false appearance)." <br />Owing to lack of knowing well English language I do not understand exactly the meaning of the formulation of the following sentence of section 2:<br />"That is, if we imagine that as our actual self we are ever aware of anything other than ourself even to the slightest degree or in any form whatsoever, that would mean...".<br />Particularly I do not grasp the meaning why it is first stated ..."never aware of anything other than ourself..." and then ..."ever aware of anything other than ourself"...<br />Could you please paraphrase the words "That is, if we imagine that as our actual self we are ever aware..." ?<br />Perhaps it means that already the imagination that as our actual self we are ever aware of ...would be completely wrong.kalpitanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32903667191606304962016-11-19T22:18:04.467+00:002016-11-19T22:18:04.467+00:00Michael,
in the article of 28 May 2015 you write:
...Michael,<br />in the article of 28 May 2015 you write:<br />1. The ego is formless and hence featureless<br />2. The ego is a phantom and hence insubstantial<br />3. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 25: how does this ‘formless phantom-ego’ seem to exist?<br />In your recent article you state in section 2:<br />"What can see forms is only our ego, because it comes into existence and stands only by grasping the form of a body as itself. It cannot see what is formless, because having risen as a form it has overlooked its real nature, which is the formless self-awareness that we actually are. Since it is finite, it can see only what is finite (namely phenomena) and can never see the infinite whole. And since it does not actually exist but merely seems to exist, it can only be aware of what seems to exist and can never be aware of what actually exists (or more precisely, it can never be aware of it as it is)."<br />So first you state that the ego is formless and another time you say that our ego comes into existence and stands only by grasping the form of a body as itself.<br />Does the first statement of 28 May 2015 come into conflict with your recent declaration ? Could you please give some explanatory note in this point ?<br />antam-ila kannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-79487279669241972432016-11-19T19:31:06.786+00:002016-11-19T19:31:06.786+00:00To be aware of being plagued by subtle forms of th...To be aware of being plagued by subtle forms of the ego is quite surely high art (of self-awareness or self-control) not widely held.unmai nilainoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-79845594501508337992016-11-19T18:54:47.414+00:002016-11-19T18:54:47.414+00:00daisilui wrote:
"i'd rather invite you a...daisilui wrote:<br /><br />"i'd rather invite you and others to take a closer look of the phenomenon of what you call 'a constant stream of comments' <b>[which you see as attacks]</b> "<br /><br />I do not see them as attacks.<br /><br />Your words seem to indicate that you are ascribing various personality traits to posts that are labeled "Ken" (and perhaps posts that have other user names).<br /><br />That has nothing to do with discussing the teachings of Ramana Maharshi.<br /><br />I only use the user names to connect comments together. I avoid ascribing personalities to user names (something highlighted by the user who - for comedic purposes - posted as "Michael James" to show that the user names are not unique).<br /><br />Except for...<br /><br />Quote: " i doubt that any of the people coming to this blog are what is called a 'troll'."<br /><br />None of the posters this past week, but if you read the previous blog entries, you can find more than one troll. A few are sincere Dvaitists who come to "fight the brave fight" against the "Mayavadis". There is another who asked a question of Michael about his own practice, and received an honest (and correct) assessment that his practice was not as good as Self-Enquiry. Since then he comes here frequently to "troll".<br /><br />quote: "In my view one of the causes may be the discrepancy between the words and the deeds"<br /><br />Sorry, <b>I can only find words here, no deeds at all.</b><br /><br />Quote: "Following the above i perceive a kind of feeling that these discussion do little in practice"<br /><br />That seems to imply an astonishing ability to reach over the Internet and explore the contents of people's minds. That is quite the siddhi !<br /><br />You do know that for everyone who posts comments in an Internet discussion, there are 10 to 100 more who read but never post.<br /><br />There are also those who are the audience I mainly write for - the readers of this blog in 2017, 2018, hopefully 2036, etc.<br /><br />quote: "sometimes discussions evolve around us vs you, right and wrong behavior"<br /><br />There was a long discussion about "is it right to say that one practice is superior to others". Here are some comments by Ramana Maharshi:<br /><br />"But the quest for the Self I speak of is a direct method, indeed superior to the other meditation."<br /><br />"But the best means of realization is the enquiry ‘Who am I?’ "<br /><br />"<b>Q: So one should adhere to the conventional codes of behaviour?<br /><br />Ramana Maharshi: Since the prescribed observances for self-discipline [niyamas] help one to a considerable extent, they are worthy to be accepted and followed. But if they are found to obstruct the superior practice of enquiry for true knowledge, give them up immediately as deficient.</b>"<br /><br />"Ramana Maharshi: Vichara is the process and the goal also. ‘I am’ is the goal and the final reality. To hold to it with effort is vichara. When spontaneous and natural it is realization. If one leaves aside vichara, the most efficacious sadhana, there are no other adequate means whatsoever to make the mind subside. If made to subside by other means, it will remain as if subsided but will rise again. Self- enquiry is the one infallible means, the only direct one, to realize the unconditioned, absolute being that you really are.<br /><br />Q: Why should self-enquiry alone be considered the direct means to jnana?<br /><br />Ramana Maharshi: Because every kind of sadhana except that of atma-vichara [self-enquiry] presupposes the retention of the mind as the instrument for carrying on the sadhana, and without the mind it cannot be practised. The ego may take different and subtler forms at the differ"ent stages of one’s practice, but is itself never destroyed."Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-73316073912360529242016-11-19T17:34:50.776+00:002016-11-19T17:34:50.776+00:00Hello all,
I found this quote interesting. It come...Hello all,<br />I found this quote interesting. It comes from Nisargadatta, but as we know filtered by the editing skills of Maurice Frydman, the editor/writer of “I Am That”.<br />It not related to any of the topics recently discussed.<br />Just an interesting quote.<br />regards, m<br /><br /><i>"All experience is illusory, limited and temporal. Expect nothing from experience. Realization by itself is not an experience, though it may lead to a new dimension of experiences. Yet the new experiences, however interesting, are not more real than the old. Definitely realization is not a new experience. It is the discovery of the timeless factor in every experience. It is awareness, which makes experience possible. Just like in all the colours light is the colourless factor, so in every experience awareness is present, yet it is not an experience.”</i><br />Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-70920870379456319662016-11-19T16:00:08.587+00:002016-11-19T16:00:08.587+00:00Ken, again, i am not interested in engaging in a c...Ken, again, i am not interested in engaging in a controversial discussion of this kind more than necessary...<br /><br />i'd rather invite you and others to take a closer look of the phenomenon of what you call 'a constant stream of comments' [which you see as attacks] from... let's call them 'discontented practitioners'. i doubt that any of the people coming to this blog are what is called a 'troll'. Instead of attacks meant to harm the 'establishment' of this blog, behind their comments i see some sort of discontent/frustration with how things are/where discussions are going in relation to their needs/wants/hopes. Perhaps the expression of this frustration is not always the most appropriate but nevertheless is there and it has a cause.<br /><br />In my view one of the causes may be the discrepancy between the words and the deeds- i.e., quotes from various Masters about the illusion of the I and of the world, of free choice, the Oneness of the Self... and yet sometimes discussions [like this one for example] evolve around me, mine, us vs you, the choice to leave, right and wrong behavior, etc...no different from the quotidian 'dual' life where people are defending their egos, in more or less subtle battles to prove one wrong [while maintaining a righteous image of the "i"].<br /> <br />You say "Discussions perfect our understanding." <br />Following the above i perceive a kind of feeling that these discussion do little in practice either because there's no need for further intellectual perfection [which sometimes looks like an overkill in these discussions] or that this perfection is not effective/changes nothing in one's effort of achieving something [albeit there's nothing to achieve but this 'news' wasn't something they took from these discussions], or because they do not satisfy one's irrational hopes to find the truth in words. Sometimes, simply the seeker's mood is in a 'low', discouraged because other than a more polished intellectual understanding they can't find 'real progress' [again, a false concept that proves the ineffectiveness of the discussions for them]. Nothing happens, life continues as before and they express this in a misdirected frustration like that of ~'this chit-chat is a waste of time' [instead of investigating the cause of it/"where frustration is coming from/who feels it...'].<br /><br />These seekers are coming back because as long as they are seekers they are attached to a human community that for better for worse is the closest thing to their aspirations. These discussions keep their minds busy with 'higher' things rather than with worldly things to which every mind is naturally attracted. So i don't think that your invitation to 'take it or leave it' is realistic- in fact it could go the other way too; it is what is, for both sides- 'intellectuals' and 'practitioners' alike.Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03098205640361255053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-16145224040732909162016-11-19T12:47:13.636+00:002016-11-19T12:47:13.636+00:00Yes, most of us have not investigated ourself keen...Yes, most of us have not investigated ourself keenly enough to recognise what we really are. Therefore we should understand vivarta vada correctly in order to escape from all illusory conditions and ego-bound perspectives. Let us INVESTIGATE THIS EGO and therby see what we actually are.<br />Without keen and sufficient investigation of this ego we will never know the absolute truth. Ajata is the only estimable experience of a human being.unmai nilainoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-89723198234655057772016-11-19T00:26:31.283+00:002016-11-19T00:26:31.283+00:00I always go to lengths to avoid referring to any p...I always go to lengths to avoid referring to any persons, but instead to only talk about spiritual issues.<br /><br />But if you insist on that area of discussion.... you said:<br /><br />"getting busy to finding quotes in defense one's position on matters that more often than not are of little or no importance, is only strengthening the ego. The mind is thriving and the ego too, resting assured under the illusion of being on the 'right path.' "<br /><br />Certainly "are of little or no importance" and "strengthening the ego" are patronizing phrases.<br /><br />When I said: "Lastly, I see a constant stream of comments:", I was referring to a period of months from several different people.<br /><br />I did not characterize it as such beforehand, but certainly:<br /><br />" These conversations are just chit-chat. "<br /><br />and all similar remarks "we should practice and not discuss" are quite patronizing.<br /><br /><i>When someone posts about "these discussions" it is automatically patronizing. It is saying "I get to be the judge of what discussions are worthwhile and what discussions are 'strengthening the ego'."</i><br /><br />In order for someone to judge spiritual discussions as "little or no importance", then they have to know the mental state of everyone who will read this blog over the coming years.<br /><br />When I said:<br /><br />"Then don't come to this web site and read it."<br /><br />that is referring to anyone who objects to discussions happening. This is a blog, and Michael has enabled comments and sometimes responds to comments. People post questions and others respond. Some people point out errors in the comments, in order that others not take those statements as facts.<br /><br />Discussions perfect our understanding. Either other statements stand, or others effectively point out our errors. It's all good.<br /><br />So, if someone is bothered by that process, then they can either just read Michael's blog entries and not read the comments, or else they can do what they are preaching, namely practice and not read web sites.<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-29389730754747820442016-11-18T21:57:33.227+00:002016-11-18T21:57:33.227+00:00"...we should just practice and not have thes..."...we should just practice and not have these discussions." No wonder you see it all black and white as this part seems to be your own black-paint addition to the initially white 'chit-chat comment'...<br />Anyway, if you look at it more carefully my comment on the shades of grey did not refer to interpreting words/statements made on the site but to the variety of reasons people come here- some for passing time, some for the sake of accumulating knowledge, or some others to understand how to get rid of what they think they know. i made that reference in response to your patronizing comment "Then don't come to this web site and read it." that sounded to me like a rather 'ad populum' [would that work as a plural for 'ad hominem', Ken?]Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03098205640361255053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-6295043685275446562016-11-18T21:55:44.368+00:002016-11-18T21:55:44.368+00:00Michael,
in which form do we exist when our body h...Michael,<br />in which form do we exist when our body has died and have not experienced real siddhi till then ?paripurna vastunoreply@blogger.com