tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post6964896328650711898..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: What is the correct meaning of ajāta vāda?Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-10814600008977157592016-12-31T11:07:27.973+00:002016-12-31T11:07:27.973+00:00Mouna,
as you say, good balance in good timing is ...Mouna,<br />as you say, good balance in good timing is a necessity for each one.<br />Life itself is a good "living teacher".<br />Happy years from here to eternity !sat - bhavanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-14980912723163984692016-12-31T10:57:17.001+00:002016-12-31T10:57:17.001+00:00Ken,
thanks for your reply even to my crazy questi...Ken,<br />thanks for your reply even to my crazy questions.<br />I don't know "left hand" tantra which you seemingly impart that it is rather valueless.<br />Happy New Year !sat - bhavanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-91850870624872674802016-12-31T01:07:27.057+00:002016-12-31T01:07:27.057+00:00sravana, manana, nididhyasana, all in good balance...sravana, manana, nididhyasana, all in good balance, and with the correct timing for each one, that's good practice.<br />when unbalanced, problems, specially if a living teacher is not around.Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-71959630764770010102016-12-31T01:01:18.458+00:002016-12-31T01:01:18.458+00:001. a conjunction - according to Wikipedia "Or...1. a conjunction - according to Wikipedia "Or – presents an alternative item or idea ("Every day they gamble, or they smoke.")"<br /><br />2. Practice<br /><br />3. Read Nan Yar (available for free at happinessofbeing.com )<br /><br />4. It can be for some who follow "left hand" tantra.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-74937978833162835832016-12-30T23:22:50.702+00:002016-12-30T23:22:50.702+00:00Ken,
would you like to answer also the following f...Ken,<br />would you like to answer also the following four questions ?<br />1. what means OR ?<br />2. what are the other (important) part(s) of spirituality ?<br />3. what is (the use of) spirituality ? <br />4. why is drinking beer not a spiritual practice ?sat - bhavanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-22793491779083611552016-12-30T21:02:08.950+00:002016-12-30T21:02:08.950+00:00There are two reasons for verbal, intellectual kno...There are two reasons for verbal, intellectual knowledge about spirituality:<br /><br />* Understanding how to do the practice. This is particularly easy for Self-Enquiry, but nevertheless "Be As You Are" has an entire chapter devoted to "Self-Enquiry - Misconceptions" (the classic one being the idea that it is repeating "Who Am I" like a mantra).<br /><br />* Understanding why to do the practice and what is the goal. This topic is often called cosmology or metaphysics or theology. Essentially this is necessary to understand why to do the practice instead of just drinking beer and watching sports, and also how to recognize "success".<br /><br />In the conversations with Ramana in books, I have read different people describe their spiritual experiences, and to one, Ramana says "Yes, that is the correct result, keep doing that" and to another one, Ramana replied "It's good that you have reached samadhi, but now you need to prevent manolaya" (and gives advice about that).<br /><br />One of the results of the "just practice, don't study" idea is that people do that successfully, which becomes a big problem! Why? Because they then think they should be teaching spirituality. There are two cases:<br /><br />* They do successfully achieve realization, but know nothing about what happened or how to do it. Ramana very specifically admits that after he was realized, but before he left for Arunachala, he had no idea what had actually happened, and it was only later from talking to sadhus, and reading books that he understood.<br /><br />OR<br /><br />* They think they are successful, but only have achieved manolaya or some other intermediate state. Obviously those are the worst people to be teachers.<br /><br />So, intellectual understanding is an important part of spirituality. (You can become clear on this point by watching random "spirituality" videos on Youtube, lol.)<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-45646442704269367972016-12-30T20:41:38.130+00:002016-12-30T20:41:38.130+00:00venkat,
thank you for quoting the following extrac...venkat,<br />thank you for quoting the following extracts of Swami Iswarananda which I find easy to comprehend:<br />"The second process of reasoning, known as anvayin, synthetic, by which we come to the knowledge that all this is the Self. That which was first rejected as non-Self, the world of drsya, is known at the end of this process as nothing other than the Self. The Self being this without a second, nothing more will remain to be known."<br />and<br />"Says Ramakrishna: "He (Isvarakoti) follows the process of negation and affirmation. First he negates the world, realising that it is not Brahman, but then he affirms the world as the manifestation of Brahman."<br /><br />nirantaranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-31391366066027583642016-12-30T16:53:30.063+00:002016-12-30T16:53:30.063+00:00venkat,
let us appreciate today the anniversary of...venkat,<br />let us appreciate today the anniversary of the birth of Sri Ramana's mortal body, down in Tiruchuli/Tamil Nadu. Without his appearance our helplessness with removing our ignorance would be still more flagrant.nirantaranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-41942726961840666102016-12-30T16:43:22.513+00:002016-12-30T16:43:22.513+00:00Daisilui, you put it perfectly, not one word is ou...Daisilui, you put it perfectly, not one word is out of place.Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-91462082772662004432016-12-30T16:19:43.326+00:002016-12-30T16:19:43.326+00:00Mouna,
well said- there is a fine balance between ...Mouna,<br />well said- there is a fine balance between the need to know and the want to know [more...]. In my view the non-dual 'message' is very simple and clear and actually knowing too much is detrimental to being. One can be even with gaps in knowing- in fact being doesn't need knowing at all [i am talking about the human kind of knowing].Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03098205640361255053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-49508178135189666072016-12-30T16:12:05.733+00:002016-12-30T16:12:05.733+00:00Venkat, greetings
"We are all sincerely try...Venkat, greetings <br /><br /><i>"We are all sincerely trying to understand the limitless, using our limited minds - and trying to convey in words to each other what we have understood hitherto."</i><br /><br />I definitely agree with you here my friend, and I believe we are all sincere in our efforts. But I wonder if we (and I definitely include myself here) don't use most of our time "trying to understand" instead of abiding in that which is available here and now, the reality that, as Bhagavan defines in Ulladu Narpadu, is free of and beyond thought.<br />According to His wisdom, it's the most direct path to take...<br /><br />Be well, m<br />Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-12206541206839565952016-12-30T11:34:59.322+00:002016-12-30T11:34:59.322+00:00Nirantara
Your comment imputes a motive to my com...Nirantara<br /><br />Your comment imputes a motive to my comments, which I will look at. I hope that you are more wrong than right.venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-4723288564328373942016-12-30T11:05:14.830+00:002016-12-30T11:05:14.830+00:00venkat,
the beauty of Michael's blog is also t...venkat,<br />the beauty of Michael's blog is also that indeed commentators are tolerated who want only be right in any case though they are even lacking full understanding.nirantaranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-17896156584104699832016-12-30T10:40:06.461+00:002016-12-30T10:40:06.461+00:00Ken, Mouna
Extracts from Swami Iswarananda - whic...Ken, Mouna<br /><br />Extracts from Swami Iswarananda - which reinforces Ken's quotes from Bhagavan.<br /><br />The knower and the known, the seer and the seen, the drk and the drsya cannot be the same . . . Even the ego-sense of I, being only a modification of the mind, which is experienced as an object, is other than the real I, and is seen as an object only with the body, the mind the the world of senses. The real I then is simply the Knower, the Consciousness itself set against which is the world of insentient nature, including my body and mind . . . In this way, all our world of experience could be analysed into categories of Self and non-Self, following our present cognition and 'I' and 'this', and pushing it to its ultimate logical possibility. This is the first step in Vedantic reasoning and ends in the discovery of the real I, the Self as Pure Consciousness or cit, the essence of knowledge.<br /><br />...<br /><br />The second process of reasoning, known as anvayin, synthetic, by which we come to the knowledge that all this is the Self. That which was first rejected as non-Self, the world of drsya, is known at the end of this process as nothing other than the Self. The Self being this without a second, nothing more will remain to be known.<br /><br />...<br /><br />The fact that nothing other than the Self existed in susupti is an incontrovertible conclusion. . . Where then was this world? The seers of the Upanishads say that the world existed then as non-different from the Self. Was not the world then the Self in the previous waking state? Is not the world always the Atman? Yes it is so. All this is always Atman. All this is Brahman. The whole universe therefore is nothing but pure consciousness, cit, the Self that 'I am'.<br /><br />...<br /><br />Says Ramakrishna: "He IIsvarakoti) follows the process of negation and affirmation. First he negates the world, realising that it is not Brahman, but then he affirms the world as the manifestation of Brahman."venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-6858923500418840152016-12-30T09:17:38.851+00:002016-12-30T09:17:38.851+00:00Mouna & Ken
Thanks for your comments. We are...Mouna & Ken<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. We are all sincerely trying to understand the limitless, using our limited minds - and trying to convey in words to each other what we have understood hitherto. That is the beauty of Michael's blog.<br /><br />Best wishes to you both.<br /><br />venkatvenkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-61297040566631441102016-12-30T06:54:35.775+00:002016-12-30T06:54:35.775+00:00...
(back to) silence...<br /><br />(back to) silenceMounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-15551704175900957992016-12-30T06:53:11.134+00:002016-12-30T06:53:11.134+00:00Although very scary to mistake a rope for a snake,...Although very scary to mistake a rope for a snake, it is far more dangerous to mistake a snake for a rope.<br /><br />(From the Manual of Practical Duality, chapter 3, pg 78, first edition)Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-82720366985940544612016-12-30T06:07:50.422+00:002016-12-30T06:07:50.422+00:00...
silence
...<br /><br />silence<br />Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-57901811735513000702016-12-30T04:22:16.112+00:002016-12-30T04:22:16.112+00:00Quote: "I read somewhere that that is brahman...Quote: "I read somewhere that that is brahman. I am not that because the moment I’ll be that there will be no more I to say that."<br /><br />If I had to pick one series of quotes of Ramana that is the most important, it would be this:<br /><br />"D: How can I attain Self-realization?<br /><br />Ramana Maharshi: Realization is nothing to be gained afresh, it is already there. All that is necessary is to get rid of the thought ‘I have not realised’.<br /><br />D: How shall I reach the Self?<br /><br />Ramana Maharshi: There is no reaching the Self. If Self were to be reached, it would mean that the Self is not here and now but that it is yet to be obtained. What is got afresh will also be lost. So it will be impermanent. What is not permanent is not worth striving for.<br /><br /><b>So I say the Self is not reached. You are the Self; you are already That.</b><br /><br />The fact is, you are ignorant of your blissful state. Ignorance supervenes and draws a veil over the pure Self which is Bliss. Attempts are directed only to remove this veil of ignorance which is merely wrong knowledge.<br /><br /><b>The wrong knowledge is the false identification of the Self with the body, mind etc. This False identification must go, and then the Self alone remains.</b>"<br /><br />From Maharshi's Gospel p.31-32 (of which a corrected manuscript exists in Ramana's handwriting).<br /><br />The line of thought is completed with the following quote from Page 35:<br /><br />"Ramana Maharshi: The Realised one does not see the world as different from Himself."<br /><br />which ties back to Venkat's position.<br /><br />If the world were truly non-existent, then it would be quite different from the Self.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-24112429054490253932016-12-30T04:19:48.126+00:002016-12-30T04:19:48.126+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-26715287011050466712016-12-30T03:38:45.334+00:002016-12-30T03:38:45.334+00:00Quote: "Consciousness is not 'aware of...Quote: "Consciousness is not 'aware of' any phenomena"<br /><br />I love this formulation - I keep seeing it from time to tim.<br /><br />Let us use the synonym "Awareness".<br /><br />So, Awareness is not "aware of" anything except itself.<br /><br />The problem here is that this abstract invocation of "non-duality" requires a real duality. If Awareness is not aware of anything other than itself, then we need a second Awareness that is aware of everything else.<br /><br />My reading is that Shankara and Ramana did not use this neutered version of Awareness.<br /><br />Ramana said in Nan Yar:<br /><br />"What is called mind (manam) is a wondrous power existing in Self (atma-swarupam)."<br /><br />and<br /><br />"What really exists is Self (atma-swarupam) alone. The world, soul and God are superimpositions in it like the sliver in the mother-of-pearl; these three appear simultaneously and disappear simultaneously."<br /><br />Shankara said in Vivekachudamani, translated by Ramana Maharshi:<br /><br />"That realization of ‘I’ is indeed the Self which is experienced as ‘I-I’ shining of its own accord, the absolute Being, the witness of the three states of waking, dream, and deep sleep, distinct from the five sheaths, <b>aware of the mental modes in the waking and dream states, and of their absence in the state of deep sleep. That Self sees all of its own accord but is never seen by any of these.</b>"<br /><br />"That Self sees all of its own accord" seems pretty clear, but Shankara goes on:<br /><br />"That inner Self, as the primeval spirit, eternal, ever effulgent, full and infinite Bliss, single, indivisible, whole and living, <b>shines in everyone as the witnessing awareness.</b> That Self in its splendour, shining in the cavity of the Heart as the subtle, pervasive yet unmanifest ether, illumines this universe like the sun. <b>It is aware of the modifications of the mind and ego, of the actions of the body, sense organs and life-breath.</b> It takes their form as fire does that of a heated ball of iron; yet it undergoes no change in doing so."<br /><br />and also this:<br /><br />"<b>The Self is the witness who knows the characteristics of the body, its modes of activity and its three states. It is self-aware and directs the body.</b> Such being the contrast between the body and the Self, how can the body be the Self? The fool thinks of it as the Self. The man of wise action with some measure of discrimination, takes body and soul together for ‘I’, but the really wise man who conducts the enquiry with firm discrimination knows himself always as the Supreme Brahman, the Being which is of its own nature."<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-2251623019629360272016-12-30T00:42:15.781+00:002016-12-30T00:42:15.781+00:00(Part 2 of 2)
"At this point there would be n...(Part 2 of 2)<br /><i>"At this point there would be no derivative thoughts, of my/yours, like/dislike, etc - or if they did arise, there would be no attachment to them, and therefore they would drift away again.”</i><br />For whom there will be no derivative, etc…? for a mind, a brain?<br />Who is not going to be attached, a different mind than the one that was attached before? Mind <b>is</b> the attachment! Mind <b>is</b> its/the projection!<br /><br />Venkat, are you a character in mouna’s dream or vice versa? or both? or neither?<br />I would go for <b>NO</b> to all of the above!<br /><br />I understand quite well the two levels of Vedanta.<br />First neti-neti to produce awareness that “I am not this nor that”, I am awareness witnessing this and that, they are in me but I am not in them.<br /><br />Second, the witness collapses into the “witnessed”, the ignorance (or error, or superimposition) of separation is destroyed, like the gold in the ornaments, they are not separate, it’s one entity. Gold can’t be perceived in its absolute substance, needs un ornament (even if it is a lump “without” recognizable form) to be conceptualized as gold.<br />This stage is siva-shakti, siva-parvati, ishwara-maya, form is emptiness / emptiness is form, water mirage, sunset illusion.<br /><br />But third... snake “on" rope. <br />The knowledge of the rope makes also the “seen” illusory snake disappear!<br />We can’t see both, is either or.<br /><br />You seem to be well versed in the Vedas/Upanishads (or a genius at google searching). I am not, that's why not a lot of quotes here.<br />I do recognize one thing though. There is waking and dream woven by existence/awareness. And then, it seems that there is only existence/awareness which seems (from here, i.e. waking and dream) very peaceful and limitless, without any-thing, any phenomena being material or psychological. I read somewhere that that is brahman. I am not <i>that</i> because the moment I’ll be <i>that</i> there will be no more I to say that.<br /><br />Ok, enough. Would you like some tea?<br /><br />Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-82385573175516919582016-12-30T00:41:59.243+00:002016-12-30T00:41:59.243+00:00Devil’s advocate mumblings for my friend Venkat (o...Devil’s advocate mumblings for my friend Venkat (others may abstain if they wish to save some synapsis time).<br /><br />(Part 1 of 2)<br /><i>"What we are is awareness (Brahman)”</i><br />No, we are chidabhasa. awareness/brahman is non-personal substance.<br />The “we” in the sentence “what we are” is ego. ego imagining itself being awareness, a fancy way of claiming for “it” (ego) something that is beyond its reach of understanding.<br /><br /><i>"On this screen of awareness arises, a bundle of thoughts (including perceptions), which become conceptualised into names-forms of my jiva-body-mind and the 'outside' world.”</i><br />Who says this? Certainly not brahman. Were you told all this? Do you remember having that experience? or you’ve been told that babies only see colours etc, like you’ve been told you were born? or that the universe is 14 billion years old and that the brain is the creator of consciousness? Isn’t all this information part of the world in your waking and dream states and part of “your”dream?<br /><br /><i>"That deep sleep consciousness, is also that consciousness that underlies and is aware of our waking and dream states.”</i><br />There is no underlying otherwise duality. Please note the “aware of” at the end of the first phrase. <br />Consciousness is not “aware of” any phenomena (refer to the concept of deep sleep), not even aware “of” itself, that is another invention to keep the ego satisfied when it doesn’t get it.<br />Consciousness, period. No verbs attached, or adjectives linked, etc.<br />If you wish, silence. Much better.<br /><br /><i>"Intellectually understanding / knowing provides a level of freedom. The deepening of this understanding to become conviction is jnana...”</i><br />I was in the hole in the prison, now I am allow to walk in the courtyard… I am free to see the sky and talk to people, yes, but I’m still in prison. Are there levels of freedom within the prison?, I would rather say levels of imprisonment. It’s the other way around, freedom has no levels. Consciousness has no levels, mind/ego does.<br /><br /><i>"At that level of conviction, there can be no ego (<b>or at least a very minimal ego</b>)”</i><br />(bold my make) Even a one-millon to the millionth potency thin layer of ego is ego. Very thin, granted because ego has levels of thickness, but still fully operational, meaning veiling and projecting duality.<br /><br />(continues on next comment)<br />Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-72972074795516242542016-12-29T22:52:54.234+00:002016-12-29T22:52:54.234+00:00Dear Michael,
If I may refer to Katha Upanishad (...Dear Michael,<br /><br />If I may refer to Katha Upanishad (Sw Nikhilananda's translation):<br /><br />2.1.3 It is through Atman that one knows form, taste, smell, sounds, touches and carnal pleasures. Is there anything that remains unknown to Atman? This verily is that.<br /><br />Sw Nikhilananda summarises Sankara's commentary thus:<br />According to Vedanta, Atman which is Pure Consciousness, is the Subject, or real Seer; all outer things - including body, senses, mind and ego - are the object, or the seen.<br /><br />2.1.4 It is through Atman that one perceives all objects in sleep or in the waking state. Having realised the vast, all-pervading Atman, the calm soul does not grieve.<br /><br />Sw Nikhilananda:<br />Atman is the Witness of the activities of the waking and dream states, and of their absence in dreamless sleep. All relative states are subject to change. Atman alone, being the Witness of all changes, is unchanging. A man realising himself as the immutable Atman becomes free from fear and grief.<br /><br /><br />Best wishes<br /><br />venkatvenkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-70383287108274075472016-12-29T22:39:42.998+00:002016-12-29T22:39:42.998+00:00Correct interpretation of the sastras is not given...Correct interpretation of the sastras is not given to everybody. So we can easily cook our own soup and use one's own discretion in dealing with the Holy Scriptures of Vedanta. Is that so ?siva-svarupanoreply@blogger.com