tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post7321372079698110454..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Why is it necessary to consider the world unreal?Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-20772300281909655172016-11-02T10:58:23.430+00:002016-11-02T10:58:23.430+00:00Shea Kang,
and what is the further conclusion of y...Shea Kang,<br />and what is the further conclusion of your statement ?little thingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-21097707872771922052015-03-29T22:17:25.947+01:002015-03-29T22:17:25.947+01:00Periya Eri, Gaurishankar, Narada and Durvasa expre...Periya Eri, Gaurishankar, Narada and Durvasa express our thanks to you, Michael, for the thoroughness and carefulness of your reply to our comments in an own article. We now write a comment together with a new identity.<br /> Periya Eri: My aim is surely to know what I really am. In my current opinion I am not in any way prevented from that knowing if I mentally accept the body and the world as seeming existent.<br /> Gaurishankar: I agree with you:<br />When we do not even know what we ourself are, how can we know the truth about this world ?<br />But the fact that we experience the world only when we experience ourself as a body and mind does not mean necessary that we identify ourself only (always and completely) as a body and mind. There is no denying that we cannot be this body and mind. <br />That in sleep we experience ourself without experiencing either a body or a mind is not reason enough to claim that the world is only a mental creation because just due lacking of any knowledge what we ourself are, we cannot know the truth about this world.<br />When we do not even know what we ourself are it has no beneficial effect on us to simply repeat Bhagavan‘s experience.<br /> Narada: Yes,as you say we can only know what we actually experience, and what we experience as 'the world' or 'the universe' is nothing but a series of perpetual images -sights, sounds, tactile sensations, smells and tastes. Yes,as you say we assume these perceptual sensations are caused by things that exist outside of and independent of our mind,but our experience offers us no real evidence that this is not the case.<br /> Durvasa: I agree: In order to experience anything, whether real or illusory, we must exist.<br />But we have no sure certainty that we exist because our „self-evident own existence“ could also be an illusion created by our own mind. Particularly just in view of the often quoted power of the mind to create the seemingly vast waking world we must well believe of it to be easily able to simulate a seemingly „self-evident own existence“ of an experiencing ego. <br />[…because our mind has a propensity to convince itself of the reality of its creation, it projects what seems to be essentially the same world on waking that it had projected before falling asleep].<br />Since at present I am not convinced that our own existence and our awareness of our existence alone are certain, the conviction that it is necessary for us to consider our ego, our mind, our body and this world to be unreal for the present do not arise.Kokonornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-4186683284549748262015-03-21T19:38:03.319+00:002015-03-21T19:38:03.319+00:00Thank you, Josef, for pointing out that typo in my...Thank you, Josef, for pointing out that typo in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-is-it-necessary-to-consider-world.html?showComment=1424116057448#c1022042372314070887" rel="nofollow">my comment dated 16 February 2015 at 19:47</a>. I noticed it the next day when I wrote <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-is-it-necessary-to-consider-world.html?showComment=1424205746039#c498763654263683475" rel="nofollow">another comment</a>, in which I referred to it. I think how this typo occurred was that I had copied and pasted the code that I had written for another link (to the fourth paragraph) in the same comment, but I carelessly left the final ‘th’ from ‘fourth’ when I tried to amend it as ‘third’.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-22811427449367192472015-03-21T17:26:36.393+00:002015-03-21T17:26:36.393+00:00Michael,
My last comment (typo)- written a few min...Michael,<br />My last comment (typo)- written a few minutes ago - was in regard to the article "Why is it necessary to consider the world unreal", Sunday, 15 February 2015.anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-88874769956992684232015-03-21T17:19:55.166+00:002015-03-21T17:19:55.166+00:00Michael,
in the fourth comment, dated 16 February ...Michael,<br />in the fourth comment, dated 16 February 2015 at 19:47, third paragraph, <br />I think there is a typo:<br />In the sentence "He also expressed the same idea in the thirth paragraph:" we should read 'third' instead of 'thirth'.anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-18056199514531411702015-03-09T18:21:37.792+00:002015-03-09T18:21:37.792+00:00Yes, ‘who?’, as you say, this fundamental doubt ha...Yes, ‘who?’, as you say, this fundamental doubt has tremendous implications, because our assumption that other people are conscious and therefore experience this world as we do is the basis of our belief that our present state is not a dream. However, we make exactly the same assumption in any dream, which is why we believe we are awake whenever we are in fact dreaming. How then can we be sure (and why should we assume) that our present so-called waking state is not just another dream?<br /><br />Just as our assumption that other people are conscious as we are is not justified by any evidence that we experience, our assumption that we are not now dreaming is likewise not justified by any evidence that we experience. We believe that it is evident that other people are conscious because they behave and seem to respond to stimuli just as we do, and we believe that it is evident that this is not a dream because we assume that all the people we see here are conscious, but we experience and believe exactly the same evidence in any dream.<br /><br />If all that we now experience — including our own body — is just a dream, then it is all a creation of our own mind, and hence we cannot be the body that we now seem to be. And if all this is just a creation of our own mind, it does not exist when we do not experience it. Moreover, since this mind is just a temporary phenomenon that appears in waking and dream and disappears in sleep, it cannot be what we actually are.<br /><br />Therefore reflecting in this way brings us back to the most fundamental doubt of all: who am I?<br /><br />As you say, we cannot resolve any of our other doubts until we resolve this most fundamental doubt, and we can resolve it only by investigating ourself — that is, by trying to experience ourself as we actually are, which we can experience only when we experience ourself alone, in complete isolation from everything else.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-78578223396565194742015-03-09T17:00:27.433+00:002015-03-09T17:00:27.433+00:00The reply of Sri Michael James to a comment by R V...The reply of Sri Michael James to a comment by R Vishwanathan contains a subtle truth whose implications are tremendous , and i post it here in the following words:<br /><br />I can never verify experientially whether or not other people , who are a part of my experience , experience the same i that i now experience as i (myself).<br /><br />Despite this fundamental doubt , i still attribute the same i to other people , by assuming them to be conscious , just like me.I do this only when i experience myself as a finite body. <br /><br />However , since even this finite body (or any other dream-body) is a part of my experience , i am certainly not this body , so the fundamental question on whose experiential answer everything else ultimately depends , is , who am i?<br /><br />who?noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-12475290074840680712015-03-09T15:49:35.972+00:002015-03-09T15:49:35.972+00:00Michael,
Thanks much for your detailed clarificati...Michael,<br />Thanks much for your detailed clarification. It is very helpful to reflect on this since a firm conviction that the natural state is blissful can go a long way in the path. <br /><br />Your writing helped me to see clearly what Saint Arunagirinathar meant in the following Kandhar anubuthi verse:<br />எல்லாம் அற, என்னை இழந்த நலம்<br />A loose translation is “Everything subsided, ego getting lost, wellbeing (bliss) remained”. I have read this verse so many times, but it never sinked in before. Thanks again for the clarification. Much appreciated.<br />Sivanarulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-65734682805655462612015-03-08T16:08:37.954+00:002015-03-08T16:08:37.954+00:00In continuation of my previous comment in reply to...In continuation of <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-is-it-necessary-to-consider-world.html?showComment=1425830597387#c7397772081906459970" rel="nofollow">my previous comment</a> in reply to Viswanathan:<br /><br />Since in the first two clauses of this paragraph he refers to ‘சகல ஜீவர்களும்’ (<i>sakala jīvargaḷum</i>), which means ‘all living beings’, and ‘யாவருக்கும்’ (<i>yāvarukkum</i>), which means ‘to everyone’ or ‘for everyone’, it is clear that the argument he presents in the first sentence is based on the experience of each one of us, and that when he says in the fourth clause ‘மனமற்ற நித்திரையில் தின மனுபவிக்கும் தன் சுபாவமான அச் சுகத்தை யடையத் தன்னைத் தானறிதல் வேண்டும்’ (<i>maṉam-aṯṟa niddiraiyil diṉam aṉubhavikkum taṉ subhāvam-āṉa a-c-sukhattai y-aḍaiya-t taṉṉai-t tāṉ aṟidal vēṇḍum</i>), which means ‘to attain that happiness, which is one’s own [true] nature that [one] experiences daily in [dreamless] sleep, which is devoid of the mind, oneself knowing oneself is necessary’, the words தன் (<i>taṉ</i>: the inflectional base of <i>tāṉ</i>, which is used here to represent its genitive form, meaning ‘of oneself’ or ‘one’s’), தன்னை (<i>taṉṉai</i>: the accusative form of <i>tāṉ</i>, ‘oneself’) and தான் (<i>tāṉ</i>: the nominative case, ‘oneself’ or ‘one’) refer to each one of us and not just to the <i>jñāni</i>.<br /><br />According to Bhagavan the <i>jñāni</i> is our real self, which is what alone actually exists, and it does not experience anything other than itself, so it does not experience three separate states, waking, dream and sleep, but only one state, namely its own nature — the real nature of ourself (<i>tāṉ subhāvam</i> or <i>tāṉ svabhāvam</i>). Therefore it is not only in sleep that the <i>jñāni</i> experiences ‘that happiness, which is one’s own nature’ (தன் சுபாவமான அச் சுகம், <i>taṉ subhāvam-āṉa a-c-sukham</i>), whereas so long as we experience ourself as an ego, it seems to us that we experience that happiness in its pristine form only when we are asleep.<br /><br />By using the relative participle அனுபவிக்கும் (<i>aṉubhavikkum</i>, which means ‘that [one] experiences’) to qualify தன் சுபாவமான அச் சுகத்தை (<i>taṉ subhāvam-āṉa a-c-sukhattai</i>, ‘that happiness, which is one’s own nature’), Bhagavan was clearly emphasising that in sleep the happiness that is our own real nature is what we ourself actually experience. Therefore he was not saying anything that he expected us to accept on mere faith, but was only pointing out what we actually experience and what we should logically infer from that experience.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-73977720819064599702015-03-08T16:03:17.387+00:002015-03-08T16:03:17.387+00:00Viswanathan, regarding your latest comment, as I t...Viswanathan, regarding <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-is-it-necessary-to-consider-world.html?showComment=1425207502391#c7467174629214172277" rel="nofollow">your latest comment</a>, as I tried to explain today in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-is-it-necessary-to-consider-world.html?showComment=1425816025311#c6485319757416172653" rel="nofollow">my replies</a> to Sivanarul, we actually experience being happy whenever we are asleep, so we do not need any faith to know that we were happy then.<br /><br />You say that ‘who experiences what is very difficult to convey correctly’, but in this context we know that what we experience in sleep is nothing other than ourself, and that we are happy then. We also know that who experiences happiness while asleep is only ourself, because we can obviously experience only what we ourself experience and not what anyone else experiences (even if there is anyone else who experiences anything, which is something we cannot actually know so long as we experience ourself as this finite ego). Therefore we cannot know for certain about any experience other than our own, so when we talk about what we experience in sleep, it is not difficult for us to say correctly that it was only we ourself who experienced it, and that what we experienced was also only ourself.<br /><br />You also say, ‘surely it must be even more difficult to be certain whether the experience being described corresponds to that of a sadhaka or of a Jnani’. I assume that in this context what you mean by ‘the experience being described’ is what Bhagavan taught us regarding our experience in sleep, namely that since we are happy during sleep, even though we do not then experience anything else, the happiness we experience then must be ourself — what we really are. The fact that he meant that it is we ourself who experienced being happy while asleep is very clear from the way in which he carefully worded the <a href="http://www.happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para01" rel="nofollow">first paragraph of <i>Nāṉ Yār?</i></a>:<br /><br />சகல ஜீவர்களும் துக்கமென்ப தின்றி எப்போதும் சுகமாயிருக்க விரும்புவதாலும், யாவருக்கும் தன்னிடத்திலேயே பரம பிரிய மிருப்பதாலும், பிரியத்திற்கு சுகமே காரண மாதலாலும், மனமற்ற நித்திரையில் தின மனுபவிக்கும் தன் சுபாவமான அச் சுகத்தை யடையத் தன்னைத் தானறிதல் வேண்டும். அதற்கு <b>நானார் என்னும் ஞான விசாரமே முக்கிய சாதனம்</b>.<br /><br /><i>sakala jīvargaḷ-um duḥkham-eṉbadu iṉḏṟi eppōdum sukham-āy-irukka virumbuvadālum, yāvarukkum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-ē-y-ē parama piriyam iruppadālum, piriyattiṯku sukham-ē kāraṇam ādalālum, maṉam-aṯṟa niddiraiyil diṉam aṉubhavikkum taṉ subhāvam-āṉa a-c-sukhattai y-aḍaiya-t taṉṉai-t tāṉ aṟidal vēṇḍum. adaṯku <b>nāṉār eṉṉum jñāṉa-vicāram-ē mukhiya sādhaṉam</b></i>.<br /><br />“Since all living beings desire to be always happy without what is called misery, since for everyone the greatest love is only for oneself, and since happiness alone is the cause of love, [in order] to attain that happiness, which is one’s own [true] nature that [one] experiences daily in [dreamless] sleep, which is devoid of the mind, oneself knowing oneself is necessary. For that, <b><i>jñāna-vicāra</i></b> [knowledge-investigation] <b>‘who am I’ alone is the principal means</b>.”<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-19256039231966555642015-03-08T12:02:37.637+00:002015-03-08T12:02:37.637+00:00In continuation of my previous comment in reply to...In continuation of <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-is-it-necessary-to-consider-world.html?showComment=1425816025311#c6485319757416172653" rel="nofollow">my previous comment</a> in reply to Sivanarul:<br /><br />You say, ‘Further upon waking, “I am the body” takes hold in a matter of seconds. Any pronouncement made from that point includes feedback from the body’. However, though we experience ourself as a body during waking, and hence whatever we experience in waking ‘includes feedback from the body’, we know that we did not experience ourself as a body while asleep, so no feedback from the body can account for the happiness we experienced while asleep.<br /><br />You also say that ‘the bliss of the Self is not self-evident’, but actually the happiness that we experience while asleep is self-evident, because it is ourself, and hence it is evident to itself. That is, since we ourself experience that we are happy while asleep, and that we do not experience anything else at that time, the happiness we then experience must be ourself, and hence it is the happiness that is ourself that is then experiencing itself. Nothing else is self-evident, because whatever else seems to be self-evident is not actually evident to itself but only to ourself, who alone experience it.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-64853197574161726532015-03-08T12:00:25.311+00:002015-03-08T12:00:25.311+00:00Sivanarul, in your comment dated 28 February 2015 ...Sivanarul, in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-is-it-necessary-to-consider-world.html?showComment=1425165671804#c9141680103921691598" rel="nofollow">your comment dated 28 February 2015 at 23:21</a> you say, ‘Advaita Hypothesis 1 is that the happiness felt upon waking is the bliss of the Self’, but I think the hypothesis or argument you are referring to is actually not that ‘the happiness felt <i>upon waking</i> is the bliss of the Self’ but that the happiness that we experienced <i>while asleep</i> was ourself.<br /><br />Before proceeding any further, I think it is first necessary to clarify more about the nature of happiness. Happiness is not something that is added to us in sleep, but is what remains when everything else is removed, because happiness is what we are.<br /><br />Happiness is like a light that pervades everywhere unless it is obstructed, and varying degrees of unhappiness are like varying degrees of darkness. What naturally exists is that all-pervading light, and darkness occurs only when that light is to a greater or lesser extent obstructed or obscured. When there is no obstruction, light pervades everywhere. Likewise, what actually exists is only happiness, so unhappiness occurs only when happiness seems to be obstructed or obscured. In the absence of any obstruction, what remains is only happiness.<br /><br />What obscures (or rather seems to obscure) happiness is only the rising of our ego and all that it experiences (which according to Bhagavan is just its own thoughts or ideas). The more voraciously the ego feeds itself on whatever it experiences, the more intensely it is active, and its activity is what obscures the happiness or peaceful stillness (inactivity) that we actually are.<br /><br />The ego is unable to remain continuously active for long, because the longer it prolongs each stretch of its activity, the more tired it becomes. The more tired it becomes, the more it begins to crave only one thing, namely to be inactive — to sleep — for a while. When we fall asleep, all activity ceases, and what we then experience is only ourself. When we thus experience ourself alone in the absence of any activity, we are peaceful and happy. This is the experience of each one of us.<br /><br />Is there anyone who complains that they are unhappy while asleep? Is there anyone who does not crave sleep when they become exhausted after many hours of ceaseless mental activity? Is this not evidence enough to show the happiness we spend most of our day seeking in other things actually lies within ourself?<br /><br />You say that the hypothesis or argument we are happy while asleep and that happiness is therefore our real nature ‘is not justified using a common man’s experience’, but it certainly is. Everyone is happy while asleep, and it is the experience of everyone that unhappiness can arise only in waking or dream. Since we are each happy while asleep, and since we do not then experience anything other than ourself, we can deductively infer that the happiness we experience in sleep is nothing other than ourself. The ‘common man’, as you call the majority of people, may not make this inference, but no one could reasonably argue against it, because we all know from our own experience that we are peaceful and happy while asleep even though we do not then experience anything other than ourself.<br /><br />We do not need faith to know that we are happy while asleep, because we actually experience that happiness whenever we are asleep, and we do not need faith to infer conclusively that that happiness is therefore ourself, because we do not experience anything else while asleep, so there is no other way to account for that happiness.<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-42332442592568035902015-03-02T04:55:39.737+00:002015-03-02T04:55:39.737+00:00Some more reflections on my previous comment.
As ...Some more reflections on my previous comment.<br /><br />As a finite , individual ego , it is futile to compare the physical , mental , or emotional pleasures we experience , all of which necessarily involve duality , to the non-dual experience of sleep.<br /><br />When we debate whether or not we experience bliss of self in sleep , what is necessary to understand is that in sleep , no finite ego rises to proclaim 'i am experiencing happiness' , but only the one infinite reality (i.e we) experiences ourself , and that itself is bliss.<br /><br />This is perhaphs the most useful (and accurate) conceptual description about our experience in sleep.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-12413946622831949762015-03-01T11:05:09.443+00:002015-03-01T11:05:09.443+00:00The discussion on whether or not we experience the...The discussion on whether or not we experience the 'bliss of self' in sleep is futile so long as we are treating happiness (or bliss) in objective terms.<br />The happiness of eating ice-cream is objective , but the happiness of sleep is subjective.<br />In sleep , in the temporary absence of the mind , we experience ourself alone. Upon waking , we (as an ego) experience the duality which we refer to as happiness and misery.<br />But in sleep , what exists is pure non-dual self-consciousness - and that itself is what we as an ego call 'bliss of self' or 'infinite unalduterated happiness'.<br />The happiness of self is self-evident , because it is not different from self , but they are the same 'thing'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-74671746292141722772015-03-01T10:58:22.391+00:002015-03-01T10:58:22.391+00:00I would think that who experiences what is very di...I would think that who experiences what is very difficult to convey correctly for the experiencer himself/herself; and surely it must be even more difficult to be certain whether the experience being described corresponds to that of a sadhaka or of a Jnani. Under this situation, since almost everything boils down to faith, (that is, the validity of anyone's understanding or statement), I for one would prefer to fully go with Bhagavan's statements with the firm conviction that one does experience bliss in sleep, regardless of whether such a conviction is self-hypnotized one or not.<br /><br />Sri Nochur Venkataraman used to describe an anecdote involving Swami Vivekananda: one of the youngsters, determined not to be swayed by his ever-inspiring speech, interceded him during his discourse by stating that he is only trying to hypnotize them; and Swami replied: Child, you are already hypnotized; I am only trying to de-hypnotize you.<br /><br />Sri Nochur also used to say that Bhagavan would often make very similar statement, too - to the effect that one is just pretending to be unhappy since happiness is one's own true nature.R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-78420326879844134372015-02-28T23:32:59.307+00:002015-02-28T23:32:59.307+00:00Mouna, Thanks much for your insight. You said “bec...Mouna, Thanks much for your insight. You said “because fulfilling desires is EXACTLY what makes ignorance persist!”. I agree. But that is the catch-22, isn’t it. Ignorance compels one to fulfill desires and fulfilling desires keeps ignorance on. The quote you provided by Bhagavan indicates the way out of the catch 22. <br /><br />“Question: But they are not controlled in our practical lives.<br />Bhagavan: Every time you attempt satisfaction of a desire, the knowledge comes that it is better to desist. Repeated reminders of this kind will in due course weaken the desires.”<br /><br />Thanks for that quote. <br />Sivanarulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-91416801039216915982015-02-28T23:21:11.804+00:002015-02-28T23:21:11.804+00:00Michael, Thanks for your reply and insight. Advait...Michael, Thanks for your reply and insight. Advaita Hypothesis 1 is that the happiness felt upon waking is the bliss of the Self. Advaita Hypothesis 2 in your words is “so our belief that our waking body existed when we were asleep is an assumption that is not adequately justified.” Common Man (ego’s) experience 1 is that happiness comes from sense objects (eating an ice-cream). Common man’s experience 2 is that he sleeps in a bed at night. Waking state disappears. A dream state appears with a dream body. Then a state is there without dreams (deep sleep). In the morning he wakes up, he finds himself in the same place in the same bed, with the same bad haircut he got yesterday. Upon waking up he feels happy. He takes that to be due to the “rest and rejuvenation” the body got. Your insight uses another Advaita hypothesis (hypothesis 2) to justify the first hypothesis. It is not justified using a common man’s experience. That is why hypothesis 1 can be accepted as a matter of faith but not as a direct experience until one is firmly established in Turiya (based on scriptures description of turiya).<br />Further upon waking, “I am the body” takes hold in a matter of seconds. Any pronouncement made from that point includes feedback from the body. If a healthy person sleeps well, he pronounces I am happy based on the feedback of wellbeing received from the body. If a cancer patient who is in continuous pain wakes up, he also says he is thankful (happy) that he was able to forget his pain during sleep (upon waking within seconds the pain has returned). So in both cases the statements made in a waking state includes direct feedback from the body and hence cannot be said with any degree of certainty that it is the bliss of the Self.<br />You also wrote about avivēka and “when any desire is fulfilled is only partial and is soon disturbed by the rising of other desires.” I think by definition a sadhaka is in aviveka and hence that is easily accepted. I think the point of the writing is that the bliss of the Self is not self-evident, and fulfilled desire even though partial is at least partial and evident. That does not mean that I am saying that one must continue with partial fulfillment and not seek the Self. It was simply a statement that sadhakas in the beginning stage cannot self-hypnotize themselves into accepting as experience as something that is not their experience (accepting as faith is altogether different). <br />Sivanarulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-85571469005781890022015-02-28T16:38:06.150+00:002015-02-28T16:38:06.150+00:00In my previous comment, where it reads: "Igno...In my previous comment, where it reads: "Ignorance (in the sense of veiling or avarana shake)" I meant to say: "Ignorance (in the sense of veiling or avarana-shakti)"<br /><br />Spelling correction doesn't have a clear understanding about advaita terminology and corrects according to its limited understanding!Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-52210381355408904552015-02-28T15:52:49.918+00:002015-02-28T15:52:49.918+00:00This statement has been made:
"...then the on...This statement has been made:<br />"...then the only known “easy/quick ”way for the subsidence of the mind, is to engage with the sense objects (at least while ignorance persists) so that the mind will subside briefly and happiness can be had.”<br /><br />The whole problem with this statement lies in the phrase "at least while ignorance persists” because fulfilling desires is EXACTLY what makes ignorance persist!<br /><br />Every imaginable desire, except the desire for atma-vichara (self-investigation), is a seed for further desires in the tree of ignorance, seed that once planted and nourished (meaning fulfilled) will flourish into more ignorance in the form of vasanas (or latent impulses of the same kind pushing themselves to be further fulfilled). Ignorance (in the sense of veiling or avarana shake) MEANS vasanas.<br />Desire to turn the mind inwards asking the question “Who is having this desire?’ and diving deep into the waters of the Silence produced by this question is the only desire that has the power of self-annihilation, so even if it could be defined as a vasana, it would be the kind of tendency we do want cultivate (what Bhagavan called a sat-vasana). The thorn that removes a thorn.<br /><br />(The following paragraph is from “Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi", talk no. 495)<br />Question: One must become satiate(d) with the fulfillment of desires before they are renounced.<br />Bhagavan: Fire might as well be put out by pouring spirit over the flames. [All laugh.] The more the desires are fulfilled, the deeper grows the “samskara.” They must become weaker before they cease to assert themselves. That weakness is brought about by restraining oneself and not by losing oneself in desires.<br />Question: How can they be rendered weaker?<br />Bhagavan: By knowledge. You know that you are not the mind. The desires are in the mind. Such knowledge helps one to control them.<br />Question: But they are not controlled in our practical lives.<br />Bhagavan: Every time you attempt satisfaction of a desire, the knowledge comes that it is better to desist. Repeated reminders of this kind will in due cousre weaken the desires. What is your true nature? How can you ever forget it? Waking, dream and sleep are mere phases of the mind. They are not of the Self. You are the witness of these states. Your true nature is found in sleep.Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-80979555457724143512015-02-28T12:42:51.508+00:002015-02-28T12:42:51.508+00:00Sivanarul, in your latest comment you say, ‘I slep...Sivanarul, in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-is-it-necessary-to-consider-world.html?showComment=1425086279040#c1428481089056323600" rel="nofollow">your latest comment</a> you say, ‘I slept happily does not necessarily imply that the bliss of the Self was experienced’, but that cannot be correct. The fact that we slept happily does necessarily imply that the happiness we then experienced was ourself, because in sleep we do not experience anything other than ourself.<br /><br />You also say, ‘During sleep, body repairs and rejuvenates itself. Tissues get repaired and muscles rebuilt. Dead cells are replaced with new cells’, but this is a belief that can arise in your mind only during waking or dream. In sleep we do not experience any body (whether the one that we now experience as ourself, nor any other one that we experience as ourself in a dream), so our belief that our waking body existed when we were asleep is an assumption that is not adequately justified.<br /><br />If we were having this discussion in your dream, you would claim then that the body you then experience as yourself existed and was rejuvenated during sleep, but when you wake up from that dream you would understand that that body was actually just your own mental creation and therefore does not exist when you do not experience it. How then can you be sure that your present body is not likewise just your own mental creation, and does not therefore exist only when you experience it?<br /><br />Therefore your claim that ‘the happiness that is reported upon waking can simply be explained by the energy gained due to body reconstruction’ is an hypothesis that is not supported by any reliable evidence. Moreover, it is an hypothesis that cannot stand up to logical analysis, because in sleep we are not aware of any ‘body reconstruction’ occurring, nor of any energy being gained thereby, so the happiness we experience then cannot be explained by something that we are not actually aware of in that state.<br /><br />You ask, ‘If the bliss of the Self is that obvious why would anyone run after the happiness of sense-objects?’, but this is a question that Bhagavan has answered very clearly and simply in the <a href="http://www.happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para14" rel="nofollow">fourteenth paragraph of <i>Nāṉ Yār?</i></a>:<br /><br />[...] பிரபஞ்சப்பொருள் ஒன்றிலாவது சுகமென்பது கிடையாது. அவைகளிலிருந்து சுகம் கிடைப்பதாக நாம் நமது அவிவேகத்தால் நினைக்கின்றோம். [...]<br /><br />[...] <i>pirapañca-p-poruḷ oṉḏṟil-āvadu sukham-eṉbadu kiḍaiyādu. avaigaḷilirundu sukham kiḍaippadāha nām namadu avivēkattāl niṉaikkiṉḏṟōm</i>. [...]<br /><br />“[...] Happiness is not obtained from any object of the world. We think that happiness is obtained from them because of our <i>avivēka</i> [lack of discrimination]. [...]”<br /><br />In your final paragraph you suggest that since the mind subsides and thereby experiences happiness when any of its desires are fulfilled, the easiest and quickest way to make the mind subside is ‘to engage with the sense objects’, but such a conclusion is obviously the result of <i>avivēka</i>, because we know from experience that the happiness we seem to gain from sense objects is fleeting and unsatisfactory, and after studying Bhagavan’s teachings (especially the <a href="http://www.happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para14" rel="nofollow">fourteenth paragraph of <i>Nāṉ Yār?</i></a>) we should understand that that is because the subsidence of mind that results when any desire is fulfilled is only partial and is soon disturbed by the rising of other desires.<br /><br />In order to free ourself from the <i>avivēka</i> that drives our mind to go outwards to experience sense objects, we must cultivate <i>vivēka</i>, and the only effective way to do so is to persevere patiently in our practice of self-investigation.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-14284810890563236002015-02-28T01:17:59.040+00:002015-02-28T01:17:59.040+00:00Viswanathan said “That it is everyone's experi...Viswanathan said “That it is everyone's experience everywhere that happiness existed in sleep might be taken to indicate that even in the absence of any knowledge of Bhagavan's teachings, one does experience the bliss - that which is not connected with sense-objects. Muruganar: He who has woken up from sleep declares the truth of his experience when he says, 'I slept happily'.” <br /> <br />Viswanathan, I slept happily does not necessarily imply that the bliss of the Self was experienced. It also does not necessarily mean that bliss was experienced with that not connected with sense-objects. During sleep, body repairs and rejuvenates itself. Tissues get repaired and muscles rebuilt. Dead cells are replaced with new cells. So the happiness that is reported upon waking can simply be explained by the energy gained due to body reconstruction. So it could just be a physiological phenomenon. I am aware that your writing is supported by advaitic scriptures and one can possibly take it as an article of faith in Bhagavan and general advaita.<br /><br />If the bliss of the Self is that obvious why would anyone run after the happiness of sense-objects? Why would someone reject the highest bliss of the Self (as per sages?) to the fleeting happiness provided by the senses? The only reason could be that the bliss of the Self is not obvious (due to ignorance / maya etc). Whatever the waking mind says about Deep sleep (whether bliss or nothingness existed) cannot be relied on, since the waking mind was not there during deep sleep.<br />In Sat-Chit-Ananda, Sat and Chit are self-evident. I know I exist and I know I am conscious. The Ananda/Bliss part is not really evident during Sadhana stage.<br /><br />If the happiness of sense-objects really comes from the mind subsiding due to fulfillment of desires and no new desires existing for a brief time, then the only known “easy/quick ”way for the subsidence of the mind, is to engage with the sense objects (at least while ignorance persists) so that the mind will subside briefly and happiness can be had. Meditation can provide that after persistent practice and according to Bhagavan, vichara can provide that in the most direct way. However both Meditation and Vichara cannot provide it that quickly compared to eating an ice-cream which is immediate. If this was not so, attachments would drop immediately and all sentient beings would lose ignorance and awaken to their true nature instantaneously.<br />Sivanarulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-66169862251317229732015-02-27T14:46:55.676+00:002015-02-27T14:46:55.676+00:00"That objects are the source of happiness/unh..."That objects are the source of happiness/unhappiness is an experiential reality (for now, at least). The bliss of the Self is currently an article of faith in Bhagavan and scriptures. It seems far away as a distant dream. The happiness that the senses provide is immediate. I am intellectually aware that the mind subsides during the sensory enjoyment and the bliss of the Self flows through which is mistaken as if it comes from the object. But here is the rub. Without the senses, there is no way of accessing the bliss of the Self in the current state of ignorance."<br /><br />That it is everyone's experience everywhere that happiness existed in sleep might be taken to indicate that even in the absence of any knowledge of Bhagavan's teachings, one does experience the bliss - that which is not connected with sense-objects. Admittedly, of course, this became clear to me, only after I was drawn to Bhagavan's teachings - primarily through reading (and/or listening to) Sri Michael James, Sri David Godman, Sri Nochur Venkataraman, and Sri Robert Adams during the last few years now.<br /><br />In this context, I would like to reproduce here the explanatory note of Sri Muruganar, as given in the book Guru Vachaka Kovai commentary translation by Sri David Godman (for the verse 1026):<br /><br />Muruganar: He who has woken up from sleep declares the truth of his experience when he says, 'I slept happily'. It is a fact, acceptable to all, that in the natural state of deep sleep, wherein the mind remains thought-free, having no contact with sense objects, the Self is experienced as happiness. The bliss that was your own nature in the state of sleep ceases and fails to manifest when you wake because the desires that chase after sense-objects make you forget your Self-nature, which is bliss, and separate you from the state of the Self. Therefore, you should attain the fortune of unsurpassed bliss, your own true experience, by having a mind that does not, through the desires that arise from delusion, wander after sense-objects, that remains calm without forgetfulness of the Self in the waking state, just as it does in sleep. <br />R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-16888713590600185442015-02-22T10:40:47.583+00:002015-02-22T10:40:47.583+00:00Sivanarul, in reply to your latest two comments, i...Sivanarul, in reply to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-is-it-necessary-to-consider-world.html?showComment=1424567955557#c2182911711438036068" rel="nofollow">your latest two comments</a>, it can take time to assimilate and accept Bhagavan’s teachings and their implications in their entirety, but putting whatever we can understand and accept into practice to the best of our ability will gradually make it easier for us to understand and accept the more difficult ideas and implications.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-39318015261729233052015-02-22T10:31:07.779+00:002015-02-22T10:31:07.779+00:00Thank you, Mouna (Carlos), for your latest comment...Thank you, Mouna (Carlos), for <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-is-it-necessary-to-consider-world.html?showComment=1424547346402#c6909771466409608197" rel="nofollow">your latest comment</a>, which I think answered <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-is-it-necessary-to-consider-world.html?showComment=1424434664623#c8469648060951001423" rel="nofollow">Sivanarul’s earlier questions</a> more clearly and eloquently than <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-is-it-necessary-to-consider-world.html?showComment=1424518049431#c3959824347274107465" rel="nofollow">my reply</a> did. Viewing a question from a different angle, as you did, can often provide an answer that is not only fresh but also deeper and more useful.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-30066375277293159672015-02-22T01:20:25.985+00:002015-02-22T01:20:25.985+00:00Continuing my previous comment:
I don't agree...Continuing my previous comment:<br /><br />I don't agree with Bhagavan himself on some things. Not because Bhagavan is wrong, but simply because I am not ready. Advaita in general and Bhagavan's teaching in particular were <br />traditionally reserved for advanced Sadhakas who have passed the earlier classes. Even though Bhagavan's writings like Ulladu Narpadu is uncompromising in admitting steps in the path of <br />truth, it is useful to remember that when Bhagavan was with form, he did adjust his message according to the maturity of the aspirant, if they can't assimilate the direct path. It is also <br />useful to remember that Annamalai Swami, irrespective of hearing that Vichara is the direct path from Bhagavan himself, still spent time in Patanjali style meditation for many years in Palakotthu before going on to Vichara. Bhagavan himself did vichara less than a minute, albeit with such intensity to dissolve ignorance. It is safe to assume that Bhagavan had passed classes in Japa, Meditation etc in earlier lives.<br /><br />Thanks for Mouna/Carlos for the reply that turns the question into practical advantages/disadvantages for considering the world as real. While I hear you and agree with you, the issue is, considering the world as real is the default modus operandi. It is ingrained very deeply in the psyche. That objects are the source of happiness/unhappiness is an experiential reality (for now, at least). The bliss of the Self is currently an article of faith in Bhagavan and scriptures. It seems far away as a distant dream. The happiness that the senses provide is immediate. I am intellectually aware that the mind subsides during the sensory enjoyment and the bliss of the Self flows through which is mistaken as if it comes from the object. But here is the rub. Without the senses, there is no way of accessing the bliss of the Self in the current state of ignorance.Sivanarulnoreply@blogger.com