tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post6346457535912003912..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Why or how we have risen as ego is inexplicable, but Bhagavan does explain why and how we can cease risingMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-85733421279269141472020-01-27T20:38:26.998+00:002020-01-27T20:38:26.998+00:00Michael, you Said in this article “ but we are alw...Michael, you Said in this article “ but we are always free to attend only to ourself and thereby stop dreaming.” <br />And my question is: How really free are we if our Level of maturity is not enough and we stop ourselves to go insiste for the power of vasanasYo Soy Tu Mismohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09470280747360615744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-81665183327626936692020-01-23T12:01:53.256+00:002020-01-23T12:01:53.256+00:00Sanjay,
thank you very much for reminding me about...Sanjay,<br />thank you very much for reminding me about Michael's comment (nr.3) of 10 April 2016 at 10:52 addressed to you.<br />Typical for my continuous pramāda (self-negligence or failure to attend to ego alone) - Michael wrote the underlying article of 8 April 2016 "Self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) entails nothing more than just being persistently and tenaciously self-attentive" in reply to me (using then one of other user names).anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-86415595296745196272020-01-23T07:54:41.251+00:002020-01-23T07:54:41.251+00:00Anadi-ananta, in the case of ego, both the hen and...Anadi-ananta, in the case of ego, both the hen and its egg appear together: that is, ego is seemingly born along with its desire to rise. In this regard, we may read what Michael wrote in a comment addressed to me on 10th April 2016 at 10:52:<br /><br />Sanjay, the very existence of the ego (and consequently of all its progeny, this seemingly vast universe) is a paradox, because it defies all logic. It does not actually exist but only seems to exist, yet it does not seem to exist in the view of what actually exists but only in its own view. It seems to come into existence only by ‘grasping form’, which means due to <i>pramāda</i> (self-negligence or failure to attend to itself alone), yet how could it grasp any form or be self-negligent unless it already existed?<br /><br />These paradoxes are logically unsolvable, because both cause and effect and logic come into existence only when this ego arises, so its origination and cessation are the very borders beyond which no logic or ideas about cause and effect can apply. However, the reason why Bhagavan teaches us that it comes into existence by ‘grasping form’ or by being self-negligent is not to give us paradoxes to puzzle about, but is simply to show us that the only means by which we can dissolve the illusion of our seeming existence as this ego is perpetual self-attentiveness or <i>sadā apramāda</i> (eternal non-negligence) — that is, grasping ourself alone instead of any other thing.<br /><br />What perpetual self-attentiveness will reveal to us is that we alone exist, and that consequently this ego and everything else has never existed or even seemed to exist, so it is the only logical solution to all the paradoxes that surround the very existence of this ego. That is, these paradoxes cannot be solved in any way other than by realising there are actually no paradoxes because there is no ego at all, and the only way to realise this is to investigate this ego to see whether it is actually what it seems to be. When we do so, we will discover that we who now seem to be this ego are actually just the one infinite, eternal and immutable self-awareness, other than which nothing exists.<br /><br />(end of the comment by Michael) <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-17822252714206237132020-01-23T07:32:11.747+00:002020-01-23T07:32:11.747+00:00If everything depends on ego, how many egos are th...<b>If everything depends on ego, how many egos are there?</b><br /><br />If everything depends on ego, how many egos are there? There can be only one ego. Who is this one ego? The one who perceives all this is this one ego. Bhagavan says in verse 26 of <i>Ulladu Narpadu</i>:<br /><br />If ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if ego does not exist, everything does not exist. Ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this is alone is giving up everything.<br /><br />Although what Bhagavan teaches us in this verse is extremely radical, it is actually our own experience. We all know that only when we rise as ego that we are aware of other things. But we would like to believe that all those other things exist even when we are not aware of them. We generally believe that this world continues to exist while we are asleep, but how do we know this is true? We say, ‘because other people tell us that when we were sleeping, this world was very much there’. But those other people are part of the world whose existence is in question. Bhagavan used to say, ‘calling on the testimony of other people to prove that the world exists when we are asleep is like in a court, asking the criminal to bear witness to his own innocence’.<br /><br />Are we to believe the person who is a suspect? The very fact that he is a suspect means that we cannot believe his testimony. So we need some independent testimony. We need the evidence of our own experience, but our own experience in sleep is that there is no world. It is only when we wake up that we would like to believe that the world existed while we were asleep, but this is not based on our direct experience. <br /><br />So Bhagavan’s teachings are in perfect accord with our own experience but at the same time, they challenge us to question everything else that we formerly believed about our experience. So if we are not ready to doubt all our former beliefs, we will not be ready to believe what Bhagavan teaches us. Bhagavan asks us not to believe anything which we do not know. <br /><br />• Based on the video: <i>2020-01-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses why Bhagavan’s path is a path of unlearning (50:00)</i><br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-81067326726180889012020-01-22T22:59:15.715+00:002020-01-22T22:59:15.715+00:00Sanjay,
you say "This does not mean that desi...Sanjay,<br />you say "This does not mean that desire precedes our rising because ego has to first exist before it can desire to rise and grasp things. So rising is ego’s own choice, and we will continue to rise and stand as ego as long as we desire to do so."<br />That is almost the same as the endless and unsuccessful debate/discussion about what was earlier, the hen or the egg.<br />You further say "So all we have to do now is to use our freedom correctly by attending only to ourself and thereby being as we actually are." <br />It should be granted to you a leisurely attending only to yourself and thereby being as you actually are. Do not keep yourself away from doing it.:-)anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-19326771091795710582020-01-22T22:30:29.939+00:002020-01-22T22:30:29.939+00:00Asun,
all is good what you say. Thank you.Asun,<br />all is good what you say. Thank you.anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-39222336683162427222020-01-22T22:24:21.127+00:002020-01-22T22:24:21.127+00:00Salazar, thank you for your comment.
As you say &q...Salazar, thank you for your comment.<br />As you say "<b>After waking up</b> from this dream we call life ...".<br />Therefore, in order to wake up I need a shrilly jarring alarm clock ...:-)anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-88232526991451671052020-01-22T16:10:43.796+00:002020-01-22T16:10:43.796+00:00anadi-ananta, many years ago I was plagued by recu...anadi-ananta, many years ago I was plagued by recurring nightmares where I was stalked by something which apparently wanted to kill me. I tried to escape but the stalker was always close by and the whole experience was terrifying. <br /><br />Then I woke up and I realized it was a dream.<br /><br />Now (after waking up) would I still be concerned about the stalker and my well-being, trying to figure out how to escape and ponder "what did get me into that mess?", or just drop the matter?<br /><br />Furthermore, would I speculate that this "dream-consciousness" is not "pure consciousness" and that it borrows awareness from pure awareness? Not at all since I know it was a dream and not real. <br /><br />Okay then, why would I then ponder how his ego came about in the waking state and speculate about different kind of consciousnesses instead to just be what I really am? After waking up from this dream we call life one can only have the same regard to the waking state as with the dream state.. .https://www.blogger.com/profile/03243347924405863536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-82384510205658371902020-01-22T15:55:55.638+00:002020-01-22T15:55:55.638+00:00This comment has been removed by the author..https://www.blogger.com/profile/12379570382779918899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-71997243053216066142020-01-22T14:36:54.964+00:002020-01-22T14:36:54.964+00:00Our rising as ego and our desire to rise are one a...<b>Our rising as ego and our desire to rise are one and the same, and these two happen simultaneously</b><br /><br />Why do we desire to rise as ego and continue as ego? Michael answered this in one of his videos: ‘We as ego desire to continue in this life or some other life. We have a desire to continue in embodied existence and enjoy whatever we think we enjoy through this embodied existence’. My following reflection is based on Michael’s latest article: <i>Why or how we have risen as ego is inexplicable, but Bhagavan does explain why and how we can cease rising</i>:<br /><br />How did this first desire to rise as ego first rose? Michael implies that whatever we say about ego, its first desire to rise and so on will inevitably contain seeming contradictions because ego is maya – ‘what is not’, so it is anirvachaniya (inexplicable). So whatever is said about it is not intended to be an adequate explanation of its cause of rising. Whatever Bhagavan teaches us about ego and its nature are just pointers showing us how to get rid of ego.<br /> <br />Grasping things is the very nature of ego, so ego comes into existence impelled by its own desire to rise. This does not mean that desire precedes our rising because ego has to first exist before it can desire to rise and grasp things. So rising is ego’s own choice, and we will continue to rise and stand as ego as long as we desire to do so. Our rising as ego and our desire to rise are one and the same, and these two happen simultaneously. We could not rise without wanting to rise, and we could not want to rise without rising. So we need to give up our desire to rise and remain as we actually are if we want to cease rising. <br /><br />We need to accept full responsibility for investigating and surrendering our ego, and we will accept such responsibility only when we realise that we can cease rising as ego if we want to. We have to realise that we have misused our freedom by rising as ego, but rising is by definition a misuse of our freedom. So all we have to do now is to use our freedom correctly by attending only to ourself and thereby being as we actually are.<br /><br />However, we have actually never risen as ego even though it seems we have risen. So egos, all its vasanas, all the phenomena projected by this ego and so on are all maya. However, all this seems real only because we seem to have risen as ego. <br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-5877821616676481892020-01-22T11:03:36.384+00:002020-01-22T11:03:36.384+00:00Asun,
thanks for your reply. It is all good what y...Asun,<br />thanks for your reply. It is all good what you write.<br />However, I don't ascribe/pin the blame for ego's rising to god.<br />I clearly stated only that pure awareness did not prevent ego's rising.<br />When you say "...ego is called false awareness because it borrows awareness from pure awareness..." you should take into account that borrowing is a kind of bilateral agreement - like lending or renting. For instance, if you borrow a book from a lending library you as the borrower need the consent of the lending company. Or another example from the field of loan business: Every hire company would examine first the creditworthiness of the borrower and could easily refuse any request for credit. So granting of credit primarily rests in the hand of the power of decision of the lending/offering bank.<br />You say also "...pure awareness is only attracting us to ourself."<br />Is it not evident that pure awareness would not need attracting us if it had not enabled/allowed antecedent the (seeming) rising of ego ?<br />Another point of view: Can from a pool of pure (innocent) water ever come out any impure drop of water ? <br />Nevertheless, as you imply, because of our constant dissatisfaction we in any case have to solve the mess we have created by our "loan business".anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-49232148844011107152020-01-22T08:17:54.897+00:002020-01-22T08:17:54.897+00:00We have a desire to continue in embodied existence...<b>We have a desire to continue in embodied existence and enjoy whatever we think we enjoy through this embodied existence</b> <br /><br />A friend: Are we trying to get rid of all our thoughts or only our desire-impelled thoughts? To what extent is this distinction between our ordinary thoughts (which we need to navigate through life) and our desire-impelled thoughts useful?<br /><br />Michael: All thoughts are desire-impelled. This whole world is nothing but thoughts, so this world exists because of our desires and attachments. That is, because of our likes and dislikes we project out this world, but some thoughts are more emotionally charged than others. In other words, the desires and attachments that drive some thoughts are greater some other thoughts. Obviously, the stronger our desires, the bigger the problem because the problems boil down to ultimately just our desires, likes and dislikes. It is even further: who has these desires, likes and dislikes? It is ego. So ego is the root cause, but ego itself is sustained by its own desires.<br /><br />We as ego desire to continue in this life or some other life. We have a desire to continue in embodied existence and enjoy whatever we think we enjoy through this embodied existence. So we are not yet ready to surrender or let go. So our fundamental problem is ego, and our secondary problems are our desires, likes, dislikes, fears and all these things - in other words, our will. That is why we have to surrender our will to Bhagavan. If we surrender our will entirely, we wouldn’t rise as ego. But so long as we rise, we do have our desires, likes and dislikes. We cannot have a completely desireless ego. Bhagavan teaches us that ego comes into existence by grasping form, it stands by grasping form and it feeds itself by grasping form.<br /><br />To the extent we can give up our desires, to the extent we cultivate vairagya, to that extent we are getting closer to our goal. In <i>Nan Ar?</i>, Bhagavan compares vairagya to the stone that a pearl diver ties to its waist. We can sink into ourself deep enough only with that freedom from desire. We need to sink deep enough to retrieve the pearl of atman, says Bhagavan. <br /><br />• Based on the video: <i>2019-08-10 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Āṉma Viddai verse 1 (1:02 to 1:09)</i> <br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-86127665603319239752020-01-21T22:13:02.271+00:002020-01-21T22:13:02.271+00:00This comment has been removed by the author..https://www.blogger.com/profile/12379570382779918899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-34455682104085062042020-01-21T15:00:59.238+00:002020-01-21T15:00:59.238+00:00Bhagavan once said: ‘Who is ever seeing anything o...<b>Bhagavan once said: ‘Who is ever seeing anything other than God?’</b> <br /><br />When we see any phenomena, whether physical or obviously mental, what we actually perceive is only a reflection of our awareness. Just like when we see an object, say a table, we seem to be seeing that object, but what we actually perceive is the light reflected from that table. Likewise, when we perceive any phenomena, we just perceive the reflection of our own awareness. Therefore, what can be more clearly known to us than our own awareness? <br /><br />Whatever we may be aware of, we are aware of it only because we are aware, so awareness is the most obvious thing. Even when we are not aware of anything as in sleep, we are still aware because awareness is what we actually are. So we never cease to be aware even for a moment. God is that light of awareness that is clearly shining within us. So whatever else we may know is just a reflection of that light of awareness, so our whole experience is nothing but awareness. Bhagavan once said: ‘Who is ever seeing anything other than God?’ That is, whatever we know, we know that thing by the light of awareness, and this light of awareness is God. So we know God before we know anything else. Whether we aware of anything else or not, we are always aware of God because God is our fundamental awareness ‘I am’.<br /><br />So there is never a moment when we are unaware of God. However, because we are now aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’ or ‘I am this person’, we are not aware of God as it actually is. In order to experience God as it actually is, we need to experience only ‘I am’ in complete isolation. That is, we need to experience ‘I am’ without any adjuncts, such as this body or mind. That is why Bhagavan says in verse 22 of <i>Ulladu Narpadu</i>, ‘how can we know God as he really is except by turning our mind within and merging it in him’. ‘I am’ if experienced in complete isolation is what we actually are, and what we actually are is not different from what God actually is.<br /><br />So now we know God but don’t know him as really is. <br /> <br />• Based on the video: <i>2020-01-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses why Bhagavan’s path is a path of unlearning (15:00)</i><br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-70081558514059330012020-01-21T14:13:32.501+00:002020-01-21T14:13:32.501+00:00Asun,
look at section 3.: As ego we need to accept...Asun,<br />look at section 3.: As ego we need to accept full culpability for having risen, and consequently full responsibility for ceasing to rise.<br />I don't believe any story about the origin of ego.<br />If ego has risen from pure awareness then it is evident that pure awareness has not prevented ego from rising.<br />How can at all false awareness rise ever from pure awareness ? That makes no sense.<br />If one is anyway self why should one need any meditation on it ? Such an assumption cannot be surpassed in absurdity.:-) anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-36209874660168758322020-01-21T14:09:16.285+00:002020-01-21T14:09:16.285+00:00Asun, in your comment addressed to Anadi-anata, yo...Asun, in your comment addressed to Anadi-anata, you say, ‘Once we arise as ego, we have to respond to this fact and either we identify ourself with this body enjoying it and world with all its implications and consequences or we turn towards ourself to be what we really are, also with all its implications and consequences’. However, once we have risen as ego, we have already identified ourself with a body because there cannot be any ego without this ‘I am this body’ awareness. That is, we don’t rise as ego and then decide whether we should identify with this body. <br /><br />However, once we have risen as ego, we have a clear choice: either we continue facing towards the objects and thus continue to remain as this ego or leave ego and all other objects by turning within to face ourself alone. As you imply, we should know the consequences of whatever choice we make. If we continue to remain as ego, we will be under the constant flux of desires and fears, and this will keep us always dissatisfied. However, if we decide to turn away from all objects to face ourself alone, we will slowly but surely give up all our desires and fears, and this will eventually end all our dissatisfaction. <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-64966702492099817462020-01-21T12:35:40.338+00:002020-01-21T12:35:40.338+00:00This comment has been removed by the author..https://www.blogger.com/profile/12379570382779918899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-22840963043863476282020-01-21T07:52:39.790+00:002020-01-21T07:52:39.790+00:00Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication ~ Leonar...<b>Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication ~ Leonardo Da Vinci</b><br /><br />Golden Shimmer quoted Leonardo Da Vinci under Michael’s latest YouTube video. He wrote: ‘Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication ~ Leonardo Da Vinci’.<br /><br />I replied to this by writing: Yes. Simplicity is a rare commodity. We find so much complexity all around us. Why? Because our mind is a complex mixture of what is real and what is unreal. So this complex mixture (mind) hates simplicity because simplicity threatens its very existence.<br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-46147099210905650562020-01-21T06:44:30.814+00:002020-01-21T06:44:30.814+00:00Only Bhagavan is serious about dissolving this wor...<b>Only Bhagavan is serious about dissolving this world</b><br /><br />'Bubba the Self' has left the following comment under Michael’s latest YouTube video: <br /><br />For a year I was attending a Shankara (Dayananda “lineage”) based Bhagavad Gita Vedanta study group that firmly believed there is an outside world separate from our perception of it, and suggested that any form of solipsism is dangerous and that any idea that “the world is a problem” is also dangerous. They supported the idea of a jivanmukta who falls in love with the world (of form), sees no problem with it, and starts teaching others (the guru worshipping model). But such gurus have no interest in leaving this world- their intentions are ultimately egoic, and that is the dead end that one finds in almost any avenue in this world- all ultimately dead ends of the ego and with no happiness there. This Vedanta group supported the idea that a god out there called Brahma and Ishwara who created and sustained the universe who comes from Brahman and ultimately is not separate from you, but the only thing you need to do to realize this is to keep analyzing through books, rational inquiry with others, Satsang, pooja, study groups and lots of guru discussion sessions. Talking, talking, talking (when the real truth is in silence). This complex philosophy approach fosters a kind of “social spirituality” where people love to get together, dress up, have a nice potluck, do some prayers and rituals where some can show off their Sanskrit prowess, argue and debate some good points, feel good that one is so well versed in these Hindu teachings, and finally go home to yet another feeling of dissatisfied existence in this world. This is all a dead end. I’ve realized this now. Almost every spiritual path I take in this dream is just a dead end, because ultimately no one wants to end this dream. They want to continue it at all costs, and will disguise as a spiritual pursuit just to mislead us into these half truths and the wrong way. The only person in spirituality who is clearly pointing me OUT of the dream and has no interest in this world is Bhagavan. No one else is serious about dissolving this world. That’s why people are afraid of Bhagavan (even his own brother was). Because they know this is the real guru. All others I’m seeing are just clowning around and creating an enlightenment circus/show, and sustaining the ego yet another day. And I’ve been attending such groups for the past 3-4 years! Finally Bhagavan came into my life as if to say, “Enough clowning around. Time’s up.”<br /><br />Bubba the Self says, ‘The only person in spirituality who is clearly pointing me OUT of the dream and has no interest in this world is Bhagavan. No one else is serious about dissolving this world. That’s why people are afraid of Bhagavan (even his own brother was). Because they know this is the real guru. All others I’m seeing are just clowning around and creating an enlightenment circus/show, and sustaining the ego yet another day’. So very true! Most of us are really afraid of Bhagavan’s real teachings. Many simply try to run away from Bhagavan’s original works like <i>Ulladu Narpadu, Nan Ar? and Upadesa Undiyar</i> because in order to believe in these works, they have to disbelieve this world, which they are not willing to do. <br /><br />So though many claim to be the devotees of Bhagavan, I have not met even one devotee who has full faith in the teachings of <i>Ulladu Narpadu, Nan Ar? and Upadesa Undiyar</i>. Only Sri Michael James is a clear exception here because his whole life revolves around his faith in Bhagavan’s core teachings of self-investigation and self-surrenders. So let us cherish our association with Michael because we may not find another like him. His love for Bhagavan’s teachings is simply without parallel, and this love is infectious. <br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-89536226133718073472020-01-21T00:02:52.193+00:002020-01-21T00:02:52.193+00:00Catholic church:
„Confiteor […] quia peccavi nimis...Catholic church:<br />„Confiteor […] quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo, opere et omissione:<br />mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa […]“.<br />So we must have a guilty conscience and apologize to the highest power for our misuse. But could one who has obviously not prevented us from wrongdoing ever forgive us our guilt ? What will be our fate when it proves that our impudent injustice/sin is inexcusable/unpardonable ?anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-1895419126086094262020-01-21T00:00:32.676+00:002020-01-21T00:00:32.676+00:00This comment has been removed by the author..https://www.blogger.com/profile/12379570382779918899noreply@blogger.com