tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post4775522661087049205..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Ātma-vicāra is the only means by which we can experience ourself as we really are(Interview on Celibacy: Part 2)Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-10336155090193672582018-10-17T21:52:29.138+01:002018-10-17T21:52:29.138+01:00Quote from Mr.James: 5 April 2014 at 14:01
This ...Quote from Mr.James: 5 April 2014 at 14:01 <br /><br />This is why Bhagavan Ramana advised us to give up all other investigations and earnestly pursue only self-investigation (ātma-vicāra).<br /><br />If we have understood the wisdom of this advice, we will take no interest in knowing whether JK or anyone else is 'enlightened' or whether what others teach is the same as or different to this simple and clear path of ātma-vicāra.<br /><br />Trying to know about others is anātma-vicāra (investigating what is not 'I'), so it will not help us to experience ourself as we really are. Unquote.<br /><br />But then Mr. James has spoken quite in detail about JK, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj (and probably others) quite disparagingly devoting specific commentaries on the topic while comparing them to Sri Ramana Maharshi. <br /><br />I wonder why Mr. James did that and in what context. I am not suggesting Mr.James should not have done it. Then why did he post this kind of answer above to the questioner? I wish Mr. James himself would respond to my comment.Asunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05375243105817283476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-14531608913036818502018-10-17T21:13:03.669+01:002018-10-17T21:13:03.669+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Asunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05375243105817283476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-83187310023108740602014-04-07T11:01:01.302+01:002014-04-07T11:01:01.302+01:00Dear Michael,
your comment to the anonymous questi...Dear Michael,<br />your comment to the anonymous question(er)reaches my complete agreement.<br />Josefnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-79220067493660141292014-04-05T14:01:42.212+01:002014-04-05T14:01:42.212+01:00What we know — indeed all that we know for certain...What we know — indeed all that we know for certain — is the simple truth <i>that I am</i>, but we do not clearly know <i>what I am</i>, so it seems that the only wise thing to do is to investigate what or who am I.<br /><br />Since we do not know for certain whether anything other than 'I' actually exists (because anything that we experience other than 'I' could be an illusion, like all the things that we experience in a dream), what is the use of investigating anything else before we know for certain what this 'I' actually is?<br /><br />This is why Bhagavan Ramana advised us to give up all other investigations and earnestly pursue only self-investigation (<i>ātma-vicāra</i>).<br /><br />If we have understood the wisdom of this advice, we will take no interest in knowing whether JK or anyone else is 'enlightened' or whether what others teach is the same as or different to this simple and clear path of <i>ātma-vicāra</i>.<br /><br />Trying to know about others is <i>anātma-vicāra</i> (investigating what is not 'I'), so it will not help us to experience ourself as we really are.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-6031737077243211562014-04-05T10:39:16.827+01:002014-04-05T10:39:16.827+01:00Some people say that from the ultimate view point ...Some people say that from the ultimate view point what Bhagavan and J.Krishnamurt say constitute the one and the same truth, ' Manonasa', the annihilation of the mind. According to them, whereas JK takes the Buddhistic position of ' Anatta', that is the void of self in all phenomena, Bhagavan, in a more easier way, accepts the existence of a transcendental 'I', which is occluded by the idea of an unreal adjunct like body being attached to it, and through self-investigation one could trace the origin of the adjunct - bound ' I', as a result of which there arises the vibration of the true ' I' , bereft of all external accoutrements leading to the state of total silence of the mind. In this context, do you feel that there is any validity in the argument that both JK and Bhagavan are for the self-same truth of the destruction of the mind, the former advocating the method of choiceless awareness negating the existence of an ' I' even in the very beginning, and the latter positing the reality of a pseudo ' I ' existing, and its unreality having to be transcended, the former advocating the method of apophatic as against the latter the cataphatic. What is your view? There is no second opinion about Bhagavan being an enlightened being. Is JK also enlightened or speaking from the realm of the mind?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com