tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post7156828880247303147..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: ‘I am’ is the reality, ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ is the egoMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger224125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-92019780007013641402018-08-25T00:43:06.177+01:002018-08-25T00:43:06.177+01:00Meant to say in above comment:
But I do not ever ...Meant to say in above comment:<br /><br />But I do not ever directly experience this eternal-real and uninterrupted Self-awareness or Aham-Sphurana, etc. which is Sat-Chit-Ananda in waking, dream or sleep. Even in sleep the experience is only indirect without direct knowledge of Self awareness.(which is not the mere dim and reflection of "citabhasha" or interrupted awareness which I am aware of in waking and dreaming).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-71174998972102926732018-08-25T00:32:24.387+01:002018-08-25T00:32:24.387+01:00Micheal James said earlier in another topic titled...Micheal James said earlier in another topic titled: The ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things:<br /><br />Anonymous, I am not sure which previous comment of yours you refer to in your latest comment, but can you not distinguish the awareness you experience in sleep, in which you are not aware of any phenomena, from the awareness of phenomena that you experience in waking and dream? The awareness you experience in sleep is real awareness, which is awareness of nothing other than yourself, whereas your current awareness of phenomena is what is called cidābhāsa, the ‘semblance [likeness or reflection] of awareness’.<br /><br />However, though we now experience this semblance of awareness, which is what is also called ego or mind, we have not ceased to experience real awareness, because we could not be aware of phenomena if we were not really aware. Real awareness is what we actually are, so it is eternal and uninterrupted, and hence it is the background or foundation on which awareness of phenomena appears and disappears, just like a cinema screen on which pictures appear and disappear.<br /><br />1 August 2018 at 13:28 Quote.<br /><br />To Michael James,<br /><br />Yes. All I experience is this semblance of awareness in waking and dreaming which is as you say is only chitabhasha. But I do not ever directly experience this eternal-real and uninterrupted awareness which is Sat-Chit-Ananda.(which is not the mere dim and reflection "citabhasha" or interrupted awareness which I am aware of in waking and dreaming). But according to neo-advaita or non duality they claim this chitabhasha itself is the real and original Self-awareness. This is not so according to the teachings of Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi from his own direct experience of the Self.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-585095934165956172018-08-24T00:22:30.745+01:002018-08-24T00:22:30.745+01:00None of the resident pundits and self-styled Gurus...None of the resident pundits and self-styled Gurus and Bhagavans here who are always hinting to us that they have realized the Self or experienced the Self and are in sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi has even bothered to respond to my earlier comment? Well, well!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-62972458413038225542018-08-23T01:56:26.214+01:002018-08-23T01:56:26.214+01:00Michael James said on: Sunday, 2 October 2016.
9....Michael James said on: Sunday, 2 October 2016.<br /><br />9. Upadēśa Undiyār verse 21: what shines as ‘I am I’ is the real import of the word ‘I’.<br /><br /><br />English translation: That is at all times the import of the word called ‘I’, because of the exclusion of our non-existence even in sleep, which is devoid of ‘I’ [the ego].<br />What he refers to here as ‘அது’ (adu) or ‘that’ is the one infinite whole (pūṉḏṟam) that he referred to in the previous verse, which he said will appear spontaneously as ‘நான் நான்’ (nāṉ nāṉ) or ‘I am I’ where our ego merges, so what he clearly implies in this verse is that our actual self is always the true import of the term ‘நான்’ (nāṉ) or ‘I’. That is, even though our ego is now experienced by us as ‘I’, what seems to be this ego is only our fundamental self-awareness, which alone is our actual self, so what the term ‘I’ actually refers to is only the fundamental self-awareness that we actually are. Quote.<br /><br />But this is all actually very confusing. Elsewhere Michael has also said that this "ego I" which I myself identify with all of the time in waking and dreaming is only cidabhasha. I have never directly experienced Self-awareness or atma-swarupa or the ever shining I in the Heart during waking and dreaming, but I have only experienced cidabhasa all of my life.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-11846233484823154272016-10-25T00:09:22.160+01:002016-10-25T00:09:22.160+01:00Arunagiri, O Supreme Self,
let me go within and in...Arunagiri, O Supreme Self,<br />let me go within and investigate what is the place from which 'I' spreads.<br />After thoughts having ceased, in the cave of my heart atma-jnana will shine spontaneously as 'I am I'. Ah, the science of self is extremely easy, ah, extremely easy !hrtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-2621397435117787002016-10-24T22:54:32.066+01:002016-10-24T22:54:32.066+01:00Hey mind,
to reach the heart cannot be difficult b...Hey mind,<br />to reach the heart cannot be difficult because the way from brain to the innermost heart is such a short one. Do you not acknowledge that your rise up against your certain death will be unsuccessful. Therefore may you not bow your head immediately ? Give way to pressure of your predestined fate !anadi-anantanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-36818240307322030272016-10-24T22:16:37.748+01:002016-10-24T22:16:37.748+01:00Bhagavan,
if I look directly in your eyes I see at...Bhagavan,<br />if I look directly in your eyes I see at a glance that you never could be wrong.<br />Why is not your glance alone sufficient to dissolve my ego instantly ?parama purna satnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-71655107699794809822016-10-24T21:15:41.698+01:002016-10-24T21:15:41.698+01:00Michael,
..."our fundamental self-awareness, ...Michael,<br />..."our fundamental self-awareness, which is our actual self, is always clearly visible, even when we mistake ourself to be 'this' or 'that'."<br /><br />How is it possible that I (seemingly) - in the view of this ego - do not see it ?aham ahamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-22049339071444162242016-10-24T21:00:11.500+01:002016-10-24T21:00:11.500+01:00Michael,
may I ask a few supplementary questions ?...Michael,<br />may I ask a few supplementary questions ? :<br />Why does not the ego die automatically ?<br />Why does self-investigation not run itself ?<br />Why is our ego's attention required for the ego's death ?<br />Why are we required to do something ?aham ahamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-55507906797475144582016-10-24T20:43:40.269+01:002016-10-24T20:43:40.269+01:00Michael,
I am a particularly naive, ingenuous, una...Michael,<br />I am a particularly naive, ingenuous, unaffected and unsophisticated questioner:<br />To all appearences for starting self-investigation the commitment/dedication of our will power is indispensable and necessary. Now I want to ask you why the needed investigation of ourself, the fundamental self-awareness from which we have risen as this ego, does not start automatically - without our ego being involved.aham ahamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-5277385970076993742016-10-24T15:25:58.872+01:002016-10-24T15:25:58.872+01:00Ken,
sorry about the typo: you quoted Saradamma no...Ken,<br />sorry about the typo: you quoted Saradamma not Saradamamma.prajnananoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-88649529536950328702016-10-24T15:12:07.502+01:002016-10-24T15:12:07.502+01:00Ken,
regarding the quote of Saradamamma's stat...Ken,<br />regarding the quote of Saradamamma's statement about jnana/jnanis I give my frank opinion:<br />If one does not know how many hairs are exactly growing on my head cannot be called "omniscient" in the close sense of this word. Similar examples: how many leafes have all the trees on earth or how many grains of sand, ants, mosquitos, cars or stars can be numbered in the Indian federal state of Tamil Nadu...<br />Whether such "knowledge" because of its uselessness may at all to be called "knowledge" is another matter.<br />The reported fact that Bhagavan in the form of a sixteen years old boy during his journey to Tiruvannamalai at the end of August 1896 did not know the possibility to change the train in Villupuram instead of Tindivanam likewise does not show the feature of "omniscience" in the closest sense of the term.<br />The story as Bhagavan could not avoid his collision with the hornets on the northern slope of Arunachala as well does not indicate "omniscience" or "omnipotence" in the mentioned close sense of that terms.<br />But nobody would seriously Bhagavan dispute his rank of a sage of the greatest significance and first order.<br />Therefore we have to understand the term "omniscience" like rational beings would do.<br />If Bhagavan would read our comments he surely could hardly stop himself laughing or die laughing.prajnananoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-80077932737811227432016-10-24T04:21:31.399+01:002016-10-24T04:21:31.399+01:00In regards to the main subject being discussed in ...In regards to the main subject being discussed in the comments for this blog article, namely Dragos' comment concerning other spiritual teachers of Advaita Vedanta and the implications of inaccurate statements they have made.<br /><br />I now have specific quotes from three teachers of Advaita Vedanta said to be realized (with the caveat that Ramana himself states that there is no sure way for an ajnani to verify whether someone else is a jnani), namely Nisargadatta, Muktananda and Saradamma - the latter was a disciple of Lakshmana Swamy who was a disciple of Ramana. Saradamma stated:<br /><br />"Saradamma: Some people think that jnanis are omniscient, that they have access to all the information in the world. The jnani doesn’t have all this information, or need it. If someone came up to me and said that Hyderabad is the capital of India, I might believe him if I didn’t already know that it is Delhi. There is nothing in jnana that reveals whether things that people say about the world are correct or not. "<br /><br />Correlating with the above is information from David Godman's blog which has various blog articles on Ramana's description of his life in Madurai as a 16 year old. Without going into details, suffice it to say that Ramana is frank about his difficulties in fully comprehending his self-realisation experience in the days after it occurred. He also mentions some very minor foolishness and mistakes which he made in those days, including during the train trip to Arunachala.<br /><br />It's worth remembering that after realization, a jnani still has a human body, with all its inherent faults.<br /><br />So, my own conclusion is that one should not assume someone is an ajnani merely because they have made a false statement.<br /><br />However, one should evaluate spiritual teachings on their logic and rationality, and not on the supposed state of the teacher.<br /><br />On this site, we prefer the teachings of Ramana Maharshi not because of hearsay tales of his realization, but because of the logic, rationality and clarity of his teachings.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-7407753804779606942016-10-19T17:20:45.588+01:002016-10-19T17:20:45.588+01:00Ken,
regarding the mentioned Maharaj.
Can you take...Ken,<br />regarding the mentioned Maharaj.<br />Can you take something said straight out ?<br />I feel blessed to be a lotus leaf and thus never have been burdened with such kind of meagre "teachings".<br /><br /><br /> Swayambhu Nandinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-2514403612090553172016-10-16T19:56:38.167+01:002016-10-16T19:56:38.167+01:00Nisargadatta was a disciple of a guru named Siddha...Nisargadatta was a disciple of a guru named Siddharameshwar. Siddharameshwar was someone who was a disciple of a line of gurus whose path was mantra japa.<br />After the death of his own guru, Siddharameshwar investigated Advaita Vedanta and began to teach it as "The Bird's Path" (as opposed to "The Ant's Path" of mantra japa).<br /><br />As mentioned earlier, Nisargadatta was an uneducated working class person. A friend of his took him to Siddharameshwar, and he wholeheartedly believed in him and faithfully did the prescribed self-attention practice and describes realising the Self after 3 years.<br /><br />As mentioned above by myself and others, while Nisargadatta helped many people by popularizing self-attention, the English translations of his answers to questions are confusing and often seems self-contradictory. (One Youtube has English subtitles from a different translator than the one in the room, and the two English translations are wildly different.)<br /><br />However, Siddharameshwar had other disciples. One was "Ranjit", who came from a wealthy family and learned English in school. But he followed Siddharameshwar from the age of 12 and became a monk. After the death of Nisargadatta, Ranjit started to teach and did so for 17 years until his death. He often spoke directly in English, and his explanations are much clearer than Nisargadatta. You can find them on the web under "Ranjit Maharaj".<br /><br />The reason this might be helpful is that when two different people explain the same thing, hearing the same thing in different words can make it clearer.<br /><br />Here is his answer to a question about the main discussion in this comment thread:<br /><br />"Question: Maharaj, how do you see the world?<br /><br />Ranjit: [laughs] How do you see a ghost? There's nothing there, so what is there to say? As long as the body is there, he acts, no doubt. He calls his mother "mother", and his wife "wife", but still he knows. If somebody asks him, "What is your name?", he gives his name, but he knows, "I am not this." That clear cut understanding is required. Complete understanding is called "That". Be in That. Yesterday, I said, "Be like a lotus leaf. You are produced in water, you live in water, but you are not touched by water." So stay in that way, nothing else. Nothing needs to be demolished. Why demolish anything? What are they? Why are they there, troubling you? In fact, they don't trouble you. You go in and get into trouble. This chair never says, "I am yours." You say, "It is my chair." So, who is at fault? Not the chair, but yourself. The chair says nothing. So, in that way you can see the world. After realising you can stay in the world like a child, without any interest. So, Shankaracharya has given very nice words for this: "He stays in thoughtless Reality and in the thought He remains, but He knows he is a thought." In short, he plays with the illusion."Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-2131128610797407842016-10-11T20:12:51.068+01:002016-10-11T20:12:51.068+01:00Ken,
theoretical understanding is useful and neces...Ken,<br />theoretical understanding is useful and necessary but not more.<br />For the most of us overcoming their/our ego is like crossing a raging torrent.<br />Once started we have to finish that holy task. There is not given us any alternative of equal value.<br />Lord Arunachala, have mercy upon us and overlook our weakness. May you complete our lacking love to be only what we really are.Nan Yar ?noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-17399420398426672042016-10-11T19:16:15.927+01:002016-10-11T19:16:15.927+01:00Ultimately, this whole topic is just theoretical, ...Ultimately, this whole topic is just theoretical, as Ramana says "become a jnani and find out for yourself".<br /><br />However, self-investigation can be done with eyes open, and if you are expecting the world to vanish, you are unlikely to succeed in doing it with eyes open.<br /><br />Michael James (in the page linked by venkat), says this more clearly than I can:<br /><br />"<b>In other words what we see as this world is also seen by Bhagavan</b>, but whereas we see it as a vast array of forms or phenomena, he sees it only as himself, which is just pure formless awareness. That is, what actually exists is only pure awareness, so there is nothing to see other than that, but we see it as this ego and world, whereas Bhagavan sees it only as it is. Therefore what Bhagavan sees is exactly the same as what we see, but he does not see it as we see it, because in his view it is only pure awareness, which is indivisible and hence completely devoid of forms, whereas in our view it seems to be divided up as the myriad forms that constitute this dream-world."<br /><br />Ramana frequently used the analogy of a movie (despite the fact that he was unlikely to have ever seen one).<br /><br />An "ajnani" is watching a Star Wars movie and really thinks he is a jedi on another planet. He forgets he is a person in 2016 watching a movie.<br /><br />A "jnani" sees the room, the couch, sees the TV screen with the little Sony logo, and also sees various images on the screen. He knows there is really no "Luke Skywalker".<br /><br />As far as time, and past, present, and future, that is a really helpful one for students to understand.<br /><br />Only NOW exists. And NOW is exactly the same as 'I', exactly the same as the Self, exactly the same as Brahman, exactly the same as "life".<br /><br />Five minutes from now, it will still be NOW. It is always NOW, so there is no "time".<br /><br />The idea of time is just memories.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-69400084945757700992016-10-11T12:31:11.428+01:002016-10-11T12:31:11.428+01:00yes you are right...yes you are right...Dragos Nicolae Dragomirescuhttps://www.facebook.com/dragosnicolae25noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-25385103298841382922016-10-11T12:19:46.194+01:002016-10-11T12:19:46.194+01:00Dragos,
thanks for your good explanation.
But the ...Dragos,<br />thanks for your good explanation.<br />But the written text of that mentioned quote is unclear and contradictory.<br /><br />When you say world and pain are "projected from state of pure self-awareness"<br />you should point more accurately that this ego is the projector of world and pain.waveless oceannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-76418965804865172282016-10-11T11:37:05.813+01:002016-10-11T11:37:05.813+01:00"both the world and the pain are within you&q..."both the world and the pain are within you"<br /><br />Here "you" Bhagavan means you as you really are, pure, formless awareness, the actual real state of Jnana not "you" as we perceive ourselves right now. Not that the world and pain are in us, in our body. They are projected from the state of pure self awareness and by looking at them (seeing the world externally) we give them reality...<br /><br />"if you look within" --> if you search for that State, there will be no pain...<br /><br />Personally I believe practice is 99% and reasoning 1%. If we practice as much as we can we can understand these things intuitively and not rely so much on our mind-made descriptions... It can get really messy if we try to explain everything like in a philosphy class and all we do is to rely on concepts, I admit...<br /><br />I think Mouna said it best... all this makes sense <b> if we just keep in mind that our real state is what we experience daily in deep sleep (or sleep) - ajata-. </b>From this we can easily infer all other things... like for example that mind projects both states (waking and dreaming) from that real state (sleep). Once it is understood, it becomes clear that both states have their own time, people, body, our body different in each state etc... etc.. So we can infer everything else from this basic philosophy... Once we get that clear, obviously, we should read as less as possible and just get it on with the practice. And practice will sharpen our intuitive understanding of all other subtle points in this teaching... We can't really compare Bhagavan's experience with others if we think about it...<br /><br />(this comment may appear twice, I got an error while publishing it...)Dragos Nicolae Dragomirescuhttps://www.facebook.com/dragosnicolae25noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-63233044259204416422016-10-11T11:36:03.128+01:002016-10-11T11:36:03.128+01:00"both the world and the pain are within you&q..."both the world and the pain are within you"<br /><br />Here "you" Bhagavan means you as you really are, pure, formless awareness, the actual real state of Jnana not "you" as we perceive ourselves right now. Not that the world and pain are in us, in our body. They are projected from the state of pure self awareness and by looking at them (seeing the world externally) we give them reality...<br /><br />"if you look within" --> if you search for that State, there will be no pain...<br /><br />Personally I believe practice is 99% and reasoning 1%. If we practice as much as we can we can understand these things intuitively and not rely so much on our mind-made descriptions... It can get really messy if we try to explain everything like in a philosphy class and all we do is to rely on concepts, I admit...<br /><br />I think Mouna said it best... all this makes sense <b> if we just keep in mind that our real state is what we experience daily in deep sleep (or sleep) - ajata-. </b>From this we can easily infer all other things... like for example that mind projects both states (waking and dreaming) from that real state (sleep). Once it is understood, it becomes clear that both states have their own time, people, body, our body different in each state etc... etc.. So we can infer everything else from this basic philosophy... Once we get that clear, obviously, we should read as less as possible and just get it on with the practice. And practice will sharpen our intuitive understanding of all other subtle points in this teaching... We can't really compare Bhagavan's experience with others if we think about it...Dragos Nicolae Dragomirescuhttps://www.facebook.com/dragosnicolae25noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-68379028782648336272016-10-11T11:17:39.748+01:002016-10-11T11:17:39.748+01:00Dragos,
"The trouble now is due to your seein...Dragos,<br />"The trouble now is due to your seeing the world externally<br />and also thinking that there is pain there.<br />But both the world and the pain are within you.<br />If you look within there will be no pain."<br /><br />What means "..both the world and the pain are within you.<br />If you look within there will be no pain."<br /><br />Is now pain within or not ?<br />waveless oceannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-1594615125333919932016-10-11T11:08:14.857+01:002016-10-11T11:08:14.857+01:00Dragos,
you may be happy a little while about that...Dragos,<br />you may be happy a little while about that best quote ever.<br />But not billions of best quotes will be able alone to dispel our ignorance.waveless oceannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-20838592345844653102016-10-11T11:07:02.310+01:002016-10-11T11:07:02.310+01:00waveless ocean, basically you are right, but I und...waveless ocean, basically you are right, but I understood the purpose of this blog to be that of clarifying and deepening certain aspects of Bhagavan's teaching.<br /><br />I think the idea (for example) that there is no sense of time in the Jnana state is helpful, and we can use it to gauge certain other descriptions. I used to believe we still experience all this (in separate parts like we do now) but we are not affected...<br /><br />so this is helpful in my opinion... helpful in not dissipating our mind in reading to much of other things... I remember how many countless books I read and what a unclear conception of what the goal is and how should we get there I had...Dragos Nicolae Dragomirescuhttps://www.facebook.com/dragosnicolae25noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-9982751366019281612016-10-11T11:01:40.880+01:002016-10-11T11:01:40.880+01:00... I was refering to this comment actually on tha...... I was refering to this comment actually on that article... but it's the same idea... the above coment by Michael is a little bit down that page...<br /><br />__________________________<br /><br />Stephen, yes, what you say in the final paragraph of your comment is correct (and it is an appropriate answer to the question of whether or not the jñāni sees the world or any forms, about which there has recently been a lively discussion going on in the comments on some of my other articles). Bhagavan sometimes used to say that the ātma-jñāni sees the world but sees it only as himself, the one infinite and therefore formless self-awareness. What he meant by saying this can best be understood in terms of analogies such as the rope and snake.<br /><br />What actually exists is only the rope, but it is mistaken to be a snake, so the snake does not actually exist but only seems to exist. Likewise what actually exists is only infinite awareness, which is what we really are, but as this ego we mistake our indivisible self to be this ego and as a vast world of forms or phenomena, so this ego and world do not actually exist but only seem to exist.<br /><br />We mistake the jñāni to be a person in this world, but what the jñāni actually is is not a finite person but our own infinite self. As Bhagavan used to say, the jñāni is only jñāna. Therefore since jñāna is pure self-awareness, which is our real self, it is formless, and hence the jñāni sees nothing but formless awareness.<br /><br />Therefore when Bhagavan says that the jñāni sees the world but sees it only as his own infinite self, that is like saying that he sees the snake but sees it only as the rope. What does seeing the snake as the rope actually mean? Since there is actually no snake but only a rope, seeing the ‘snake’ as the rope means seeing only the rope. Likewise, since there is actually no ego or world but only oneself, seeing the ‘world’ as oneself means seeing only oneself.<br /><br />The reason why he says that the jñāni sees the world but only as himself is that we see ourself as this world, so he is pointing out to us that what we see as this world is what the jñāni sees as himself. He does not mean that the jñāni sees the world as we do, but that what he sees is only himself, because nothing else actually exists or even seems to exist in his clear view.<br /><br />__________________________Dragos Nicolae Dragomirescuhttps://www.facebook.com/dragosnicolae25noreply@blogger.com