tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post2904131445973524338..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: What should we believe?Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-1611283400135502452014-09-26T08:35:05.347+01:002014-09-26T08:35:05.347+01:00Venkat, you should be able to understand the answe...Venkat, you should be able to understand the answer to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-should-we-believe.html?showComment=1410689366872#c4387785076925137390" rel="nofollow">your question</a> by reading my latest article, <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/metaphysical-solipsism-idealism-and.html" rel="nofollow">Metaphysical solipsism, idealism and creation theories in the teachings of Sri Ramana</a>, so I will give just a brief reply to it here.<br /><br />According to <i>ēka-jīva-vāda</i> and <i>dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda</i>, there is one ego or <i>jīva</i> who perceives this world, which does not exist except in the view (the perception or experience) of that one ego. Therefore what causes the appearance of creation (<i>sṛṣṭi</i>) is only the perception (<i>dṛṣṭi</i>) of the ego.<br /><br />The rising or appearance of this ego and consequently of the world is the <i>jāta</i> (birth or coming into existence) that is explicitly denied by <i>ajāta-vāda</i>. That is, <i>ēka-jīva-vāda</i> and <i>dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda</i> accept the appearance of the ego and world (though they deny that their appearance is real), whereas <i>ajāta-vāda</i> denies even their appearance.<br /><br />What <i>ēka-jīva-vāda</i> and <i>dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda</i> on the one hand and <i>ajāta-vāda</i> on the other hand agree upon is that the ego and world do not actually exist, but whereas <i>ēka-jīva-vāda</i> and <i>dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda</i> accept that the ego and world do at least seem to exist and are therefore a false appearance (<i>vivarta</i>), <i>ajāta-vāda</i> denies that they even seem to exist. This is why Bhagavan distinguished <i>dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda</i> from <i>ajāta-vāda</i>.<br /><br />What you have wrongly assumed in your question is that <i>ēka-jīva-vāda</i> implies that there is no creation but only perception, whereas in fact if anything is perceived it will seem to have come into existence or been created. <i>Ēka-jīva-vāda</i> and <i>dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda</i> are complementary theories, because each implies the other, and according to <i>dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda</i> creation does seem to exist but is just a false appearance. Therefore though there is ultimately no creation according to this pair of theories, they do accept that there seems to be a world that has come into existence, and they say that it has been created only by ego’s perception of it, just as the world we see in a dream is created only by our perception of it.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-12216093447679819642014-09-26T08:30:36.719+01:002014-09-26T08:30:36.719+01:00Sankarraman, as promised I have replied to your co...Sankarraman, as promised I have replied to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-should-we-believe.html?showComment=1409843224245#c5273648046899715332" rel="nofollow">your comment of 4 September 2014 16:07</a> in a separate article, <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/metaphysical-solipsism-idealism-and.html" rel="nofollow">Metaphysical solipsism, idealism and creation theories in the teachings of Sri Ramana</a>, which I have posted here today.<br /><br />I hope this article answers satisfactorily all the questions you asked in this regard, and also some of the other comments above, such as <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-should-we-believe.html?showComment=1409901159527#c7315658109869347106" rel="nofollow">the anonymous reply to your comment posted on 5 September 2014 08:12</a> and <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-should-we-believe.html?showComment=1410689366872#c4387785076925137390" rel="nofollow">the question asked by Venkat in his comment of 14 September 2014 11:09</a>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-43877850769251373902014-09-14T11:09:26.872+01:002014-09-14T11:09:26.872+01:00Dear Michael,
Bhagavan said that ajata vada was t...Dear Michael,<br /><br />Bhagavan said that ajata vada was the ultimate truth, in his experience. He also said that eka jiva vada (drsti srsti vada) was the 'closest' to ajata vada.<br /><br />How did Bhagavan see these two being different, given that eka jiva vada says there is no existent creation, it is just the perceiving of it (i.e. it is a dream)?<br /><br />Best wishes,<br />venkatVenkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-21557855007245933492014-09-09T17:25:47.470+01:002014-09-09T17:25:47.470+01:00Thank you, Bruckner for your well meaning advice. ...Thank you, Bruckner for your well meaning advice. I appreciate your concern and deep passion for the abidance in the ' TIMELESS NOW.'Sankarramanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718256859263931847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-89478174315992765982014-09-09T11:44:42.590+01:002014-09-09T11:44:42.590+01:00Sankarraman,
please do not misunderstand me as a r...Sankarraman,<br />please do not misunderstand me as a rebuking teacher. Reading your comments and finding there many quotations and cross-references I feel it would be helpful to express the following advice:<br />A "deep seeker" goes deeply inward and tries to be immediately now the "Timeless Now".<br />Permanent philosophic discussions are very interestingly but primarily thought - exercises. Surely you know that by yourself : Trying to compare and verbalise all the ideas of all philosophers of all the world and all times is not the road which takes you to the subject of Self-enquiry. At the end of such efforts you will be the best "comparer".<br />But to be deep-rooted in Self-abidance trace the river - your mind-tendence to compare - to its source.<br />So you have to make your choice...Josef Brucknernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-82660432706503374952014-09-09T06:06:28.378+01:002014-09-09T06:06:28.378+01:00There is this question being raised by some that a...There is this question being raised by some that as against the transition from the dream state to the waking state being effortless,, why not the transition from the waking state to our natural state be not similarly effortless. I think that this question is being raised loosing sight of the truth that the waking state to which one enters from the dream state is similar to the very same dream state in a qualitative sense, one still being swayed by the ignorance of ' I' thought. Further, the testimony of the waking state in regard to there having been such an effortless transition from the dream state is very dubious and arbitrary, the dream state itself being a waking state, and such a question not arising in the dream state. Hence one should look forward to the true, unbroken state inter penetration the three states, rather being the only reality in and behind such fugitive states, such transient states being superimposed on the true Self not admitting of the three states. Hence the ' Who Am I' enquiry isn't , as is believed, is confined to the waking state, but has its ground on the timeless ' Now' transcending the three states. Such an enquiry isn't a sort of a time-bound phenomenon, but presupposes the questioning of the very reality of time in which process one should be able to transcend the sense of time, which is no more than the three states, and abide in the present. Since this subject is deeply inward, I am not able to adequately verbalise it.Sankarramanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718256859263931847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-65279759427203304692014-09-08T14:30:44.154+01:002014-09-08T14:30:44.154+01:00Regarding the idea of all the forbears and desce...Regarding the idea of all the forbears and descendants for seven generations of an enlightened man would be vouchsafed enlightenment, such naive beliefs are being encouraged by many persons claiming to be Advaitins unfortunately. As you say it presupposes the idea of the objective world being taken for granted to exist in its own right, and others are not one's own mental projections, a hard nut to crack till one is able to be ready to accept the idea of the individual self being a false one. Strangely enough, one Visihtadvaitin indulged in an argument with me that with the realisation of Sankara, if Advaita were true, the world should have become null and void, and Bhagavan Ramana should not have incarnated. In Yoga Sutras also, there is very much this emphasis on the idea that with the liberation of one Purusa, the world of Gunas doesn't cease to exist, but exists for other Purusas not having been emancipated. In Brahmasutras also there is the idea of the bound souls being merged in the Unmanifest, and being again born in the Manifest, the deep sleep analogy being used. I think these are all only provisional truths, to which a deep seeker of the Self shouldn't succumb.Sankarramanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718256859263931847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-77634904329420718842014-09-07T18:34:01.406+01:002014-09-07T18:34:01.406+01:00Sankarraman, I have begun to draft a reply to your...Sankarraman, I have begun to draft a reply to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-should-we-believe.html?showComment=1409843224245#c5273648046899715332" rel="nofollow">your comment of 4 September 2014 16:07</a>, but since it will be quite long, I will write it as a separate article, which I will try to complete and post here later this month.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-19556118312072850312014-09-07T12:55:07.187+01:002014-09-07T12:55:07.187+01:00Sankarraman, as Bhagavan clearly implies in verses...Sankarraman, as Bhagavan clearly implies in verses 15 to 17 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Anubandham</i> and in verse 8 of <a href="http://www.happinessofbeing.com/ramanopadesa_nunmalai.html#ut_intro" rel="nofollow"><i>Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ</i></a>, <i>siddhis</i> are not only illusory but are also delusions for whoever believes they have such powers. And as he says in verse 35 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, they are no more real than any supernatural powers we may seem to have in a dream.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-10400870363001347742014-09-07T12:30:00.524+01:002014-09-07T12:30:00.524+01:00Do the Sindhis spoken of in the Yoga Sutras of Pat...Do the Sindhis spoken of in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, foisted very much on some recent Swamys claiming themselves to be special manifestation of God, have some relative significance, or mere illusions like the dream state as staed in ' Ulladu Narpadu Anubandam?'Sankarramanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718256859263931847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-7993074764416944912014-09-07T12:22:26.586+01:002014-09-07T12:22:26.586+01:00Thank you for your clarification.Thank you for your clarification.Sankarramanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718256859263931847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-26372131008908858132014-09-07T10:55:05.726+01:002014-09-07T10:55:05.726+01:00Sankarraman, regarding your comment of 3 September...Sankarraman, regarding <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-should-we-believe.html?showComment=1409759860107#c6060574454714306540" rel="nofollow">your comment of 3 September 2014 16:57</a>: I believe that it was Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (the 16th century founder of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, to which ISKCON (the so-called ‘Hare Krishna movement’) belongs) who first said that he wanted to taste sugar and not become sugar (meaning that it is better to be a devotee of God than to become God, because only as a devotees can one enjoy the bliss of God), and that Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was only quoting him when he referred to this analogy, saying that this is the view of dualistic devotees.<br /><br />Bhagavan said that this analogy was inappropriate, because it implies that God is <i>jaḍa</i> (insentient) like sugar, and because we can truly enjoy the infinite bliss that is God by merging and becoming one with him.<br /><br />From many things he said, it is clear that Ramakrishna’s own experience was <i>advaita</i>, so I am sure he would have agreed with Bhagavan’s repudiation of this sugar analogy.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-84085033082094990042014-09-07T10:25:53.932+01:002014-09-07T10:25:53.932+01:00In continuation of my previous comment in reply to...In continuation of <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-should-we-believe.html?showComment=1410081670417#c940285907755360646" rel="nofollow">my previous comment</a> in reply to Sankarraman:<br /><br />Regarding my <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-should-we-believe.html?showComment=1409688791908#c4897093547573614767" rel="nofollow">earlier reply</a> to what you wrote about the ‘metaphysical inexactitude’ of the statement ‘I think, therefore I am’, I do not think there is any communication gap between us. I think we can both agree that a ‘metaphysical inexactitude’ is any metaphysical claim that is either demonstrably false or at least not certainly true. In this sense, the statement ‘I think, therefore I am’ is a ‘metaphysical inexactitude’, because though its conclusion ‘I am’ is certainly true, its premise ‘I think’ is not certainly true.<br /><br />As you implied when you wrote about losing ‘interest in these intellectual ideas in view of absence of liberating knowledge in them’, we should not allow ourself to get distracted by any unnecessary and dubious philosophical arguments, but should concern ourself only with arguments that help us in our aim, which is only to investigate and experience what ‘I’ actually is. Until we experience ourself as we really are, whatever else we may know or believe we know about the world or anything other than ‘I’ will be of no real use to us.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-9402859077553606462014-09-07T10:21:10.417+01:002014-09-07T10:21:10.417+01:00Sankarraman, regarding your comment of 3 September...Sankarraman, regarding <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-should-we-believe.html?showComment=1409753879362#c1950912756019877868" rel="nofollow">your comment of 3 September 2014 15:17</a>: I do not know much about Sartre or existentialist philosophy, but from what I have read it appears that most so-called existentialist philosophers assume that all or many things that seem to exist (such as the world that seems to exist outside ourself) actually do exist, and that in spite of the name ‘existentialism’ they do not adequately consider the essential question: what does actually exist?<br /><br />As I have argued in many articles such as <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/only-i-am-is-certain-and-self-evident.html" rel="nofollow">Only ‘I am’ is certain and self-evident</a> and <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/establishing-that-i-am-and-analysing.html" rel="nofollow">Establishing <i>that</i> I am and analysing <i>what</i> I am</a>, what certainly exists is only ‘I’, and whatever else seems to exist could be an illusion. If ‘I’ alone actually exists (as Bhagavan wrote in the <a href="http://www.happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para07" rel="nofollow">seventh paragraph of <i>Nāṉ Yār?</i></a> and in verse 5 of <i>Ēkāṉma Pañcakam</i>), whatever else seems to exist is actually just a misperception of ‘I’ (that is, what we experience as many things is actually just our single self). We obviously cannot prove by logical argument that this is the case, so in order to ascertain whether or not ‘I’ alone actually exists we must investigate ourself and thereby experience what this ‘I’ actually is. By logical argument we can only conclude that I alone certainly exist, and that other things may or may not exist.<br /><br />Therefore if we want a philosophy based on existence (that is, on உள்ளது (<i>uḷḷadu</i>): what is), it should be a philosophy centred only around ‘I’ and not one that assumes that anything else actually exists. In other words, it should be a philosophy that is sceptical about the existence of everything other than ‘I’. In this sense Bhagavan's teachings offer us a truly existentialist philosophy, and any philosophy that blindly assumes the existence of anything other than ‘I’ does not deserve the name ‘existentialism’, because what it is concerned with is only phenomena (what seems to exist) rather than existence (what actually exists).<br /><br />Regarding Sartre’s claim that ‘existence precedes essence’, this presupposes that ‘existence’ is something that somehow exists independent of essence. If ‘essence’ means what something essentially is (that is, what it actually is), there can be no existence independent of essence, because ‘existence’ must be existence of something, and what that something essentially is is its essence. Since there is no existence other than what actually is, and since any real essence must be what actually is (because if it were not, it would not exist and would therefore not be the essence of anything), existence cannot be anything other than essence. Therefore from a metaphysical perspective, ‘existence precedes essence’ is a meaningless statement, the falseness of which can be logically demonstrated by simple analysis of the terms it employs. Within the limited terms of reference of Sartre’s rather mundane philosophy, ‘existence precedes essence’ may have some meaning, but whatever meaning it may have for him, it is not metaphysically significant.<br /><br />Due to the limit imposed on the length of any comment, I will continue this reply in my next comment.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-13742066461063534252014-09-05T13:44:31.981+01:002014-09-05T13:44:31.981+01:00Anonymous is absolutely correct in his averment th...Anonymous is absolutely correct in his averment that the position of Bhagavan is ' Ajada,' there being no second opinion about it whatsoever. I attempted to understand it in my own crude way.Sankarramanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718256859263931847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-73156581098693471062014-09-05T08:12:39.527+01:002014-09-05T08:12:39.527+01:00I am sorry to interrupt Mr. Sankararaman here. As ...I am sorry to interrupt Mr. Sankararaman here. As I understand from reading Sri Ramana, his stand point was <i>ajativada</i>, a natural consequence of which is there is no any <i>jiva</i>. Further, Sri Muruganar reinforces this point in <i>Guru Vachaka Kovai</i>, Verse 100.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-52736480468997153322014-09-04T16:07:04.245+01:002014-09-04T16:07:04.245+01:00, In the blog of David Godman Siddeshwarananda, a ..., In the blog of David Godman Siddeshwarananda, a monk of the Ramakrishna Order of France, a devotee of Bhagavan also, has been reported to have said that the ' Dhrisht-Shrishti Vada' very much attributed to Bhagavan, was a degenerate philosophy, which Bhagavan didn't actually teach, but was a misunderstanding laboured under by some. The Swamy has expressed the opinion that this thought borders on the solipsistic philosophy expounded by the British academic philosophers Bishop Berkely and Bradely, the latter having written a book called ' Appearance and Reality' very much quoted by Dr S.Radhakrishnan, the late President of India and an exponent of Advaita to the Western mind. I think that what Bhagavan has taught isn't solipsism or the subjective idealism of the Yogachar Buddhism, but is a practical way to highlight the truth of the objective world having no existence bereft of the subjective ' I' thought, the world being no more than an expansion of the first person ' I' thought.' In this context, I am of the view that there are not several subjective ' I' thoughts, as one may believe by virtue of the extroverted vision one is accustomed to by virtue of the identification of the ' I' with the body, but is the one undivided error of which no multiplicity can be predicated. I think that just as there is only one absolute self, so also there is only one unreal ' I' identified with the body. Even the word one is only semantically real void of any reality. The solipsistic philosophy expounded by these Brtish philosophers may be only academic, bu the ' Eka -jia- vada' taught by Bhagavan is very close to truth, I believe. Would you expatiate upon this and state as to what is your understanding in this regard, and what has been said by Muruganar and Sadu Om? There are strong evidences in the work of Muruganar to suggest very much the idea of this single Jiva having been espoused and approved of by Bhagavan, and further one finds the recorded talks of Munagala replete with this idea. Further, I don't think that in any traditional text other than the ' Mandykyakarika' of Gaudapada this idea has been unequivocally stated.Sankarramanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718256859263931847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-60605744547143065402014-09-03T16:57:40.107+01:002014-09-03T16:57:40.107+01:00Ramakrishna Paramahamsa has been reported to have ...Ramakrishna Paramahamsa has been reported to have said as regards one being the absolute Self bereft of the tinge of any duality that it is like one becoming sugar itself as against one having to taste sugar being more devotional, which I believe might be a wrong attribution or a concession to given to sum not being able to appreciate the truth of one not capable of existing in the state of self-realization. Even Manickavachakar, while singing in praise of Lord Siva addresses him as the one who is dead to everything. <br /><br /><br />"முழுதும் இறந்த முதல்வா போற்றி. துரியம் இறந்த சுடரே போற்றி."Sankarramanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718256859263931847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-19509127560198778682014-09-03T15:17:59.362+01:002014-09-03T15:17:59.362+01:00You are right that the ' I am' need not en...You are right that the ' I am' need not entail a need for thinking, which is because it exists in itself and for itself, not being in need for something else extraneous to it, as against ' I think' being dependent on ' I am' and not having an independent ontological reality. In that the statement of Descartes 'cogito ergo sum' posits an a priori reality for the thinking process, which is not intrinsic to the Self, but only adventitious in view of one existing in deep sleep as pure Self despite the absence of thinking process, in a way giving Descartes sum credit assuming that he stumbled upon truth, one could say that there is some terminological inexactitude in his language. The phrase ' metaphysical inexactitude' used by me is rather loaded. Regarding the utterance of Jean Paul Sartre the statement ' I am, therefore I think' it has been given some credence by Echkart Tolle in his book ' The Power of the Now' wherein Echkart states that Sartre had corrected the position of Descartes which was inaccurate. Sartre also uses the famous phrase 'Existence precedes Essence.' I don't know whether Sartre had made that statement from a higher view point, which if it were, he wouldn't have been attracted to intellectual philosophy like Bertrand Russel even though there is some truth in that statement. Subsequent to coming to understand the teachings of Bhagvan I lost interest in these intellectual ideas in view of absence of liberating knowledge in them. I think there is a communication gap between us. I didn't suggest the idea of ' I am' being metaphysical inexactitude. The statement ' I think, therefore I am' alone is sort of metaphysical inexactitude, rather terminological inexactitude in that it has in it the illegitimate assumption that thinking is the first principle of life which is a philosophical suicide.Sankarramanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718256859263931847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-48970935475736147672014-09-02T21:13:11.908+01:002014-09-02T21:13:11.908+01:00Sankarraman, I assume this comment of yours refers...Sankarraman, I assume <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-should-we-believe.html?showComment=1409675884587#c7508674279186641629" rel="nofollow">this comment of yours</a> refers to another article, <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/only-i-am-is-certain-and-self-evident.html" rel="nofollow">Only ‘I am’ is certain and self-evident</a>.<br /><br />I am not sure what you mean in this context by ‘a metaphysical inexactitude’. ‘I am’ is the only metaphysical truth that we can say that we know for certain. Descartes’s statement <i>cogito ergo sum</i> (I think, therefore I am) is a logical argument that tries to prove that the conclusion ‘I am’ is true, which it does, but it is actually a superfluous argument, because this conclusion is proved more simply and directly by our experience ‘I am’. In metaphysical terms, his argument is a strange one, because it is trying to prove a conclusion that is certainly true using a premise that is not certainly true. Though we seem to be thinking, our thinking could be an illusion.<br /><br />The conclusion ‘I am’ could be called ‘a metaphysical exactitude’, because our experience ‘I am’ (or any other experience that we may have) makes our existence necessarily true (since we could not experience anything if we did not exist), whereas the premise ‘I think’ could be called ‘a metaphysical inexactitude’, because our thinking is not necessarily true, since it is possible that the ‘I’ that seems to be thinking is not actually thinking. For example, we could be temporarily experiencing our existence as if it were thinking (just as we can perceive a rope as if it were a snake). <br /><br />The statement ‘I am, therefore I think’, which you say was uttered by Jean-Paul Sartre, could be interpreted in more than one way. It seems to imply ‘I think because I am’, which could be interpreted to mean either ‘I am able to think because I am’ or ‘I necessarily think because I am’. The first of these interpretations is true in the sense that if I did not exist I could not think, but the second is not true, because my existence does not logically entail that I must be thinking. I could exist and be aware of my existence without being aware of any thinking. Therefore this statement does not presuppose any understanding of the nature of our pure self. So long as anyone believes that thinking is real, they have not understood the true nature of ‘I’, which is only to exist and to be aware of its own existence.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-75086742791866416292014-09-02T17:38:04.587+01:002014-09-02T17:38:04.587+01:00You have stated that the statement ' cogito er...You have stated that the statement ' cogito ergo sum' ' I think, therefore I am' of Descartes is also correct to the extent of all thinking being a pointer towards the existence of the a priori ' I am' eternally existing, but that ' I am' existing despite the absence of thinking. Is the expression of Descartes a metaphysical in exactitude? Further, Jean Paul Sartre, the French existentialistic philosopher, has uttered the statement ' I am, therefore I think.' Does his statement presuppose his understanding of the nature of the pure Self,or it is an intellectual philosophy? If you are not familiar with the teachings of Sartre, you needn't answer the question. I request to be excused for thar.Sankarramanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718256859263931847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-41292847467312652422014-07-28T15:27:13.035+01:002014-07-28T15:27:13.035+01:00Michael, we all hope you will find sufficient time...Michael, we all hope you will find sufficient time <br />to write about Arunachala in His many aspects.<br />Indeed, Arunachala seems to help us in a wide<br />"range of different ways" as you say.<br />Even reading that announcement about such an article<br />let me look forward.Josef Brucknernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-90954000913809454572014-07-27T14:45:47.810+01:002014-07-27T14:45:47.810+01:00Sanjay, the question you ask in your latest commen...Sanjay, the question you ask in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-should-we-believe.html?showComment=1406451355835#c2594658002231749728" rel="nofollow">your latest comment</a> cannot be adequately answered from a one-dimensional perspective, because what Bhagavan said and sang about Arunachala can be interpreted and may help spiritual aspirants and devotees in a range of different ways. Therefore, rather than attempting to answer this in a short comment, I will write a separate article in reply to it. Though I do not have time to do so immediately, I will try to do so as soon as I can find sufficient time.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-25946580022317497282014-07-27T09:55:55.835+01:002014-07-27T09:55:55.835+01:00Sir, since we are discussing the topic: What shoul...Sir, since we are discussing the topic: What should we believe, I thought to bring the topic of our faith and believe in the physical name and form of Arunachala into our discussion.<br /><br />Many devotees of Bhagavan are not much attracted to the philosophy and practice of atma-vichara, but are devoted to the hill Arunachala. They are devoted to the singing of Sri Arunachala Aksharamanamalai and going around the hill regularly. Some feel that these are enough and as and when required the power of Arunachala will direct them to the practice of atma-vichara.<br /><br />What is your opinion on this topic?<br /><br />Thanking you and pranams.<br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-3565105133478588412014-07-26T13:44:24.608+01:002014-07-26T13:44:24.608+01:00Sir, in the context of this article, I remember on...Sir, in the context of this article, I remember one of your comment in which you were quoting Sri Sadhu Om. You had written in one of your e-mails to me:<br /><br />As Sadhu Om often used to say, all other spiritual paths require us to believe so many things that we do not know, whereas Bhagavan's path requires us to believe only 'I am', which is the only thing that we actually know for certain. Therefore Bhagavan helps us to shed so many unnecessary beliefs, which helps us greatly in our effort to be interested only in 'I'.<br /><br />It is very important for us ‘to be interested only in I’, otherwise our interests and beliefs will be pulling us in different and often contradictory directions. Thus our effort to be interested only in ‘I’ will not be sufficiently deep, intense and one-pointed.<br /><br />Suppose if we believe that our being present at Varanasi at the time of our death will confer us liberation, we may not make the necessary effort here and now to attend only to ‘I’, but wait to go to Varanasi for our liberation. Similarly if we feel that our visiting various holy shrines will help us attain moksha, we may, in effect, only be going from one place to another. These holy shrines may help us attain some chitta-shuddhi, but for our liberation we have to destroy our ego, and this can only be destroyed by atma-vichara.<br /><br />Therefore as Sri Sadhu Om says, ‘Bhagavan’s path requires us to believe only I am’. Sooner or later every other interest and belief has to be rejected for us to merge only in ‘I am’.<br /><br />Thanking you and pranams.<br /> <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.com