tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post5273393547264617026..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Our aim should be to experience ourself alone, in complete isolation from everything elseMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-85463610497488345912016-08-04T23:31:03.237+01:002016-08-04T23:31:03.237+01:00Even though everyone's experience of self-enqu...Even though everyone's experience of self-enquiry is different, I have found that the longer you hold onto the I AM feeling, the more likely the mind is to 'take a snapshot' of it (objectify it) and trick you into believing that you are stilling holding on to the truth of it. <br /><br />If it feels like effort to hold onto I AM, most likely you have objectified it, only trapped a shadow of I AM in a cage.<br /><br />In my experience, feeling I AM for 1-4 seconds is perfect. I cannot hold on to it any longer than that, but what I do have control over is how many times I return to those 1-4 second glimpses throughout the day.Zubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02219788084356971947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-16402526569029482742016-08-04T23:27:12.877+01:002016-08-04T23:27:12.877+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Zubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02219788084356971947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-70701081088005549672015-01-13T22:03:06.312+00:002015-01-13T22:03:06.312+00:00Viswanathan, in the answer given by David that you...Viswanathan, in the answer given by David that you quote in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/12/our-aim-should-be-to-experience-ourself.html?showComment=1420852593182#c7927304386356854579" rel="nofollow">your latest comment</a>, he quoted a translation of verse 19 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, which is relevant in this context, but unfortunately that translation contains a serious misinterpretation of the original Tamil verse. That is, in the second sentence of the verse it misinterprets தன்னை (<i>taṉṉai</i>) as ‘the Self’, thereby implying that this word refers to our real self rather than to our ego.<br /><br />I do not think David knows sufficient Tamil to translate this verse himself, so he is presumably not responsible for this misinterpretation, but I am surprised that he was not able to recognise that it is a misinterpretation, because Bhagavan would never imply that fate and free will have anything to do with our real self (as he makes clear, for example, in the <a href="http://www.happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para15" rel="nofollow">fifteenth paragraph of <i>Nāṉ Yār?</i></a>, in which he says that God (who is nothing but our real self) has no volition and is never touched by any <i>karma</i>). Of course, fate and free will originate from the ego, which in turn originates from our real self, so our real self is the ultimate source not only of the ego but also of everything else, including fate and free will, but that was not the point that Bhagavan was making in this verse.<br /><br />One of the central ideas that he repeatedly expressed in many of the verses of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> is that the ego is the source, root and basis of everything (except of course our real self), so everything depends for its seeming existence only on the seeming existence of the ego and will therefore cease to exist when the ego investigates itself and thereby subsides and merges back into ourself, the source from which it arose. This verse is one of the many verses in which he clearly alluded to this fundamental truth.<br /><br />Please see the more accurate translation of this verse that I gave today in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-karma-theory-as-taught-by-sri-ramana.html?showComment=1421177218928#c2790065803228613993" rel="nofollow">a comment on another article</a>, and also the reliable interpretations of it given by both Sadhu Om and Lakshmana Sarma in their respective Tamil commentaries on <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>. As I did in my translation, they both interpret the phrases ‘விதி மதி மூலம்’ (<i>vidhi mati mūlam</i>), ‘the root of fate and free will’, and ‘விதிமதிகட்கு ஓர் முதல் ஆம் தன்னை’ (<i>vidhi-matigaṭku ōr mudal ām taṉṉai</i>), ‘oneself, who is the one origin [cause or foundation] of fate and free will’, as referring only to the ego rather than to our real self, because fate (<i>vidhi</i>) and free will (<i>mati</i>) exist only for the ego and not for our real self.<br /><br />Unfortunately the misinterpretation of தன்னை (<i>taṉṉai</i>) as ‘the Self’ in the translation quoted by David seems to have led him to conclude that ‘After realisation [...] all actions are performed by the Self’, which is certainly not the case, because our real self never does any action (<i>karma</i>), since its nature is pure being, and after ‘realisation’ there are no actions, since action is done only by the illusory ego, which seems to exist only so long as we do not experience ourself as we really are.<br /><br />Incidentally, David gives a more accurate translation and correct interpretation of this verse in a note to the translation he edited of verse 522 of <a href="http://www.happinessofbeing.com/guru_vachaka_kovai.html" rel="nofollow"><i>Guru Vācaka Kōvai</i></a>, in which Bhagavan expresses the same idea that he expressed in the first half of this verse.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-55169850560914537612015-01-13T19:38:39.423+00:002015-01-13T19:38:39.423+00:00Beshwar, I have now replied to your latest comment...Beshwar, I have now replied to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/12/our-aim-should-be-to-experience-ourself.html?%20showComment=1420745415314#c8753102297352034380" rel="nofollow">your latest comment above</a> and also to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-karma-theory-as-taught-by-sri-ramana.html?showComment=1420744676102#c8948261963815445368" rel="nofollow">two other comments</a> that you wrote on another article, <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-karma-theory-as-taught-by-sri-ramana.html" rel="nofollow">The <i>karma</i> theory as taught by Sri Ramana</a>, in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-karma-theory-as-taught-by-sri-ramana.html?showComment=1421176615104#c4171946676183107016" rel="nofollow">another two comments</a> on that article, so please read my reply there.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-27549753112040367232015-01-12T21:47:00.338+00:002015-01-12T21:47:00.338+00:00Noob, in answer to your comment asking about think...Noob, in answer to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/12/our-aim-should-be-to-experience-ourself.html?showComment=1420306768117#c3280644040352838621" rel="nofollow">your comment asking about thinking ‘I, I’</a> words such as nouns, pronouns and verbs each represent or denote something, so when we think of such a word it usually prompts us to think of whatever it represents. Since the word ‘I’ represents ourself, if we think repeatedly ‘I, I, I’ it should help to draw our attention back to ourself. Therefore when we think ‘I, I’ we should not merely attend to the word ‘I’ but should try to attend to ourself, who are what it represents or denotes.<br /><br />It was with this intention that Bhagavan and Sadhu Om suggested thinking or doing mental <i>japa</i> of ‘I, I’. However, Sadhu Om explained that this is a clue that is intended primarily to help those who find it difficult either to understand what self-attentiveness is or to regain self-attentiveness whenever it is lost, because ideally we should be able to be self-attentive even without the aid of thinking the word ‘I’.<br /><br />In other words, thinking ‘I, I’ is intended to be an aid to help us turn our attention towards ourself, and once it is turned, we should let go of the word ‘I’ in order to go deep into the experience of pure self-attentiveness or self-awareness — that is, awareness of nothing other than ourself alone.<br /><br />So long as we cling to the word ‘I’ instead of attending to ourself alone, our attention is divided between ourself and the word, which is something other than ourself. Therefore, though initially thinking ‘I’ can help to turn our attention towards ourself, we will sooner or later have to let go of it in order to sink deep into ourself — that is, into the experience of pure otherless self-awareness.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-79273043863568545792015-01-10T01:16:33.182+00:002015-01-10T01:16:33.182+00:00I would once again recommend that Beshwar may plea...I would once again recommend that Beshwar may please read the whole of this David Godman's blog:<br /><br />http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.in/2008/04/god-scriptwriter.html<br /><br />Particularly this answer from David Godman in that blog:<br /><br />"In UIlladu Narpadu, verse 19, Bhagavan wrote:<br /><br />The debate "Does free will prevail or fate?' is only for those who do not know the root of both. Those who have known the Self, the common source of free-will and fate, have passed beyond them both and will not return to them.<br /><br />Debates about free will and destiny can only persist as longer as there is an idea that there is a 'chooser', someone who decides what he or she shall do or not do. After realisation the illusory chooser vanishes, and all actions are performed by the Self without any prior 'Should I do this? Should I do that?' You can only argue about this matter while you still believe that there is an entity that has choices. When that belief and that entity vanish, concepts of destiny and free will vanish along with it."R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-87531022973520343802015-01-08T19:30:15.314+00:002015-01-08T19:30:15.314+00:00"So long as we experience ourself as this ego..."So long as we experience ourself as this ego (the body-and-mind-mixed consciousness), we not only experience a sense of doership but also experience a limited freedom to will and act. That is, it seems to us that we are free to choose what we want or like and what we don’t want or don’t like, and also to choose what we try to do and what we try not to do. This limited freedom to will and act is as real as the ego that we now experience ourself to be. So long as we as this ego seem to be real, our freedom to will and act will also seem to be real, and hence we must use this freedom wisely."<br /><br />1. "and hence we must use this freedom wisely."<br /><br />Sir, what freedom? Our only freedom is only of the will of God's. And if so perchance that we use this 'freedom' wisely, is it our choice to use this 'freedom' wisely? How can it be so? We have no choice whatsoever. <br /><br />Whatever we are to experience, there is no escape. That means whatever thought process we had must have also been predetermined. No thought or will can change anything, therefore how can you say one has a free will? <br />Beshwarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-2014383453913544782015-01-08T14:41:35.369+00:002015-01-08T14:41:35.369+00:00In continuation of my previous comment in reply to...In continuation of <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/12/our-aim-should-be-to-experience-ourself.html?showComment=1420727991669#c1534128412671451644" rel="nofollow">my previous comment</a> in reply to Beshwar:<br /><br />You say, ‘Everything just happens and you are only consciousness that is aware of what is going on’, but what is aware of what is going on is not pure consciousness but only the ego, which is a distorted form of consciousness — that is, it is consciousness mixed and confused with other things, such as a body and mind. Whenever we are aware of anything other than ourself, we are experiencing ourself as if we were a body and mind, so what is aware of those other things is only a body-and-mind-mixed consciousness.<br /><br />Since we experience ourself as this body and mind, and since they do actions, we experience their actions as if we were doing them. Therefore we cannot avoid having a sense of doership so long as we experience anything other than ourself (that is, anything other than the pure adjunct-free consciousness that we really are).<br /><br />So long as we experience ourself as this ego (the body-and-mind-mixed consciousness), we not only experience a sense of doership but also experience a limited freedom to will and act. That is, it seems to us that we are free to choose what we want or like and what we don’t want or don’t like, and also to choose what we try to do and what we try not to do. This limited freedom to will and act is as real as the ego that we now experience ourself to be. So long as we as this ego seem to be real, our freedom to will and act will also seem to be real, and hence we must use this freedom wisely.<br /><br />According to Bhagavan, the only wise way to use our freedom is to investigate ourself by trying to experience ourself alone, in complete isolation from everything else. When we manage to experience ourself thus, we will experience ourself as we really are, and hence we will no longer experience ourself as this ego, so then only will the limited freedom of this ego no longer seem to be real. Until then, its freedom is as real as it is, so we are responsible for whatever use we make of this freedom.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-15341284126714516442015-01-08T14:39:51.669+00:002015-01-08T14:39:51.669+00:00Beshwar, as I suggested in my reply to your first ...Beshwar, as I suggested in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/12/our-aim-should-be-to-experience-ourself.html?showComment=1420370340469#c3029587443120129822" rel="nofollow">my reply to your first comment</a>, please read <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-karma-theory-as-taught-by-sri-ramana.html" rel="nofollow">The <i>karma</i> theory as taught by Sri Ramana</a> and <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/why-did-sri-ramana-teach-karma-theory.html" rel="nofollow">Why did Sri Ramana teach a <i>karma</i> theory?</a>, where I try to explain what Bhagavan taught us about free will.<br /><br />If Ramesh Balsekar says that we have no free will, that would give us strong grounds to suspect that he does not know what he is talking about, because claiming that we have no free will would contradict the entire <i>karma</i> theory and all the spiritual teachings given by Bhagavan, Ramakrishna and numerous other sages. If we have to choose between believing Ramesh Balsekar and believing such sages, I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is safer to believe them than to believe him.<br /><br />If we had no free will, we would not be able to create any <i>āgāmya</i>, because <i>āgāmya</i> is by definition the fruit of <i>karmas</i> that we do by our own free will, and hence there would be no fruit of any past <i>karmas</i> stored in our <i>sañcita</i> and available there to be selected as our <i>prārabdha</i>, so the entire <i>karma</i> theory would be invalidated. If we could not do any <i>karma</i> by our own free will, how would it be fair and just that we should experience the fruits of our past <i>karmas</i>? If what we now experience is the fruit of our past <i>karmas</i> but our past <i>karmas</i> are just what we were compelled to do as the result of previous <i>karmas</i>, the <i>karma</i> theory would not be a theory of moral justice, and would instead render all morality and ethics as meaningless. If we had no choice in anything that we do, any moral judgement of our actions would be like morally judging the actions of insentient objects or forces of nature such as gravity, wind or tides.<br /><br />Moreover, if we had no free will, any spiritual teaching would be rendered meaningless. Why should sages teach us that we should investigate who we are, or that we should have <i>bhakti</i> or do <i>pūjā</i>, <i>japa</i>, <i>dhyāna</i>, <i>yōga</i> or any other type of spiritual practice, if we have no freedom to do so?<br /><br />(I will continue this reply in my next comment.)Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-57086136877501446762015-01-06T18:15:12.005+00:002015-01-06T18:15:12.005+00:00From Nisargadatta's disciple Ramesh Balsekar, ...From Nisargadatta's disciple Ramesh Balsekar, he says that we have no free will and that everything is govern by cosmic laws. What is suppose to happen will happen and what will not happen won't happen. It is the same with our thoughts, they have been inherent within us from our DNA. We have the free will but it is according to God's free will. For example; you can go out and shoot the mass of people with machine gun, but still you are not the doer, but why won't you do it? It is because you are not set up to do so, your DNA won't allow you to. <br /><br />"but we can avoid doing any action by our free will."<br /><br />How is that so when even that is preordained. Just like 'my' so called thoughts which are not mine, they are all happening and I have no will whether to stop it or not, anything I am destined to think about, will be thought upon as I cannot escape it.<br /><br />So what I am getting at is that, there is no point in doing anything because you cannot even do a thing because it is only accordance to the will of God', you have no free will. Everything just happens and you are only consciousness that is aware of what is going on and you suffer if you think you are the doer.<br /><br />So now with that said, everybody's life is already preordain, if they were to be encounter with your readings, they would. If not, they would not. <br /><br />What about effort? Ramakrishna and others says there must be effort but effort of what when I am only consciousness? I have no effort at all but to know that I am not the doer, therefore all activities will go on. But what effort?? How can you? It will be preordain if one will have effort or not, have the drive, the intense desire for liberation, all that is upon the will of God and not ours, would you say so? <br /><br />Therefore when I say you cannot even do a thing, how can others say you must have effort when it is not even your choice? You have no choice to do so but to be aware of what's going on.Beshwarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-86987537779349699042015-01-06T12:57:59.186+00:002015-01-06T12:57:59.186+00:00Beshwar, according to Bhagavan all the guidance we...Beshwar, according to Bhagavan all the guidance we require is available within us, but our inner guide or spirit is only our own essential self, and its voice is only silence, so in order to listen to it we must turn our inwards and remain silent, attending only to ourself and not to anything else whatsoever. If we do so, we will find that what the silent voice of our own essential self is telling us is best for us is only to remain silently and attentively self-aware.<br /><br />Regarding your question, ‘If everything is preordain, then does it mean I don’t have to do anything?’, what is preordained is only whatever outward experiences we are to undergo, and not whether or not we experience what we really are. Whatever we may be preordained to experience so long as our mind is turned outwards (that is, towards anything other than ourself), we are always free to choose whether to allow our mind to go outwards to experience such things or to turn it within to experience ourself alone.<br /><br />So long as we are experiencing anything other than ourself, we are experiencing ourself as a body and mind, and this body and mind cannot remain without doing anything. However, the actions of our body and mind are driven by two forces, our destiny (<i>prārabdha</i>) and our free will. We cannot avoid doing any actions that we are destined to do, but we can avoid doing any action by our free will.<br /><br />If we allow our mind to rise and attend to anything other than ourself, our free will will drive it to a greater or lesser extent to do actions, so we cannot completely avoid doing any action by our free will so long as our mind is active. Therefore the only way to avoid entirely doing any action by our free will is to turn our mind within to experience ourself alone.<br /><br />We cannot avoid feeling that we are the doer so long as we experience ourself as a body and mind, which are the instruments that do actions. Therefore the only way to avoid doership is to experience ourself as we really are.<br /><br />We need not concern ourself too much about the mundane activities we do, so long as they are not harming anybody else. To use your example, if someone were to offer us a choice of food, we need not be concerned about which choice to make. What we need to do is just to vigilantly watch ourself, the ego who is making such choices, because the more we attend to our ego the more it will subside, and the more it subsides the less our actions will be driven by its will.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-18310435625724334782015-01-06T00:09:58.304+00:002015-01-06T00:09:58.304+00:00What I am stuck upon is that is it preordain that ...What I am stuck upon is that is it preordain that I do not listen to my higher Self, or that Voice, or spirit guides if you may when it guides me and tells me what is best for me? I am not sure if Sri Bhagavan discuss about spirit guides or what the whole teaching has on that inner voice. <br /><br />If everything is preordain, then does it mean I don't have to do anything? Some say as long as you don't feel as if you are the doer, but how can anything get done? Though that is also the ego-thinking but what is one suppose to do if one has no choice? If someone where to offer me food, if I would rather have this or that. What am I suppose to say? <br /><br />Beshwarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-58094995315607121822015-01-04T11:26:46.483+00:002015-01-04T11:26:46.483+00:00In continuation of my reply to Beshwar in my previ...In continuation of my reply to Beshwar in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/12/our-aim-should-be-to-experience-ourself.html?showComment=1420370340469#c3029587443120129822" rel="nofollow">my previous comment</a>:<br /><br />As you imply when you write, ‘Basically he said we just have to take care of our Self and the body will handle its own’, what we should infer from his note to his mother and other related teachings of his is that we need not concern ourself with our body, since our <i>prārabdha</i> will make us do whatever is necessary in order for us to experience whatever we are destined to experience outwardly, so our only concern should be to try to turn our mind inwards in order to experience ourself alone, in complete isolation from everything else.<br /><br />Though our <i>prārabdha</i> determines all that we are to experience outwardly, and though it will provide us with the conditions that are most favourable to motivate us to try to turn our attention within towards ourself alone, it is entirely up to us to make the effort to be self-attentive as much as possible. <i>Prārabdha</i> is one of the three <i>karmas</i>, so it influences only our actions and what we experience whenever we allow our mind to go outwards, away from ourself, and hence it cannot either cause or obstruct our effort to be self-attentive, because self-attentiveness is not an action (<i>karma</i>) but our natural state of just being.<br /><br />Therefore, when he concluded his note to his mother by saying, ‘ஆகலின் மௌனமா யிருக்கை நன்று’ (<i>āhaliṉ mauṉamāy irukkai naṉḏṟu</i>), which means, ‘Therefore silently being is good’, he was implying that the only useful effort we can make by our own free will is to try silently to be self-attentive. Any other effort that we may make by our own free will will not change whatever we are destined to experience, but will only create fresh <i>karma</i> (<i>āgāmya</i>), the fruit of which will not be experienced in the lifetime of our present body but will be stored in our <i>sañcita</i> (our store of past <i>karmas</i> that are yet to bear fruit) until it is selected by God for us to experience in some future lifetime.<br /><br />By making effort to be self-attentive, we will not change whatever our body and mind are destined to undergo according to our <i>prārabdha</i>, but we will separate ourself from this body and mind, and when our self-attentiveness becomes perfect we will thereby entirely break all connection that we now seem to have with them.<br /><br />Regarding your final statement, ‘Though I do somewhat believe this and want to, I just don’t have a strong conviction’, we all tend to lack sufficient conviction to believe this entirely and to accordingly be exclusively self-attentive at all times, but by persistent practice of self-attentiveness we will steadily increase our clarity of discrimination (<i>vivēka</i>) and thereby our conviction that being self-attentive is the only worthwhile effort we can make will also increase correspondingly.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-30295874431201298222015-01-04T11:19:00.469+00:002015-01-04T11:19:00.469+00:00Yes, Beshwar, Bhagavan did teach us that all the o...Yes, Beshwar, Bhagavan did teach us that all the outward experiences that our body and mind are to undergo is predetermined according to our <i>prārabdha</i> (destiny or fate), which is the fruit of our past volitional actions (<i>āgāmya karmas</i>). The clearest statement he made in this regard is the note that he wrote for his mother in December 1898 when she pleaded with him to return home with her to Madurai:<br /><br />“அவரவர் பிராரப்தப் பிரகாரம் அதற்கானவன் ஆங்காங்கிருந் தாட்டுவிப்பன். என்றும் நடவாதது என் முயற்சிக்கினும் நடவாது; நடப்ப தென்றடை செய்யினும் நில்லாது. இதுவே திண்ணம். ஆகலின் மௌனமா யிருக்கை நன்று.”<br /><br />“<i>avar avar prārabdha-p prakāram adaṯkāṉavaṉ āṅgāṅgu irundu āṭṭuvippaṉ. eṉḏṟum naḍavādadu eṉ muyaṯcikkiṉum naḍavādu; naḍappadu eṉ taḍai seyyiṉum nillādu. idu-v-ē tiṇṇam. āhaliṉ mauṉamāy irukkai naṉḏṟu</i>.”<br /><br />“According to the <i>prārabdha</i> [destiny] of each person, God being there there [in the heart of each of them] will make [him or her] act. What is never to happen will not happen whatever effort [one] makes [to make it happen]; what is to happen will not stop whatever obstruction [or resistance] [one] does [to prevent it happening]. This indeed is certain. Therefore silently being [or being silent] is good.”<br /><br />In this connection you may be interested to read two of my recent articles, <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-karma-theory-as-taught-by-sri-ramana.html" rel="nofollow">The <i>karma</i> theory as taught by Sri Ramana</a> and <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/why-did-sri-ramana-teach-karma-theory.html" rel="nofollow">Why did Sri Ramana teach a <i>karma</i> theory?</a>, in which I discuss this note that he wrote for his mother in more detail and in the context of other aspects of the <i>karma</i> theory as taught by him.<br /><br />(I will continue this reply in my next comment.)Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-59008721054726335862015-01-04T09:19:22.912+00:002015-01-04T09:19:22.912+00:00Beshwar may please read this:
http://sri-ramana-m...Beshwar may please read this:<br /><br />http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.in/2008/04/god-scriptwriter.htmlR Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-57348161216377898792015-01-03T23:45:21.981+00:002015-01-03T23:45:21.981+00:00Hello Friends,
Did Sri Bhagavan ever talked abou...Hello Friends, <br /><br />Did Sri Bhagavan ever talked about our life being preordain? I was reading Robert Adams, a devotee of Sri Bhagavan and he was talking about that our body has already been preordained and it will carry on doing whatever it came here to do. If we were going to be homeless, rich, etc was already preordained. Basically he said we just have to take care of our Self and the body will handle its own.<br /><br />Though I do somewhat believe this and want to, I just don't have a strong conviction. Beshwarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32005383767453535492015-01-03T19:05:00.151+00:002015-01-03T19:05:00.151+00:00Viswanathan, I did not think that you intended to ...Viswanathan, I did not think that you intended to get caught up in jugglery of words or ideas, but it is a trap that is easy to fall into, which is why I warned you against it. Countless ideas are expressed in countless different contexts, but whatever idea we may come across, we have consider whether it helps us to turn our attention back towards ourself. That is why in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-need-for-manana-and-viveka.html" rel="nofollow">a recent article</a> I wrote about the need for us to use <i>vivēka</i>. Nochur may have expressed that idea about zero light-heartedly in some context, but in the context in which you repeated it it did not seem to have much relevance to the subject we were discussing, namely the need for us to experience what we really are.<br /><br />The reason I mentioned zero in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/12/our-aim-should-be-to-experience-ourself.html?showComment=1420228734794#c8432033173650803515" rel="nofollow">one of my earlier comments</a> was because I was explaining that though according to some interpretations the Sanskrit word <i>śūnya</i> means ‘empty’, in the metaphysical context in which it is used in Buddhist philosophy it is more meaningful to interpret it as meaning ‘non-existent’ (and in that context I incidentally mentioned zero as an example of one of the meanings of <i>śūnya</i> that imply not only emptiness but also non-existence). My aim in writing that was to emphasise the fact that rather than dwelling on the idea that everything is <i>śūnya</i> (non-existent) we should investigate the only thing that certainly exists, namely ourself. The person I was replying to was writing from the perspective of a school of Buddhist philosophy in which <i>śūnya</i> or <i>śūnyatā</i> (non-existence) is a central concept, so I was pointing out that even if everything else is <i>śūnya</i>, we ourself are not <i>śūnya</i>, because we certainly exist, so rather than investigating anything that is or may be <i>śūnya</i>, we should investigate only ourself.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32806440403528386212015-01-03T17:39:28.117+00:002015-01-03T17:39:28.117+00:00Michael,
In paragraph 5 of Nan Yar, Bhagavan says ...Michael,<br />In paragraph 5 of Nan Yar, Bhagavan says that "Even if [one] remains thinking ‘I, I’, it will take and leave [one] in that place."<br />Sri Sadhu Om also mentions that "For those who follow the path of Self-inquiry, or jnana japa (seeking the true import of the word "I" while mentally repeating "I-I", renders all the help required to attain Self-knowledge". <br />Have you had a chance to discuss this clue with Sri Sadhu Om?Noobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12797750547512929881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-65536035085813187682015-01-03T15:18:26.622+00:002015-01-03T15:18:26.622+00:00I certainly did not mean to do any jugglery of wor...I certainly did not mean to do any jugglery of words. Sri Nochur did speak about the worshipful nature of Pujyam, which normally one associates with nothingness. Since there was some discussion on zero, I brought this up. There absolutely was no attempt to distract anyone or get distracted from Bhagavan's teachings.R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-50629320167717217542015-01-03T11:24:44.865+00:002015-01-03T11:24:44.865+00:00Viswanathan, we should be careful not to allow our...Viswanathan, we should be careful not to allow ourself to get too caught up in jugglery of words or ideas, as you seem to be doing in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/12/our-aim-should-be-to-experience-ourself.html?showComment=1420249798910#c8080546667477139060" rel="nofollow">your latest comment</a>. It may be entertaining to think of conceptual paradoxes such as the infinity of zero (the limitlessness of nothing), but such intellectual entertainment should not distract us from the more serious business of trying to experience what we really are.<br /><br />If we allow our intellect free rein, it will happily soar to great heights, like Brahma flying high to find the top of the column of light that appeared between him and Vishnu, but that will not help us to experience what we really are. Therefore we should keep our intellect in check, and use it primarily to understand the essential teachings of Bhagavan — that is, why and how we should attempt to experience only who or what we actually are.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-18170263079895340572015-01-03T11:03:31.751+00:002015-01-03T11:03:31.751+00:00Anonymous, in reply to your latest comment, a goal...Anonymous, in reply to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/12/our-aim-should-be-to-experience-ourself.html?showComment=1420259294634#c2505380676214978179" rel="nofollow">your latest comment</a>, a goal or aim obviously exists only for the ego. Since every problem or trouble that we experience is caused by our experiencing ourself as if we were an ego, in order to free ourself from all problems and troubles we must free ourself from the illusion that we are this ego. Therefore so long as we experience ourself as this ego, our aim or goal should be to experience ourself as we really are.<br /><br />Time is an illusion that seems to exist only in the view of the ego, so as long as we experience ourself as this ego we tend to think of any aim or goal we may have in terms of time. However, if our aim is only to experience ourself as we really are and thereby to free ourself from the fundamental illusion that we are this ego, we should not think of this aim in terms of extended time, because we should aim to experience ourself as we really are here and now, in this precise present moment. So long as we think of experiencing ourself as we really are as something that will happen in future, we are creating an illusory gap between ourself and what we actually are.<br /><br />We are what we actually are even now, so we can experience ourself as we actually are only in this precise present moment. Since any time other than this precise present moment exists only in the view of the ego, so long as we think of time as an extended duration we are sustaining the illusion that we are this ego, so we can free ourself from this illusion only now and not at any imaginary point in future.<br /><br />Therefore, as you say, our practice of <i>ātma-vicāra</i> — that is, our attempt to experience ourself as we really are — must be wholly and totally in the present moment. In other words, our aim or goal should be to experience ourself alone at this very moment.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-25053806762149781792015-01-03T04:28:14.634+00:002015-01-03T04:28:14.634+00:00The one area of the wonderful explanation by Micha...The one area of the wonderful explanation by Michael James that may leave people slightly ajar is the idea of a goal, which implies time. Is time not the essential ingredient of the illusory ego? Should 'practice' be performed wholly and totally in the present moment, which is the only moment we can experience? Then we are left with ourselves as we truly are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-80805466674771390602015-01-03T01:49:58.910+00:002015-01-03T01:49:58.910+00:00"For example, one meaning of śūnya is zero, b..."For example, one meaning of śūnya is zero, both because zero is empty or devoid of value, and because zero is nothing and hence it does not exist except as a concept."<br /><br />I remember Sri Nochur Venkataraman saying that zero (Pujyam in sanskrit) represents or means not just worshipful, but also, as a number, it is whole or purnam. The reason he attributes is that any other number like 1,2,3,4...9 can be extended infinitely (at one or both ends) where as 0 cannot be extended since it is complete or whole. That is the special nature of 0, pujyam, worshipful.<br /><br />He further would state that there is yet another number which is complete, 8, but, it represents Maya. The reason he attributes is that 8 is like a strangulated 0 (like when a round rubber gasket is strangulated), and hence once the strangulation gets removed, it becomes 0, the whole or respectful. <br /><br />Thus oneself or ourself, even if one wants to treat it as 0, it is only whole, complete, and encompasses everything.R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-84320331736508035152015-01-02T19:58:54.794+00:002015-01-02T19:58:54.794+00:00Dzogchen Way, in your second comment you repeatedl...Dzogchen Way, in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/12/our-aim-should-be-to-experience-ourself.html?showComment=1420189811543#c791048817685882745" rel="nofollow">your second comment</a> you repeatedly use the word ‘empty’ and claim that the ‘nature of consciousness itself’ and the ‘nature of all experience’ is ‘empty’, but emptiness entails the existence of something that is empty. In other words, emptiness is relative to the existence of whatever is empty, so there is no such thing as absolute emptiness. Therefore what we should be concerned with is not emptiness itself but whatever is empty. <br /><br />Whether something is empty or not, what we need to consider is whether or not it actually exists. If something does not actually exist, its emptiness also does not exist, and hence we need not be concerned with either it or its emptiness. What we should be concerned with is only what actually exists.<br /><br />Is there anything that we know for certain actually exists? Other than ourself, anything that we experience, conceive, infer, postulate or believe may be an illusion, so though it may seem to exist, we do not know for certain that it actually exists. However we do know for certain that we ourself actually exist, because if we did not actually exist, we could not experience anything, either ourself or any other thing, whether real or illusory. We may not be what we now seem to be, but whatever we are, we do certainly exist.<br /><br />Since we ourself are the only thing that we know certainly exists, we should not investigate anything else (since everything else could be an illusion and therefore may not actually exist) but should only investigate ourself in order to experience ourself as we really are.<br /><br />I have not studied any form of Buddhist philosophy in any depth, but I suspect that what Nagarjuna and others meant when they said that everything is ‘empty’ or ‘void’ was not that it exists but is empty, but only that it does not actually exist, because though the primary meaning of the Sanskrit word <i>śūnya</i> is empty or void, it also means non-existent. For example, one meaning of <i>śūnya</i> is zero, both because zero is empty or devoid of value, and because zero is nothing and hence it does not exist except as a concept.<br /><br />Therefore if we take <i>śūnya</i> to mean ‘non-existent’ and <i>śūnyatā</i> to mean ‘non-existence’, it is perhaps true to say everything other than ourself is <i>śūnya</i>, because though other things seem to exist, they may not actually exist. However, whether or not anything else actually exists, we know that we ourself actually exist, so even if everything else is <i>śūnya</i>, we ourself are not <i>śūnya</i>. Therefore rather than concerning ourself with the existence or non-existence of anything else, we should be concerned only with trying to experience what we actually are.<br /><br />Regarding your claim, ‘Seeing there is nothing of substance to grasp, grasping ceases’, so long as we experience ourself as an ego or person, it will seem to us that other things exist and that we can therefore grasp them. Hence grasping will cease only when the seeming existence of the grasping ego ceases, and its seeming existence will cease only when we cease to experience ourself as it. Therefore to put an end to all grasping we must experience ourself as we really are, and to experience ourself thus we must grasp nothing other than ourself — that is, we must try to be aware of ourself alone, in complete isolation from everything else.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-43812850412271973492015-01-02T15:07:04.723+00:002015-01-02T15:07:04.723+00:00Dzgochen, regarding your first comment, an ‘intell...Dzgochen, regarding <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/12/our-aim-should-be-to-experience-ourself.html?showComment=1420117393563#c428524362014404608" rel="nofollow">your first comment</a>, an ‘intellectual approach’, as you call it, is necessary only to enable us to understand clearly where we should direct our interest, effort and attention. We obviously cannot experience ourself as we really are merely by intellectual analysis or reasoning, but if done properly such analysis and reasoning will enable us to understand that the only thing we know for certain is that I am, but that at present our experience of what I am is confused and mistaken, so we need to investigate ourself alone in order to experience what we actually are.<br /><br />You recommend that we should ‘move to Dzogchen teachings’ and you claim that such teachings are the ‘true essence of what Ramana taught’ and that they have ‘certain methods of realizing it’. The only ‘method’ by which we can ‘realise’ or experience ourself as we really are is self-investigation, because so long as we attend to anything other than ourself we are perpetuating the illusion that we are the ego, in whose view alone everything else seems to exist. Therefore any ‘methods’ other than self-investigation (that is, any ‘methods’ that entail attention to anything other than ourself) cannot be a direct means by which we can experience what we actually are.<br /><br />If the practice of Dzogchen entails only self-attentiveness, it is the same as self-investigation (<i>ātma-vicāra</i>), which is the practice taught by Sri Ramana, but if it entails paying attention to anything other than ourself, it is a different path and is going in a different direction. Therefore before we decide what ‘method’ to practise, we should first decide what goal or destination we are trying to reach. If our goal is only to experience ourself as we really are, the only means by which we can reach it is self-investigation (that is, simple self-attentiveness), but if our goal is to experience anything else, then other methods may be appropriate, in which case it should not be confused with the teachings of Sri Ramana.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com