tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post3205515164104261954..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: The perceiver and the perceived are both unrealMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-89932772087755292262019-05-18T09:42:40.637+01:002019-05-18T09:42:40.637+01:00Thank you for your illumination on the theories of...Thank you for your illumination on the theories of Sri Ramana Michael. It has been very helpful, as it dove tails perfectly with ACIM - which has been my path for 15 years. It is really nice to have those techings reduced down to the simple practice of self investigation. Arunachala Siva.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08580829759186840248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-59609860248563264742016-09-14T09:56:34.800+01:002016-09-14T09:56:34.800+01:00Michael,
"What you have wrongly assumed in yo...Michael,<br />"What you have wrongly assumed in your question is that ēka-jīva-vāda 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. Ēka-jīva-vāda and dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda are complementary theories, because each implies the other, and according to dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda 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."<br /><br />This theories are highly interesting though it is hard to believe or at least surprising that we can apply the mentioned circumstances of creation and simultaneous perception in dream to the waking. Kasyapanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-78682106946355481262015-11-10T14:32:43.626+00:002015-11-10T14:32:43.626+00:00Anand Sundaram,
hope you do not easily take offenc...Anand Sundaram,<br />hope you do not easily take offence, but I notice that you have missed to correct some more inadvertent typos:<br />Michael instead Micheal<br />Ulladu Narpadu instead Ullada<br />propagates instead of propogates<br />(Bhagavan) says instead samesRattlesnakenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-76484917438702180982015-11-10T13:14:26.798+00:002015-11-10T13:14:26.798+00:00I have corrected some inadvertent typo mistakes an...I have corrected some inadvertent typo mistakes and reproducing for your kind feedback.<br /><br />Dear Micheal Sir,<br />Bhagavan also used to give an illustration of a play being enacted on the stage wherein we identify with one of the characters and suffer its pain and pangs when in reality we are like the screen unaffected.<br />This theory seems more in resonance with our empirical existence wherein we see many people (equivalent to the characters in the play- ourselves being one of them) - seemingly real because of their being associated with Brahman - but infact unreal.<br />In terms of the Eka Jiva , it would mean one of the characters not only dreams himself but also the screen and the other characters - this is also another way of presenting the same truth but so much more harder to accept, since we are so used to seeing the world as real.I think in the Ullada Narpadu,Laxmana Sarma propogates about the eka Jiva theory and in the Talks also Bhagavan sames the same thing.eg :- When one devotee talks about wife , relatives he says are they in you or you in them .However when Bhagavan says 'you', I think he means the real you or rather "I-I ".<br />To people of philosophical bent of mind,one of the above ways of presenting the truth would appeal and should spur them to the more immediate requirement of investigating oneself.<br />Micheal Sir, will appreciate one thing .In the context of both above theories , where does Bhagavan fit in our lives.<br />Will appreciate if you can make a demarcation,one in terms of devotees who lived with him in his lifetime and one in terms of us , who were not blessed to be associated with him , in his lifetime.<br />Regards,<br />Anand Sundaram.<br /><br />Anandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09908974925813890461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-6407438065007665612015-11-10T13:11:37.577+00:002015-11-10T13:11:37.577+00:00Dear Micheal Sir,
Bhagavan also used to give an il...Dear Micheal Sir,<br />Bhagavan also used to give an illustration of a play being enacted on the stage wherein we identify with one of the characters and suffer its pain and pangs when in reality we are like the screen unaffected.<br />This theory seems more in resonance with our empirical existence wherein we see many people (equivalent to the characters in the play- ourselves being one of them) - seemingly real because of their being associated with Brahman - but infact real.<br />In terms of the Eka Jiva , it would mean one of the characters not only dreams himself but also the screen and the other characters - this is also another way of presenting the same truth but so much more harder to accept, since we are so used to seeing the world as real.I think in the Ullada Narpadu,Laxmana Sarma propogates about the eka Jiva theory and in the Talks also Bhagavan sames the same thing.eg :- When one devotee talks about wife , relatives he says are they in you or you in them .However when Bhagavan says 'you' he means the real you or rather "I-I ".<br />To people of philosophical bent of mind,one of the above ways of presenting the truth would appeal and should spur them to the more immediate requirement of investigating oneself.<br />Micheal Sir, will appreciate one thing .In the context of both above theories , where does Bhagavan fit in our lives.<br />Will appreciate if you can make a demarcation,one in terms of devotees who lived with him in his lifetime and one in terms of us , who were not blessed to be associated with him , in his lifetime.<br />Regards,<br />Anand Sundaram.Anandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09908974925813890461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-86805567048399470292015-09-06T00:10:10.335+01:002015-09-06T00:10:10.335+01:00Sri Michael James,
Your answer to Kashyapa, 16 Fe...Sri Michael James, <br />Your answer to Kashyapa, 16 February 2015:<br />From the view of BHAGAVAN it is easy to say what is real and what is unreal.<br />But we ajnanis cannot be placed on the same level with him. We cannot play "Ramana".<br />What will be our benefit or advantage when we repeat Ramana's teachings and experiences parrotfashion ?<br />Maybe in one million years we may have learned to cease observing or perceiving anything else and instead to observe ourself alone.Milarepanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-83194240132571957552015-09-02T22:46:54.891+01:002015-09-02T22:46:54.891+01:00Thank you Michael for correcting my woolly and con...Thank you Michael for correcting my woolly and confused view with which I wanted only to depict that I was just starting to try to subside the mind. But herewith I have been just demonstrating the perceiving 'I' and its perceived experiences.<br />Yes,yes trying to observe myself alone is a dictate of good sense in the present moment.Kashyapanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-70555140188864355932015-02-16T20:15:07.265+00:002015-02-16T20:15:07.265+00:00Kashyapa, so long as there is an ‘I’ to say ‘I do ...Kashyapa, so long as there is an ‘I’ to say ‘I do not care’, ‘I cannot observe if there is a perceiver’, ‘I am subsiding’ or ‘I am witnessing to the occurrence happening’, that ‘I’ is the perceiver and these experiences are what is perceived by it. However, according to Bhagavan both of these are unreal, as we will discover if we cease observing or perceiving anything else and instead try to observe ourself alone.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-56481971941189727602015-01-21T21:12:06.432+00:002015-01-21T21:12:06.432+00:00Thanks Michael,
Yes, after merging within and diss...Thanks Michael,<br />Yes, after merging within and dissolving our illusory ego in the perfect clarity of pure adjunct-free self-awareness we can (will)<br />experience ajata and in this way understand the ultimate truth.<br />It is curiously that just (my)the illusory ego now intensively desires for dissolving itself.<br />Now in this moment I do not care<br />about the idea if the perceiver and the perceived are both unreal... <br />Just now I cannot observe if there is a perceiver or if such one is only seeming to exist.<br />At the moment I am subsiding into the absence of a perceiver... into anything inside <br />and I am witnessing to the occurence happening (in me ?)...Kashyapanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-61343153863396402782015-01-16T09:55:51.838+00:002015-01-16T09:55:51.838+00:00Kashyapa, Bhagavan mentioned that ajāta is the ult...Kashyapa, Bhagavan mentioned that <i>ajāta</i> is the ultimate truth in order to prevent us having too many misconceptions about it, but as you say we cannot adequately conceive what <i>ajāta</i> is, but can only experience it by merging within and dissolving our illusory ego in the perfect clarity of pure adjunct-free self-awareness.<br /><br />The closest our mind can come to understanding the ultimate truth is <i>vivarta vāda</i>: the view that the ego and world do not actually exist but only seem to exist. Even this is not the ultimate truth (because the ultimate truth is that they do not even seem to exist), but it is the standpoint that Bhagavan adopted for his teachings, because it is the most helpful view for us to adopt when we are trying to free ourself from our attachment to anything other than what we actually are.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-42747501923324103332015-01-13T12:29:20.160+00:002015-01-13T12:29:20.160+00:00Michael,
The article "The perceiver and the ...Michael,<br /><br />The article "The perceiver and the perceived are both unreal" is well written.<br />But we should be aware that the time to discuss the ultimate truth is not the present moment.<br />Because our only tool is the mind which is undisputed not a suitable means to think/speak about that theme we as current (seeming) ajnanis do not know anything about the ultimate truth.<br />Not at all we can understand ajata before becoming ajata by our own experience.<br />Just as much we could discuss if the far side of the sun is hot or cold.<br />Likewise when the ego looks carefully at itself (the ego), what will be the result ?<br />We should not be surprised that then our landing will be only in the port of „false appearance“.<br />So a wise man like Sri Ramana can do not more( for us) than point out that we firstly must set us in the pure adjunct-free state. <br />Only after it our then present omniscience may tell about ajata.<br />Only after it we may reflect or ponder about the absolute non- existence of a perceiving ego and a perceived world.<br />To put the cart before the horse does not help us. Therefore we cannot seriously accept any of the mentioned theories as true.<br />As you say rather we have to investigate 'I' with imperturbable and unwavering perseverance.Kashyapanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-17777751508487004622015-01-12T23:57:17.523+00:002015-01-12T23:57:17.523+00:00Michael,
don't worry ! My last comment was in...Michael, <br />don't worry ! My last comment was intended ironically and my complain about humiliation was in the sense of your reply.Josef Brucknernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-50815097575873216952015-01-12T21:12:20.170+00:002015-01-12T21:12:20.170+00:00Josef, humiliation can only be for our ego, and si...Josef, humiliation can only be for our ego, and since the ego is our worst enemy (being the cause of all our troubles), if it is humiliated that is surely good for us. What we need to be on our guard against is it reacting adversely to humiliation instead taking it as a prompting to subside humbly within.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-87226764166283050512015-01-12T20:56:07.299+00:002015-01-12T20:56:07.299+00:00Michael, how right you are.
Your interpretations a...Michael, how right you are.<br />Your interpretations are indeed highly dangerous for us perceivers.<br />We have to be constantly on our guard against any threat of humiliation.Josef Brucknernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-17583137723937729202015-01-12T16:45:37.863+00:002015-01-12T16:45:37.863+00:00Josef, when I can’t even spell ‘teachings’ correct...Josef, when I can’t even spell ‘teachings’ correctly, how can I hope to expound them correctly?Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-7464697306517441932015-01-12T12:05:02.881+00:002015-01-12T12:05:02.881+00:00Oh Michael, any typo is not worth mentioning.
Sure...Oh Michael, any typo is not worth mentioning.<br />Surely your work is not distortion but clearing insight into Sri Ramana's teaching.<br />How can we ever thank you ?Josef Brucknernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-74406129935206487332015-01-11T21:52:02.594+00:002015-01-11T21:52:02.594+00:00Thank you, Josef, for pointing out this typo. I ho...Thank you, Josef, for pointing out this typo. I hope I do not distort his teachings in such an obvious way too often.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-59026430034992009912015-01-11T21:33:10.653+00:002015-01-11T21:33:10.653+00:00Michael,
your reply to Sanjay Lohia, dated 29 Sept...Michael,<br />your reply to Sanjay Lohia, dated 29 September 2014 10:24 has a little typo:<br />Sentence beginning with<br />"Because we now experience duality, ...," <br />instead of "teaqchings" you wanted to write "teachings" .Josef Brucknernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-65273601319263314612015-01-11T20:57:14.665+00:002015-01-11T20:57:14.665+00:00Michael, your glorious article touched "my so...Michael, your glorious article touched "my soul".trishulanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-83411059078609475452014-10-05T11:40:08.086+01:002014-10-05T11:40:08.086+01:00Sanjay, I have replied to your latest comment in a...Sanjay, I have replied to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-perceiver-and-perceived-are-both.html?showComment=1412061471492#c956690643515984000" rel="nofollow">your latest comment</a> in a new article, <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/we-can-believe-vivarta-vada-directly.html" rel="nofollow">We can believe <i>vivarta vāda</i> directly but not <i>ajāta vāda</i></a>, which I have posted here today.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-18985052462010570962014-09-30T13:16:49.865+01:002014-09-30T13:16:49.865+01:00Silence is not an idea or a concept. It's not ...Silence is not an idea or a concept. It's not an illusion, it doesn't require belief. It is here, now, always.<br /><br />"That which should be adhered to is only the experience of silence..." <br />Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-9566906435159840002014-09-30T08:17:51.492+01:002014-09-30T08:17:51.492+01:00Yes sir, it makes clearer when you write: ‘vivarta...Yes sir, it makes clearer when you write: ‘vivarta-vada alone is true <b>for all practical purposes</b>’.<br /><br />However is there much difference between our belief in vivarta-vada and our belief in ajata-vada? I think both are only mental beliefs or ideas or concepts till we transcend our mind. Like self-knowledge is also a concept till be attain it.<br /><br />We may believe in vivarta-vada or that everything is an illusory dream, but can we ever fully experience vivarta till we transcend our mind? We may momentarily think while we are dreaming that what we are experiencing then is an illusory dream, but the very next moment we may take our dream to be real. Similarly I feel ajata-vada is also a belief, though it is a much more subtle belief. <br /><br />Till our ego is intact we can never fully believe or be convinced of either vivarta-vada or ajata-vada. Of course as our ego gets more and more undermined we may start having stronger and stronger conviction in vivarta-vada. Similarly we may also start getting a taste of a relative ajata as our ego is close to destruction.<br /><br />We can never fully believe or experience vivarta, we can only transcend it or wake up from the dream of self-ignorance by experiencing ourself as we really are, thereby we will become established in ajata. <br /><br />Please clarify my understanding.<br /><br />Thanking you and pranams.Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-85959513039085357872014-09-29T20:07:16.884+01:002014-09-29T20:07:16.884+01:00Yes, Sanjay, ajāta vāda is pure advaita, and we ca...Yes, Sanjay, <i>ajāta vāda</i> is pure <i>advaita</i>, and we can say that <i>vivarta vāda</i> is a relative or diluted form of <i>advaita</i>, because it is only true relative to our experience of ourself as an ego who perceives the world.<br /><br />However, it is not quite true to say, ‘if we believe in vivarta we are automatically believing in ajata’, because strictly speaking we cannot believe in both <i>vivarta vāda</i> and <i>ajāta vāda</i>, since <i>vivarta vāda</i> acknowledges that the ego and world seem to exist (though only as false appearances), whereas <i>ajāta vāda</i> denies that they even seem to exist. So long as we experience ourself as an ego and therefore perceive the world, we cannot but believe that they do at least seem to exist, so we cannot truly believe in <i>ajāta</i>.<br /><br />Since <i>ajāta</i> is the state in which the ego and mind do not even seem to exist, it is beyond the range of belief or mental conception. Therefore when we say that we believe in <i>ajāta vāda</i>, what we actually believe in is just the ideas that <i>ajāta</i> is the ultimate truth, that it is Bhagavan’s actual experience and that it will be our experience when we experience ourself as we really are, whereas <i>ajāta vāda</i> denies the existence or even the seeming existence of the one who believes these ideas.<br /><br />Incidentally, when I wrote in my previous comment that Bhagavan set aside <i>ajāta vāda</i> and taught that <i>vivarta vāda</i> alone is true, I was paraphrasing Sri Muruganar’s words in verse 83 of <i>Guru Vācaka Kōvai</i>, ‘விவர்த்த சித்தாந்தமே மெய் ஆக விண்டார்’ (<i>vivartta siddhāntam-ē mey āha viṇḍār</i>), ‘[he] taught as true only <i>vivarta siddhānta</i>’, but to express the idea more clearly and to avoid ambiguity I should perhaps have written that he set aside <i>ajāta vāda</i> and taught that <i>vivarta vāda</i> alone is true <i>for all practical purposes</i>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-67531728005359618132014-09-29T13:20:10.426+01:002014-09-29T13:20:10.426+01:00Sir, thank you for this clarification.
I think we...Sir, thank you for this clarification.<br /><br />I think we can say that advaita (a-dvi-ta) vada is absolutely equal to ajata-vada, whereas these two are relatively equal to vivarta-vada. That is – as long as we experience ourself as this ego, mind or body, we can take vivarta-vada to be true relative to our experience of ego, mind or body.<br /><br />Moreover if we believe in vivarta we are automatically believing in ajata (to a small or large extent), because after all all illusory dualities and triputis can only be experienced on the real, permanent, unborn and uncreated substratum of ajata.<br /><br />Therefore, as you say, ‘Bhagavan (like Sankara and other advaitic sages) set aside ajata-vada and taught that vivarta-vada alone true’. Bhagavan, Sankara and other advaitic sages are ever established in ajata or pure-advaita, but for our sake they give seeming reality to this world of names and forms, without even experiencing these names and forms in any way.<br /><br />Of course their only aim is to see that we also experience ajata or pure-advaita, beyond all dualities and triputis.<br /><br />Thanking you and pranams. <br /><br /><br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-1262267314949289222014-09-29T10:24:31.949+01:002014-09-29T10:24:31.949+01:00Sanjay, advaita means ‘non-two-ness’ (a-dvi-tā), s...Sanjay, <i>advaita</i> means ‘non-two-ness’ (<i>a-dvi-tā</i>), so <i>advaita-vāda</i> is the argument or theory that there is absolutely no twoness or duality. The most complete and radical expression of <i>advaita-vāda</i> is therefore <i>ajāta-vāda</i>, because according to <i>ajāta-vāda</i> not only does twoness not actually exist but it does not even seem to exist.<br /><br />However, <i>vivarta vāda</i> is also compatible with <i>advaita-vāda</i>, because according to <i>vivarta vāda</i> twoness does not actually exist even though it seems to exist. That is, <i>vivarta vāda</i> accepts that distinctions (dualities or twonesses) such as the perceiver and the perceived (the ego and the world) seem to exist, but it argues that their seeming existence is just a false appearance (<i>vivarta</i>) and hence unreal.<br /><br />Because we now experience duality, we cannot apply <i>ajāta-vāda</i> in practice, so though <i>ajāta</i> was his actual experience, in his teaqchings Bhagavan (like Sankara and other <i>advaitic</i> sages) set aside <i>ajāta-vāda</i> and taught that <i>vivarta vāda</i> alone is true.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com