tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post632578897063108060..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: What is the logic for believing that happiness is what we actually are?Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger187125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-68671288590698860702016-11-03T00:33:44.470+00:002016-11-03T00:33:44.470+00:00:), :), :).:), :), :).anadi-anantanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-35511905274278775252016-11-03T00:13:34.204+00:002016-11-03T00:13:34.204+00:00Mouna,
ah yes, now I understand how you are lookin...Mouna,<br />ah yes, now I understand how you are looking at the topic.<br />Therefore the rope-snake-analogy fits well on the mentioned terms and etcetera.<br />So let us smile a friendly smile. anadi-anantanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-66612919650843979882016-11-02T20:55:39.197+00:002016-11-02T20:55:39.197+00:00anadi-ananta,
could you translate what you just s... anadi-ananta,<br /><br />could you translate what you just said in simple language?, I am very simple-minded...<br />(I'm smiling, and you?)<br /><br />Snake is universe, mouna, anadi-ananta, god, separate self, and all the etcaeteras imaginable and not, ad infinitum.<br />Rope is none of the above, only Brahman, nothing less, nothing more.<br /><br />;) Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-45755612042257134212016-11-02T20:47:46.698+00:002016-11-02T20:47:46.698+00:00Mouna,
ah, you seem to use Brahman by way of compa...Mouna,<br />ah, you seem to use Brahman by way of comparison with the rope and the snake with the universe. To me that comparability is not unavoidable. I know the rope-snake analogy only applicable to the wrong perception of the ego's view to be a separate being. But that your comparison is possibly yet conclusive too in respect of reality or unreality of the perceived universe , at least for jivas and divas. Smile, please !<br />anadi-anantanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-81991676447305836732016-11-02T20:42:50.255+00:002016-11-02T20:42:50.255+00:00The second thread in Talk #317 brings up an idea t...The second thread in Talk #317 brings up an idea that I did not know existed, that there are two types of vasanas:<br /><br />"Another devotee: Can there be Self-Realisation before the vasanas [mental tendencies] are entirely destroyed?<br /><br />Ramana: There are two kinds of vasanas: (1) bandha hetuh, causing bondage for the ignorant, and (2) bhoga hetuh, giving enjoyment for the wise. The latter do not obstruct realisation.<br /><br />D.: If only vasanas for enjoyment do not obstruct the state of realisation and if one can look upon the events of the world without his state of bliss being disturbed, it means that attachment alone is bondage. Am I right?<br /><br />Ramana: Yes, quite. Attachment is bondage. Attachment disappears with<br />the elimination of the ego."Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-43265045251477537392016-11-02T20:39:33.255+00:002016-11-02T20:39:33.255+00:00Matches the bodhisattva principle in Mahayana budd...Matches the bodhisattva principle in Mahayana buddhism. No "final" nirvana until the last sentient being is liberated.Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-44288174487417427512016-11-02T20:36:22.243+00:002016-11-02T20:36:22.243+00:00Talk 317 has two interesting subjects which are re...Talk 317 has two interesting subjects which are related to these and other discussions. The first one:<br /><br />"D.: Are the Self-realised persons reborn? e.g., Vamadeva, Jada Bharata, etc.<br /><br />Ramana: The Realised ones cannot be reborn. Rebirth is due to vasanas which are binding. But they are destroyed in the state of Self-realisation.<br /><br />D.: Are we to take it that they had gone to the stage of kevala nirvikalpa but not to sahaja nirvikalpa?<br /><br />Ramana: Yes"<br /><br />Elsewhere Ramana had mentioned that sages in nirvikalpa samadhi were not yet realized, giving the example of the sage who asks for water, goes into nirvikalpa samadhi for a long time and then awakens and asks "where is the water I requested?".<br /><br />Here he seems to ratify a theory of a devotee that some sages who are said to have been reborn to continue their work, were actually not 100% liberated before they died the previous time.<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-83075606406569306282016-11-02T20:35:05.350+00:002016-11-02T20:35:05.350+00:00well said.
The screen is real, the film seems to ...well said.<br /><br />The screen is real, the film seems to be real but it's not, the screen is the film, albeit not connected with (specially if it is a plasma screen) and from the onlooker's point of view.<br /><br />One more for the road, quite similar in spirit with Bhagavan's alleged quote:<br />Krishna, Gita Ch9-4 (since I don't know sanskrit, I shall paraphrase from what I understand):<br />In my unmanifested form I pervade the universe. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.<br />Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-81423159379985857152016-11-02T20:28:08.129+00:002016-11-02T20:28:08.129+00:00Actually, the editor of Talks made the following t...Actually, the editor of Talks made the following to be "316" after "315" but it is the same day and seems to be the same conversation. Ramana continues:<br /><br />[Talk 316.]<br /><br />There is fire on the screen in a cinema show. Does it burn the screen? There is a cascade of water. Does it wet the screen? There are tools. Do they damage the screen?<br />That is why it is said achchedyoyam, adahyoyam, akledhyoyam, etc.<br />Fire, water, etc. are phenomena on the screen of Brahman (i.e., the Self) and they do not affect It.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-9000060467042062212016-11-02T20:15:21.483+00:002016-11-02T20:15:21.483+00:00anadi-ananta,
Let me see... yes my feet are on th...anadi-ananta,<br /><br />Let me see... yes my feet are on the ground, then:<br />The rope is real, the snake seems to exist but it doesn't, actually the rope <b>is</b> that snake you so vehemently seem to see and fear.<br /><br />All jivas are divas to and for themselves. <br /><br />;)Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-73997084975910285692016-11-02T20:04:12.751+00:002016-11-02T20:04:12.751+00:00Mouna,
keep your feet on the ground:
in which way ...Mouna,<br />keep your feet on the ground:<br />in which way should the mistaken perception of a rope as a seemingly snake provide another way of understanding "Brahman is the universe" ?<br />Would you give an explanatory note ?<br />Also a Hollywood diva is a jiva. Smile.anadi-anantanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-55548980020612303202016-11-02T19:55:26.677+00:002016-11-02T19:55:26.677+00:00Thanks for your above posts Mouna
Best wishes
Bob ...Thanks for your above posts Mouna<br />Best wishes<br />Bob Bob - Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-17910464535203987392016-11-02T19:50:09.705+00:002016-11-02T19:50:09.705+00:00(correction to original posting)
Please read &quo...(correction to original posting)<br /><br />Please read "jiva" instead of "diva".Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-24562595104965883902016-11-02T18:54:25.050+00:002016-11-02T18:54:25.050+00:00(continues from lat posting)
Another way to under...(continues from lat posting)<br /><br />Another way to understand "Brahman is the universe" is to say "the rope <b>is</b> the snake that you are mistakenly perceiving. Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-41777848369464293172016-11-02T18:51:47.428+00:002016-11-02T18:51:47.428+00:00Ken and friends,
This quote from Guru Ramana (Pg ...Ken and friends,<br /><br />This quote from Guru Ramana (Pg 65) and Talks #315 (that actually even in english are translated different):<br /><br /><i>”...He said <i>[talking about Shankara]</i> that (1) Brahman is real, (2) The universe is unreal, and (3) Brahman is the universe…”</i> (Guru Ramana Pg 65) [braquets are my note]<br /><i>”...He says: (1) Brahman is real; (2) the universe is a myth; (3) Brahman is the universe.”</i> (Talk #315)<br /><br />was always a doubtful paragraph in Talks for me. First of all because the words “unreal” and “myth” don’t really define the full spectrum of the sanskrit word “mithya” (that really means what seems to exist but it doesn’t) and secondly because Bhagavan quotes Shankara but actually Shankara put it completely differently:<br />"Brahma satya, jagat mithya, jivo brahmaiva naparah” that in other words means Brahman is real, the world seems to be real but it’s not, Brahman and the individual soul (diva) are in essence one and the same.<br /><br />It is not that Bhagavan was misinformed, I think again it is a personal translator glossing over a concept, but if he actually said that, it has to be viewed in a different light than saying that “Brahman is the universe” ascribes any idea of reality, even as an illusion, to the universe. Although Bhagavan kept on going with his interpretation of this three statements (again, <b>if</b> he said this):<br /><i>"He does not stop at the second statement but continues to supplement it with the third. What does it signify? The Universe is conceived to be apart from Brahman and that perception is wrong. The antagonists point to his illustration of rajju sarpa (rope snake). This is unconditioned superimposition. After the truth of the rope is known, the illusion of snake is removed once for all. But they should take the conditioned superimposition also into consideration, e.g., marumarichika or mrigatrishna (water of mirage). The mirage does not disappear even after knowing it to be a mirage. The vision is there but the man does not run to it for water. <b>Sri Sankara must be understood in the light of both the illustrations.</b> The world is a myth. Even after knowing it, it continues to appear. It must be known to be Brahman and not apart. If the world appears, yet to whom does it appear, he asks. What is your reply? You must say the Self. If not, will the world appear in the absence of the cognising Self? Therefore the Self is the reality.<br />That is his conclusion. The phenomena are real as the Self and are myths apart from the Self.<br />Now, what do the tantriks, etc., say? They say that the phenomena are real because they are part of the Reality in which they appear. Are not these two statements the same? That is what I meant by reality and falsehood being one and the same. The antagonists continue: With the conditioned as well as the unconditioned illusions considered, the phenomenon of water in mirage is purely illusory because that water cannot be used for any<br />purpose. Whereas the phenomenon of the world is different, for it is purposeful. How then does the latter stand on a par with the former? <br />creations are purposeful; they serve the dream-purpose. The dream water quenches dream thirst. The dream creation is however contradicted in the waking state. The waking creation is contradicted in the other two states. What is not continuous cannot be real. If real, the thing must ever be real - and not real for a short time and unreal at other times. So it is with magical creations. They appear real and are yet illusory.<br />Similarly the universe cannot be real of itself - that is to say, apart from the underlying Reality.”</i><br /><br />As we can see, Bhagavan tests our capacity to fuse opposites together, the snake/rope analogy (ajata analogy where the world can’t be seen if we see only oneself) and the water mirage analogy (vivarta analogy where the world will continue to appear even after the knowledge of Brahman has been revealed).<br /><br />Verse 40 of Ulladu Narpadu summarizes well this apparent contradiction, it’s all ego anyways.Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-60940067018242696222016-11-02T18:42:32.514+00:002016-11-02T18:42:32.514+00:00Ken,
your quote supplies really useful information...Ken,<br />your quote supplies really useful information.<br />But could you please explain Bhagavan's summarised position with the rules of logic: How can Brahman as being said real be simultaneously the universe which is said to be unreal ? That seems to burst even the extraordinary limits of paradox.<br />anadi-anantanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-15961040392445527612016-11-02T16:15:56.564+00:002016-11-02T16:15:56.564+00:00David Godman once wrote in this blog:
"In ev...David Godman once wrote in this blog:<br /><br />"In everyday English the word ‘real’ generally denotes something that can be perceived by the senses. As such, it is a misleading translation of the Sanskrit word ‘sat’, which is often rendered in English as ‘being’ or ‘reality’. Bhagavan, along with many other Indian spiritual teachers, had a completely different definition of reality:<br /><br /> Bhagavan: What is the standard of reality? That alone is real which exists by itself, which reveals itself by itself and which is eternal and unchanging. (Maharshi’s Gospel, p. 61)<br /><br />In Indian philosophy reality is not determined by perceptibility but by permanence, unchangeability and self-luminosity. This important definition is elaborated on in the dialogue from which the above quotation has been taken...As for the word ‘world’, Muruganar points out in his comments to verses 63 and 64 that the Sanskrit word for world, ‘loka’, literally means ‘that which is seen’.<br /><br />If one combines this definition of the word ‘world’ with the standard of reality set by Bhagavan, the question, ‘Is the world real?’ becomes an enquiry about the abiding reality of what is perceived: ‘Do things that are perceived have permanence, unchangeability and self-luminosity?’ The answer to that question is clearly ‘no’. The names and forms perceived by a seer do not meet the standard of reality defined by Bhagavan, and as such they are dismissed as ‘unreal’.<br /><br />According to Bhagavan these names and forms appear in Brahman, the underlying substratum. Brahman does meet the stringent test for reality outlined above since it, and it alone, is permanent, unchanging and self-luminous. If one accepts these definitions, it follows that Brahman is real, whereas the world (the collection of perceived names and forms) is unreal. This formulation, <br />‘Brahman is real; the world is unreal’ is a standard and recurring statement in vedantic philosophy.<br /><br />Vedanta is the philosophy that is derived from the Upanishads, the final portions of the Vedas, and the subdivision of it that tallies with Bhagavan’s teachings is known as ‘advaita’, which translates as ‘not two’. ‘Not two’ means, among other things, that there are not two separate entities, Brahman and the world; all is one indivisible whole. This point is important to remember since it is at the crux of the apparently paradoxical statements that Bhagavan made on the nature and reality of the world and its substratum. Since there is nothing that is separate from Brahman, it follows that the names and forms that appear and manifest within it partake of its reality. This means that when the world is known and directly experienced to be a mere appearance in the underlying Brahman, it can be accepted as real, since it is no longer perceived as a separate entity. If one knows oneself to be Brahman, one knows that the world is real because it is indistinguishable from one’s own Self. However, if one merely perceives external names and forms, without experiencing that substratum, those forms have to be dismissed as unreal since they do not meet the strict definition of reality.<br /><br />Bhagavan summarised this position in the following reply:<br /><br /> Shankara [a ninth century sage and philosopher who was the principal populariser of advaita Vedanta] was criticised for his views on maya without understanding him. He said that (1) Brahman is real, (2) The universe is unreal, and (3) Brahman is the universe. He did not stop at the second, because the third explains the other two. It signifies that the universe is real if perceived as the Self, and unreal if perceived apart from the Self. Hence maya and reality are one and the same. (Guru Ramana, p. 65)"Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-8216268054672232472016-11-02T16:00:30.130+00:002016-11-02T16:00:30.130+00:00Darko,
In another thread on this blog, venkat rec...Darko,<br /><br />In another thread on this blog, venkat recently posted the following quote:<br /><br />"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."Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-83210644453410917292016-11-02T14:12:32.198+00:002016-11-02T14:12:32.198+00:00Thanks,
Ok even if so, why this worldly life takes...Thanks,<br />Ok even if so, why this worldly life takes place at all then ? Why from the very beginning I am not melted into eternal happiness or better to say I do not remain in it ? Why should I leave it for some worldly life which seems so poor comparing to it ? What's the point of tasting the worldly life as a dream ?<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11532414376647762314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-83905129533480886072016-11-02T12:33:23.757+00:002016-11-02T12:33:23.757+00:00Darko,
as Sri Ramana told us: to be what we REALLY...Darko,<br />as Sri Ramana told us: to be what we REALLY are is not a void but only the happiness of being which is our real nature. You can leave it confidently and safely to brahman alone. As soon as our wrong feeling as a separated ego is eradicated forever we are merged eternally with brahman. Our seemingly ego has then ceased to exist and has no function anymore at all. When the waters of the river flow in the ocean they have lost their own existence. The wrong awareness having a seemingly existence as a separated wave of the entire ocean will cease to appear. Our real nature is surely devoid of any limit. You may have total confidence in the teaching of Bhagavan: The whole reality of pure self-awareness is nothing but the waveless ocean of grace.tane tannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-43607550851067620522016-11-02T11:53:26.695+00:002016-11-02T11:53:26.695+00:00Thanks,
Tane tan you might probably be right.
I be...Thanks,<br />Tane tan you might probably be right.<br />I believe the reason is at the inner core of my being I may presume that what I read could be the truth actually and I don't want to face it. Actually I feel if I focus my attention long enough I could shortly get into a psychotic or hypnotic state of being, thus I can't stay focused for too long.<br /><br />But, if I am Brahman, is the only function of mine, of my entire existence, to ego-dream on various worldly lives, with the task to eventually wake up one day and then what.....? What happens next ? I rest in a void ?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11532414376647762314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-5133473667933324032016-11-02T10:50:58.994+00:002016-11-02T10:50:58.994+00:00Ken,
the reason for Darko's dizziness and inne...Ken,<br />the reason for Darko's dizziness and inner shake is of course his mind which is preoccupied with other concepts. Deep down in his innermost soul (heart) he now may feel that his previous belief in possibly questionable ideas does not satisfy his yearning for the truth completely. <br />We should not forget that our own history of 'understanding' consists also only of serial imaginary hypotheses.tane tannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-36335381182014928122016-11-02T03:42:48.669+00:002016-11-02T03:42:48.669+00:00Darko wrote:
"...I must admit that more I re...Darko wrote:<br /><br />"...I must admit that more I read Ramana's teaching, more I feel dizzy and shaken inside."<br /><br />I confess that does not make sense to me... I assume that you must be missing some piece of the puzzle.<br /><br />When I first read Ramana's teaching (which was the part I posted just above, that starts "What is called happiness ..."), I thought "Finally someone who makes sense!" - because nothing that other human beings said made any sense...Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-82862230601160979922016-11-01T22:35:56.172+00:002016-11-01T22:35:56.172+00:00Darko,
yes, take your time to study Bhagavan's...Darko,<br />yes, take your time to study Bhagavan's incomparable teaching and develop your ability to comprehensive understanding.<br />Gradual improvement of your understanding is better than sudden but not deep and lasting.<br />You would get much benefit from careful studying of Michael's articles and comments starting with 2006. <br />Best wishes.tane tannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-22414161003584723952016-11-01T21:51:28.816+00:002016-11-01T21:51:28.816+00:00Thanks to all, I highly appreciate your efforts to...Thanks to all, I highly appreciate your efforts to assist,<br />I think Im just not ready yet, perhaps the lack of courage or a clear perception.<br />This is perfect to prepare someone for his/her death to face, otherwise I like the way it is happening now, even if its just a dream, though I must admit that more I read Ramana's teaching, more I feel dizzy and shaken inside.<br />That could be a sign that it penetrates deeper than it should.<br />I'll take a rest for a while.<br />CheersAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11532414376647762314noreply@blogger.com