tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post8142187623470304304..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Is consciousness a product of the mind?Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-4371018779019317332014-08-01T12:19:49.065+01:002014-08-01T12:19:49.065+01:00Venkat, I have answered your three comments above ...Venkat, I have answered your three comments above (<a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/06/is-consciousness-product-of-mind.html?showComment=1403216167073#c1595920873063525703" rel="nofollow">19 June 2014 23:16</a>, <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/06/is-consciousness-product-of-mind.html?showComment=1403284922333#c4836573842010531227" rel="nofollow">20 June 2014 18:22</a> and <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/06/is-consciousness-product-of-mind.html?showComment=1403337183315#c4622420923190419051" rel="nofollow">21 June 2014 08:53</a>) today in a separate article: <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/self-awareness-is-very-nature-of-i.html" rel="nofollow">Self-awareness is the very nature of ‘I’</a>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-26846933714539889892014-07-14T13:56:59.433+01:002014-07-14T13:56:59.433+01:00Sanjay, in response to your suggestion, last week ...Sanjay, in response to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/06/is-consciousness-product-of-mind.html?showComment=1403804447800#c4867258805873682301" rel="nofollow">your suggestion</a>, last week I compiled many of my recent comments into an article, <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/self-awareness-i-thought-i-feeling-and.html" rel="nofollow">Self-awareness: ‘I’-thought, ‘I’-feeling and <i>ahaṁ-sphuraṇa</i></a>, but I do not know if I will have time to collect all my comments together in such a manner. I always seem to have much more work that I would like to do than that I have time to do, so perhaps I will have to leave it to someone else to collect and compile all my old comments.<br /><br />in addition to those comments, there are also many emails that I have written to people that may be useful to compile as articles, but unfortunately I do not have time to do so, and I would prefer to spend my time on translation work, a lot of which needs to be done whenever I can find time enough.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-48672588058736823012014-06-26T18:40:47.800+01:002014-06-26T18:40:47.800+01:00Revered Sir,
Since about a month or so you have s...Revered Sir,<br /><br />Since about a month or so you have started writing fairly lengthy and useful replies to the comments and questions posted in your blog. Some of the series of comments become almost like an article. But these may get lost after a while or it may be difficult to keep track of all your comments and replies in your various articles.<br /><br />Therefore I was thinking that perhaps you can also consider putting all these replies in a separate file titled Comments by Michael. Its link can be in your main page of your website – that is, you may insert this heading Comments by Michael after Articles and before Videos in the Home Page of your website. We will just have to click this to access all your replies as and when you write them.<br /><br />This was just a thought. I am also trying to post it in the comments section of your blog, so that others may also give their opinion on my suggestion. Of course the final decision is yours.<br /><br />Thanking you and pranams,<br /><br />Sanjay LohiaSanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-61276378915135436412014-06-24T17:13:40.045+01:002014-06-24T17:13:40.045+01:00I feel that this dialogue (taken from Robert Adams...I feel that this dialogue (taken from Robert Adams Satsangs) is pertinent to the above discussion on consciousness. (R: Robert Adams). The answers of Robert Adams, I feel, are not inconsistent with Bhagavan's teachings. However, I will wait for comments of Michael James on this dialogue. <br /><br />SX: Robert can someone attain liberation by simply being aware? (R: By simply being aware?) I mean like right now there is consciousness awareness. Maybe it's just the ego who feels<br />this awareness.<br /><br />R: Of course. You can become that right now if you can wake up! I tell you this so often, wake up and be free! You can awaken any time. Why not do it? Stop playing games and wake up. Be your Self. (SX: Is this pure awareness that one feels, is this just another manifestation of the mind and body or is this...) When you experience pure awareness you have<br />transcended the mind and body. As long as there is a mind and body you can't feel pure awareness. (SX: But we all can feel this awareness, consciousness...) Your true nature is awareness, you are that. This is your true nature. And you do get a glimpse of it sometimes. (SX: Or should one say, "Who is aware or…?") You should always inquire, "To whom do these feelings come?" As long as you have a feeling, inquire, "To whom does it come?" When<br />you have arrived there is no longer any feelings and there is noone to ask the question. As<br />long as you can still ask the question, you've not experienced the ultimate reality. For<br />when you have experienced the ultimate reality who is left to ask the question?<br /><br />SX: But a lot of times when inquiring there seems to be...the mind will always be like answering<br />like this, "This is mind and body," or "this is the ego." And you know what I'm saying?<br />Does one then just question, "Who is aware of the mind? Who is aware of the ego?"<br /><br />R: You question, "To whom do these things come? Who feels this? I do. Who am I? What is the source of the I?" Everything that comes into your mind, everything, you question it. Makes no difference what it is. When you reach the state there will be no mind no questioner. They will both be gone. But as long as you feel that there is something there<br />you've got to question it. "Where did it come from? To whom did it come?" (SX: Even if it's just awareness?) Yes.<br /><br />SP: How do you reach that stage, no mind, no body?<br /><br />R: You reach that stage by following the I-thought into the heart centre which is<br />consciousness. When the I-thought disappears you return to your original state which is<br />consciousness. No mind, no body.R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-46224209231904190512014-06-21T08:53:03.315+01:002014-06-21T08:53:03.315+01:00Dear Michael,
Sorry, to elaborate again.
Bhagava...Dear Michael,<br /><br />Sorry, to elaborate again.<br /><br />Bhagavan said:<br />"Be quiet and still and all thoughts will disappear. Self-enquiry and self-surrender are only techniques which bring one to the state of inner stillness and quietness. The ultimate instruction is therefore: 'Be still and quiet; stabilise in this state and the Self will be revealed'."<br /><br />My understanding is that the I-thought, is the fundamental illusion . . . that this body-mind is distinct, separate and 'mine' relative to all else. So to realise ajata vada and non-duality, thought itself needs to see that it is limited and therefore come to an end. Bhagavan's technique for this is to focus on the origin of all other thoughts - the 'I'-thought, whenever it arises, and thereby see that it is no different from all other thoughts and perceptions, and like all those, it appears on a screen of consciousness. <br /><br />Is this correct?<br /><br />Many thanks,<br /><br />Venkatvenkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-48365738420105312272014-06-20T18:22:02.333+01:002014-06-20T18:22:02.333+01:00James
Just to elaborate on my query, the Brihadar...James<br /><br />Just to elaborate on my query, the Brihadaranayaka Upanishad states rather beautifully:<br /><br />"Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known? This Self is That which has been described as neti, neti. It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unfettered - It never feels pain and never suffers injury. Through what should one know the Knower?"<br /><br />This would seem to point to a conclusion that anything perceived, including the feeling / thought of I is not it - because it is perceived. Therefore one has to regress to see that all perceptions occurs on a screen of consciousness, and there is no differentiation in those perceptions of I, you, etc.<br /><br />Is that current?<br /><br />Many thanks,<br />Venkatvenkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-73230341804830753492014-06-19T23:52:07.815+01:002014-06-19T23:52:07.815+01:00Hello, Mr. James.
I have been one of the thousand...Hello, Mr. James.<br /><br />I have been one of the thousands who struggled years ago with the different meanings that different teachers give to "Consciousness" and "Awareness".<br /><br />In order to clarify this point for the person who made this question to you (if my bad english is not a problem), I have to say that Nisargadatta gave the words "Awareness", "Absolute", or "Parabrahman" the same meaning that Ramana gave to the word "Consciousness". Furthermore, when Nisargadatta used "Consciousness" he referred to "consciousness plus an object", something similar to Ramana´s "mind".<br /><br /> So, following Nisargadatta´s definition of "Consciousness", it is not present in deep sleep, while his "Awareness" is.<br /><br /> I hope that helps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-15959208730635257032014-06-19T23:16:07.073+01:002014-06-19T23:16:07.073+01:00Dear Michael
Thanks very much for your response. ...Dear Michael<br /><br />Thanks very much for your response. I agree that it is not possible to know whether the external world (and the body-mind) exist independently of the perception of it. Equally, I don't think that it is possible to prove that the world is just an illusion, a perception in consciousness.<br /><br />So i agree that one has to examine / question what the 'I' is. You imply that the result of this is the certainty that only consciousness is real and all else (including 'my' body mind) is an illusion.<br /><br />You commented in this blog, that Bhagavan's 'I am' can be equated to the awareness that is aware of the awareness of a perception, and that we should turn our attention to this awareness. But is it possible to be 'aware of the awareness that is aware'? since under Vedanta's neti neti, one cannot be aware of this awareness, one can only BE this awareness, as I think Bhagavan says.<br /><br />So two questions. Firstly, is the point of this attention on awareness to recognise that the feeling of 'I' is just another perception that arises, equivalent to all other perceptions and is neti neti? And second what does BEING awareness mean? <br /><br />Best wishes,<br />venkatVenkatnoreply@blogger.com