tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post3327539089304968477..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: An explanation of the first ten verses of Upadēśa UndiyārMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger158125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-82707484629101308812016-11-05T19:29:11.801+00:002016-11-05T19:29:11.801+00:00Michael,
to get the conviction that 'he is ...Michael,<br />to get the conviction that 'he is 'I' meditation on him only as 'I' is necessary.<br />Because I do not clearly know that God always exists within me I do not know him as 'I'.<br />Arunachala , may you graciously let me feel that you are in me ?<br />Without your mercy how can I clearly know you as 'I' ?<br />I am completely at your mercy.<br /><br /> God is 'I'noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-35570488691433718022016-11-04T02:42:29.585+00:002016-11-04T02:42:29.585+00:00Dear Michaelji,
We just came to know about a song...Dear Michaelji,<br /><br />We just came to know about a song written by Sri Sadhu om swamigal. It is sung by sriram parthasarathy available in youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2plYWYL6Gwo.<br />The song is very melodious and someone has commented that it contains the essence of Sri Bhagavan's teachings.The song is little bit long.Since we don't know tamil is it possible to provide the meaning of this song? only if you are free and has suffficient time.Just simple meaning or essence of the song.<br /><br />Yethanayo Katranaye idhanai KEtAyA<br />inimelEnum amaidhiyAga irukamAtAYA<br />Nam budhiketAdhadhelAm nanrAi purindhu nadakinra<br />Oru shakthikku vittuvittAl ullathil ShAnthi nilAithuvidum<br />NenJai punnAkki KondE nee ninaithu ninaithu cheyyum<br />Seyal Konjamum thEvayillai guruvarul kondu nadathuradhAl<br />Mootayai vandiyil vai thalaimEl mukki sumakkAdhE<br />Manasettayil Avadhillai thiruvarul chittam nadathi vaikum<br />Dehamum chitthamume unadhalla deivathin kai karuvi<br />Yeno Ekanavan seyalil karthruthvam yeidhu ThindAduginrAi<br />Dhehathai nAn YenavE KollAmai setthu piravAmai<br />irrAru sAga therindhukondon vunmayil thannai therindhukondon<br />SeibavanAy ezhudAl suka dhukha thettam unai cherum<br />Pinnar Yeibavanai viduthe ambayai yesi veruthu nirpAi<br />Ullavan oruvan andrineedhAn Vunmayil ondrum illai<br />Satrum kallamillA agathai avan arukkaiyil alithirupAi<br />Eesan arutseyalai kurukkittu indha manam thadukkum<br />Idhu nAsam adaindhuvittAl<br />Manam nasam adaindhuuvittal thiruvarul gnana anubhudhi tharum<br />`Thannai maruthadangu udal manam thAnenru yezhamal iru<br />Adhan pinnai irupadhedho<br />Udal manam thAnenrezhamal iru<br />Adhan pinnai irupadhEdho adhuvE brahmam YenappadumAm<br />GnyAn Guru ramanan arulAl nadappadhellAm nadakka<br />Udal aga eena yezhuchi yezha vizhippodu iruppadhE nam kadanAm<br /><br />Thank you<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-8650392883619243422016-11-01T17:36:06.396+00:002016-11-01T17:36:06.396+00:00By the way, some commenters in this thread are usi...By the way, some commenters in this thread are using "The Neo-Advaita Suffle" without understanding what it means.<br /><br />The Neo-Advaita Shuffle is using the concept of investigating "Who Am I?" in an entirely mundane physical world context. Here is an example of the Neo-Advaita Shuffle:<br /><br />"George: I do not have enough money for the bus fare. Fred, can you lend me enough money so I can get home on the bus?<br /><br />Fred: Investigate who it is that wants to get home on the bus."<br /><br />But it is NOT the Neo-Advaita Shuffle if the question is about spirituality. For example, Ramana would frequently answer spiritual questions in that way, such as this one:<br /><br />"Q: Is it not better to say I am the supreme being’ than ask ‘Who am I?’<br /><br />Ramana: Who affirms? There must be one to do it. Find that one."<br /><br />Again, to be clear, the level where that kind of answer is not appropriate, is the mundane physical world level, as in the bus fare example. Why? Because that answer always makes the discussion a philosophical and spiritual discussion. So, doing so is "The Neo-Advaita Shuffle".<br /><br />But that same answer in a philosophical and spiritual discussion is entirely appropriate and not "Neo-Advaita".Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-15838028713610404332016-11-01T17:17:25.172+00:002016-11-01T17:17:25.172+00:00"iti said...
The only question is: how t..."iti said...<br /><br /> The only question is: how to be the self alone ?<br /> In other words : Who am 'I' ?<br /> All other concepts and thoughts are growths of the mind."<br /><br />In all of the previous discussions of talking about different spiritual practices, we were saying that since spirituality is giving attention to spirit, and since spirit is obscured by attention to thoughts and sense perceptions, then self-attention is inherently more direct than any other practice.<br /><br />However, iti brings up another aspect, perhaps even more clear.<br /><br />If some spiritual teacher says to practice:<br /><br />" I have devotion to Ishvara. "<br /><br />or<br /><br />" I am focusing on the ajna chakra to raise kundalini. "<br /><br />then there is also the question:<br /><br />" Who am I ?"<br /><br />Without knowing that, how can you possibly understand what the teacher is suggesting?<br /><br />So, the practice of self-investigation, aka self-attention, is not only the most direct spiritual practice, but it is also absolutely necessary before doing anything else in life.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-4075326162998773632016-11-01T12:14:40.571+00:002016-11-01T12:14:40.571+00:00The only question is: how to be the self alone ?
I...The only question is: how to be the self alone ?<br />In other words : Who am 'I' ?<br />All other concepts and thoughts are growths of the mind.itinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-40798265661533145012016-11-01T10:28:46.654+00:002016-11-01T10:28:46.654+00:00Venkat replied to Mouna with:
{Quite right Mouna....Venkat replied to Mouna with: <br />{Quite right Mouna. Focus on eliminating the ego whenever it arises, and then see if there is any concern about liberation, whether with or without form.<br /><br />How very true.<br />In appreciation. <br />Bob <br /><br /> Bob - Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-12160569375362867632016-11-01T00:02:42.318+00:002016-11-01T00:02:42.318+00:00Roger - Ramana is here answering all your question...<b>Roger</b> - Ramana is here answering all your questions of the past few months:<br /><br />Q: I meditate neti-neti [not this – not this].<br /><br />Ramana: No – that is not meditation. Find the source. You must reach the source without fail. The false ‘I’ will disappear and the real ‘I’ will be realized. The former cannot exist apart from the latter.<br />There is now wrong identification of the Self with the body, senses, etc. You proceed to discard these, and this is neti.<br />This can be done only by holding to the one which cannot be discarded. That is iti [that which is].<br /><br />Q: When I think ‘Who am I?’, the answer comes I am not this mortal body but I am chaitanya, atma [consciousness, the Self].’ And suddenly another question arises, ‘Why has atma come into maya [illusion]?’ or in other words, ‘Why has God created this world?’<br /><br />Ramana: To enquire ‘Who am I?’ really means trying to find out the source of the ego or the ‘I’- thought. You are not to think of other thoughts, such as ‘I am not this body’. Seeking the source of ‘I’ serves as a means of getting rid of all other thoughts. We should not give scope to other thoughts, such as you mention, but must keep the attention fixed on finding out the source of the ‘I’-thought by asking, as each thought arises, to whom the thought arises. If the answer is ‘I get the thought’ continue the enquiry by asking ‘Who is this ‘I’ and what is its source?’.<br /><br />Q: Am I to keep on repeating ‘Who am I?’ so as to make a mantra of it?<br /><br />Ramana: No. ‘Who am I?’ is not a mantra. It means that you must find out where in you arises the ‘I’- thought which is the source of all other thoughts.<br /><br /><b>Q: Shall I meditate on ‘I am Brahman’ [aham Brahmasmi]?<br /><br />Ramana: The text is not meant for thinking ‘I am Brahman’. Aham [‘I’] is known to every one. Brahman abides as aham in every one. Find out the ‘I’. The ‘I’ is already Brahman. You need not think so. Simply find out the ‘I’</b><br /><br />Q: Is not discarding of the [neti-neti] mentioned in the sastras?<br /><br />Ramana: After the rise of the ‘I’-thought there is the false identification of the ‘I’ with the body, the senses, the mind, etc. ‘I’ is wrongly associated with them and the true ‘I’ is lost sight of. In order to sift the pure ‘I’ from the contaminated ‘I’, this discarding is mentioned. But it does not mean exactly discarding of the non-Self, it means the finding of the real Self. The real Self is the infinite ‘I’. That ‘I’ is perfection. It is eternal. It has no origin and no end. The other ‘I’ is born and also dies. It is impermanent. See to whom the changing thoughts belong. They will be found to arise after the<br />‘I’-thought. Hold the ‘I’-thought and they subside. Trace back the source of the ‘I’-thought. The Self alone will remain.<br /><br />Q: Is not affirmation of God more effective than the quest, ‘Who am I?’ Affirmation is positive, whereas the other is negation. Moreover, it indicates separateness.<br /><br />Ramana: So long as you seek to know how to realize, this advice is given to find your Self. Your seeking the method denotes your separateness.<br /><br />Q: Is it not better to say I am the supreme being’ than ask ‘Who am I?’<br /><br />Ramana: Who affirms? There must be one to do it. Find that one.<br /><br />Q: Is not meditation better than investigation?<br /><br />Ramana: Meditation implies mental imagery, whereas investigation is for the reality. The former is objective, whereas the latter is subjective.<br /><br />Q: There must be a scientific approach to this subject.<br /><br />Ramana: To eschew unreality and seek the reality is scientific.<br /><br />Q: I mean there must be a gradual elimination, first of the mind, then of the intellect, then of the ego.<br /><br />Ramana: The Self alone is real. All others are unreal. The mind and intellect do not remain apart from you. The Bible says, ‘Be still and know that I am God.’ <b>Stillness is the sole requisite for the realization of the Self as God.</b>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-3155495092788274552016-10-31T23:53:09.360+00:002016-10-31T23:53:09.360+00:00Roger wrote:
"Ramana Maharshi's teaching...<b>Roger</b> wrote:<br /><br />"Ramana Maharshi's teaching addresses two levels:<br />1: the relative field of existence where the METHOD of 'who am I?' or attention on self is of extreme importance.<br />2: the advaita level where having established attention on self, a further step might be to consider in various ways that 'you are already that'. "<br /><br />No, that is not correct either.<br /><br />The <b>entire method IS</b> "attention on self".<br /><br />"Considering" is not part of Ramana Maharshi's method.<br /><br />As I keep metioning, you need to read "Path of Sri Ramana Part One" where Ramana's method is explained, in a logical and airtight way, why it is "better" and why it is so simple. It is just "attention on self" and nothing more.<br /><br />It is a free download at:<br /><br />http://happinessofbeing.com/books.html#sadhu_om_english<br /><br />By the way, there are no two fields of existence. There is a relative <b>conceptual</b> level of discussion, and an absolute conceptual level of discussion, but there is only one reality.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-60452156511326392382016-10-31T23:21:49.088+00:002016-10-31T23:21:49.088+00:00Quite right Mouna. Focus on eliminating the ego w...Quite right Mouna. Focus on eliminating the ego whenever it arises, and then see if there is any concern about liberation, whether with or without form.venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-22103172914222263282016-10-31T22:47:25.561+00:002016-10-31T22:47:25.561+00:00Roger wrote:
"So in Ken's example:
I sta...Roger wrote:<br /><br />"So in Ken's example:<br />I stated: 'All spiritual teachings (we can make an exception for teachings when the Master is present) are on the relative field of life and therefore are not absolute or eternal, even YOU are not eternal (until you realize this). Therefore, there can be no single teaching which is the ONLY, BEST etc...'<br /><br />And Ken responds: You are eternal right now, and you have been so eternally.<br /><br />Actually Ken is doing a double diversion:<br />1: changing the topic from 'the relativity of spiritual teachings' to 'the eternal nature of you'. AND<br />2: changing the topic from the relative level to the advaita level."<br /><br /><b>Uh no, that is not what happened. And you can read the real quotes in this same thread above.</b><br /><br />You started a post with:<br /><br />"I have only one simple thing to say which must be agreeable:<br /><br />NOTHING in relative existence or creation is absolute or eternal. Nothing in Maya (which is all we know pre-liberation) is absolute or eternal. YOU may be eternal eventually, but this is something to realize and not at the level of Maya or ego object consciousness.<br /><br />Agreed?"<br /><br />So <b>you asked whether there was agreement</b> and I quoted that and that is when I replied:<br /><br />"No. You are eternal right now, and you have been so eternally."<br /><br />(In fact, all of the sentences before 'Agreed?' were false, but I only chose one to dispute.)<br /><br />The point of saying that, is that it is the very point that is missed or denied by dualistic teachings, because they are all based on the false idea of <b>becoming something you are not </b>.<br /><br />In contrast, Advaitic teachings say "you are already the Self and you are already eternal". So, the one and only problem is a mistaken idea.<br /><br />Normal egoic life is a life of enormous complexity in a physical world of massive detail with 7 billion people and billions of other things.<br /><br />So, beginner teachings are always complex, because beginners are too immersed in complex life to be able to accept the simplicity of actual reality.<br /><br />So, those teachings are thousands of pages and millions of words, because people would be bored with a real Advaitic teaching of three words, such as "Rest As Awareness".<br /><br />You apparently do not want to simply practice "Rest As Awareness", so for months you have been complaining about people using their brain cells to recognize that something that is better, is - shock - better. Why? Because that would make what you do "worse", so you would rather waste your time arguing that point.<br /><br />But no matter how many strings of words you put together, you cannot disprove that there is meaning to the concept "better".<br /><br />HWL Poonja wrote: "If I had met the Maharshi earlier in my life, listened to his teachings and put them into practice, I could probably have saved myself years of fruitless external searching."<br /><br />That is an example of the meaning of the concept "better".Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-47812195227096962692016-10-31T21:28:03.998+00:002016-10-31T21:28:03.998+00:00Very nice Mouna, thanks.
a digression on Venkat&#...Very nice Mouna, thanks.<br /><br />a digression on Venkat's quote from Murugunar: <i>"There is no rule that the mind whose knot has been cut should not operate among the sense objects"</i><br /><br />Bhagavan selected these verses from Yoga Vasishta for Mercedes de Acosta:<br /><i><br />“Steady in the state of fullness, which shines when all desires are given up, and peaceful in the state of freedom in life, act playfully in the world, O Raghava!”<br /><br />“Inwardly free from all desires, dispassionate and detached, but outwardly active in all directions, act playfully in the world, O Raghava!”<br /><br />“Free from egoism, with mind detached as in sleep, pure like the sky, ever untainted, act playfully in the world, O Raghava!”<br /><br />“Conducting yourself nobly with kindly tenderness, outwardly conforming to conventions, but inwardly renouncing all, act playfully in the world, O Raghava!”<br /><br />“Quite unattached at heart but for all appearance acting as with attachment, inwardly cool but outwardly full of fervour, act playfully in the world, O Raghava!” </i>Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12886674544129003153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-3096978542302232402016-10-31T21:07:26.803+00:002016-10-31T21:07:26.803+00:00Venkat and friends, greetings
Here is Ulladu Narp...Venkat and friends, greetings<br /><br />Here is Ulladu Narpadu’s verse #40 to ponder on the subject that has been recently debated. As usual, Bhagavan always has the best answer on doubts about his own teachings. My guess is that it is not a coincidence that is the last one of the verses:<br /><br />"If it is said, according to the maturity of the mind, that the liberation which is attained may be of three kinds, with form, without form, or with or without form, then I will say that liberation is [in truth only] the annihilation of the form of the ego which distinguishes [liberation] with form, without form, or with or without form. Know thus.”<br /><i>(translation Sadhu Om - Michael James)</i><br /><br />"If it be said, according to one’s mental propensities, that liberation is of three kinds, with form, without form, and both with and without form, I shall reply that the destruction of the form of the ego, which distinguishes between [liberation which is] with form, without form, and both with and without form, is liberation. Know thus."<br /><i>(translation Robert Butler)</i>Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-67954456939482455112016-10-31T20:38:28.871+00:002016-10-31T20:38:28.871+00:00Hi Sivanarul,
I listened to the Ajahn Brahm segme...Hi Sivanarul,<br /><br />I listened to the Ajahn Brahm segment you mentioned (reproduced below): very good. Thanks. I didn't realize that he is an Englishman.<br /><br />This is a bit strange that people recognize various aspects of materialism (faster car, bigger wallet, more expensive clothes etc...) but they fail to recognize that "best, most perfect, only way" applied to any spiritual approach is still materialism.<br /><br /><i>Please listen to this wonderful talk by Ajahn Brahm on that topic. Listen from 35 mins to 42 minutes. He talks of the trap of falling into Spiritual materialism.<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r6yjDTpdcg&index=85&list=PLK1GLF1JpYHlrICQVBcYmG2YRGSkfb9Zz </i>Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12886674544129003153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-87916921778139628022016-10-31T20:32:38.659+00:002016-10-31T20:32:38.659+00:00Hi Venkat,
Thanks, I appreciate your quote from Mu...Hi Venkat,<br />Thanks, I appreciate your quote from Murugunar: <i>"There is no rule that the mind whose knot has been cut should not operate among the sense objects. ...</i><br /><br />It seems the general assumption here is that: the ego, body and world must cease simultaneously, that the ego can only be eliminated by excluding everything from awareness.<br /><br />This may be one way of eliminated the "knot" by excluding the world and body from awareness. Michael praises the trance state by saying "exclude body and world".<br /><br />But Sankara recommends attention while avoiding the trance state (aka nirvikalpa samadhi or no awareness of body/world). <br /><br /><i>When the mind does not merge in the inactivity of oblivion, or become distracted by desires.... it verily becomes Brahman.</i><br />Sankara and Gaudapada. Mandukyopanisad:III-46Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12886674544129003153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-35588162401957922802016-10-31T20:10:06.496+00:002016-10-31T20:10:06.496+00:00Hi Ken and all,
My purpose in making this post is ...Hi Ken and all,<br />My purpose in making this post is to commend Michael's teaching over neo-advaita and illustrate a particular discussion related fallacy. This fallacy or technique in discussion is used to dilute Ramana Maharishi's teaching and I want to make it easily recognized.<br /><br />The technique used in spiritual discussion is called <b>the Advaita Shuffle</b>: When discussing some topic at the relative level of life a person shifts the topic to the advaita level.<br /><br />Examples:<br />You go to the doctor and ask "What can be done to cure this very troubling disease that I have?"<br />And the physician replies: "Well, sir I have good news: there is no need for concern about your disease because you are eternal!"<br />Or the physician replies: "Who is the 'I' that is asking the question? That is what you should ask!"<br /><br />I like this example because it emphasizes the genuineness of the question on the relative level (your disease) and the total ineffectual response. <br /><br />Another way this technique is used: various neo-advaita teachers may respond to virtually any question by diverting attention away from the question and back on the spiritual qualifications of questioner: <br />The questioner asks: "What about this topic...."<br />The neo-advaita teacher responds: "Who is the 'I' asking this question?"<br /><br />So in Ken's example:<br />I stated: <i>"All spiritual teachings (we can make an exception for teachings when the Master is present) are on the relative field of life and therefore are not absolute or eternal, even YOU are not eternal (until you realize this). Therefore, there can be no single teaching which is the ONLY, BEST etc..."</i><br /><br />And Ken responds: <i>You are eternal right now, and you have been so eternally.</i><br /><br />Actually Ken is doing a double diversion: <br />1: changing the topic from 'the relativity of spiritual teachings' to 'the eternal nature of you'. AND <br />2: changing the topic from the relative level to the advaita level.<br /><br />Ramana Maharshi's teaching addresses two levels:<br />1: the relative field of existence where the METHOD of "who am I?" or attention on self is of extreme importance.<br />2: the advaita level where having established attention on self, a further step might be to consider in various ways that "you are already that".<br /><br />Both levels maybe essential although, without first having established attention on self, any consideration about "You are already that" is likely to be just another impotent thought.<br /><br />Neo-advaita has become so enamoured with the advaita level in isolation that they have forgotten about the paramount need of culturing attention on self! Therefore, their teaching has become just a religion: descriptions of liberation without any METHOD (attention on self). Neo-advaita has done the Advaita Shuffle on Self Inquiry eliminating attention on self as a necessary prerequisite.<br />Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12886674544129003153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-28007672794941552582016-10-31T08:01:51.641+00:002016-10-31T08:01:51.641+00:00Ken,
The murugunar comment is in the David Goldman...Ken,<br />The murugunar comment is in the David Goldman version, and follows the verse.<br /><br />Venkatvenkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-56295019803961270502016-10-31T02:05:38.815+00:002016-10-31T02:05:38.815+00:00The GVK 1119 translated by Michael is:
"1119...The GVK 1119 translated by Michael is:<br /><br />"1119. Though the mind [of a Jnani] which has been enchanted by the true light [of Self-knowledge] is [seemingly] engaged as before in the five senses, which know taste, smell, sight, sound and touch, it has [in fact] been severed [destroyed] by the power of intense Self-enquiry."<br /><br />and is not followed by anything other than 1120.<br /><br />The statement of Sadhu Om, that ratifies the comment above by Murugunar, in <i>Path of Sri Ramana Part One</i> is:<br /><br />"This is why Sri Bhagavan insists that one reaching kashta-ninrikalpa-samadhi through raja yoga should not stop there (since it is only mano-laya, a temporary absorption of the mind), but that the mind so absorbed should be led to the Heart in order to attain sahaja-nirvikalpa-samildhi, which is the destruction of the mind (mano-nasa), the destruction of the attachment to the body (dehabhimana-nasa). In the body of such a Selfrealized One (sahaja jnani), the coursing of the 'I' - consciousness along the nerves, even after the destruction of the knot of attachment, is like the water on a lotus leaf<br />or like a burnt rope, and thus it cannot cause bondage.<br />Therefore the destruction of the knot of attachment is anyway indispensible for the attainment of the natural state (Sahaja Sthiti), the state of the destruction of the tendencies (vosunakshaya).<br /><br />The nerves (nadis) are gross, but the consciousness power (chaitanya-saki) that courses through them is subtle. The connection of the 'I'-consciousness with the nerves is similar to that of the electrical power with the wires, that is, it is so unstable that it can be disconnected or connected in a second. Is it not an experience common to one and all that this connection is daily broken in sleep and effected in the waking state? When this connection is effected, body-consciousness rises, and when it is broken, body-consciousness is lost. Here it is to be remembered what has already been stated, namely that body-consciousness and world-consciousness are one and the same. So, like our clothes and ornaments which are daily removed and put on, this knot is alien to us, a transitory and false entity hanging loosely on us! This is what Sri Bhagavan referred to when He said, "We can detach ourself from what we are not"!<br /><br />Disconnecting the knot in such a way that it will never again come into being is called by many names such as 'the cutting of the knot' (granthi-bheda). 'the destruction of the mind' (mano-nasa) and so on. 'In such a way that it will<br />never again come into being' means this: by attending to it (the ego) through the enquiry 'Does it in truth exist at present?' in order to find out whether it had ever really come into being, there takes place the dawn of knowledge (jnana), the real waking, where it is clearly and firmly known that no such knot has ever come into being, that no such ego has ever risen, that 'that which exists' alone ever exists, and that which was existing as 'I am' is ever existing as 'I am'! The attainment of this knowledge (Self-knowledge or atma-jnana), the knowledge that the knot or bondage is at all times on-existent and has never risen, is the permanent disconnecting of the knot. Let us explain this with a small story.<br /><br />[He then gives the triangular room analogy, which is too long to paste here, so instead go to http://happinessofbeing.com/books.html#sadhu_om_english for the free download of the book.]Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-78877491356540264872016-10-31T00:15:23.948+00:002016-10-31T00:15:23.948+00:00Venkat -
Is the Murugunar comment found right aft...<b>Venkat</b> -<br /><br />Is the Murugunar comment found right after verse 1119, or elsewhere ?Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-29309218899213355642016-10-30T22:53:55.699+00:002016-10-30T22:53:55.699+00:00From Guru Vachaka Kovai (David Godman's versio...From Guru Vachaka Kovai (David Godman's version) on ajata vada:<br /><br />44: The world does not exist in the state of ultimate truth. Its appearance, its apparently existing nature in maya, is like the imagined appearance of a snake in a rope, a thief in a wooden post, and water in a mirage. Their essential nature is delusion.<br /><br />1119:Though the mind that has been captivated and held under the sway of the shining of pure being may move away to sense objects that are seen, heard, eaten, smelt and touched, as in the past, its knot has definitely been severed through perfect, firm, vichara.<br /><br />Murugunar: There is no rule that the mind whose knot has been cut should not operate among the sense objects. Through strength of practice, it can remain without kartrutva [sense of doership], the suttarivu [the false consciousness that divides itself into someone who sees and objects that are seen], and it can operate among them [the sense objects] wholly as the Self, but it will not in the least become bound by them.<br />venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-40653629853361993962016-10-30T19:40:47.099+00:002016-10-30T19:40:47.099+00:00Ken, Bob
The following is from Annamalai Swami...Ken, Bob<br /><br />The following is from Annamalai Swami's Final Talks:<br /><br />Be the Self. be the peace that is your real nature, and it will not matter what comes up . . . You need to change your vision, your perspective. When you live in the mind and see a world outside you that is separate and apart from you, you will make plans, you will worry, you will have doubts . . .<br />If you abide as the Self, you will see the world as the Self. In fact there will be NO WORLD AT ALL. NO WORLD, NO MIND, NO MAYA, NO DISTINCTIONS OF ANY KIND. In that state of being and knowing the Self, ideas of right and wrong, things to do and things to avoid doing, will vanish. You will know that they were just mental concepts. In that state you will know that the mind is the Self, bondage is the Self, everything is the Self. With that vision, nothing will bind you, nothing will cause you misery.<br />The Self may appear as the manifest world, as different separate objects, but the underlying reality, the only real substance is the Self, in which they are all appearing and disappearing. Things and people may appear in this substratum, and you may use them or interact with them, but your peace will never be disturbed.<br /><br />Lakshmana Karma says the same in Sri Ramanaparavidyopanishad, and in process explains ajata vada:<br /><br />307: The Real Self is real in His own right; this world is not at all real in its own right: thus should be understood the reality of the world and the reality of the Self, who is pure Consciousness<br />326: This world is not other than the body; this body is not distinct from the mind; the mind does not exist apart from the Real Self; therefore the Self is all the world.<br />420: Therefore the sage, established as he is in his natural state, would say that the body, appearing as his body to others, and the world are real. But there is a world of difference in the meaning of what he says. Because the superimposition does not appear as real to the Sage<br />421: The outlook of discrimination is enjoined only on the aspirant for deliverance, nor for him that has won deliverance. Confused outlook is possible for the former, not for the latter.<br />422: The ignorant one, because of his confounding body with the Self, thinks of himself as with form and extensive with that body. The Sage is aware of the Self as infinite, formless being; this is the distinction in the meaning of what is said by these two.<br />423: What is seen as the 'body' by the ignorant appears to the Sage only as the Self; and he refers to it as 'I',ignoring the body-form through his right awareness.<br />428: Just as one that has become wise as to the truth of the mirage, may again see the mirage without being deluded, so too the Sage, seeing this world, does not think of it as real, as does the ignorant one.<br /><br />venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-60439295143963104632016-10-30T10:33:57.663+00:002016-10-30T10:33:57.663+00:00Sorry I spelt you name Kenn, I just noticed after ...Sorry I spelt you name Kenn, I just noticed after I posted it.<br />Bob Bob - Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-34347538823563296062016-10-30T10:30:53.823+00:002016-10-30T10:30:53.823+00:00Dear Kenn
I really like that analogy you gave in ...Dear Kenn <br />I really like that analogy you gave in your comment above, I haven't heard it before. Thank you. <br />I also found the analogy of a piece of glass on the ground reflecting the sunshine into a dark room helpful I think it was in The Path of Sri Ramana - Part 1?<br /><br />Yes what you say is very interesting and I accept it could true.<br />I actually shared your belief in the past and I admit it does still seem feasible. <br />I think it depends if we believe when we experience our self as we really are we experience duality or non duality.<br />I personally believe the later but am certainly open to your opinion.<br />A lot of teachers and people on this blog will you agree with you on this. <br />It is a very interesting discussion.<br />But who knows for certain? I don't. <br /><br />Regardless of what we believe our experience will be we can only contemplate it.<br />Whether we believe what you believe or what I believe all we can do is investigate our self.<br /><br />But I do admit I do find it all fascinating Ken. <br />Thank you for all your posts and it is great to have you here. <br />Best wishes.<br />Bob <br />Bob - Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32285526080777852112016-10-29T22:02:48.768+01:002016-10-29T22:02:48.768+01:00Bob
In regards to the one issue of "does som...<b>Bob</b><br /><br />In regards to the one issue of "does someone experience the world after they become a jnani", that issue is discussed in the article and the comments of the most recent blog article.(25 October 2016).<br /><br />I'll just briefly mention an interesting point in regards to that issue:<br /><br />We know that self-realisation or liberation does not cause the body to die. If you read Sadhu Om's "Path of Sri Ramana Part One", he is clearly describing realisation as no longer making a certain mistake, and no longer paying attention to something that does not really exist (e.g. not spending your time learning to defend against snakes, because the snake is really just a rope).<br /><br />Here is a good analogy - that has only been available recently.<br /><br />Imagine someone in a dark basement for many years with a laptop. He might find that his whole experience is social media and Internet discussions. Then someone opens the door to the basement and he realizes that he is a physical human being and can even leave the basement and walk among trees and grass.<br /><br />He has been "liberated" from the basement. But the door was never locked, he just never looked up from the laptop. So, as Sadhu Om says, "he was never really bound, so he is not liberated".<br /><br />But this realisation does not prevent him from sometimes returning to the laptop to talk to other people on social media.<br /><br />Yes, he no longer is making the mistake of identifying himself as his social media persona. And he knows that the social media persona do not really exist (as we can see on this blog from the guy who uses a different one every time). And his ability to leave the dark basement opens a huge new world to him.<br /><br />That analogy explains how the rigorous absolute perspective is true, and our current personalities are really fictions, along with this world - yet - after realisation we could continue to interact with this world.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-64894692780735736202016-10-29T16:53:07.897+01:002016-10-29T16:53:07.897+01:00Hi Ken
Apologies for the delay getting back to y...Hi Ken <br /><br />Apologies for the delay getting back to your comments on the 25th October.<br />Yes I agree with what you say about knowing if someone is a jnani and they may not appear perfect or how we would expect a jnani to be like.<br /><br />Look at Nisargadatta for example, very grumpy, argumentative, consumed meat (as far as I am aware?) he didn't exactly fit the Jnani stereotype.<br /><br />But I have to try and remember this is all just in my ignorant dualistic view. <br />If I believe Bhagavan there is only one jnani, myself as I really am. <br /><br />I find Bhagavan's teaching so helpful because when we explore the 3 states of consciousnesses it is very practical and we rely on our own direct experience. All I know for certain is I exist and I am self aware everything else is up for grabs so to speak. Are other people self aware like me? I Don't know. Does the world exist when I am in deep sleep? My opinion is no it doesn't but again I have no way of knowing, so it is just a belief. Did Bhagavan experience the world? Again I don't believe he did but I have no way of knowing or proving my belief. However I do know I exist and am self aware so I must study or look at / investigate my self awareness. Turn within and observe the observer. <br /><br />You said: <br />[As far as what the student said - assuming this is being portrayed accurately - there does not seems to be a problem to me.]<br /><br />You are entitle to your opinion and mine differs here as I previously mentioned in my previous comment to you, which is of course fine.<br /><br />Thanks for the points you make about money or paying for spiritual teachings I have never thought about it like that so I do see where you are coming from. I just think when money gets involved it can be a negative indicator. However you do make good points for example cultural differences. <br /><br />I too like you found Tolle very helpful just like Adyashanti in the past and am very grateful to them coming into my life when they did. Thank you for the information you provided about Tolle's life. I am not sure if it is completely true but I cant see why it isn't. <br /><br />Thanks for posting David Godman's post it was very interesting and helpful.<br /><br />What I am about to say may come out wrong.<br /><br />I am grateful to all the teachers who have appeared in my life and I do try my best not to judge them, but it can be hard and I am guilty of doing this. I think there is only one teacher. All the teachers are the same thing myself as I really am projected from within into the world in a limited human form. <br /><br />Ten years ago I don't think I would of been ready for Bhagavan's teaching especially when he says things like there is only one ego and it is everything. It can appear very scary. Plus he says the absolute truth is no ego ever appeared. <br /><br />So I think myself as I really am manifested in other forms and gave specific teachings when I needed them. <br /><br />All I know is am very grateful to all of them, they are all Bhagavan and Bhagavan is myself as I really am. I see him as a separate form because I take myself to be a form. <br /><br />I try to remember this and not be judgemental, but it is hard like I said.<br /><br />At the end of the day when I experience myself as I really am the illusion of what I am not will end including Bob the person the ego presently takes itself to be. <br /><br />Nice talking to you Ken.<br /><br />I am going to try and be quiet now for a while. <br /><br />All the best with your practise. <br /><br />Bob. <br /><br />Bob - Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-90301160973083696052016-10-29T05:21:25.346+01:002016-10-29T05:21:25.346+01:00Roger -
Please actually read the two posts right ...<b>Roger</b> -<br /><br />Please actually read the two posts right before yours, with the words of Ramana stating that "You are eternal right now, and you have been so eternally."<br /><br />You state:<br />"The proposal is that there is no difference between ignorance and the liberation. Then why bother with any practice? If one cannot discriminate between ignorance and liberation... then no genuine inquiry is possible. This is one of many neo-advaitian diseases."<br /><br />No one said anything about ignorance. You are reading one word and mentally substituting another.<br /><br />Here are two quotes from above:<br /><br />"Ramana: Liberation is our very nature. We are that. The very fact that we wish for liberation shows that freedom from all bondage is our real nature. It is not to be freshly acquired."<br /><br />So, we are already liberated. But we are ignorant of the fact. Read - as I've suggested many times to you - "Path of Sri Ramana Part One" and make note of the triangular room analogy which explains how A) we are already liberated and yet b) we are ignorant of the fact.<br /><br />It is like having sunglasses on the top of your head and asking people "where are my sunglasses, I've lost them".<br /><br />The second Ramana quote:<br /><br />"You are the Self, you are already that. The fact is, you are ignorant of your blissful state. Ignorance supervenes and draws a veil over the pure Self which is bliss. Attempts are directed only to remove this veil of ignorance which is merely wrong knowledge. The wrong knowledge is the false identification of the Self with the body and the mind. This false identification must go, and then the Self alone remains."<br /><br />The Karma and Bhakti Yoga is discussed on many pages of this blog, and also extensively in "Path of Sri Ramana Part Two". Again, both books are free downloads at:<br /><br />http://happinessofbeing.com/books.html#sadhu_om_englishKenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.com