tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post7421730891012849716..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: How can we see inaction in action?Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-35419936053374982792017-04-28T19:16:15.613+01:002017-04-28T19:16:15.613+01:00Thanks to Michael and Sanjay and everyone else for...Thanks to Michael and Sanjay and everyone else for the comments here. This is truly a wonderful resource!Jeremy Lennonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04582866861617640609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-88309501398679122862017-04-20T21:11:44.787+01:002017-04-20T21:11:44.787+01:00Sanjay Lohia,
many thanks for rendering Michael...Sanjay Lohia,<br />many thanks for rendering Michael's explanations given in London on 14 January 2017.<br />Regarding manana~part 2, statement nr.10):<br />My love to Arunachala as an outward form of God one could describe as deep.<br />To you remark: "Outward form of God, or guru may be a support to us, but ultimately that support will support us by turning us back within. That is the magic of the form of Bhagavan, or the form of Arunachala. Their outward forms turn our attention back within." I can add from my own lively and vivid experience: While roaming about Arunachala's slopes and gorges and sitting on various charming and lovely spots/places my attention was pulled more and more inwards. However, my mind was not able then to remain in the required deep composure to trace it back to the source. So I have to persistently try to deepen my self-attention/attentiveness - day by day. sat - bhavanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-5149700601517094032017-03-08T06:03:14.105+00:002017-03-08T06:03:14.105+00:00Thanks David.Thanks David.Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-61505043530697860102017-03-07T22:53:31.980+00:002017-03-07T22:53:31.980+00:00I really appreciate your comments Sanjay.I really appreciate your comments Sanjay.David E.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-72833458867602564602017-02-16T07:26:24.101+00:002017-02-16T07:26:24.101+00:00Video of 14/1/2017, Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK:...Video of 14/1/2017, Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael discussing the root cause diagnosed by Bhagavan: <i>manana ~ part 3</i><br /><br />Bhagavan often spoke in metaphors. He used to often say, for example: ‘you should dive deep within to obtain the pearl of self’; ‘you should turn within, and penetrate deep within into the core of our being’; ‘heart means self’ and so on. These all are metaphors. <br /><br />Who is to dive? The ego is a formless phantom; how can a formless phantom dive within? Again ‘heart’ means the centre. What is the centre of our being? It is what we actually are. For the real self, there is no centre. But what is the centre of the ego? It is ‘I am’. The ego is ‘I am this body’, and the body is something extraneous, it’s the adjunct. Its centre is ‘I am’, the pure awareness. That is the heart.<br /><br />So we shouldn’t take the words Bhagavan says always too literally, but try to understand what the words are alluding to. There is something we have to take literally: when he says, ‘when the ego comes into existence everything comes into existence; when the ego doesn’t exist everything does not exist’. That we should take literally. But a lot of terminology he used, like ‘plunge’, ‘dive’, 'penetrate' and ‘heart’ are metaphors. <br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-66051316553251351652017-02-15T16:43:10.295+00:002017-02-15T16:43:10.295+00:00Video of 14/1/2017, Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK:...Video of 14/1/2017, Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael discussing the root cause diagnosed by Bhagavan: <i>manana ~ part 2</i><br /><br />5) By turning within, we are connecting to Bhagavan’s silent teaching. The silence is what gives clarity to our mind to understand Bhagavan’s verbal teachings. <br /><br />6) The ultimate refuge can only be what is real, and what is real is only ourself. Our real self has manifested outwardly as Bhagavan and Arunachala. But what is the purpose of these external forms: only to make us turn back within.<br /><br />7) From the perspective of our ego, sleep is the state of self-forgetfulness – that is, ego forgets itself in sleep. Only when I forget Michael I am asleep. So long as I remember Michael, I am awake or dreaming. Waking and dream is a state of remembering many things. <br /><br />8) Bhagavan said outrageous things. He said if the ego comes into existence everything comes into existence; when the ego doesn’t exist nothing exists. He actually means what he says. If we are ready to accept that, then his other teachings fall into place, and we will understand the whole picture. If we reject one of his teachings, because it seems unpalatable, the whole jigsaw puzzle will fall apart.<br /><br />9) How ridiculous is our present struggle! What are we struggling with? We are struggling with ourself. Who is preventing us from experiencing ourself as we really are, here and now? We are, nobody else is.<br /><br />10) If we read <i>Sri Arunachala Aksharamanamalai</i>, which is Bhagavan’s outpouring of devotion to Arunachala, there is very subtle play between outward devotion, and what is actually an inward devotion. Sometimes he expresses the inward devotion in terms of outward devotion.<br /><br />When our mind is outward turned, having the support of an outward form, such as Bhagavan or Arunachala, can be a very useful focus. Outward form of God, or <i>guru</i> may be a support to us, but ultimately that support will support us by turning us back within. That is the magic of the form of Bhagavan, or the form of Arunachala. Their outward forms turn our attention back within. <br /><br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-43276684970139445742017-02-14T22:55:23.602+00:002017-02-14T22:55:23.602+00:00Hi Viswanathan
I normally refer to Swami Gambhira...Hi Viswanathan<br /><br />I normally refer to Swami Gambhirananda's translation of Bhagavad Gita Bhasya.<br /><br />However I did find this online translation - refer to page 146:<br />https://archive.org/stream/Bhagavad-Gita.with.the.Commentary.of.Sri.Shankaracharya#page/n145/mode/2up<br /><br />It is a bit of a long comment to follow, but the GVK quote and Sadhu Om's comment summarises it well.venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-68683073380611101812017-02-14T17:47:40.186+00:002017-02-14T17:47:40.186+00:00Video of 14/1/2017 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: ...Video of 14/1/2017 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael discussing the root cause diagnosed by Bhagavan:<br /><br />1) How do we come to know about our parents? Only when we rise as an ego, everything comes into existence. So parents are born of the child. Only when the ego (child) rises, it sees the parents, it sees the world, it learns all history ... We (the ego) are the cause of the appearance of the world, and not big bang, genesis ... <br /><br />2) Accepting that this world is just a dream is the first step. So long we take it to be real our mind will always be after it. We should investigate ‘who is the one to whom all these appears real?’ Only by investigating ourself, we will find out the truth about ourself. This way we will find about the truth about everything else. Because everything is known by me.<br /><br />3) ‘I am this’ (<i>nan idu</i>) - ‘I am this body; I am this person’ – has to be false, because ‘I’ cannot be other than myself. We cannot be other than ourself. So since ‘this’ (<i>idu</i>) always refers to something other than ourself, ‘I am this’ has to be false. We cannot be any phenomena which we seem to be. All these things – they come and go.<br />Bhagavan says that only true statement that we can make about our identity is <i>nan nan</i> (‘I am I’), that is the experience of true self-knowledge. All these other things seem to exist, only because we seem to exist, only because we rise as an ego.<br /><br />4) How are we able to know all these other things, isn’t it a great wonder? We are able to know all these things, but we are not able to know who we ourself are. Isn’t it illogical; isn’t it absurd? Obviously it must be easier to know ourself. But why we don’t know ourself? Because we are not ready to let go of other things. So long as other things seem to exist, we cannot know ourself, because what we actually are is the only thing that actually exists. As long as we aware of other things, we are not aware of ourself as we actually are.<br /><br />(I will continue this in my next comment)<br /><br /> <br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32257449467744435052017-02-14T13:46:29.972+00:002017-02-14T13:46:29.972+00:00Thanks SanjayThanks SanjayAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04435289281370413861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-9294269833328198422017-02-14T08:45:47.593+00:002017-02-14T08:45:47.593+00:00venkat, you wrote: ‘The jnani identifies himself a...venkat, you wrote: ‘The jnani identifies himself as motionless awareness, rather than the superimposed body-mind’. I once wrote something similar to Michael in one of my emails, and he corrected me by saying that I had used a tautology. That is, when you write ‘The jnani identifies himself as motionless awareness’, you have inadvertently used a tautology. <br /><br />As Michael explained me, the <i>jnani</i> does not identify himself with motionless awareness, but he is motionless awareness. We can identify ourself with something other than ourself – like with our country, caste, religion, bank balance and so on, but we cannot identify ourself with ourself. We are ourself. <br /><br />What you wrote in effect means: ‘the <i>jnani</i> identifies himself with himself', which obviously is not what you wanted to convey. I hope you do not mind my sharing this with you. <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-57343777223865236662017-02-14T03:56:33.289+00:002017-02-14T03:56:33.289+00:00Thanks Venkat, very helpful the quotes are. Can yo...Thanks Venkat, very helpful the quotes are. Can you please let me know the link which gives Sankara Bhashyam for Bhagawat Gita in Tamil or English? or can you please send me the file as pdf if you have one?R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-35462040111731858132017-02-13T18:51:17.362+00:002017-02-13T18:51:17.362+00:00Just saw GVK v476, in which Bhagavan says, consist...Just saw GVK v476, in which Bhagavan says, consistent with Shankara:<br /><br />"Whether or not one is performing actions, if the delusion of individuality - the ego, 'I am the doer of actions' - is completely annihilated, that is the attainment of actionlessness."<br /><br />Sadhu Om: "People generally think that the attainment of actionlessness is a state in which one should remain still, giving up all activities. But this is wrong. Sri Bhagavan Ramana proclaims that the loss of doership alone is the right kind of actionlessness, and this alone is nishkamya karma - action done without any desire for result"venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-35705200492536187992017-02-13T18:39:51.262+00:002017-02-13T18:39:51.262+00:00Dear Michael and R Viswanathan
The gist of Sankar...Dear Michael and R Viswanathan<br /><br />The gist of Sankara's bhasya on BG4.18 is straightforward:<br /><br />"Inaction in action" : for the jnani, even though he acts, it is desireless, egoless action. The jnani identifies himself as motionless awareness, rather than the superimposed body-mind.<br /><br />"Action in inaction": for those who try to be still, inactive, because there is an ego that is trying to be still, there is still an actor and therefore action underlying the perceived inaction.<br />venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-195663866837844652017-02-13T16:43:40.292+00:002017-02-13T16:43:40.292+00:00Sandhya, you had raised a few questions, namely, ‘...Sandhya, you had raised a few questions, namely, ‘who really creates the appropriate movie? Is that our subconscious mind? Or is it the Self? If it is the mind, then is the mind capable of creating the right movie? Since mind is only ignorant and driven by desire all the time’. <br /><br />We can look at this from another perspective. I was reading verse 669 of <i>Guru Vachaka Kovai</i>, and Sri Sadhu Om’s explanation of this verse. Bhagavan says in verse 669:<br /><br />God’s creation does not bind: only the jiva’s creation, which is a mental conception, binds. . . .<br /><br />Sri Sadhu Om explains this verse by saying that <i>jiva’s</i> (ego’s) creation is ‘the wrong mental conception, that one is the body. Therefore, the conception ‘I am the body’, which is only creation of the mind or <i>jiva</i>, is the sole cause of bondage’. The ego makes this initial blunder or stupidity of rising, and catching hold of a body by imagining it to be itself. Once in the body it starts using its free will, by engaging in all sorts of stupid actions. <br /><br />As a consequence, God has to step in to do the damage control. This damage control measure is his ‘allotted <i>prarabdha</i> - the selected and arranged fruits of good and bad karmas – for our own uplift’, explains Sri Sadhu Om. He further explains, ‘the very purpose of the appearance or creation of the world which we see, is to teach us vairagya by making us experience pains and pleasures and thereby to turn our mind towards Self’. Therefore, this movie, our <i>prarabdha</i>, is God’s creation, and it is only for our ultimate liberation.<br /><br />In short, we can say that we as this ego create ourself (this ego), but once we come into seeming existence, God creates our <i>prarabdha</i> in order to slowly but steadily push us towards liberation. <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-70496050838240910332017-02-13T12:03:20.802+00:002017-02-13T12:03:20.802+00:00Thanks:)Thanks:)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04435289281370413861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-11177752994423255812017-02-13T08:01:55.556+00:002017-02-13T08:01:55.556+00:00Sandhya, yes, the ego does not exist in the view o...Sandhya, yes, the ego does not exist in the view of God, but God still decides our <i>prarabhda karma</i> (our predestined experiences in any given life time) by the power (<i>chit-shakti</i>) of its mere presence in our heart. Let us read and reflect on the fifteenth paragraph of <i>Nan Yar?,</i> to understand this point better:<br /><br />Just as in the mere presence of the sun, which rose without <i>icchā</i> [wish, desire or liking], <i>saṁkalpa</i> [volition or intention] or <i>yatna</i> [effort or exertion], a crystal stone [or magnifying lens] will emit fire, a lotus will blossom, water will evaporate, and people of the world will engage in [or begin] their respective activities, do [those activities] and subside [or cease being active], and [just as] in front of a magnet a needle will move, [so] <i>jīvas</i> [living beings], . . . move [busy themselves, perform activities, make effort or strive] and subside [cease being active, become still or sleep] in accordance with their respective <i>karmas<i> [that is, in accordance not only with their <i>prārabdha karma</i> or destiny, which impels them to do whatever actions are necessary in order for them to experience all the pleasant and unpleasant things that they are destined to experience, but also with their <i>karma-vāsanās</i>, their inclinations or impulses to desire, think, speak and act in particular ways, which impel them to make effort to experience pleasant things and to avoid experiencing unpleasant things]. Nevertheless, he [God] is not <i>saṁkalpa sahitar</i> [one who is connected with or possesses any volition or intention]; even one <i>karma</i> does not adhere to him [that is, he is not bound or affected by any </i>karma</i> or action whatsoever]. That is like world-actions [the actions happening here on earth] not adhering to [or affecting] the sun, and [like] the qualities and defects of the other four elements [earth, water, air and fire] not adhering to the all-pervading space. <br /><br /><br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-36160263961787844182017-02-12T18:29:11.496+00:002017-02-12T18:29:11.496+00:00Thanks Sanjay. To God ego doesnt exist, so how ca...Thanks Sanjay. To God ego doesnt exist, so how can he make movies? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04435289281370413861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-47295669641984713062017-02-12T16:25:12.386+00:002017-02-12T16:25:12.386+00:00Sandhya, I am glad you liked my posts; however, I ...Sandhya, I am glad you liked my posts; however, I merely convey Michael’s thoughts or ideas, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, we should just thank him.<br /><br />Let us carefully consider what Bhagavan wrote in the note for his mother in December 1898. He said:<br /><br />According to their-their <i>prārabdha</i>, he who is for that being there-there will cause to act [that is, according to the destiny (<i>prārabdha</i>) of each person, he who is for that (namely God or guru, who ordains their destiny) being in the heart of each of them will make them act]. What is never to happen will not happen whatever effort one makes [to make it happen]; what is to happen will not stop whatever obstruction [or resistance] one does [to prevent it happening]. This indeed is certain. Therefore silently being [or being silent] is good.<br /><br />God or <i>guru</i> ordains our destiny (<i>prarabdha</i>) – that is, he decides what we (the ego) are to experience in any given life time based on our past, good or bad or neutral, actions. God or <i>guru</i> merely gives us the wages of our past <i>karmas</i>. Therefore whatever movie we see on the screen of our awareness is scripted and directed by God, but it is purely based on our past <i>karmas</i> done by our free will (<i>agamya</i>). God merely choose what we are to experience keeping our spiritual progress in mind.<br /><br />We are not free to change the contents of the movie (that is, we are not free to change our experiences), but we are free to try to change its script. However we will fail in our efforts to do so, as Bhagavan’s states in his note for his mother. <br /><br />The best and the only wise option we have, is to walk out of the theater and not watch the movie. That means, the best and the only wise option we have is to remain in-drawn and mentally silent. This way we will not experience our <i>prarabdha</i>, nor will we create any <i>agamya</i>. As Bhagavan says, ‘Therefore silently being [or being silent] is good’.<br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-86804818373697157092017-02-12T13:39:59.585+00:002017-02-12T13:39:59.585+00:00Thanks Sanjay . Very nice reading your posts. My q...Thanks Sanjay . Very nice reading your posts. My question is : is destiny also formed by ego? So, Bhagvan (i think) said that ego's various lives are like different movies/pictures in the screen of Self and Bhagvan(Self) decides which movie to play during each birth (fruit of karma) or in other words Self choses the life/body/environment that is appropriate for the ego and that can help ego progress. Is this what Bhagvan said? Then my question becomes: who really creates the appropriate movie? Is that our subconscious mind? Or is it the Self? If it is the mind, then is the mind capable of creating the right movie ? Since mind is only ignorant and driven by desire all the time. Hope i am clear. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04435289281370413861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-26258666412108163032017-02-11T16:04:54.554+00:002017-02-11T16:04:54.554+00:00In continuation of my previous comment (manana) of...In continuation of my previous comment (<i>manana</i>) of 11 February 2017 at 07:16<br /><br />6) Question: Can my intense and prolonged practice of <i>atma-vichara</i> affect my mind in some adverse way, or cause any psychological problems?<br /><br />Michael: It is impossible to turn our attention towards ourself without great love. It’s the purest form of love – the love to return to our source from which we came. It is this source which we are now seeing as this manifold existence. So it is the greatest love of all to turn within. And it cannot cause any psychological problems.<br /><br />Bhagavan once said, ‘saying that someone who followed the path of self-investigation, and became mad because of this practice, is like saying someone drank the nectar of immortality and died. He got too much of nectar, so he died – it’s impossible’. One drop of nectar, and we are sure to live forever.<br /><br />Bhagavan also said that all confusion arises from the mind. When we turn our mind within, we are turning back to the original light. So we are uncovering the light; we are clarifying our mind. If we follow this path we will not become insane; the danger is we will become sane. And none of us are ready to become sane. The true sanity is to abide as we really are. This sanity we are all afraid of – we may become too sane!<br /><br />We have no need to fear becoming insane. We may follow certain yogic or spiritual practices, and find that we lose the balance of mind. These practices are done with tremendous will – that is, done with the will of the ego, and not with the heart-melting love. It is only by heart-melting love that we can truly practice this path of self-investigation. This is love for our source, love for the original light, the light which illumines this whole world.<br /><br />My note: In my understanding, our practice of <i>atma-vichara</i> cannot cause any psychological problems. On the other hand it can cure psychological problems, or at least keep it under control. Persistent self-attentiveness will gradually remove the perverted ways of our mind, and will eventually remove the mind itself. In our absolutely pure light of <i>svarupa</i>, how can any psychological problem persist? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-13316544237890716172017-02-11T13:56:04.645+00:002017-02-11T13:56:04.645+00:00thank you Sanjay for your insights
thank you Sanjay for your insights<br />I'm not a robot. what am I?noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-40197774067462303272017-02-11T12:39:44.578+00:002017-02-11T12:39:44.578+00:00I’m not a robot. what am I?, Bhagavan says in the ...I’m not a robot. what am I?, Bhagavan says in the seventh paragraph of <i>Nan Yar?</i>: ‘What actually exists is only <i>atma-svarupa’</i>. Michael says, ‘Actually we rise as this ego only because we choose to rise. There is nobody other than ourself who forces us to rise as an ego’. Because what exists is only <i>atma-svarupa</i>, there is no entity other than us which can force our ego to rise, or not to rise. Therefore if it has really arisen, it has to be because of its own volition.<br /><br />Your questions can never have a clear and satisfactory answer because they are dealing with the power of <i>maya</i> or mind. As Bhagavan says in the fourth paragraph of <i>Nan Yar?</i>: ‘What is called ‘mind’ is an <i>atisaya sakti</i> [an extraordinary or wonderful power] that exists is <i>atma-svarupa</i> [our actual self]. It projects [or causes the appearance of] all thoughts’. This <i>atisaya sakti</i> is beyond all conception, and therefore beyond our understanding.<br /><br />Our ego (or mind) seems to rise due to <i>pramada</i> (self-negligence) by grasping form or attending to things other than itself. But who is self-negligent? It is ourself as this ego, and not ourself as we actually are. Yes, how can this ego make a choice to rise when it does not even exist in the first place, is a mystery which we cannot solve. A non-existent phantom, ego, comes into seeming existence, creates a body and all this phenomena, and thus plays all this mischief. <br /><br />As you say, it seems that that our ego has a choice to turn back towards itself, and thereby subside, but it doesn’t seem to have a choice to rise. But since it seems to exist, it must have a seeming cause for its rising, and the seeming cause, according to Bhagavan is <i>pramada (self-negligence).</i> It is this <i>pramada</i> which makes the ego rise by grasping a body.<br /> <br />Whose <i>pramada</i>? How can the ego have <i>pramada</i> when it did not even exist before it arose? We can go on analyzing this endlessly, but we will not find a satisfactory answer to this puzzle. <br /><br />Therefore, the only real solution to this mystery, according to Bhagavan, is to investigate: have I actually arisen as this ego? Who am I? If we do this, we will find that there is no ego, and hence it never actually arose. If we seemingly arose by grasping form, we can subside only by leaving all the forms by trying to grasp ourself alone. <br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-62268331296782852552017-02-11T10:14:48.112+00:002017-02-11T10:14:48.112+00:00Sanjay, you say
"4) Actually we rise as this ...Sanjay, you say<br />"4) Actually we rise as this ego only because we choose to rise."<br /><br />can you elaborate on that? when exactly are we presented with the choice? It must be before our rising, but in that case "we" are not there to choose, are we? the ego can make a choice to subside, let go, and return, once it has risen, but how can it make the choice "not to rise"?<br />the ego is the rising, not someone who chooses to rise. unless you mean something else.<br />I'm not a robot. what am I?noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-8447105253599189822017-02-11T07:16:15.854+00:002017-02-11T07:16:15.854+00:00Video dated 7/1/2017: Sri Ramana Centre, Houston: ...<i>Video dated 7/1/2017: Sri Ramana Centre, Houston: Michael James discussing Ulladu Narpadu mangalam verse 2</i><br /><br />My following <i>manana</i> contains Michael’s ideas and is largely in his own words, but it is not verbatim:<br /><br />1) Our actions are guided by both free will (<i>mati</i>) and destiny (<i>vidi</i>). If we take our actions to be a pen, this pen is handled by two clerks: ‘free will’ and ‘destiny’. The ‘destiny’ clerk always has the upper hand in using the pen, but when he is off duty he allows the ‘free will’ clerk to use it. Likewise, our destiny will always have an upper hand in influencing our actions, but our free can act if it does not clash with our destiny.<br /><br />2) When we rise as this ego we are limiting ourself as this small person, but because we are infinite whole we cannot be satisfied with anything less than infinite. But because we seem to be finite, we cannot conceive what infinite is, so we are constantly seeking more and more finite things. But however many finite things we manage to accumulate, it is far-far from being infinite. So dissatisfaction is the nature of the ego. <br /><br />A monarch having half the world as his kingdom will still be dissatisfied, because he just owns a large number of finite things. Whereas an <i>atma-jnani</i> may have no material possession and may roam about like a beggar, but he will have no reason to be dissatisfied, because he is infinite existence, infinite awareness and infinite bliss. <br /><br />3) The supreme power called God or grace (which exists in our heart as our heart) is the love that our real self has for itself. It is this power that selects the fruits of our ego’s actions. Since God is infinite self-love, it experiences us as himself, and therefore whatever fruit it decides is always for our ultimate spiritual good. Of course, the primary aim of this power is to constantly draw us within to our source. <br /><br />4) Actually we rise as this ego only because we choose to rise. There is nobody other than ourself who forces us to rise as an ego.<br /><br />5) Bhagavan's teachings are the greatest treasure he has given us. Like a gardener protecting a very rare seed and nurturing it into a beautiful plant, we should nurture his teachings and treasure it more than anything else. <br /><br />(I will continue this <i>manana</i> in my next comment)Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-23762674870262167172017-02-10T15:10:54.411+00:002017-02-10T15:10:54.411+00:00Robert, all thanks to our beloved Bhagavan. He is ...Robert, all thanks to our beloved Bhagavan. He is like a huge magnet, and devotees like me are like iron filings. As I started understanding his teachings (thanks to Michael’s writings, videos etc.), I cannot help but be attracted to his (life changing) teachings, like helpless iron filings placed near a huge mountain-magnet. We can call this magnet Arunachala or Bhagavan or <i>atma-svarupa</i>. All mean one and the same. Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.com