tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post6625067464744410032..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: The ego is essentially a formless and hence featureless phantomMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-58292339332008348532015-06-27T15:28:57.458+01:002015-06-27T15:28:57.458+01:00Thank you Michael,
the content of your reply fulfi...Thank you Michael,<br />the content of your reply fulfills definitely my "logically" wrapped up doubt.Lone wolfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-44287327037717944612015-06-27T14:29:26.944+01:002015-06-27T14:29:26.944+01:00"However, a further question arises now: is t..."However, a further question arises now: is there then no scope of self-realization for a person supposedly brain-dead, before he or she realized the Self?"<br /><br />My own thoughts on this is that using brain is "one way" of performing Sadhana for returning to reality, but cannot be the only way. The Tibetan Buddhist tradition posits that after death, the jiva is afforded an opportunity to dissolve in the clear white light and not enter Samsara again, but many are frightful and do not make use of that opportunity.<br /><br />If one views Brain as a filter on consciousness, then weakening or removal of that filter should only enhance consciousness. While it will impact perception of the world, it should not impact returning to reality. This materialistic world is said to be only the outermost part of manifestation and there is said to be many levels from this manifestation to reality. So losing brain function could take one to an inner manifestation where Sadhana can be performed. <br /><br />Sivanarulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-66271230626183994912015-06-27T03:22:58.390+01:002015-06-27T03:22:58.390+01:00"But may I put the further question if for ou..."But may I put the further question if for our state of awareness in deep sleep and for dreaming we do (not) need a physically functional brain in full working order ?"<br /><br />Bhagavan's words, as given by Sri Arthur Osborne:<br />"Vijnanamayakosa (intellect) is only the sheath of the 'I' and not the 'I" itself. Enquiring further, the questions arise: what is this 'I'? Wherefrom does it come? 'I' was not aware in sleep. Simultaneous with its rise, sleep changes to dream and wakefulness. But I am not concerned with the dream state just now. Who am I now in the waking state? If I originated on waking from sleep, then the 'I' was covered up with ignorance. Such an ignorant 'I' cannot be what the scriptures refer to or the wise affirm. 'I' am beyond even sleep; 'I' must be here and now, and must be what I was all along in sleep and dream also, unaffected by he qualities of these states. 'I' must therefore be the unqualified substratum underlying these three states (after anandamayakosa is transcended)."<br /><br />My inference is that since in the true state of awareness, the I is aware of itself without any external aid such as intellect, a physically functional brain is not necessary. <br /><br />However, a further question arises now: is there then no scope of self-realization for a person supposedly brain-dead, before he or she realized the Self?R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-29933777313332890342015-06-26T22:37:02.512+01:002015-06-26T22:37:02.512+01:00Thank you Michael for your answer.
But may I put t...Thank you Michael for your answer.<br />But may I put the further question if for our state of awareness in deep sleep and for dreaming we do (not) need a physically functional brain in full working order ?Semiramisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-7900225642658824412015-06-26T12:56:09.083+01:002015-06-26T12:56:09.083+01:00Semiramis, in reply to your comment in which you a...Semiramis, in reply to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-ego-is-essentially-formless-and.html?showComment=1434617539959#c5422601528801932941" rel="nofollow">your comment</a> in which you ask about the state of awareness in a case of brain death, I could not say for certain, but I would assume that it is similar to our state of awareness in sleep, but may perhaps be interspersed by dreams.<br /><br />All possible states of awareness can be classified into just two groups: states of phenomenal experience, and states devoid of phenomenal experience. Waking and dream are states in which we experience phenomena, whereas sleep is a state in which we experience no phenomena, and every other state must fall into one or other of these two groups.<br /><br />Since all phenomena are created by and in our mind, there is no limit to the type of phenomena that we may experience, and since the brain in our present body is just one among the many phenomena that we experience, our states of phenomenal experience are in no way dependent upon it, even though our current experience of phenomena seems to be dependent upon it. If this brain were dead (in the view of other people), that would not mean that we could not experience any phenomena, because we could be dreaming that we are some other body whose brain seems to be functioning normally.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-79717756698024668642015-06-26T11:13:02.141+01:002015-06-26T11:13:02.141+01:00Lone wolf, regarding your comment in which you say...Lone wolf, regarding <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-ego-is-essentially-formless-and.html?showComment=1434615872942#c7410244249606985025" rel="nofollow">your comment</a> in which you say that the conclusion ‘What we actually are is therefore essentially featureless’ seems to be not logically consistent, I am not sure why you think it is not, but I guess that the following is your reasoning: We experience ourself in waking and dream as having features, and in sleep as having no features, so since we cannot be anything that we do not experience in all these three states, we cannot be either something that has features or something that has no features.<br /><br />However, that cannot be a correct logical inference, because we must either be something that has features or something that is featureless. Since we experience features only in two of these three states, they are extraneous to us, so though we seem to have features in waking and dream, none of those features can be what we actually are, since we experience ourself without them in sleep. Therefore it does logically follow that what we actually are is essentially featureless.<br /><br />Features are merely extraneous adjuncts that come and go, so even when we seem to be anything that has features, that is not what we actually are. For example, I may now have a headache, but since I do not always experience myself as something that has a headache, having a headache is not what I essentially am. The headache is merely a temporary adjunct, so it is extraneous to what I actually am. Likewise, whatever other features I may experience are extraneous to what I actually am, because I do not experience them always.<br /><br />What we experience in sleep is nothing other than ourself, whereas what we experience in waking and dream is ourself plus other things, so the only thing that we experience in all these three states is ourself. Therefore it does logically follow that what we actually are is ourself as we experience ourself in sleep, because that is the only state in which we experience ourself alone.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-2725075018110002572015-06-26T00:06:13.665+01:002015-06-26T00:06:13.665+01:00Michael,
many thanks for your reply in the mention...Michael,<br />many thanks for your reply in the mentioned separate article.<br />Again we will find there much for careful study.Sleepwalkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-84624109199059445072015-06-25T22:17:17.180+01:002015-06-25T22:17:17.180+01:00Sleepwalker, I have replied to your question about...Sleepwalker, I have replied to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-ego-is-essentially-formless-and.html?showComment=1434613720677#c2525852033052393628" rel="nofollow">your question</a> about whether the peacefulness of sleep is not just a feature in a separate article, <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/the-term-nirvisesa-or-featureless.html" rel="nofollow">The term <i>nirviśēṣa</i> or ‘featureless’ denotes an absolute experience but can be comprehended conceptually only in a relative sense</a>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-23036520167707584442015-06-18T17:28:15.976+01:002015-06-18T17:28:15.976+01:00R. Viswanathan, I agree you when you write:
I und...R. Viswanathan, I agree you when you write:<br /><br /><i>I understand from Bhagavan's teachings that the peace is real, eternal, full, and is one's true nature - rather, that of the self. When the peace is apparently attained externally, it may be termed as 'so-called peacefulness' since it is a feature and can vanish at any time being unreal. Sri Nochur Venkataraman used to say: even if there is a piece of mind, there will not be peace.</i> <br /><br />I would just like to add the word 'absolute' before the word peace in your first sentence. Why I would like to do this is that just the word 'peace' does not indicate whether it is the relative peace of mind that we are talking about, or whether this peace is the absolute peace of our true self. Therefore my sentence with the word 'absolute' being added to it will read as follows:<br /><br />I understand from Bhagavan's teachings that the <b>absolute</b> peace is real, eternal, full, and is one's true nature...<br /><br />I liked what Sri Nochur had said: <b>even if there is a piece of mind, there will not be peace.</b> Yes, until we retain even a piece of our mind, our peace could be a relative peace, and not the absolute <i>ananda</i> or bliss or peace of ourself, as we really areSanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-91503734403005358702015-06-18T17:00:53.164+01:002015-06-18T17:00:53.164+01:00"My question is whether the so-called peacefu..."My question is whether the so-called peacefulness is not just a feature ?"<br /><br />I understand from Bhagavan's teachings that the peace is real, eternal, full, and is one's true nature - rather, that of the self. When the peace is apparently attained externally, it may be termed as 'so-called peacefulness' since it is a feature and can vanish at any time being unreal. Sri Nochur Venkataraman used to say: even if there is a piece of mind, there will not be peace. R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-54226015288019329412015-06-18T09:52:19.959+01:002015-06-18T09:52:19.959+01:00Michael,
since a case of brain death - occured six...Michael,<br />since a case of brain death - occured six years ago after having been poisoned with strychnin - is just current in my circle of acquaintances,<br />could you write something about the state of awareness in such a case of deep unconsciousness or coma ?Semiramisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-74102442496069850252015-06-18T09:24:32.942+01:002015-06-18T09:24:32.942+01:00Michael,
as you write in the 13 th section: "...Michael,<br />as you write in the 13 th section: "Thus we experience two kinds of states, one in which we experience features, and one in which we experience no features.<br />[...]<br />Since we experience ourself in both these kinds of states, we cannot be anything that we experience in one of them but not in the other.<br />Therefore we cannot be any of the features that we experience in waking or dream,<br />because in sleep we experience ourself without experiencing any such features."<br /><br /> <br />If so, that we cannot be anything that we experience in one of both the states but not in the other - as stated - the infered conclusion of the sentence:"What we actually are is therefore essentially featureless" seems to be not logical consistent.Lone wolfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-25258520330523936282015-06-18T08:48:40.677+01:002015-06-18T08:48:40.677+01:00Michael,
in section 13. Can self-awareness be cons...Michael,<br />in section 13. Can self-awareness be considered to be a feature of the ego ?<br />you write:<br />"When we say, 'I slept peacefully last night', we are expressing our experience of having been in a state in which we experienced no features."<br />My question is wether the so-called peacefulness is not just a feature ?Sleepwalkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-47112571445992481882015-06-16T19:02:55.138+01:002015-06-16T19:02:55.138+01:00Michael,
In utter astonishment I read about the es...Michael,<br />In utter astonishment I read about the essential nature, behaviour and effect of our ego, although it is said that it does not actually exist.<br />Bhagavan indicates that we we can free ourself from it, although it is said that it does not actually exist.<br />Rather I rely on his teaching that the formless phantom-ego does not actually exist. Rather I try to remain as pure self-awareness – without grasping form.<br />Therefore I refrain from investigate who or what actually is it that can free ourself from it.<br />Therefore I try to be aware of myself. I refrain from asking to whom the ego belongs.Hatschepsutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-17731045829957049762015-06-15T22:32:31.577+01:002015-06-15T22:32:31.577+01:00Scarecrow, I'm afraid that as long as I seem t...Scarecrow, I'm afraid that as long as I seem to be an ego, there will be egotistical activity of one kind or another, but thanks for your concern.Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-18142878733280931492015-06-15T12:37:52.540+01:002015-06-15T12:37:52.540+01:00Steve,
I do not want criticize your way of thinkin...Steve,<br />I do not want criticize your way of thinking. <br />But if you had been aware of the mentioned egotistical activity <br />therefore you could have refrained from writing your guesswork.Scarecrownoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-92019603206811897332015-06-14T21:49:17.514+01:002015-06-14T21:49:17.514+01:00Yes, Scarecrow, what else would it be?Yes, Scarecrow, what else would it be?Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-56691116448572021912015-06-14T16:23:23.949+01:002015-06-14T16:23:23.949+01:00Steve,
do not forget:your guesswork about the iron...Steve,<br />do not forget:your guesswork about the irony of the seeming existence of the ego and the presented concept of its non-existence is just classical activity of the seeming ego.Scarecrownoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-6020780814555486592015-06-07T13:30:52.606+01:002015-06-07T13:30:52.606+01:00Michael, you're correct, of course. We as this...Michael, you're correct, of course. We as this ego can never really learn of our non-existence through actual experience, and therefore there is no greater paradox (that I can think of) than 'a non-existent thing seeming to exist only in its own view'. I should have known better! I guess it's just ironic that within the seeming existence of this ego, we are presented with the concept of its non-existence in order bring its seeming existence to an end.Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-42527587463464848302015-06-07T10:20:21.817+01:002015-06-07T10:20:21.817+01:00Steve, regarding your comment in which in reply to...Steve, regarding <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-ego-is-essentially-formless-and.html?showComment=1433456904429#c2186622485092083209" rel="nofollow">your comment</a> in which in reply to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-ego-is-essentially-formless-and.html?showComment=1433451980485#c3028112294889975514" rel="nofollow">my rhetorical question</a> ‘What greater paradox can there be than a non-existent thing seeming to exist only in its own view?’ you offered a counter-suggestion, ‘A non-existent thing learning of its own non-existence?’, I remembered this this morning and thought: no, that is not a paradox, because the ego never really learns of its own non-existence. That is, if leaning means acquiring knowledge, real learning is only acquiring real knowledge, and the ego never really knows that it is non-existent.<br /><br />We may now have an idea, ‘Though I seem to exist as this ego, I do not really exist as such’, but this idea is only conceptual knowledge, and conceptual knowledge is not real knowledge, because it could always be mistaken. Only experiential knowledge can be real knowledge, and the ego can never experience its own non-existence. If it investigates itself sufficiently deeply, it will reach a point where it finds it does not exist, but as soon as it finds this, it ceases to exist as an ego, and remains only as we actually are, which never knows anything but its own existence. Therefore as this ego we can never really know that we do not exist as such, and as we actually are we can never know anything but that we alone exist.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-64642032934928581052015-06-05T11:50:24.324+01:002015-06-05T11:50:24.324+01:00Thanks so much Sri Michael James for your time and...Thanks so much Sri Michael James for your time and letting me know Bhagavan's assertion (once again and possibly nth time where n appears to be nearing infinity) that sleep is a state of pure awareness in which the ego does not exist in any form whatsoever and so the problem of this ego seeming to exist is an issue only in waking and dream. <br /><br />I realize that any issue related to sleep, if discussed in waking or dream states, can take us only up to a point where one will have to halt or trip and get back into the path of self investigation, which is the primary objective. Furthermore, I realize that If and when the ego rises up and induces one to discuss issues related to even the waking state, then, one needs to remember Bhagavan's Brahmastram "to whom are these issues? or who is bothered by these issues?". As Sri Michael James put it somewhere else "This is all that we need investigate, and the only way to investigate this is to be attentively self-aware". <br /><br />Thanks once again for the comments of Sri Michael James and others.R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-77733151694115343852015-06-05T11:00:02.236+01:002015-06-05T11:00:02.236+01:00Sivanarul, regarding your statement that ‘Bhagavan...Sivanarul, regarding your statement that ‘Bhagavan did not get into detailed explanation on TOE (Theory of Everything), and instructed to turn within’, while teaching us why we should turn within he actually gave us a very neat ‘theory of everything’ in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/the-ego-is-essentially-formless-and.html#un26" rel="nofollow">verse 26 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i></a>, but his ‘theory of everything’ is far too simple and radical to satisfy most of us, because we generally do not want to give up everything, which is what his ‘theory’ implies we need to do:<br /><br />“If the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist. [Hence] the ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this [ego] is alone is giving up everything.”<br /><br />Investigating this ego entails giving up everything because as he said in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/the-ego-is-essentially-formless-and.html#un25" rel="nofollow">the previous verse</a>, if we investigate it it will ‘take flight’, since it is merely a ‘formless phantom’ that does not actually exist but seems to exist only when it is grasping anything other than itself, so since everything else seems to exist only when this ego seems to exist, when we investigate it sufficiently thoroughly everything else will cease to exist along with it.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-18707338479988847452015-06-05T10:33:10.683+01:002015-06-05T10:33:10.683+01:00Viswanathan, regarding your latest comment, please...Viswanathan, regarding <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-ego-is-essentially-formless-and.html?showComment=1433452278610#c7907855059773387107" rel="nofollow">your latest comment</a>, please read <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-ego-is-essentially-formless-and.html?showComment=1433451859120#c5327292953145131319" rel="nofollow">my reply to Mouna</a>, which I posted just a few minutes before that comment of yours. As I implied there, we need not and should not try too hard to form a mental conception of what happens to our ego in sleep and how it arises again, firstly because that would be distracting us away from investigating this ego here and now, and secondly because whatever explanation we may come up with will not be entirely adequate, because we are trying to explain the inexplicable.<br /><br />When I referred to the ego entering sleep, I did not mean to imply that it continues to exist in sleep, any more than a river continues to exist as such after it has entered the ocean. You ask how it survives in sleep, and you suggest that it is ‘by the grace of the self’, and from this you infer that ‘the self keeps the ego surviving’. All this assumes that it does survive in sleep, and that it is ‘the self’ that chooses to keep it alive then, both of which are not actually correct. What you call ‘the self’ is what we actually are, but as we actually are we have nothing to do with this ego and never choose to keep it alive (any more than a rope chooses to be seen as a snake), because in the view of ourself as we actually are there is never any such thing as ego at all.<br /><br />If we want we can accept standard explanations such as that in sleep the ego exists in a dormant or seed form as the <i>kāraṇa śarīra</i> or ‘causal body’, but the problem with accepting such explanations is that they attribute to the ego more reality than it deserves. The <i>kāraṇa śarīra</i> is just a hypothetical entity that is posited for the sake of people who want an intellectually satisfying explanation of how the ego arises again in waking or dream, but such an explanation seems necessary only if we accept that the ego has actually risen.<br /><br />If we accept that it has actually risen, we are accepting that it is real, but this is precisely what Bhagavan advised us not to accept, but instead to investigate whether it is so. According to him, if investigate this ego by vigilantly observing it, we will eventually find that there is no such thing, and never has been, so when it does not exist there is no question of it ever having arisen or ever having existed as a <i>kāraṇa śarīra</i> in sleep.<br /><br />According to Bhagavan sleep is a state of pure self-awareness in which the ego does not exist in any form whatsoever, so the problem of this ego seeming to exist is an issue only in waking and dream. Therefore rather than concerning ourself with what happened to our ego in sleep or how it arose from sleep, we can spend our time and energy more productively by investigating whether it actually exists at this very moment.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-55594876277886541162015-06-05T07:02:31.036+01:002015-06-05T07:02:31.036+01:00Sir, thank you for your above comment dated 5 June...Sir, thank you for your above comment dated 5 June 2015 01.54, and clarifying my doubt. As you very aptly write:<br /><br />It is true that there is a limit to how much effort the ego can make to be exclusively self-aware, because the more exclusively self-aware it becomes, the more it subsides and dissolves, and hence the final thing it can ‘do’ is just to let go and surrender itself entirely to the loving embrace of pure self-awareness, which is both the guru (Bhagavan and Arunachala) and its grace.<br /><br />I know you are never personally critical of anybody. Your love for Bhagavan and his teachings, especially his primary teaching of atma-vichara, makes you sometimes appear critical of others when they distort (perhaps unknowingly) Bhagavan's teachings. You just try to convey and explain Bhagavan's teachings in its pure form, and are not bothered much if our egos are sometimes bruised in the process. After all why should our egos be always pampered, when its final goal is to annihilate itself.<br /><br />I am in touch with you since over three years now, through my unending e-mails and comments, and I can just feel love in all your responses. This love is mainly for Bhagavan's teachings, but even individually I can feel your love being directed to all of us. As we come closer and closer to real Bhagavan, we are bound to grow in love. After all Bhagavan is pure self-love. As you explained to me, he is also called asti-bhati-priyam, where priyam stands for both love and happiness.<br /><br />I thank Bhagavan or grace for bringing you in my life. Having you as a friend and support has made this path of vigilant self-attentiveness quite focused, simple and clear.<br /><br />Thanking you and pranams.<br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-11882517214648605832015-06-05T06:34:59.195+01:002015-06-05T06:34:59.195+01:00Thanks 'Who?' for sending me the relevant ...Thanks 'Who?' for sending me the relevant video link of Michael's video (which I had referred earlier. I listened to it with interest this morning. Sometime it is important to listen such videos in parts to grasp and pay full attention to the relevant topic under discussion. Thanking you.Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.com