tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post7724994125716471721..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Our memory of ‘I’ in sleepMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-8506313024297884832019-06-11T12:55:06.413+01:002019-06-11T12:55:06.413+01:00Unknown,
usually I put questions in the hope of ge...Unknown,<br />usually I put questions in the hope of getting clarifying answers not only for my own benefit. Many of Michael's explanations in articles and additional comments were given in reply of my 'silly' questions put under many different user names.:-)<br />J.anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-12824736293402541712019-06-10T20:41:52.876+01:002019-06-10T20:41:52.876+01:00This is so intelligently, carefully and beautifull...This is so intelligently, carefully and beautifully explained Michael. Thank you for your eloquent reply. Thank you Josef for the question too. The Self in all states remembers Self and requires no mind to remember it's own Self awareness. Unlike usual memory, it does not depend on fading impressions, as the memory of I (after arising from sleep), only ever refers to the ever present I, which is even present here and now. The steady stream of consciousness which runs through all three states, which is our very Being. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-66163541566262256822015-11-10T12:22:04.194+00:002015-11-10T12:22:04.194+00:00Michael,
You write:
"In sleep we cannot remem...Michael,<br />You write:<br />"In sleep we cannot remember...<br />Because it is the mind that experiences anything other than 'I', it is only the mind...<br />However, because 'I' experiences itself even in the absence of the mind, it does not require the mind to remember itself, and hence we can remember that I slept, even though the mind was absent in sleep."<br /><br />May I only for my clear understanding of the subject put the following further questions ?<br />Is the mind in addition to the above experiences able to experience also 'I am ' ?<br />If yes, does it actually experience also 'I am ' ?Vilcomayonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-89209408680702896292015-11-03T20:22:07.772+00:002015-11-03T20:22:07.772+00:00Thank you Michael,
for explaining again the matter...Thank you Michael,<br />for explaining again the matter of true knowledge/pure self-awareness and ignorance/self-awareness mixed with awareness of anything other than ourself.<br />Once more you remind us that renunciation of self-investigation would let us miss the target.Vilcomayonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-44707199267363506682015-11-03T19:35:20.184+00:002015-11-03T19:35:20.184+00:00Vilcomayo, if you read the article that Viswanatha...Vilcomayo, if you read the article that Viswanathan refers to in his comment, namely <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.in/2007/01/self-consciousness-alone-is-true.html" rel="nofollow">Self-consciousness alone is true knowledge</a>, you will understand why it is necessary to distinguish true knowledge, which is self-awareness or consciousness as it really is, from objective consciousness, which is awareness of anything other than ourself.<br /><br />There is only one thing that is conscious or aware, namely ourself, but we are sometimes aware of ourself alone, as we are in sleep, whereas at other times we are aware not only of ourself but also of other things, as we are in waking and dream. Since we alone are what is real or what actually exists, being aware of ourself alone is true knowledge, whereas being aware of anything else is only ignorance, as Bhagavan explains in verses <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/self-knowledge-is-not-void-sunya.html#un10" rel="nofollow">10</a>, <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/self-knowledge-is-not-void-sunya.html#un11" rel="nofollow">11</a>, <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/self-knowledge-is-not-void-sunya.html#un12" rel="nofollow">12</a> and <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/self-knowledge-is-not-void-sunya.html#un13" rel="nofollow">13</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>.<br /><br />When we are aware of ourself alone, we are experiencing ourself as we actually are, whereas whenever we are aware of anything other than ourself, we are experiencing ourself as this ego or mind. In other words, what we actually are is pure self-awareness, whereas our ego or mind is the same self-awareness mixed with awareness of other things, so in order to experience ourself as we actually are it is essential that we distinguish pure self-awareness from self-awareness mixed with even the slightest awareness of anything else.<br /><br />Trying to distinguish pure self-awareness from self-awareness mixed with even the slightest awareness of anything else, which we can do only by trying to be aware of ourself alone, in complete isolation from awareness of anything else, is what is called <i>ātma-vicāra</i> (self-investigation), as I explained in another recent article, <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/trying-to-distinguish-ourself-from-our.html" rel="nofollow">Trying to distinguish ourself from our ego is what is called self-investigation (<i>ātma-vicāra</i>)</a>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-8413235352344349522015-11-03T15:12:23.538+00:002015-11-03T15:12:23.538+00:00Many thanks, Michael, for your response to my ques...Many thanks, Michael, for your response to my question in a new article.<br />Regarding R Viswanathan's advice in his comment of 11 December 2014 at 03:41: <br />Do we really have to draw a distinction between true consciousness and objective consciousness ?<br />Is it not said that there is only one self-consciousness ?Vilcomayonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-86147951568417839832015-11-03T13:38:38.630+00:002015-11-03T13:38:38.630+00:00Vilcomayo, I am sorry that I delayed so long in re...Vilcomayo, I am sorry that I delayed so long in replying to your question, but I have now tried to answer it in a new article that I have just posted: <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/what-happens-to-our-mind-in-sleep.html" rel="nofollow">What happens to our mind in sleep?</a>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-26344909500209191632015-11-02T23:06:38.579+00:002015-11-02T23:06:38.579+00:00Michael,
I do not want to appear as impatiently an...Michael,<br />I do not want to appear as impatiently and become a nuisance to you, but may I repeat my question put on 4 September 2015 at 22:25 ? <br />Please take your time over answering.Vilcomayonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-19635586543706871372015-09-04T22:25:06.226+01:002015-09-04T22:25:06.226+01:00Michael,
what exactly means 'absence of the mi...Michael,<br />what exactly means 'absence of the mind' in sleep ?<br />In a state in which our mind is/was absent or subsided, does/did the mind "go" to any other place or does/did it rather subside in its source ?Vilcomayonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-15921180245478431582014-12-11T03:41:57.158+00:002014-12-11T03:41:57.158+00:00I have just read another very beneficial article b...I have just read another very beneficial article by Michael James on sleep in 2007:<br />http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.in/2007/01/self-consciousness-alone-is-true.html<br /><br />It is explained clearly in this article that the sleep state indeed denotes our experience of true consciousness, although not of objective consciousness which everyone is used to and familiar with.R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-35116875951048341562014-11-22T05:51:14.622+00:002014-11-22T05:51:14.622+00:00For those who would like to read more about 't...<br />For those who would like to read more about 'true nature of sleep' please see this link from David Godman's blog<br /><br /> http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.in/2008/05/true-nature-of-sleep.html<br /><br />I sought views of David Godman for giving the link in this blog, and this is what is his reply:<br />If there is a discussion on sleep going on on Michael's blog, please feel free to post the link to the Guru Vachaka Kovai verses on sleep there. I feel that Bhagavan's own words on this topic are always more useful than other people's opinions.<br />R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-24312874039999012172014-11-15T14:19:06.099+00:002014-11-15T14:19:06.099+00:00Thanks Michael for that mercifully concise respons...Thanks Michael for that mercifully concise response. Truth be told, I haven't made much of a study of Ramana's teachings. But I trust that, in their essential simplicity, they are efficacious. Suffice to say here, it turned out quite simple as well, for after the age-old myth of an apparent unenlightened self seeking/striving to become an apparent enlightened self was ended, so ended that mythical seeker, and, needless to say, the seeking/striving. And thus ends this saga of a myth that ended. What remains, well, no such words can truly speak of -- as it ever is.Dana Lomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17503044812933216679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-64360336658017942462014-11-15T12:46:58.496+00:002014-11-15T12:46:58.496+00:00Yes, Dana, all our confusion arises only because w...Yes, Dana, all our confusion arises only because we attend to things other than ‘I’, and we will remain confused so long as we continue to experience anything other than ‘I’.<br /><br />Bhagavan’s teachings are actually extremely simple, so trying to understand them clearly does help to reduce our confusion at least at a conceptual level, but we can get rid of our confusion entirely only when we experience ourself as the one infinite reality that we actually are, other than which nothing exists.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-49331649931564036622014-11-14T12:49:39.932+00:002014-11-14T12:49:39.932+00:00Well then, it seems that 'jñāni' is just a...Well then, it seems that 'jñāni' is just another interchangeable name for the nameless 'I', or That which alone exists. And if one holds the following statement by Michael to be true, "In the clear view of the jñāni what exists is only ‘I’ and not any of these three states or anything else, but in the view of us ajñānis these three states and all their contents do seem to exist," then how explain the seeming absurdity of an ajñāni, which doesn't actually exist, talking about what seems to exist to it? It all seems to get unnecessarily muddled, once the focus is on other than the 'I', i.e. That which alone exists -- in truth, no-thing at all. Dana Lomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17503044812933216679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-5842149817528874002014-11-13T16:38:09.118+00:002014-11-13T16:38:09.118+00:00The discussion between Michael James and Joel Biro...The discussion between Michael James and Joel Biroco certainly is beneficial to understand the essential matter - 'I am one'. <br /><br />I thought that it might be pertinent to refer to Bhagavan's Ulladhu Narpadhu verse 33 here, the English translation for which was given By Michel James himself:<br /><br />Besides that, saying (either), “I do not know myself”, (or), “I have known myself”, is a wide ground for ridicule. Why? To make oneself an object known, are there two selves (one of which can be known by the other)? Because, being<br />one is the truth of everyone’s experience (that is, whether<br />they be a Jnani or an ajnani, everyone experiences the truth<br />‘I am one’).<br /><br />I remember Sri Nochur Venkataraman saying that Bhagavan often used to say: There is no Jnani or Ajnani. There is only jnanam.R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-85880798247709285712014-11-13T16:35:53.618+00:002014-11-13T16:35:53.618+00:00Michael -- What I said was hardly a 'tirade...Michael -- What I said was hardly a 'tirade', simply reiterating that what I said in the first place was not in any way at odds with what Ramana Maharshi said. The rudeness with which you have welcomed it is quite simply uncalled for. If speaking from self-realisation is only seen as 'showing off' here, and your blog is intended to be a compendium of one unrealised person's views for the benefit of other unrealised persons, then of course I will respect your wishes and say no more.Joelhttp://www.biroco.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-57897525068878063122014-11-13T10:37:52.361+00:002014-11-13T10:37:52.361+00:00Joel, in answer to your latest tirade, this blog i...Joel, in answer to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/11/our-memory-of-i-in-sleep.html?showComment=1415812083393#c3074794597790886617" rel="nofollow">your latest tirade</a>, this blog is intended to be for those of us who genuinely want to reflect upon the teachings of Sri Ramana in order to understand them more clearly and to put them into practice by trying to experience ourself as we really are. It is not meant to be an arena in which our respective egos can clash with each other by trying to show that we are smarter or more ‘self-realised’ than others, nor is it meant for anyone who claims as you do, ‘I have realised who I am’, because if you had truly experienced who you are, you would have no need either to show off your wisdom to us or to try as we do to understand and practise what Sri Ramana has taught us.<br /><br />In the sense in which you use the term ‘realised’ (that is, to mean that one has experienced what is real as it actually is), I do not claim to have ‘realised’ anything. I am speaking simply from the perspective of one who still experiences himself as a person (an ego), but who has understood — just by studying the teachings Sri Ramana, reflecting upon them and trying to investigate what I actually am — that I am not what I now seem to be, and that I therefore need to persevere in trying to experience myself as I actually am.<br /><br />The reason why I accept what Sri Ramana said is not merely because I blindly believe that ‘he had realised who he was’ (which you say is the only reason I accept it), but is primarily because he has given us very good reasons for accepting it, based on a simple and clear analysis of our experience of ourself in our three alternating states of waking, dream and sleep. On the other hand, I questioned your reasons for asserting what you asserted only because you gave us no good reasons for believing it. That is, without giving us adequate reasons you tried to argue that since these three states are unreal (which is a premise that I never denied) it is wrong for us to say that we experienced ourself in sleep — or to put it in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/11/our-memory-of-i-in-sleep.html?showComment=1415127970643#c7940185052573499734" rel="nofollow">your own words</a>, ‘the attempt to say that the Self is present during deep sleep is just an idea of the mind in the waking state’.<br /><br />When we mistake a rope to be a snake, the illusory snake is certainly unreal, but that does not mean that the real rope is not present in that illusion of a snake. Likewise, though the three states are unreal, that does not mean that we (our real self) are not present and aware of ourself in each of these illusory states, because we could not experience any illusion unless we were present to experience it. Of course these three states seem to exist only in the view of our ego and not in the view of our real self, but our ego could not seem to exist unless its appearance were supported by the presence and awareness of our real self, just as the illusory snake could not seem to exist unless its appearance were supported by the presence and our perception of the rope.<br /><br />I agree that whatever we may say about our experience in any of these three states is ‘just an idea of the mind’, as you say, but so long as we experience ourself as this mind whatever we experience is just an idea. However, though ideas are what nourishes and sustains our mind, certain ideas (such as the ideas that constitute the teachings of Sri Ramana) indicate to us the means by which we can go beyond all ideas by experiencing ourself as we really are. Therefore, until we are able to free ourself from our primal idea called ‘I’ (the ego or mind), we should not underrate the value of the ideas taught by Sri Ramana.<br /><br />As he used to say, we sometimes need to use one thorn to remove another thorn that has stuck in our foot, meaning that his teachings and the practice of self-investigation are the thorn that we need to use to remove the first thorn that has stuck in us, namely our ego.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-46681464729186282582014-11-13T03:03:41.174+00:002014-11-13T03:03:41.174+00:00I read this blog because I find Michael’s exegesis...I read this blog because I find Michael’s exegesis of Sri Ramana’s teachings helpful in my own efforts to make some little progress along this path.<br /> <br />It is true he is a <b> “self confessed ajnani” </b> and that is a big plus as far as I am concerned. So if his exegesis is infected with a little (very little!) unavoidable eisegesis it becomes more credible, in my opinion. <br /><br />On the other hand the pronouncements of a <b>“self confessed jnani”</b> cannot be taken lightly. But I must confess right away that such self confessions leave me a bit confused because then I wouldn’t know whom to believe if there is a difference of opinion.<br /><br />I have chosen to put my faith in Sri Ramana’s teachings because many great intellects and spiritually advanced individuals (I can’t tell you what spiritually advanced means but I have a strong feeling about such people) gave him their seal of approval.<br /><br />If that is an argument from authority, so be it.<br /><br />To lighten the mood a little here is the peerless Bertrand Russell:<br /><br />"I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me." (Russell, p. 180).<br /><br />Russell, Bertrand., Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits,London: George Allen & Unwin, 1948.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-30747945977908866172014-11-12T17:08:03.393+00:002014-11-12T17:08:03.393+00:00Michael -- If you have realised through your effor...Michael -- If you have realised through your efforts of self-investigation that the 'ego is not real', as you say and thereby imply is a realisation and so are satisfied to repeat as if it were a self-evident fact, then why have you not similarly realised that the three states are unreal? Do you not see some incongruity there? Do you just cherry-pick aspects of Ramana Maharshi's teaching that you have some slight resonance with and ignore the rest until you can say you also have some resonance with that? <br /><br />Do you think only Ramana Maharshi ever realised this, such that it is obviously nonsense for someone else to say so and that they are only repeating what they have read? Why find fault so vociferously with what I said and yet accept it perfectly willingly because Ramana Maharshi said it? Do you not see that the only reason for that is that you accept that he had realised who he was, but you do not accept that I have realised who I am, and yet who are you to make such judgments, a self-confessed ajnani? Please, at least consider the ridiculousness of your stance, regardless of whatever you may believe about me.Joelhttp://www.biroco.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-75550941951581729412014-11-12T15:44:13.152+00:002014-11-12T15:44:13.152+00:00Thanks Michael for giving a sound
comment to Joel....Thanks Michael for giving a sound<br />comment to Joel.Manakkulanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-59245282754551798352014-11-12T14:53:23.428+00:002014-11-12T14:53:23.428+00:00Joel, yes, as you point out in your latest comment...Joel, yes, as you point out in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/11/our-memory-of-i-in-sleep.html?showComment=1415759180227#c1912777878517931174" rel="nofollow">your latest comment</a>, Sri Ramana did often say that ‘all the three states are equally unreal’, but he also said that in order to understand why we cannot be the body and mind that we now seem to be we need to analyse our experience of ourself in each of these unreal (but to us nevertheless seemingly real) states. This is why we should not take any particular teaching he gave in isolation from the entire coherent framework of his teachings, and why if we do so we are likely to come to some wrong conclusions.<br /><br />In the clear view of the <i>jñāni</i> what exists is only ‘I’ and not any of these three states or anything else, but in the view of us <i>ajñānis</i> these three states and all their contents do seem to exist. The fundamental difference between the <i>jñāni</i> and an <i>ajñāni</i> is that the <i>jñāni</i> is nothing other than our infinite real self, which always experiences itself as it actually is, whereas an <i>ajñāni</i> experiences himself or herself as a finite body and mind. What experiences itself as this body and mind is our ego, so it is only in the view of this ego that these three states and everything else seem to exist.<br /><br />This ego is not real, but is just a confused mixture of what we actually are (our real self) and other things that we merely seem to be, such as our body. The two states in which this unreal ego seems to exist are called waking and dream, and because it seems to exist only in these two states everything else that it experiences also seems to exist only in these two states.<br /><br />Because this ego and everything else do not always seem to exist, the state in which they do not seem to exist seems to us (the ego) to be a third state, which we call sleep. Therefore it is only in the view of the ego (which did not exist in sleep) that waking, dream and sleep seem to be three distinct states rather than the one real state in which ‘I’ alone exists.<br /><br />Though these three states seem to come and go alternately, and though in each of them we experience ourself as something different, the one thing that we experience in all of them is ourself — our own existence, ‘I am’. Therefore, though these three states are unreal, our experience of them does demonstrate that the only thing that is real is ourself, because we alone endure unchanged amidst all the changes that seem to take place in these three states.<br /><br />Therefore, since we alone are real, we should try to experience ourself as we really are, which we can do only by experiencing ourself alone, in complete isolation from the seeming existence of anything else.<br /><br />Until we experience ourself thus, all our putative knowledge is merely conceptual and hence unreal. Therefore the only purpose of analysing our experience of ourself in the three seeming states of waking, dream and sleep is to convince ourself that we alone are real, but are not what we now seem to be, and that we should therefore try to experience ourself as we really are.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-4261959823694288662014-11-12T12:06:42.524+00:002014-11-12T12:06:42.524+00:00Joel,
what practical advantage can the ajnani gain...Joel,<br />what practical advantage can the ajnani gain by quoting<br />the viewpoint of the jnani ?<br />The teachings of Sri Ramana are surely "quite interesting".<br />Are we not all one with that Reality of Pure Consciousness ?<br />But it's a bit worrying that we the seemingly ajnanis are unable to comprehend this. <br />But there's nothing to panic about.<br />Chin up ! I assure you everything will be all right.<br />So pull yourself together. The situation is not as grim as you imagine :<br />We need only to investigate ourself - the everpresent 'I' and to experience this 'I' clearly and alone, in complete isolation from everything else. But do not feel bad about our present failure to experience ourself as we really are.<br />Sorry, please excuse me for writing sarcastically, sometimes I have to blow off steam.Manakullanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-19127778785179311742014-11-12T02:26:20.227+00:002014-11-12T02:26:20.227+00:00You quote page 93/94 of Maharshi's Gospel, but...You quote page 93/94 of Maharshi's Gospel, but page 92 is quite interesting too: "For the jnani all the three states are equally unreal. But the ajnani is unable to comprehend this, because for him the standard of reality is the waking state, whereas for the jnani the standard of Reality is Reality itself. This Reality of Pure Consciousness is eternal by its nature and therefore subsists equally during what you call waking, dreaming and sleep. To him who is one with that Reality, there is neither the mind nor its three states…"<br /><br /><br /><br />Joelhttp://www.biroco.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-11043801859552217712014-11-11T15:47:01.668+00:002014-11-11T15:47:01.668+00:00Yes, Josef. Thanks.Yes, Josef. Thanks.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-28619487941650550162014-11-11T15:20:25.599+00:002014-11-11T15:20:25.599+00:00okay Michael,
from today
typo (article).....point ...okay Michael,<br />from today<br />typo (article).....point out by email<br />typo (comment).....point out in commentJosef Brucknernoreply@blogger.com