tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post5272676551373902046..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Metaphysical solipsism, idealism and creation theories in the teachings of Sri RamanaMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-86658958888939210672018-08-10T20:29:17.419+01:002018-08-10T20:29:17.419+01:00Sanjay Lohia,
Thank you for clarifying the meanin...Sanjay Lohia,<br /><br />Thank you for clarifying the meaning of Bhagavan.<br /><br />ajnani.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-31524440193746534732018-08-10T13:18:02.738+01:002018-08-10T13:18:02.738+01:00Anonymous, the very first question asked by Sivapr...Anonymous, the very first question asked by Sivaprakasam Pillai was, ‘Who Am I?’, and Bhagavan replied, ‘the <b><i>aṟivu</i></b> [knowledge, awareness or consciousness] that stands isolated alone is ‘I’. The nature of [this] knowledge [‘I am’] is <b><i>sat-cit-ānanda</i></b> [being-consciousness-bliss]’.<br /><br />So Bhagavan is this pure ‘I’ – that is, he is the pure-awareness whose nature is being-awareness-bliss. Bhagavan has clarified this even further in verse 28 of <i>Upadesa Undiyar</i>:<br /><br />If one knows what the nature of oneself is, then [what will exist and shine is only] <i>anādi</i> [beginningless], <i>ananta</i>[endless, limitless or infinite] and <i>akhaṇḍa</i> [unbroken, undivided or unfragmented] <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i> [being-awareness-bliss].<br /><br />So Bhagavan is this ever-existing, beginningless, infinite and unbroken reality, other than which nothing exists or has ever existed.<br /> <br />Bhagavan has revealed his true nature in countless ways. For example, he once told a devotee named Amritanatha explicitly that Arunachala Ramana is nothing other than pure-consciousness existing in the heart of all <i>jivas</i>. Likewise, he explained another devotee called Janakimata that he is ‘I’ shining in the heart of all and that therefore if we want to hold his feet, we should cling to ‘I’.<br /><br />When Bhagavan was about to shed his body, his devotees were very anxious and troubled. So in order to reassure them that Bhagavan is not going anywhere, he would tell them, ‘Where can I go? I am here’. That means Bhagavan is the ever-existing reality which is present at all places and at all times. Our ego can and will one day leave, but Bhagavan cannot and will not ever leave us. It is because he is what we actually are. <br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-76015490999716424962018-08-09T23:50:11.852+01:002018-08-09T23:50:11.852+01:00Sanjay Lohia,
Thanks for the reply.
You said: Bh...Sanjay Lohia,<br /><br />Thanks for the reply.<br /><br />You said: Bhagavan is the one ever-existing, infinite reality other than which nothing exists or has never existed. <br /><br />Can you explain the meaning of the word Bhagavan in this context? Thanks.<br /><br />By<br />ajnaniAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-67595240477247551642018-08-09T18:27:14.223+01:002018-08-09T18:27:14.223+01:00Anonymous, Bhagavan is the one ever-existing, infi...Anonymous, Bhagavan is the one ever-existing, infinite reality other than which nothing exists or has never existed. However, when this ego comes into existence it brings along with it all ideas such as <i>eka-jiva</i>, <i>aneka-jiva</i>, world, <i>ishvara</i> and so on. All these are just ideas of this one ego. When it seems to exists, everything else seems to exist; when it disappears everything else disappears along with it. <br /><br />Bhagavan explains this in verse 26 of <i>Ulladu Narpadu</i>:<br /><br />If the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist. The ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this is alone is giving up everything.<br /><br />Again Bhagavan says in the 4th paragraph of <i>Nan Yar?</i>:<br /><br />Just as a spider spins out thread from within itself and again draws it back into itself, so the mind projects the world from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself. When the mind comes out from <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the world appears. <br /><br />The terms ‘ego’ an ‘mind’ are interchangeable in this context. So, according to Bhagavan, <i>eka-jiva</i> imagines or creates <i>Ishvara</i>, and not the other way round. <br /><br />Therefore if we want to understand Bhagavan’s teachings, we need to jettison all our old ideas and beliefs. Bhagavan spoke from his direct experience. So whatever you wrote about various ideas of <i>Vedantic</i> scholars certainly do not match with Bhagavan’s simple and clear teachings. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-34492645619106287232018-08-08T23:04:59.690+01:002018-08-08T23:04:59.690+01:00Sanjay
I was told by many Vedantic teachers that ...Sanjay<br /><br />I was told by many Vedantic teachers that Isvara as Saguna Brahman Himself enters each body (whatever species it might be including all stars, planets, comets, galaxies etc.) with his infinite creative powers and appears as the "eka jiva" in each and every seemingly infinite creatures of the Universe. Is this the meaning of eka jiva? So is it the one "eka jiva' and the "immanent Isvara" existing and appearing in all the infinite creatures and galaxies of any and every species?<br /><br />The idea of Isvara also disappears along with the idea of eka jiva for a sage like Sri Ramana Maharshi who attains moksha? Does this concur with Sri Ramana 's teachings?<br /><br />By<br />AjnaniAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-74268185710694970842018-08-01T13:14:39.862+01:002018-08-01T13:14:39.862+01:00Anonymous, yes, God in this context does refer to ...Anonymous, yes, God in this context does refer to <i>Ishvara</i>, the supreme ruling power. When we rise as this ego, we not only create ourself, the ego, but also create a world and God (<i>Ishvara</i>) along with our ego.<br /><br />However, <i>eka-jiva</i> and <i>Ishvara</i> are not the same. <i>Eka-jiva</i> means ‘one-ego’ and ‘<i>Ishvara</i> means the ‘supreme ruling power of this world’. <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-50665546237951968092018-07-31T20:35:42.891+01:002018-07-31T20:35:42.891+01:00Sri Sanjay,
By the word God are you referring to ...Sri Sanjay,<br /><br />By the word God are you referring to Ishvara? Are "eka jiva" and Ishvara one and the same?<br /><br />by<br />ajnaniAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-85498246592099356162018-07-29T17:20:57.915+01:002018-07-29T17:20:57.915+01:00Anonymous, Bhagavan Ramana has indeed said that a ...Anonymous, Bhagavan Ramana has indeed said that a guru’s name and form are our imagination, but his teachings are true, since it shows us the way out of the present mess which we now find ourselves in. He used to say that guru is like a lion that appears in an elephant’s dream. It is believed that elephants are so afraid of lions that even if they see a lion in their dream, they immediately wake up out of intense fear. The guru is like this lion in an elephant’s dream. Guru’s name and form and even his teachings are unreal, because these are part of our dream. However, guru’s teachings are true, because it shows us the way to give up all our imaginations by experiencing ourself as we really are.<br /><br />In this context, we can read verse 20 of <i>Ulladu Narpadu</i>, where Bhagavan says:<br /><br />Neglecting [ignoring or not investigating] oneself [the ego], who sees [things other than oneself], oneself seeing God is seeing a mental vision [a mind-constituted image, phenomenon or appearance]. Only one who sees oneself [one’s real nature], the origin [base or foundation] of oneself [one’s ego], is one who has seen God, because oneself [one’s real nature], [which alone is what remains] when oneself [one’s ego], the origin [root or foundation of all other things], goes, is not other than God. <br /><br />Bhagavan says, ‘oneself seeing God is seeing a mental vision’. That is, as long as we use our mind to see any God outside of ourself, we are merely experiencing our own imagination. In this context, the term ‘God’ can be replaced by ‘guru’, because according to Bhagavan, God, guru and oneself as same. So Bhagavan clearly implies in verse 20 of <i>Ulladu Narpadu</i> that his name and form are not real - these exist only in our mind.<br /><br />In this context, we can also read the paragraph 7 of <i>Nan Yar?</i>:<br /><br />What actually exists is only <i>ātma-svarūpa</i> [our own essential self]. The world, soul and God are <i>kalpanaigaḷ</i> [imaginations, fabrications, mental creations or illusory superimpositions] in it, like [the imaginary] silver [seen] in a shell. These three appear simultaneously and disappear simultaneously.<br /><br />If we see any God outside ourself, that is our mental creation, but God which exists as <i>atma-svarupa</i> is not our mental creation. Bhagavan used to say that he is pure awareness which exists in the heart of every <i>jiva</i> and that if we turn towards him (or towards ourself) with love, we will melt and become one with him. (Yes, Bhagavan used to often talk as if there are many <i>jivas</i>, as a concession to our present understanding). <br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-36076430648753258582018-07-29T14:04:27.053+01:002018-07-29T14:04:27.053+01:00Sri Sanjay Lohia,
I am not saying eka-jiva or onl...Sri Sanjay Lohia,<br /><br />I am not saying eka-jiva or only one jiva concept is wrong or not possible. I don't know and and I am not sure of anything in this world let alone my own identity. I am open to all views. The Mind is vast and the rules and laws of everything in the Universe is different. There are a lot of things even the top brains of the world still don't know. <br /><br />But you said the following to quote you.<br /><br />Michael and all of us may exist in your view; however, how can you be sure that we exist as separate jivas? We could be just like robots talking to you. If even your ego is your ego’s own imagination, how unreal all of us must be, and therefore how can you be sure about anything other than yourself? The only thing you can be sure of is your own existence. Everything else could be your mental creation, and according to Bhagavan this is exactly the case. Nothing exists other than or apart from ourself. Quote.<br /><br />Then in that case was Sri Ramana Maharshi also just a robot like you are and is just a mental creation of your's and never existed at all even as a separate jiva? So whatever Bhagavan said must also be just be the imagination of your one and only jiva and so untrue and have no meaning whatsoever. So where do we draw the line here and say which is true and which is false? Everything then is mithya except Consciousness.<br /><br />I am just asking? I cannot say for sure that only this is true and that is false because it is being said by my one and only jiva which is itself fake and unreal and has no independent existence of its own. <br /><br />By<br />Ajnani<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-42701759345068214852018-07-29T09:37:46.866+01:002018-07-29T09:37:46.866+01:00Anonymous, I am not sure whether the others you me...Anonymous, I am not sure whether the others you mentioned taught <i>eka-jiva vada</i> or not, but we are sure that Bhagavan Ramana did teach this, sometimes explicitly but more often implicitly. I think, since Sri Sankara’s teachings are similar to Bhagavan’s, he must have also taught <i>eka-jiva vada</i>.<br /> <br />However, whether we believe in <i>eka-jiva vada</i> or not, the actual practice of self-investigation does not change. We now experience ourself as this ego; we need to find out what is this ego? We can do so only by turning our attention towards ourself, and by being attentively self-aware in order to discover what we actually are. So our practice is not based on any sort of belief. <br /><br />On the contrary, in order to successfully practise self-investigation, we need to doubt everything – we need to doubt even the doubter (the ego). It is only out of this doubt that we need to investigate ourself. So we need no preconceived notions in this path.<br /><br />When Bhagavan talked about <i>eka-jiva</i>, he was not giving us a set of belief. He was merely intimating us his final experience. When (as Venkataraman) he investigated himself, he found that his ego does not exist, and along with his ego everything else (including all other egos) vanished from his view. After his death experience even though he remained in a body for 54 years, but such a body and its actions were only in our view. To him, nothing exists apart from himself. His state is that of perfect non-duality. He says in verse 31 of <i>Ulladu Napadu</i>:<br /><br />For those who are happiness composed of that, which rose destroying themself, what one exists for doing? They do not know anything other than themself; who can conceive their state as ‘like this’?<br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-11979532401626359822018-07-29T08:33:32.856+01:002018-07-29T08:33:32.856+01:00Sri Sanjay Lohia,
Thank you very much for your tw...Sri Sanjay Lohia,<br /><br />Thank you very much for your two comments to explain EJV. I will look into it further. It was only recently I heard of the term eka-jiva-vada as I am looking into actual solipsism cases as part of my work in my job and so I was curious to know why it was only taught by Sri Ramana Maharshi. Did Sri Gaudapadacharya, Sri Adi Sankaracharya, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Nisargadatta Maharaj and others also advocate ek-jiva-vada teachings and practice? <br /><br />Thanks<br />by<br />AjnaniAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-76436046492872905182018-07-29T07:57:49.280+01:002018-07-29T07:57:49.280+01:00Anjani (aka Anonymous), in reply to one of my ques...Anjani (aka Anonymous), in reply to one of my questions on <i>eka-jiva vada</i>, Michael wrote an email to me on 18 December 2013, in which he wrote:<br /><br />To understand the <i>eka-jiva vada</i>, we have to set aside all our preconceived beliefs about the world and all the people in it. After waking from a dream, we do not ask, ‘Which of the many people I saw in that dram was the dreamer?’, because we know that we alone dreamt it. But while dreaming it seemed to us that there were many other people seeing the same world that we were then seeing. Only when we wake up do we realise that we were the only ego seeing that dream, and then we understand that all other people we saw in it were a creation of our own mind. <br /><br />Unless we are now ready to doubt the truth of all that we now believe about the world and the people we see in it, we will not be able to accept even tentatively the truth of the <i>eka-jiva vada</i> that Bhagavan taught us. but if we are not ready to let go of our cherished beliefs in the existence of the world and of other people, how will we be ready to let go of the believer, or own mind or ego?<br /><br />At present we are not in a position to say from our experience whether we are the only one <i>jiva</i> or whether there are other <i>jivas</i> like us, but Bhagavan not only teaches us from his experience that there is only one <i>jiva</i>, namely ourself, but also teaches us how we can verify this truth of this teaching for ourself. If we follow his advice and investigate ourself to see whether or not we are the <i>jiva</i> that we now seem to be, he tells us that we will find that even this one <i>jiva</i> does not actually exist, because we will experience ourself as the one infinite and eternal reality. <br /><br />My note: Michael and all of us may exist in your view; however, how can you be sure that we exist as separate <i>jivas</i>? We could be just like robots talking to you. If even your ego is your ego’s own imagination, how unreal all of us must be, and therefore how can you be sure about anything other than yourself? The only thing you can be sure of is your own existence. Everything else could be your mental creation, and according to Bhagavan this is exactly the case. Nothing exists other than or apart from ourself. <br /><br />For example, if we were to ask, ‘How many sons does this barren woman have?’, would it not be a foolish question? If she is a barren woman, she cannot have even one son, leave aside many sons. Likewise, our <i>atma-svarupa</i>, which is the infinite, eternal, immutable reality, is like this barren woman. According to Bhagavan, what exists is only <i>atma-svarupa</i>, and it cannot act or have progenies, and therefore it cannot produce even one ego, leave aside many egos. <br /><br />So if we believe in this theory of <i>eka-jiva vada</i>, at least as a working hypothesis, it will make our self-investigation more meaningful. If this one ego goes, everything else - all our problems and worries - will go along with it - in fact, we can solve all the problems of this world in just one stroke. This information should motivate us to investigate ourself with more and more keenness. <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-89284239035732820822018-07-28T19:31:58.071+01:002018-07-28T19:31:58.071+01:00I meant to say aneka jivas in my earlier post. Sor...I meant to say aneka jivas in my earlier post. Sorry for all the mistakes.<br /><br />by<br />AjnaniAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-48860072352262043272018-07-28T19:26:17.491+01:002018-07-28T19:26:17.491+01:00Anonymous said...
Sri ahankaram
Sri Sanjay Lohia
...Anonymous said...<br />Sri ahankaram<br />Sri Sanjay Lohia<br /><br />Thanks kindly for the replies.<br /><br />Correction made from my previous identical post.<br /><br />Among the 3 of us here I count 3 apparent jivas and not just one apparent jiva. If I, even as the one and only apparent jiva or ego include Sri Michael James the blog owner that would be still 4 apparent jives. Would it not be arrogant and foolish of me to claim that I am the one and only jiva alive with Consciousness and Awareness among all four of us but the rest of you are mere figments of my own imagination? I cannot do that because the remaining three of you are also embodiments of the same Consciousness and Awareness like me. <br /><br />If all three of you are mere imaginary entities for me then so should I be the same for myself as the one and only apparent jiva. What is so special about only me that I am the only jiva present here but not all 3 of you are as apparent jivas present wherever you are as well? <br /><br />This apparent law, fact or reality also apples to each one of you individually. No. I am not all saying Bhagavan Sri Ramana Mahrshi is wrong. I just want to clear this confusion of whether there is eka jiva or anake jivas while I am still an ajnani. <br /><br />Thanks. <br /><br />By.<br /><br />Ajnani.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-29224853266668433952018-07-28T19:21:31.403+01:002018-07-28T19:21:31.403+01:00Sri ahankaram
Sri Sanjay Lohia
Thanks kindly for ...Sri ahankaram<br />Sri Sanjay Lohia<br /><br />Thanks kindly for the replies.<br /><br />Among the 3 of us here I count 3 apparent jivas and not just one apparent jiva. If I, even as the one and only apparent jiva or ego include Sri Michael James the blog owner that would be still 4 apparent jives. Would it not be arrogant and foolish of me to claim that I am the one only the jiva alive with Consciousness and Awareness among all four of us and the rest of you are mere figments of my own imagination. I cannot do that because the remaining three of you are also embodiments of the same Consciousness and Awareness like me. <br /><br />If all three of you are mere imaginary entities for me then so should I be the same for myself as the one and only apparent jiva. What is so special about only me that I am the only jiva present here but not all 3 of you are as apparent jivas present wherever you are as well? <br /><br />This apparent law, fact or reality also apples to each one of you individually. No. I am not all saying Bhagavan Sri Ramana Mahrshi is wrong. I just want to clear this confusion of whether there is eka jiva or anake jivas while I am still an ajnani. <br /><br />Thanks. <br /><br />By.<br /><br />Ajnani.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-10842966957607195702018-07-28T13:18:20.336+01:002018-07-28T13:18:20.336+01:00Anonymous, if we read Bhagavan’s most fundamental ...Anonymous, if we read Bhagavan’s most fundamental texts like <i>Ulladu Narpadu, Nan Yar?</i> and <i>Upadesa Undiyar</i> in depth, we will have no reason to believe that there is more than one ego or <i>jiva</i>. And even this one ego only has a seeming existence, because if we investigate it hard enough, we will come to know that even this one ego does not really exist, even though it may seem to exist. So all talk about one ego versus many egos is ultimately irrelevant. <br /><br />Bhagavan has given us sufficient direct and indirect hints to suggest that there is only one seeming ego. For example, he says in <i>Ulladu Narpadu</i> (v. 26) that if the ego comes into existence, everything else also comes into existence. What does it imply? It implies that there is only one ego, and when this ego seems to exist, all the other seeming egos also seem to exist.<br /><br />He has explained that this worldly existence is nothing but another dream. For example he says in paragraph 18 of <i>Nan Yar?</i>:<br /><br />Except that waking is <i>dīrgha</i> [long lasting] and dream is <i>kṣaṇika</i> [momentary or lasting for only a short while], there is no other difference [between these two mind-created states]. To the extent to which all the <i>vyavahāras </i>[doings, activities, affairs or occurrences] that happen in waking seem [at this present moment] to be real, to that [same] extent even the <i>vyavahāras</i> that happen in dream seem at that time to be real. In a dream the mind takes another body [to be itself]. In both waking and dream thoughts and names-and-forms [the objects of the seemingly external world] occur in one time [that is, simultaneously]. <br /><br />Even this apparent difference that the waking is long-lasting and that the dream is momentary is not absolutely true. This seems to true only from the perspective of our current so-called ‘waking state’. Bhagavan clarifies this <i>GVK</i>. Therefore there is absolutely no difference between the waking and dream states. How many egos are witnessing any dream? It is only one ego. Who is this one ego? This is what we need to investigate.<br /><br />Once there was a discussion in Bhagavan’s hall on this topic. Someone asked Bhagavan, ‘Bhagavan, you say there is only one ego. Who is that one ego?’ Bhagavan replied, ‘You are that’. Immediately someone else asked, ‘Bhagavan, what about me?’ Bhagavan again said, ‘You are that’. It may all seem too mind-boggling to us now. However, we can clearly unravel all such mysteries if we investigation ourself and find our real egoless state. <br /><br />If this one ego vanishes, all its doubts and confusions will also vanish forever. However, with our mind, we can never solve such puzzles. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-21602530409262493662018-07-28T10:11:34.930+01:002018-07-28T10:11:34.930+01:00Sri Anonymous, your question is not a silly one.Sri Anonymous, your question is not a silly one.ahankaramnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-36249539502415609062018-07-28T06:30:10.065+01:002018-07-28T06:30:10.065+01:00Sri Michael James,
I read your explanation as to ...Sri Michael James,<br /><br />I read your explanation as to this waking state is also like dreams of the dream state and so all the the other jivas I see in my waking state are also as non-existent just like in my dreams in dream state which makes me the only and one jiva or ego present even if it is practically not real.This is a very good explanation in support of the eka-jiva-vada school of thought. But are there any other explanations to support the eka-jiva-vada concept? If all other jivas are not real but only imagined in my mind as far as I am concerned, then I am also not real as the one and only jiva in the waking state as well. Then how can I get liberated or realize the Self if I am also not a jiva?<br /><br />By<br />Ajnani<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-29226226718128473812018-07-28T04:56:56.619+01:002018-07-28T04:56:56.619+01:00I forgot to mention if someone can correct me and ...I forgot to mention if someone can correct me and explain to me where I was wrong when I said there are infinite apparent jivas and not just one apparent jiva as claimed by Michael James and also by proponents of eka-jiva-vada theory. Where have the proponents of aneka-jiva-vada gone wrong in saying there are aneka jivas or egos and not just one jiva or ego.<br /><br />Thanks, sincerely<br />by <br />Ajnani.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-43379652633231069832018-07-28T04:19:51.555+01:002018-07-28T04:19:51.555+01:00Can anyone here including Sri Michael James please...Can anyone here including Sri Michael James please explain to me about the validity of eka-jiva-vada theory? Why does Michael say there is only one jiva or ego when there are billions or trillions of apparent jivas if we include all the living creatures on earth. Even in this comments section itself there are so many egos and jivas commenting and desiring liberation. It is certainly not just one ego or one jiva I see here or even you may see. I would greatly appreciate if anyone here explained to me why there is talk of just one jiva or ego and not infinite egos. If there was only one ego or jiva then when Bhagavan attained Jnana and moksha then all the other apparent egos also should have automatically attained Jnana and moksha because there is only one jiva or ego as per Michael James.<br /><br />So please tell me where exactly I missed the bus so to speak. <br /><br />Thanks<br />By<br />Ajnani.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-82812150591860575612017-09-20T16:10:49.987+01:002017-09-20T16:10:49.987+01:00Self,
both the illusion created by the ego and the...Self,<br />both the illusion created by the ego and the ego itself are nothing but chimera and deception. Seen from the viewpoint of self as the infinite reality the ego along with its creation has never been really existent but ever non-existent because according to Bhagavan and Michael James the ego seemingly exists only in its own deceptive/delusive/fallacious view.mudalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-69229104898803861162017-09-20T11:56:43.906+01:002017-09-20T11:56:43.906+01:00Mudal I do not speak of the indivisible whole. I m...Mudal I do not speak of the indivisible whole. I mean this 'illusion' that the ego has created.Selfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-35028629182572833292017-09-19T19:37:32.823+01:002017-09-19T19:37:32.823+01:00Self,
how can the entire reality ever collaps ? Th...Self,<br />how can the entire reality ever collaps ? There is nothing but reality - the indivisible whole.mudalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-82785737817226874522017-09-19T14:58:12.632+01:002017-09-19T14:58:12.632+01:00Michael, please clarify. If there is only one ego ...Michael, please clarify. If there is only one ego how can it be that someone such as Ramana Maharshi became Self Realized, destroying the ego permanently and yet here it remains, producing a world. If 'I' am the creator of this 'reality' was Ramana's existence and realisation merely my own creation though this 'me' was not born at that time?<br />Each of us in this illusion is being told that they are the creator of it. I cannot get my mind around that. If any should become self realised should not the entire reality collapse into non existence?Selfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-87574675949488113592016-05-30T07:14:32.263+01:002016-05-30T07:14:32.263+01:00Michael,
since there is only one ego (metaphysica...Michael, <br />since there is only one ego (metaphysical solipsism), and I'm always "talking to myself", in my dream, and you are just a character in my dream (as I am), doesn't this imply the existence of parallel universes / different dreams had by the one ego, from the different space-time "camera locations" (or otherness) that we appear to be? Space-time is illusory, it's here and now, so its linear causality must as well be seen as an illusion... One ego, doesn't mean one dream/world. (And it actually doesn't make much sense for illusion to be one and only, that's reality's quality). Do you find this idea of multiple dream/universes compatible or incompatible with Ramana's teaching? Maynoreply@blogger.com