tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post2169935557185384960..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: The connection between consciousness and bodyMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-70884180436184156412015-08-18T20:22:57.732+01:002015-08-18T20:22:57.732+01:00In continuation of my previous comment in reply to...In continuation of <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-connection-between-consciousness.html?showComment=1439925578898#c2028802764400459115" rel="nofollow">my previous comment</a> in reply to Samana:<br /><br />In this regard, what Bhagavan wrote in verse 12 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Anubandham</i> is very pertinent:<br /><br />இழிவுடல்யா னென்ன லிகந்திடுக வென்று<br />மொழிவிலின் பாந்தன்னை யோர்க — வழியு<br />முடலோம்ப லோடுதனை யோரவுனல் யாறு<br />கடக்கக் கராப்புணைகொண் டற்று.<br /><br /><i>iṙivuḍalyā ṉeṉṉa lihandiḍuga veṉḏṟu<br />moṙiviliṉ bāndaṉṉai yōrga — vaṙiyu<br />muḍalōmba lōḍudaṉai yōravuṉal yāṟu<br />kaḍakkak karāppuṇaigoṇ ḍaṟṟu</i>.<br /><br /><b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> இழிவு உடல் ‘யான்’ என்னல் இகந்திடுக. என்றும் ஒழிவு இல் இன்பு ஆம் தன்னை ஓர்க. அழியும் உடல் ஓம்பல் ஓடு தனை ஓர உனல் யாறு கடக்க கரா புணை கொண்டு அற்று.<br /><br /><b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>iṙivu uḍal ‘yāṉ’ eṉṉal ihandiḍuga. eṉḏṟum oṙivu il iṉbu ām taṉṉai ōrga. aṙiyum uḍal ōmbal ōḍu taṉai ōra uṉal yāṟu kaḍakka karā puṇai koṇḍu aṟṟu</i>.<br /><br /><b>English translation:</b> Cease considering the wretched body [as] ‘I’. Investigate [or know] yourself, who are ever-unceasing [or imperishable] bliss. Thinking [intending or trying] to know oneself while cherishing the perishable body is like grasping a crocodile [as] a raft to cross a river.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-20288027644004591152015-08-18T20:19:38.898+01:002015-08-18T20:19:38.898+01:00Samana, you seem to be taking what I wrote in this...Samana, you seem to be taking what I wrote in this article about not being concerned with the body out of context and therefore reading a different meaning into what I said in this connection. I referred to not being concerned in three sentences in this article, namely:<br /><br />1: Therefore, since our aim is only to experience consciousness (ourself) in its absolute and original form — which is pure and unlimited self-awareness, unconnected in any way with any finite thing such as a body — we need not be concerned with any ideas about <i>kuṇḍalinī</i> or its location in our body.<br /><br />2: Indeed we should not be concerned with any body-related ideas, because what we should be trying to experience is only ourself, in complete isolation from our body and everything else.<br /><br />and 3: Therefore if we wish to follow his path and thereby to experience what this ‘I’ really is, we should not be concerned with our body or any connection we may seem to have with it, but should focus all our interest and attention only on ourself, the one absolute consciousness or pure self-awareness ‘I am’.<br /><br />When I wrote these three sentences I obviously did not mean to imply that we should completely neglect our body or stop eating, drinking or breathing. The body has its own <i>dharma</i>, which includes the need to breath, drink and eat, so we should allow it to carry on its <i>dharma</i>, but we should not be overly concerned with it and should not give it more attention than is absolutely necessary. Of course, so long as we experience this or any other body as ourself, we will be concerned about it, but if we are intent upon investigating and experiencing who or what we actually are, we should try as far as possible to minimise that concern by attending only to ourself and not to our body or any other thing.<br /><br />In this article I was discussing in a general way <i>yōgic</i> ideas about the connection between consciousness and body, so in this context when I wrote that we should not be concerned with such ideas or ‘with our body or any connection we may seem to have with it’ it should have been clear that the main point I was try to emphasise is that we “should focus all our interest and attention only on ourself, the one absolute consciousness or pure self-awareness ‘I am’”, because this one-pointed focus on ourself is what self-investigation (<i>ātma-vicāra</i>) entails — in fact, it is what <i>ātma-vicāra</i> actually is.<br /><br />Regarding what you write about bodily health and <i>āyurvēda</i>, according to Bhagavan the relative health or illness of the body is determined solely by our <i>prārabdha</i>, so we need not be overly concerned with such matters, because whatever effort we may make to ensure good health or avoid illness will not change our <i>prārabdha</i> in any way but will only create fresh <i>āgāmya</i>. If we are ill and any treatment (whether <i>āyurvēdic</i>, allopathic or whatever) comes to alleviate or cure our illness, that is according to <i>prārabdha</i>, so we should try to avoid being unduly concerned with such matters. Our only aim and concern should be to try to experience ourself alone, in complete isolation from whatever body currently seems to be ourself.<br /><br />(I will continue this reply in my next comment.)Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-36814476422664238512015-08-15T22:31:14.197+01:002015-08-15T22:31:14.197+01:00Namaste - Greetings Michael,
A central question t...Namaste - Greetings Michael,<br /><br />A central question to the article arises, that of 'not being concerned with the body'. There is a clear recognition of all what is discussed and written to here. One need not identify with the body to also have a wellness practice, and Awareness of health itself, as these also contribute and significantly support ones' ability to investigate, increase Awareness, and rest as Presence. <br /><br />Surely it is possible for any health, nutrition, wellness practice to be hijacked or even conditioned to serve self and ego. Ayurveda, for example, and as it is in the Vedas, speaks to longevity, not in the modern sense or understanding, but rather as a means to support the body as the vehicle of Consciousness, that one may have the health and time for Self-realization here.<br /><br />There are certainly many other aspects, such as balance with environment, an ability to sit for great lengths, etc. From my understanding, Sri Ramana had many people preparing conscious meals from an Ayurvedic perspective and Awareness. Ayurveda speaks to both Avidya, and Pragya-Paradh, as addressing the delusions and 'mistake of the intellect'. Vasanas, habits, patterns, conditioning, show up everywhere, especially in regards to diet, health, and ones' relationship to self. This itself maintains identification, as choices made from this, inhibit ones' clarity, Awareness, insight, and recognition of Truth, and maintain the attachment to self. As you are aware, subtle avoidance arises, and can be maintained, which in turn brings suffering, and longing for ones' True-Nature, I AM. <br /><br />It has also been seen that a complete dis-identification with the body starves it, brings neglect, and in turn illness or death. if one succeeds in losing all identity with the body, the biology can get ill and die from neglect. From this knowing can come the understanding and deeper appreciation of the body, and its' need and purpose as a vehicle of Consciousness, the means to go home, to BE home, and a deeper sense and understanding of the survival instincts that arise in the body-mind.<br /><br />The body is not separate. It is a matter of how one identifies with this that is here, present. To "not be concerned with any body-related ideas", is to deny another fact and aspect of what arises here. The body as such, is as much a part of creation and Consciousness, as any and every other aspect, as there is only This, as Oneness. To avoid or not be concerned with 'a part', is to deny and avoid the whole. There is no separation. There can indeed be love and gratitude for this body, and there can indeed be a holistic Consciousness that is inclusive. The body is also an aspect of God. An integrated approach to wellness is but another aspect of integration. Isolation from the body is separation. The body itself may be an idea, but that does not deny its needs. <br /><br />Sri Ramana was well taken care of, as was the Maharaj, Papaji, and many others. For those of us who must do for oneself, there is choice. The body gets hungry, the body gets thirsty, the body has needs. To not care for or recognize the body actually supports ego. The choices one makes in caring for self, or for the body, reflects ones' Awareness, and completely determines the ability to come to rest, be present, and have clear focus and Awareness.<br /><br />With gratitude for all your work<br />Peace and Blessings<br />All Love ૐsamananoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-58275213155931191042015-04-22T01:29:22.503+01:002015-04-22T01:29:22.503+01:00"To focus all our interest and attention only..."To focus all our interest and attention only on our-real-self and to ignore everything else as unreal is grace. Whithout devotion to Arunachala's grace we cannot succeed."<br /><br />Very similar statement comes from Sri David Godman in his interview to a Integral Yoga Magazine:<br /><br />"Ultimately, it is the grace or power of the Self that eliminates the final vestiges of the desire-free mind."<br /><br />The pertinent link is:<br />http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.com/2008/05/interview-with-integral-yoga-magazine.html<br /><br />Since the answers given by Sri David Godman in this interview for the following questions were very beneficial for me, I give them below just in case some others also might have such questions in their minds:<br /><br />Are there books on Ramana Maharshi you would recommend for a beginner?<br /><br />Would you tell us something about Sri Ramana’s own spiritual journey?<br /><br />Many associate the question, ‘Who am I?’ with Sri Ramana’s teachings. Was this the main teaching?<br /><br />Can you explain the technique of self-enquiry? <br /><br />For those who may find this challenging or a bit abstract, are there any helpful hints you could share?<br /><br />What can we do if the mind continues to wander?<br /><br />What about Self-realisation?R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-19728096789972755482015-04-20T02:06:15.735+01:002015-04-20T02:06:15.735+01:00Thank you Michael James for your comment of 18 Feb...Thank you Michael James for your comment of 18 February 2015.<br />Yes, to know 'What is it that actually exists ?' self-investigation is absolutely necessary.Amnye Machennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-57400844111030536022015-04-20T01:52:53.532+01:002015-04-20T01:52:53.532+01:00Michael,
thank you for your three replies all date...Michael,<br />thank you for your three replies all dated 18 February 2015.<br />The comparison of the ego's self-ignorance with a prison cell is clear and vivid.<br />To focus all our interest and attention only on our-real-self and to ignore everything else as unreal is grace. Whithout devotion to Arunachala's grace we cannot succeed.Amalakapriyanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32405537681697129472015-04-20T01:30:55.836+01:002015-04-20T01:30:55.836+01:00Thanks Michael for your reply of 18 February 2015....Thanks Michael for your reply of 18 February 2015.<br />In view of the apparent gigantic power of the (only) apparent existence of the ego to create the illusion i.e. to give the false or deceptive impression on the viewer of having the quality of reality we have the certainty that our original real being must be still more glorious than the(only seeming) ego.Sthanunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-27265329047604191462015-03-10T14:43:16.913+00:002015-03-10T14:43:16.913+00:00Regarding the connection between i and body:
Tho...Regarding the connection between i and body:<br /><br /> Though i seem to be different bodies in different states (waking or dream) , at any given instant , i always experience myself as only one body. I never simultaneously experience two bodies as myself. I always experience myself as one , regardless of whether or not i seem to experience multiplicity (as in waking or dream) , or no multiplicity (in sleep).<br /><br />Here is the experiential conclusion , that i always remain the same one i , yet , i somehow bestow consciousness 'i' on insentient bodies while at the same time deep down experiencing myself as same i.who?noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-9614968273667134992015-02-26T08:56:13.910+00:002015-02-26T08:56:13.910+00:00Michael! Thankyou so much for your wonderful reply...Michael! Thankyou so much for your wonderful reply to those questions. I only just saw them now which is why I was so late in getting back to you. I will forward them to our google group and I will refer the questioner to your blog if he has any more questions! Thanks again! Peace.Itinerant Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16034487188217683702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-28246042907564142052015-02-20T14:49:41.579+00:002015-02-20T14:49:41.579+00:00Dear Sri Michael James, thanks so much for pointin...Dear Sri Michael James, thanks so much for pointing out that my interpretation of chit jada granthi (as the knot of Chit, the absolute consciousness and jada, the relative consciousness) is wrong. <br /><br />I will try to remember your statements:<br /> <br />"cit-jaḍa-granthi means the knot (granthi) that ties the conscious (cit) and the non-conscious (jaḍa) together as if they were one".<br /><br />"the ego alone is relative consciousness".R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-18195060022001283032015-02-19T14:09:53.568+00:002015-02-19T14:09:53.568+00:00In continuation of my previous comment in reply to...In continuation of <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-connection-between-consciousness.html?showComment=1424354819999#c1914471628401211861" rel="nofollow">my previous comment</a> in reply to Itinerant Yogi:<br /><br />11. According to Sri Ramana there is only one ego or soul, namely ourself, just as in a dream there is only one person who is actually experiencing it.<br /><br />12. The universe and everything that seems to exist in it is experienced only by the ego, so it does not exist independent of the ego. As Sri Ramana said in verse 26 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>: ‘If the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist. [Hence] the ego itself is everything. [...]’.<br /><br />13. Rather than concerning ourself with what may happen in future, we should first investigate ourself in order to experience ourself as we actually are now. If we do so, according to Sri Ramana we will find that we are the one timeless and immutable reality, for which there is no past or future.<br /><br />14. Whatever we may actually be, we now experience ourself as a body and mind, which cannot be what we actually are, because every day we experience their disappearance in sleep and their reappearance in waking. Therefore we need to investigate ourself in order to experience ourself as we actually are. Mental disturbance can occur only when we experience ourself as a mind, so if we experience ourself as we actually are, there can be no mental disturbance.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-19144716284012118612015-02-19T14:06:59.999+00:002015-02-19T14:06:59.999+00:00Itinerant Yogi, regarding the questions you list i...Itinerant Yogi, regarding the questions you list in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-connection-between-consciousness.html?showComment=1423038176338#c6920737785735484837" rel="nofollow">your comment</a>:<br /><br />1. Sri Ramana experienced himself as he really is by investigating himself — that is, by turning his mind inwards in order to try to experience what ‘I’ actually is. Because his mind was to a very great extent free from all attachments, he was able to experience himself alone, and thus in a brief moment he experienced himself as he actually is. Therefore at that moment he ceased to exist as a person (though in the self-ignorant view of others he seemed to continue to be the same person), and merged forever in the one infinite reality, which is what we each actually are.<br /><br />2. According to Sri Ramana, what we actually are (our real self) is the infinite and eternal reality, so it has no birth or death, and is in no way connected to any human body. However, at present we do not experience ourself as we actually are, and hence we mistake ourself to be a body, which was born and will one day die. When we experience ourself thus, we are experiencing ourself as an ego, but this ego is not limited to just one body, because it is able to create a body for itself whenever it rises, as it does for example in a dream. This ability of the ego to project a body from within itself and to experience it as itself is what gives rise to the appearance of repeated births and deaths.<br /><br />3. As the ego, we always limit our existence to the extent of a particular body (currently our present body, and in any other state some other body), so as such we cannot be said to have our circumference nowhere. However, even when we mistake ourself to be this ego, what we actually are is only pure and infinite consciousness or self-awareness, in whose view no other thing exists or even seems to exist. Therefore as the pure and infinite consciousness that we actually are, we are devoid of any limits, and hence our circumference is nowhere.<br /><br />4. People have many different conceptions of God, but according to Sri Ramana the real nature of God is nothing other than ourself — what we actually are. As such, he is neither superficial nor material, but is only pure, infinite and formless self-awareness.<br /><br />5. God is what actually is, so he is not superficial being, and he has never come into existence, because what actually is exists eternally and without any change.<br /><br />6. Whatever is material must have a form of one kind or another, so there is no such thing as ‘formless matter’.<br /><br />7. The universe is just a set of ideas or thoughts in our own mind, and our mind arises only in us, so what is outside the universe is only ourself.<br /><br />8. There is no ‘existence’ separate from or other than what actually exists, and according to Sri Ramana what actually exists is only ourself. Everything else is just an illusion, which seems to exist only when we mistake ourself to be an ego.<br /><br />9. The word ‘soul’ is generally used as a synonym for the ego, and since the ego is an illusion — a false appearance — it is not deathless. It came into existence as a result of our self-negligence, so it will cease to exist if we investigate ourself by trying persistently to be self-attentive. Since Sri Ramana had investigated himself thoroughly, he no longer has any ego, so he is the infinite reality, for which there can be no birth or death.<br /><br />10. As the infinite reality, Sri Ramana is our real self — what we actually are — so the best way to communicate with him is just to attend to ourself alone. His real language is silence, so we can tune into his silence, so to speak, only by being silently self-attentive.<br /><br />(I will continue this reply in my next comment.)Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-52350632557182011022015-02-19T12:49:12.157+00:002015-02-19T12:49:12.157+00:00Yes, Venkat, the ego is just a thought, but it is ...Yes, Venkat, the ego is just a thought, but it is a thought unlike any other thought, because whereas all other thoughts are non-conscious objects, which do not experience anything, it is the conscious subject, which is what experiences both itself and all other thoughts. That is, whereas all other thoughts are <i>jaḍa</i> (non-conscious), the ego is <i>cit-jaḍa-granthi</i>, a confused mixture of the conscious (<i>cit</i>) and the non-conscious (<i>jaḍa</i>).<br /><br />Therefore, since the ego experiences itself as ‘I’, it is able to investigate itself, and if it does so sufficiently deeply, it will cease to be the finite ego that it now seems to be, and will instead remain as the infinite consciousness (<i>cit</i>) that it actually is.<br /><br />You say, ‘There is no entity there’. It is true that according to Bhagavan the ego does not actually exist as such, but it seems to exist, and only because it seems to exist do all other things also seem to exist. When we actually experience the non-existence of the ego, everything else will also cease to exist, because the ego alone is the foundation for the appearance of everything else, since everything else seems to exist only in its view.<br /><br />The pure consciousness that we actually are does not need to investigate itself, because it always clearly experiences itself as it really is, so self-investigation is necessary only for the ego. That is, when we experience ourself as if we were this ego, as such we must investigate ourself in order to experience ourself as we really are. Therefore when we practise self-investigation, what directs its attention to itself is only ourself as the ego.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-51932547193288418102015-02-18T20:04:48.311+00:002015-02-18T20:04:48.311+00:00Dear Michael,
When you say the "ego starts to...Dear Michael,<br />When you say the "ego starts to investigate itself", the ego is just a thought. There is no entity there. So how can one thought "investigate" itself?<br /><br />If what we are is pure consciousness, with thought, body and world arising like a dream on this screen of consciousness, what is it that is directing thought to investigate itself? To pay attention to itself.<br /><br />I hope this makes sense.<br /><br />Best,<br />venkatvenkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-73183278072814913922015-02-18T19:22:34.498+00:002015-02-18T19:22:34.498+00:00Amalakapriya, regarding what you write in your com...Amalakapriya, regarding what you write in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-connection-between-consciousness.html?showComment=1422980197550#c4342154338967344483" rel="nofollow">your comment of 3 February</a>, when I wrote in the final paragraph of this article ‘So long as we allow ourself to attend to anything other than ourself’, in this clause not only the ‘we’ and the first ‘ourself’ but also the second ‘ourself’ all refer only to ourself as the ego, because what we really are (our true ‘I’, as you call it) is infinite, and hence nothing can be other than it. Therefore everything that seems to be other than ourself is only other than our ego and not other than what we actually are.<br /><br />When I wrote in the same paragraph, “so Sri Ramana advises us to try to attend only to ourself, the ‘I’ who is conscious of both ourself and all those other things”, I did not mean that we should attend to or be conscious of anything other than ourself, but only that we should attend to or be conscious of ourself alone.<br /><br />Therefore as you imply, we need not be concerned about the appearance or seeming reality of our body or any of the other extraneous things that we experience, but should focus all our interest and attention only on ourself. Bhagavan taught us that everything else is unreal only to encourage us to ignore them and to attend only to what is real, namely ourself alone.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-61461680548979156402015-02-18T18:37:49.074+00:002015-02-18T18:37:49.074+00:00Amnye Machen, regarding the question asked by your...Amnye Machen, regarding the question asked by your visitor that you refer to in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-connection-between-consciousness.html?showComment=1422654852008#c7694020672986196877" rel="nofollow">your first comment</a>, namely ‘How can anything exist?’, this is a question for which there can be no meaningful answer. It is like the popular philosophical question, ‘Why is there something and not nothing?’ The fact that something does exist cannot be explained by anything other than itself: it just does exist, and nothing more than that can be said to explain it.<br /><br />What is a more useful question than either ‘Why does something exist?’ or ‘How can anything exist?’ is ‘What is it that actually exists?’ Many things seem to exist, but just because something seems to exist does not mean that it actually exists, so what is it that actually exists? Everything other than ourself could be an illusion, because though it seems to us that such things exist, we cannot be sure that they actually exist.<br /><br />Therefore the only thing that we can be sure does actually exist is ourself, because whether other things are real or illusory, in order to experience them we must exist. Moreover, not only do we experience the (seeming or actual) existence of other things, but we also experience our own existence, ‘I am’, and even when we do not experience the existence of anything else, as in sleep, we still experience our own existence. Therefore the fact that we exist is indubitable. Even if the existence of all other things is an illusion, we ourself are something that does certainly exist.<br /><br />However, though it is certain <i>that I am</i>, at present I cannot be certain about <i>what I am</i>, because I now experience myself as certain transient phenomena such as a body and mind. Since I do not always experience myself as this body and mind (because in dream I experience myself as some other body, and in sleep I experience myself without experiencing any body or mind), they cannot be what I really am, so Bhagavan advises us to investigate ourself in order to experience ourself as we really are.<br /><br />Therefore the question ‘What is it that actually exists?’ logically leads us to the need to investigate what we actually are, so it is a useful question in so far as it prompts us to investigate ourself, the only certainly existing thing.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-12003828647157495512015-02-18T17:45:21.462+00:002015-02-18T17:45:21.462+00:00Amalakapriya, as you say in your comment of 30 Jan...Amalakapriya, as you say in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-connection-between-consciousness.html?showComment=1422654852008#c7694020672986196877" rel="nofollow">your comment of 30 January</a>, the ego does have a leading role to play in self-investigation, because it is only the ego that needs to investigate itself. However, though it is the ego that starts to investigate itself, as a result of its self-investigation it will subside and merge in its source and substance, namely ourself, so what remains at the end of the process of self-investigation is only ourself — what we actually are.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-56886141539616230322015-02-18T17:33:27.275+00:002015-02-18T17:33:27.275+00:00Viswanathan, in your comment of 30 January you wro...Viswanathan, in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-connection-between-consciousness.html?showComment=1422601356202#c3829392874748435743" rel="nofollow">your comment of 30 January</a> you wrote, ‘The mind being Chit-jada-kranthi (the knot of Chit, the absolute consciousness and jada, the relative consciousness), one needs to strive to discard the jada aspect’, but it is not actually correct to interpret <i>jaḍa</i> as ‘the relative consciousness’. In this context <i>jaḍa</i> means non-conscious or insentient, so anything that is <i>jaḍa</i> is not conscious at all. Therefore <i>cit-jaḍa-granthi</i> means the knot (<i>granthi</i>) that ties the conscious (<i>cit</i>) and the non-conscious (<i>jaḍa</i>) together as if they were one.<br /><br />What is actually conscious (<i>cit</i>) is only what we really are, and everything else is non-conscious (<i>jaḍa</i>), but the former alone actually exists, whereas the latter merely seems to exist. But how and in whose view does the latter seem to exist? Only in the view of the ego, which is <i>cit-jaḍa-granthi</i>, a confused mixture of ourself, who alone are conscious (<i>cit</i>), and various adjuncts such as a physical body, all of which are non-conscious (<i>jaḍa</i>).<br /><br />Since everything that is non-conscious (<i>jaḍa</i>) exists only in the view of the ego, the ego alone is relative consciousness. Therefore relative consciousness is not <i>jaḍa</i> but a confused combination of <i>cit</i> and <i>jaḍa</i>, and hence it is known as <i>cit-jaḍa-granthi</i>.<br /><br />As you say, we need to discard the <i>jaḍa</i> aspect of the ego in order to experience ourself (the <i>cit</i> aspect) as we really are, and according to Bhagavan the only way to discard it is to try to attend to and experience ourself alone.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-14715327723996392862015-02-18T16:31:24.672+00:002015-02-18T16:31:24.672+00:00Amalakapriya, regarding what your write about the ...Amalakapriya, regarding what your write about the ego in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-connection-between-consciousness.html?showComment=1422538449927#c41823581389179107" rel="nofollow">your first comment</a>, our self-ignorance is like a prison cell, the door of which is our ego. Our ego keeps us locked inside this prison cell, but it is also the only way out. So long as we attend to anything other than ourself, the door is thereby kept securely locked, but we can unlock it and escape by attending only to ourself (which is what we now experience as this ego, but which is actually the infinite reality).Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-13529165485337914872015-02-18T12:58:44.169+00:002015-02-18T12:58:44.169+00:00Sthanu, regarding the first question you asked in ...Sthanu, regarding the first question you asked in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-connection-between-consciousness.html?showComment=1421751623736#c6945426568433414622" rel="nofollow">your first comment</a>, ‘How comes/came the awful event of the quoted “now-experience” into being?’, according to Bhagavan time (like everything else) is just a creation of our ego, so to understand how time came into existence we must understand how the ego came into existence — that is, how we came to mistake ourself to be this ego. However, if we investigate this ego, we will find that it does not actually exist, and that therefore none of its creations such as time and this entire universe actually exist.<br /><br />Therefore the only useful answer to your first question is Bhagavan’s advice that we should first investigate the ego that experiences time in order to ascertain whether or not it actually exists. This is also the only useful answer to all your other questions.<br /><br />So long as our ego seems to exist, numerous other things and distinctions between them will also seem to exist, and hence we will be able raise endless series of questions about them. Whatever answer may be given to one question will give rise to another question, so there will be no end to the questions we can ask until we investigate ourself to ascertain whether we are actually the ego that we now seem to be. If we persevere in this investigation until we experience ourself as we really are, we will thereby dissolve the illusion that we are this ego and that other things therefore exist.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-45741554586466439752015-02-07T02:15:57.256+00:002015-02-07T02:15:57.256+00:00The latest change in the website to show only the ...The latest change in the website to show only the first couple of paragraphs of each article is very useful to me because I often go back to consult or read older articles.<br /><br />Thanks to Michael for the new layout.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-69207377857354848372015-02-04T08:22:56.338+00:002015-02-04T08:22:56.338+00:00Hi Michael. Someone in our little Ramana Maharshi ...Hi Michael. Someone in our little Ramana Maharshi google group has asked the following series of questions. Would appreciate any helpful reply you could give as his questions do seem very sincere and earnest. Thanks and peace:<br /><br />1.whether sri. Ramana maharishi realized self; then tell me , how it is ?<br /> 2.if self has no birth and death ; then why it is fitting into human body?<br /> 3.if its circumference is no where ; then why we are not consious about some thing outside our body at certain distance 'x'.<br /> 4. let 'god ' be the omni present ; is he a superficial being or formless ,undestructive matter?<br /> 5. if god is superficial being ; how he came into existence?<br /> 6.if god is a formless matter matter ; how matter can raise thought? 7.what is outside universe?<br />8. what is existence ? i think evervy thing is maya or big illusion?<br /> 9.if soul has no death ; why ramana maharshi cannot take immediate birth into new body?<br />10.how to communicate with ramana maharshi ; who is in still existence ?<br />11. how many souls are created at the time of creation ?<br />12. is every thing which exist in universe is only one soul?<br /> 13.what is the idea for the man after universe?<br />14. i cant understand . if iam the self; then why realization of self; iam thinking yes;then why to verify who is thinking ; which leads to mental disturbance ; may cause some mental problems...Itinerant Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16034487188217683702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-43421543389673444832015-02-03T16:16:37.550+00:002015-02-03T16:16:37.550+00:00Regarding last paragraph:
So long as we[1] allow o...Regarding last paragraph:<br />So long as we[1] allow ourself[2] to attend to anything other than ourself[3],<br />our body and all the other extraneous things that we thus experience seem to be real, so Sri Ramana advices us to try to attend only to ourself…<br />Here we have to be aware of different subjects:<br />[1]: „we“ , that is our ego<br />[2] : „ourself“ , that is also the ego<br />[3] : „ourself“ , that is our true ‚I‘<br /><br />Why should we care about the seeming reality of body and extraneous things that we thus experience ?<br />Our task is to try to attend only to ourself or to focus all our interest and attention only on ourself, the one absolute consciousness or pure self-awareness 'I am'.<br /> I do not think that it is my responsibility to keep watch over the (seeming) appearance or reality of <br />body and extraneous things. So I would let them seem to be real - or to be real. That does not fall within my competence.Amalakapriyanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-48706834438112635482015-02-02T10:33:36.993+00:002015-02-02T10:33:36.993+00:00Thank you both,
R Viswanathan and Sundar, for the ...Thank you both,<br />R Viswanathan and Sundar, for the given explaining of 'artha vada'.Amnye Machennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-40137529074810013792015-02-02T08:17:18.010+00:002015-02-02T08:17:18.010+00:00Meaning of artha vada. Kanchi Paramacharya gives a...Meaning of artha vada. Kanchi Paramacharya gives an example below<br /><br />/**<br />*svakarmaNA tam-abhyarchya siddhiM vindati mAnavaH* -- A person by doing his svadharma as a dedication to God, attains the goal – so says the Gita in its last chapter. Those who say that karma yoga is a direct SAdhanA for moksha, interpret the word ‘siddhi’ here as ‘mokshaM’. But the Acharya explains: “The siddhi that is spoken of here is only the eligibility for jnAna-yoga; the end-goal (siddhi) of karma-yoga is the transition from the stage of renunciation of the fruits of action to the stage of renunciation of karma itself so that one can enter the stage of jnAna yoga and pursue the enquiry of the Atman all the time”. Reading his impeccable logic with all its pros and cons one is sure that this is the correct understanding. Wherever the Gita extols karma yoga to the skies, it should be taken as ‘artha-vAda’, says the Acharya. To cheer us up and encourage us to go by a certain path is what ‘artha-vAda’ means. It is like telling the child to learn its alphabet in order that ‘the child may become king of the country’! This cheering up is nothing but ‘artha-vAda’. In other words, it is an exaggeration done in the best interests and well-meant. When we wail in desperation :“Only jnAna is the path to moksha; but I am not able to go the jnAna path; I think I have to only sweat it out with this karma” – the Lord, in order to cheer us up in the path which is suitable to us, says: “Don’t under-estimate karma yoga like that, my dear; this karma yoga can do this, can do that, in fact it will give you such and such merits”. However when he talks about the JnAni, ‘The JnAni is nothing but myself’ (*jnAnIt-vAtmaiva me mataM*), ‘The JnAnis are those who have reached my bhAva’ (*mad-bhAvam-AgatAH*) – so says He in right earnest.<br />**/sundarnoreply@blogger.com