tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post6844825610919554165..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 12: other than the real awareness that we actually are, there is nothing to know or make knownMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-13293456350716885412017-02-06T15:06:19.095+00:002017-02-06T15:06:19.095+00:00‘Ramanashram’s translation of Nan Yar, which has a...‘Ramanashram’s translation of Nan Yar, which has a different nuance from that of Michael, reads: “If the mind, which is the instrument of knowledge and is the basis of all activity, subsides, the perception of the world as an objective reality ceases.”’<br /><br />As Michael points out, there is a problem with the phrase ‘objective reality’. If something is ‘objective’ it cannot be real; and if something is ‘real’ it cannot be ‘objective’. Therefore, if we think deeply, ‘objective reality’ carries a serious contraction within the phrase itself. <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-11937051191708758822017-02-05T22:55:49.460+00:002017-02-05T22:55:49.460+00:00Hi Michael
Unfortunately I have forgotten my Tami...Hi Michael<br /><br />Unfortunately I have forgotten my Tamil. Thank you for the clarification.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br /><br />venkat venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-37473760289707472962017-02-05T20:28:34.292+00:002017-02-05T20:28:34.292+00:00I'm not a robot. what am I?
agreed, all irrel...I'm not a robot. what am I?<br /><br />agreed, all irrelevant, except for ego. Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-80832024110063375792017-02-05T19:52:32.455+00:002017-02-05T19:52:32.455+00:00Venkat, regarding the comment in which you say, ‘R...Venkat, regarding the <a href="#c4692248270612259736" rel="nofollow">comment</a> in which you say, ‘Ramanashram’s translation of Nan Yar, which has a different nuance from that of Michael, reads: “If the mind, which is the instrument of knowledge and is the basis of all activity, subsides, the perception of the world as an objective reality ceases”’, am I not correct in believing that you can read and understand Tamil? If that is the case, you can see for yourself that my translation of the first sentence of the <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/01/like-bhagavan-sankara-taught-that.html#ny03" rel="nofollow">third paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Yār?</i>, ‘சர்வ அறிவிற்கும் சர்வ தொழிற்குங் காரண மாகிய மன மடங்கினால் ஜகதிருஷ்டி நீங்கும்’ (<i>sarva aṟiviṟkum sarva toṙiṟkum kāraṇam-āhiya maṉam aḍaṅgiṉāl jaga-diruṣṭi nīṅgum</i>), namely ‘If the mind, which is the cause for all awareness [of things other than oneself] and for all activity, subsides, <i>jagad-dṛṣṭi</i> [perception of the world] will cease’, is accurate and correct, and that Bhagavan wrote no words in that sentence that mean or could imply ‘as an objective reality’.<br /><br />In the context of his teachings the term ‘objective reality’ has no meaning whatsoever, because according to him what is real is only <i>ātma-svarūpa</i> (the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself), which is pure awareness (awareness that is completely devoid of both awareness and ignorance of anything else, as he says in the first sentence of both <a href="#uu27" rel="nofollow">verse 27</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> and <a href="#un12" rel="nofollow">verse 12</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>), and <i>ātma-svarūpa</i> or pure awareness can never be ‘objective’, since it devoid of both subject and object (though paradoxically the sole source and substance of both of them). Moreover, since objects seem to exist only in the view of the subject, which is the ego, they are completely unreal.<br /><br />Therefore the ‘translation’ you have cited from one of the books published by Sri Ramanasramam is not bringing out a ‘different nuance’ of what Bhagavan wrote, but is simply interpolating an idea that has no place in his teachings, so it is not actually a translation but a serious misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what he wrote.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-5997406942985164612017-02-05T19:45:01.222+00:002017-02-05T19:45:01.222+00:00I just came across one more quote on this:
"...I just came across one more quote on this:<br /><br />"D: How can I control the mind?<br /><br />Ramana Maharshi: There is no mind to control if the Self is realised. The Self shines forth when the mind vanishes. <b>In the realised man the mind may be active or inactive, the Self alone exists.</b> For, the mind, body and world are not separate from the Self; and they cannot remain apart from the Self. Can they be other than the Self? When aware of the Self why should one worry about these shadows? How do they affect the Self?" (from Maharshi's Gospel, p. 16)<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-34437522304927610862017-02-05T19:31:16.074+00:002017-02-05T19:31:16.074+00:00Mouna, come on...
if our experience was that there...Mouna, come on...<br />if our experience was that there is only Jnana, and it does nothing, then we wouldn't be having this conversations, right?<br /><br />the ajata view can be a claim that the Jnani makes, not the ego. <br />and the truth is that, as long as we believe that we are a body mind, whatever we say about the ultimate is just ... irrelevent.I'm not a robot. what am I?noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-45300186492420572372017-02-05T19:11:23.680+00:002017-02-05T19:11:23.680+00:00Venkat, regarding the comment in which you say, ‘N...Venkat, regarding the <a href="#c6111636152430906614" rel="nofollow">comment</a> in which you say, ‘Nikhilananda’s translation [of <i>Māṇḍukya Kārikā</i> <a href="http://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/mandukya-upanishad-karika-bhashya/d/doc143663.html" rel="nofollow">2.32</a>] reads “No dissolution, NO BIRTH ...”, as does Sw Chinmayananda’, the word that they translated in this case as ‘birth’ is <a href="http://sanskritdictionary.com/?iencoding=iast&q=utpatti&lang=sans&action=Search" rel="nofollow">उत्पत्ति</a> (<i>utpatti</i>), which means coming into existence, arising, origination, birth, production or occurrence (and in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/11/what-is-correct-meaning-of-ajata-vada.html#ut24" rel="nofollow">verse 24</a> of <i>Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ</i> Bhagavan translated <i>utpatti</i> in this verse as ஆதல் (<i>ādal</i>), which likewise means coming into existence, occurring, happening or becoming), so when this verse says that there is no <i>utpatti</i> the straightforward implication is that there is no <i>utpatti</i> whatsoever.<br /><br />Of course if we want we could interpret it to mean that there is just no birth of any <i>jīva</i> or ‘personal self’, as you suggest, but rather than interpreting it according to our own personal preferences, it would be more wise for us to interpret it in accordance with the fundamental principles of Bhagavan’s teachings, as expressed by him in <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, <i>Nāṉ Yār?</i> and elsewhere. As he says in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/01/what-is-aware-of-everything-other-than.html#un26" rel="nofollow">verse 26</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, ‘அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும். அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம்’ (<i>ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum. ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām</i>), which means ‘If the ego [the <i>jīva</i>] comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist. The ego itself is everything’, so if there is no birth or coming into existence of the ego or <i>jīva</i>, there is no birth or coming into existence of anything whatsoever.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-9741965606323186412017-02-05T19:08:03.410+00:002017-02-05T19:08:03.410+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-50946786318179456492017-02-05T19:03:04.861+00:002017-02-05T19:03:04.861+00:00Ken wrote:
So, the world can only vanish from the...Ken wrote:<br /><br /><i>So, the world can only vanish from the viewpoint of the ego. "To the jnani it is quite immaterial"</i><br />Couldn't agree more, but only if one also ads: so the world can only be perceived from the viewpoint of the ego. "To the jnani it is quite immaterial"<br /><br />ego is all. <br />definition of all?: "used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing."Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-19696942652062243402017-02-05T18:56:32.451+00:002017-02-05T18:56:32.451+00:00I like that Venkat, the only thing we know is that...I like that Venkat, the only thing we know is that we don't know...<br /><br /><i>"thanks for the manana"</i><br />Thank <b>you</b> my friend,<br /><br />See you around the block... sorry, blog<br />mMounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-55262727286116426682017-02-05T18:55:49.249+00:002017-02-05T18:55:49.249+00:00Mouna wrote:
" Everyone is aware of the Self ...Mouna wrote:<br />" <i>Everyone is aware of the Self every night during deep sleep, when there is no world.</i><br />There is 'no one' that can be aware 'of the Self' during sleep. There is only pure awareness."<br /><br />"Ramana Maharshi: What is the standard of reality? That alone is real which exists by itself, <b>which reveals itself by itself</b> and which is eternal and unchanging." (Maharshi’s Gospel, p. 61)<br /><br />That the Self "reveals itself by itself" is a major aspect of the Self. The Self is always aware of itself. The Self is Awareness. Awareness is always aware of itself.<br /><br />When I said:<br />" a jnani is someone who is also aware of the Self when the world is present - that is their difference from everyone else."<br /><br />that can only be from the perspective of ajnanis.<br /><br />Michael wrote:<br />"The only defect in sleep is that we seem to come out of it when we rise as the ego in waking or dream, but this defect seems to exist only from the perspective of ourself as this ego. From the perspective of ourself as we actually are we never come out of sleep, because what is called ‘sleep’ from the perspective of the ego is actually our real and eternal state, the one and only state that actually exists."<br /><br />That is entirely true. But realisation, ignorance, bondage, jnanis and sages are only from the perspective of ego.<br /><br />The Self is always fine as it is, it does not need teachings.<br /><br />But that brings up a further point with regards to the idea "the world vanishes upon realization".<br /><br />"Ramana Maharshi: The jnani knows that the screen, the pictures and the sight thereof are but the Self. With the pictures the Self is in its manifest form; without the pictures It remains in the unmanifest form. <b>To the jnani it is quite immaterial if the Self is in the one form or the other.</b> He is always the Self." (From Maharshi's Gospel, p. 62)(all of my quotes from it are from the 2002 edition, by the way)<br /><br />This same "the Self is in the one form or the other" is echoed in Nan Yar paragraph 7:<br /><br />"Svarūpa [our ‘own form’ or actual self] alone is the world; svarūpa alone is ‘I’ [our ego, soul or individual self]; svarūpa alone is God; everything is śiva-svarūpa [our actual self, which is śiva, the absolute and only truly existing reality]."<br /><br />and Nan Yar paragraph 4:<br /><br />"What is called ‘mind’ is an atiśaya śakti [an extraordinary or wonderful power] <b>that exists in ātma-svarūpa</b> [our actual self]."<br /><br />So, the world can only vanish from the viewpoint of the ego. "To the jnani it is quite immaterial"Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-46922482706122597362017-02-05T18:44:40.982+00:002017-02-05T18:44:40.982+00:00Mouna,
Ramanashram's translation of Nan Yar, ...Mouna,<br /><br />Ramanashram's translation of Nan Yar, which has a different nuance from that of Michael, reads:<br />"If the mind, which is the instrument of knowledge and is the basis of all activity, subsides, the perception of the world as an objective reality ceases"<br /><br />In any event, the question we are not going to resolve is whether Bhagavan when he said that for the world must disappear, he meant it literally. Or, could he have meant it figuratively, in the sense that all likes and dislikes, all desires and fears, all "mine" and "yours", i.e. all mental interpretations / judgements, have to disappear. Shankara's writings are very much of the latter import.<br /><br />In addition, evidence for the latter has been pointed to, in this blog, in various of Bhagavan's Talks, as well those of GVK, Murugunar's writings, Sadhu Natanananda, Sadhu Om and others. The response, which is not rebuttable, is that these were said as a concession to seekers who could not accept the final truth.<br /><br />As we have agreed on before, this does not really matter, since it does not change the practice of vichara, and both interpretations point to detachment, vairagya. Which is what Bhagavan also says in UN verse 3 "The world is real. No it is an unreal appearance" . . .<br /><br />Thanks for the manana<br />venkat<br />venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-3069898744864818272017-02-05T18:20:52.366+00:002017-02-05T18:20:52.366+00:00I'm not a robot. what am I?,
jnana doesn'...I'm not a robot. what am I?,<br /><br />jnana doesn't "assimilate" anything... jnana can't be paralleled with a verb like jnana does this, does that, sees the world as itself, etc. jnana is and exists. period.<br />is the ego that does <b>everything</b> and atributes limitations to what doesn't have any.<br />duality is non-dual but non-duality is not dual, except in the case of a perceiver-perceived dyad. (the snake is the rope, but the rope is not the snake, <b>except</b> when viewed from an external source that after-the-fact will think: "Oh, so the rope was the snake after all!"Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-54477508145099734662017-02-05T18:13:07.495+00:002017-02-05T18:13:07.495+00:00Mouna said...
There is "no one" that can...Mouna said...<br />There is "no one" that can be aware "of the Self" during sleep. There is only pure awareness.<br /><br />yes, and in fact, there is not even the "cognitive structure" through which "some one" can perceive something. <br />there can be no sadhana, no effort, no effortlessness, no something, no nothing, to be known.<br /><br />there is no capacity for thinking.<br /><br />how ever, Ken has a point. Jnana should "assimilate" even the "story telling" of a "world".<br />and of a "jnani".<br />maybe after all, when the belief in a personal self dies completely, nothing else matters.I'm not a robot. what am I?noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-17416644108371131312017-02-05T17:52:11.415+00:002017-02-05T17:52:11.415+00:00venkat,
ok, let's play with your cards.
creati...venkat,<br />ok, let's play with your cards.<br />creation=birth. creation comes with birth, the birth of the ego, that is what Bhagavan says.<br />ego goes, creation goes. ego appears, creation appears. every day you can verify that cycle.<br />simple. you do not need a lot of shastra knowledge to verify that, or the fact that there is existence and knowledge of that existence.<br /><br />but you know my friend, I actually also share your point of view, the difference is that for me, <b>is both</b>.<br /><br />best also,<br />mMounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-61116361524309066142017-02-05T17:06:38.142+00:002017-02-05T17:06:38.142+00:00Nikhilananda's translation reads "No diss...Nikhilananda's translation reads "No dissolution, NO BIRTH . . .", as does Sw Chinmayananda.<br /><br />Clearly one can interpret no birth as no creation, but if you look at the last 4 clauses "none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and none liberated", they all refer to the personal self.<br /><br />Given that the whole point of Vedanta and Shankara is to correct the avidya arising from the mutual superimposition of Self (Brahman) and non-Self (body-mind), as is clear from the second quote from Shankara (in my previous comment), it strikes me that it is a reasonable hypothesis to say that the primary focus of ajata vada is the imagined separation of the jiva.<br /><br />Best,<br />venkatvenkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-71098114596079106162017-02-05T17:03:06.880+00:002017-02-05T17:03:06.880+00:00In continuation of my previous comment in reply to...In continuation of <a href="#c470529289426012918" rel="nofollow">my previous comment</a> in reply to Ken:<br /><br />What Bhagavan stated so explicitly and unequivocally in these two paragraphs of <i>Nāṉ Yār?</i> was also clearly implied by him in many verses of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> and <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>. For example, while explaining the nature of real awareness in <a href="#uu27" rel="nofollow">verse 27</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>, he concluded by saying, ‘அறிவதற்கு ஒன்று இலை’ (<i>aṟivadaṟku oṉḏṟu ilai</i>), ‘There is not anything for knowing’, thereby implying that nothing (no world or anything else) ever exists for real awareness to know. Likewise, in the <a href="#sentence3" rel="nofollow">third sentence</a> of <a href="#un12" rel="nofollow">verse 12</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> he says, ‘அறிதற்கு அறிவித்தற்கு அன்னியம் இன்றாய் அவிர்வதால், தான் அறிவு ஆகும்’ (<i>aṟidaṟku aṟivittaṟku aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy avirvadāl, tāṉ aṟivu āhum</i>), ‘Since it shines without another for knowing or for making known, oneself is [real] awareness’, thereby implying once again that for ourself as the real awareness that we actually are no other thing exists to know or make known.<br /><br />Therefore if you believe that there is awareness of the world in <i>ātma-jñāna</i>, how do you explain what Bhagavan says in these two verses, and in the third and fourth paragraphs of <i>Nāṉ Yār?</i>, and in all the other samples of his writings that I cited and discussed in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/01/what-is-aware-of-everything-other-than.html" rel="nofollow">What is aware of everything other than ourself is only the ego and not ourself as we actually are</a>?Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-4705292894260129182017-02-05T17:00:39.185+00:002017-02-05T17:00:39.185+00:00Ken, in your latest comment you have introduced us...Ken, in <a href="#c275475398854141802" rel="nofollow">your latest comment</a> you have introduced us to two new and very curious ideas: firstly that the difference between sleep and <i>ātma-jñāna</i> is that in sleep one is aware only of oneself, whereas in <i>ātma-jñāna</i> one can be aware both of oneself and of the world; and secondly that <i>ātma-jñāna</i> is somehow dependent upon awareness of the world (or at least upon the ability to be aware of the world).<br /><br />However, Bhagavan taught us that there is actually no difference whatsoever between sleep and <i>ātma-jñāna</i>, because like <i>ātma-jñāna</i> sleep is our natural state of pure self-awareness. For example, in the first chapter of <a href="http://selfdefinition.org/ramana/Maharshi's-Gospel.pdf" rel="nofollow"><i>Maharshi’s Gospel</i></a> (2002 edition, page 9) it is recorded that he said:<br /><br />‘Sleep is not ignorance, it is one’s pure state; wakefulness is not knowledge, it is ignorance. There is full awareness in sleep and total ignorance in waking.’<br /><br />The only defect in sleep is that we seem to come out of it when we rise as the ego in waking or dream, but this defect seems to exist only from the perspective of ourself as this ego. From the perspective of ourself as we actually are we never come out of sleep, because what is called ‘sleep’ from the perspective of the ego is actually our real and eternal state, the one and only state that actually exists.<br /><br />The reason why there is no awareness of any world in sleep but there is awareness of a world in both waking and dream is explained by Bhagavan very simply in the first sentence of the <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/01/like-bhagavan-sankara-taught-that.html#ny03" rel="nofollow">third paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Yār?</i> and in one of the sentences of the <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/01/like-bhagavan-sankara-taught-that.html#ny04" rel="nofollow">fourth paragraph</a>: ‘சர்வ அறிவிற்கும் சர்வ தொழிற்குங் காரண மாகிய மன மடங்கினால் ஜகதிருஷ்டி நீங்கும்’ (<i>sarva aṟiviṟkum sarva toṙiṟkum kāraṇam-āhiya maṉam aḍaṅgiṉāl jaga-diruṣṭi nīṅgum</i>), ‘If the mind, which is the cause for all awareness [of things other than oneself] and for all activity, subsides, <i>jagad-dṛṣṭi</i> [perception of the world] will cease’, and ‘மனம் ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தினின்று வெளிப்படும்போது ஜகம் தோன்றும்’ (<i>maṉam ātma sorūpattiṉiṉḏṟu veḷippaḍum-pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟum</i>), ‘When the mind comes out from <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, the world appears’.<br /><br />Therefore, since there is no mind in <i>ātma-jñāna</i>, how can there be awareness of any world? As Bhagavan makes very clear in these two paragraphs of <i>Nāṉ Yār?</i>, the world is a projection of the mind, so since the mind is an erroneous awareness of ourself (an awareness of ourself as if we were a body), there can be no perception of any world when we see ourself as we actually are. This is why he said in the next two sentences of the fourth paragraph: ‘ஆகையால், ஜகம் தோன்றும்போது சொரூபம் தோன்றாது; சொரூபம் தோன்றும் (பிரகாசிக்கும்) போது ஜகம் தோன்றாது’ (<i>āhaiyāl, jagam tōṉḏṟum-pōdu sorūpam tōṉḏṟādu; sorūpam tōṉḏṟum (pirakāśikkum) pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟādu</i>), ‘Therefore when the world appears, <i>svarūpa</i> [one’s ‘own form’ or real nature] does not appear; when <i>svarūpa</i> appears (shines), the world does not appear’.<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-84921441896859141422017-02-05T16:43:20.410+00:002017-02-05T16:43:20.410+00:00Interestingly enough Venkat, you forgot "no c...Interestingly enough Venkat, you forgot "no creation" at the beginning of you karika 2:32 version...Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-76488464813936768882017-02-05T15:32:33.549+00:002017-02-05T15:32:33.549+00:00Interestingly enough Mouna, neither Gaudapada'...Interestingly enough Mouna, neither Gaudapada's famous ajata vada verse, nor Sankara's commentary on it says that there is no world. They only both refer to the individual jiva, for whom:<br /><br />"There is no dissolution, no birth, none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth"<br /><br />It is clearly talking in a personal creation sense rather than world creation sense. Bhagavan also of course focused attention on the reality of the jiva, as opposed to discussions on the reality of the world.<br /><br />Sankara's commentary on Brihadaranyaka Up makes clear:<br />"The results of knowledge and nescience are 'being the Self of all' and 'being of a limited nature' respectively. Through knowledge one becomes the Self of all. Through nescience one becomes finite. One becomes cut off from others."<br /><br />The whole purpose of the upanishads is to address the ignorance of the individual that he is separate from all that is, and therefore must strive for personal benefit and accumulation.venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32089844433346614762017-02-05T13:14:58.685+00:002017-02-05T13:14:58.685+00:00Everyone is aware of the Self every night during d...<i>Everyone is aware of the Self every night during deep sleep, when there is no world.</i><br />There is "no one" that can be aware "of the Self" during sleep. There is only pure awareness.<br /><br /><i>So, realisation is not "being aware of the Self when there is no world", because everyone is already doing that every night.</i><br />Same commentary as above.<br /><br /><i>Thus, a jnani is someone who is also aware of the Self when the world is present - that is their difference from everyone else.</i><br />A "jnani" is not "someone". There is only jnana <br /><br /><br /><i>This is why the claim that "the world vanishes upon realization" makes no sense at all.</i><br />Who said that it makes sense? Of course for the mind doesn't make any sense at all.<br />Why? Because according to the ultimate teachings there is no world and no realization to start with!!! <br />Figure that one out, dear ego!Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-2754753988541418022017-02-05T07:51:07.361+00:002017-02-05T07:51:07.361+00:00Everyone is aware of the Self every night during d...Everyone is aware of the Self every night during deep sleep, when there is no world.<br /><br />So, realisation is not "being aware of the Self when there is no world", because everyone is already doing that every night.<br /><br />Thus, a jnani is someone who is <b>also</b> aware of the Self when the world is present - that is their difference from everyone else.<br /><br />This is why the claim that "the world vanishes upon realization" makes no sense at all.<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-49030272908669253632017-02-04T17:24:04.735+00:002017-02-04T17:24:04.735+00:00In continuation of my previous manana
verse three...In continuation of my previous <i>manana</i><br /><br />verse three: Just as a hand fan can be put aside when the cool southern breeze is blowing, likewise one can discard all observances and <i>niyamas</i> like fasting, <i>puja, japa, dhyana</i>, self-restrain, or living a virtuous life, when one is able to attend directly to <i>sat</i> or ‘what is’, or associate with the <i>jnani</i>. <br /><br />verse four: Our mental anguish, our bodily needs and our sins will be removed merely by the precious sight of the incomparable <i>sadhu</i>. Like, merely being in the presence of Bhagavan benefited countless devotees in various ways. <br /><br />verse five: The power of holy waters and images of deities is derived from the intensity of faith, devotion and <i>bhava</i> of devotees. These can bestow purity to a limited extent and that to very slowly. However the <i>jnani</i> is like the fire - fire of <i>jnana</i>. The mere presence of the <i>jnani</i> will transform the hearts of those who reside in that presence (<i>sannidhi</i>). The power of Arunachala is the power of the <i>jnani’s</i> presence. <br /><br />Note: In my previous <i>manana</i> comment I wrote: ‘The benefits and unique efficacy of <i>sat-sanga</i> is the topic of first 6 verses of <i>Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham</i>’. Sorry, it is not first 6 verses, but first 5 verses that deal with the topic of <i>sat-sanga</i>.<br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-92107994475539098082017-02-04T16:41:19.290+00:002017-02-04T16:41:19.290+00:00manana - part one . . . on the immense benefit of ...<i>manana - part one</i> . . . on the immense benefit of <i>sat-sanga</i><br /><br />Inputs: (A) <i>Sri Ramanopadesa Noonmalai</i> Commentary by Sri Sadhu Om (B) <i>Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham – an explanatory paraphrase</i> an article by Sri Michael James<br /><br />The benefits and unique efficacy of <i>sat-sanga</i> is the topic of the first 6 verses of <i>Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham</i>. This shows the immense value which Bhagavan attached to <i>sat-sanga</i>. In the context of Bhagavan’s teachings, <i>sat-sanga</i> only means ‘association with <i>sat</i>, the reality, or association with those who know and abide as the reality’, as Sri Sadhu Om explains.<br /><br />verse one: By such <i>sat-sanga</i> our <i>asat-sanga</i> (association with <i>asat</i>, this illusory world-appearance) will be reduced, which in turn will reduce our mental attachments towards the worldly objects. In other words, our <i>vishaya-vasanas</i> will be weakened, and they will all eventually perish due to our lack of interest in them. Thus we will be established in our immutable, motionless self, never to rise again as this ego. <br /><br />Mental contact with the <i>jnani</i> is much more beneficial than their physical company. We should try to love their teachings and practise these to the best of our ability. Regular <i>sravana</i> and <i>manana</i> of their teachings is itself a powerful <i>sat-sanga</i>.<br /><br />Therefore, as Bhagavan said, ‘cherish their [<i>jnani’s</i>] association’. <br /><br />verse two: The true sage (<i>atma-jnani</i>) will direct us only to aim for complete self-knowledge. As Bhagavan one said: ‘our aim is only <i>atma</i> [one’s essential self]; all other aims are for those who are incapable of <i>atma-lakshaya</i>’. The true sage will lovingly explain us the only direct means to attain such clear self-knowledge. Such benefit cannot be obtained by listening to religious preachers, reading spiritual texts, doing virtuous deeds and so on.<br /><br />(I will continue this <i>manana</i> in my next comment)<br /> <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-38243009776267768002017-02-02T17:10:04.601+00:002017-02-02T17:10:04.601+00:00manana… (which is in a mixture of Michael’s words ...<i>manana…</i> (which is in a mixture of Michael’s words and my own words)<br /><br />In one his videos on his YouTube channel Michael talked about the <i>Upanishadic</i> statement: ‘All is <i>brahman</i>’. He explained how Bhagavan’s his central teaching is: ‘All is ego’. <br /><br />Bhagavan teaches us, ‘all is ego’, because it a practical teaching. If we say ‘all is <i>brahman</i>, it is just a thought, or an idea in our mind. Though ultimately ‘all is <i>brahman</i>’, but intermediately it very useful to understand that ‘all is ego’. Though Bhagavan’s teaching seems to differ from the <i>Upanishadic</i> teaching, but these two can be reconciled.<br /><br />If we think, ‘all is ego’, then the logical question should be: ‘if all is ego, then who am I? Am I also this ego? This ego was not there in sleep, but I was very much there, so who exactly am I?’ Such reflections should prompt us to investigate: who am I?<br /><br />Thus we turn our attention towards ourself, our ego, and once we do this the ego disappears. What remains is <i>brahman</i>. Then what was it that appeared as the ego and this world-appearance? Obviously it can be only <i>brahman</i> (our <i>atma-svarupa</i>), because <i>brahman</i> alone actually exists.<br /><br />Bhagavan’s teachings are much more practical than all the <i>Upanishads</i> and <i>Vedanta</i> put together. This world-appearance is an expansion of our ego, and once it is destroyed the world-appearance will also be destroyed. What will then remain is the <i>adhisthana</i> or <i>aadhara</i> of the ego, and this <i>adhisthana</i> or <i>aadhara</i> is <i>brahman</i>. Therefore, Bhagavan’s teaching is ultimately reconciled with <i>Upanishadic</i> teachings. <br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.com