tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post838446370605234176..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Like Bhagavan, Sankara taught that objects are perceived only through ignorance and hence by the mind and not by ourself as we actually areMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-69171269632825064222017-04-24T19:42:53.412+01:002017-04-24T19:42:53.412+01:00Roger Isaacs,
regarding "all enlightened peop...Roger Isaacs,<br />regarding "all enlightened people",<br />do you mean all the boastful braggarts who shout vociferously 'hey you people look at me, am I not pretty enlightened' ?<br />Nobody but me is enlightened because there is nothing but me.<br />suttarivunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-31244980306862595392017-04-24T16:51:59.587+01:002017-04-24T16:51:59.587+01:00>> "What supports our knowledge and mem...<i>>> "What supports our knowledge and memory of objects is ourself as this ego or mind" </i><br /><br />Knowledge and memory of objects continues in the enlightened state, memory of objects is not a barrier to enlightenment. Obviously, Bhagavan had a functional memory. The issue that is a barrier to enlightenment is the identification to memories or attachments to memories, NOT memories themselves. If memories were an obstacle to enlightenment... then all enlightened people would behave as if they had alzheimer's disease... and alzheimer's sufferers would automatically be enlightened.Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12886674544129003153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-47082420771242228682017-04-24T13:39:46.258+01:002017-04-24T13:39:46.258+01:00Michael,
section 10.,
"What supports our know...Michael,<br />section 10.,<br />"What supports our knowledge and memory of objects is ourself as this ego or mind, and what supports our seeming existence as this ego or mind is ourself as we actually are."<br />My mind cannot grasp that and why my real nature - as I actually am - should support my seeming existence as this ego.<br />Why should the clear light of pure intransitive self-awareness which is said to be what alone actually exists support any illusory existence ?para-bhakti tattvanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-1967135253304306972017-04-24T13:21:34.375+01:002017-04-24T13:21:34.375+01:00Michael,
section 10.,
"Therefore we cannot de...Michael,<br />section 10.,<br />"Therefore we cannot deny the existence of any self whatsoever without thereby denying the existence of anything whatsoever, because nothing could exist without itself, since nothing is anything other than itself."<br />What you express with the above remark I consider to be very true, very true, very true...<br />para-bhakti tattvanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-51922017723590450772017-01-27T23:26:17.489+00:002017-01-27T23:26:17.489+00:00In the following quote Bhagavan eloquently & b...In the following quote Bhagavan eloquently & brilliantly corrects 1000+ years of drift in Sankara's teaching.<br /><br /><i>Talk 315.<br />One of the attendants asked: Sri Bhagavan has said: ‘Reality and myth are both the same’. How is it so?<br /><br />M.: The tantriks and others of the kind condemn Sri Sankara’s philosophy as maya vada without understanding him aright. What does he say? He says: <b><br />(1) Brahman is real; <br />(2) the universe is a myth; <br />(3) Brahman is the universe. </b><br /><br />He does not stop at the second statement but continues to supplement it with the third. What does it signify? The Universe is conceived to be apart from Brahman and that perception is wrong. The antagonists point to his illustration of rajju sarpa (rope snake). This is unconditioned superimposition. After the truth of the rope is known, the illusion of snake is removed once for all.<br /><br />But they should take the conditioned superimposition also into consideration, e.g., marumarichika or mrigatrishna (water of mirage).<br /><br />The mirage does not disappear even after knowing it to be a mirage. The vision is there but the man does not run to it for water. Sri Sankara must be understood in the light of both the illustrations. <b>The world is a myth. Even after knowing it, it continues to appear. It must be known to be Brahman and not apart. </b><br /></i>Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12886674544129003153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-21612319921705154282017-01-27T17:32:00.392+00:002017-01-27T17:32:00.392+00:00Roger
If you want to go further in these discussi...<b>Roger</b><br /><br />If you want to go further in these discussions, it is essential to read "The Path of Sri Ramana Part One" by Sadhu Om, which is available as a <b>free download</b> in PDF form, from:<br /><br />http://www.happinessofbeing.com/books.html#sadhu_om_english<br /><br />If you do not have time to read the whole thing (it is not long), at least read Chapters Seven and Eight.<br /><br />Even Nisargadatta web sites that find Nisargadatta's teachings better than Ramana's, recommend Chapters Seven and Eight of The Path of Sri Ramana Part One, as <b>essential reading</b>.<br /><br />If you look at Amazon customer reviews of Ramana books, you will find a variety of people recommending The Path of Sri Ramana Part One instead of those books, because it is the clearest and most thorough explanation. (In fact that is where I found out about it.)<br /><br />Participating in these discussions on this blog, takes far more time than it takes to read it.<br /><br />You will love it - or your money back. :)Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-1837452759714622682017-01-27T15:41:29.975+00:002017-01-27T15:41:29.975+00:00Sandhya,
the tyranny of wrong ideas is the reason ...Sandhya,<br />the tyranny of wrong ideas is the reason why we should get rid from all that (wrong ideas).<br />fallen in the trapnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-86186500285564573132017-01-27T14:40:02.030+00:002017-01-27T14:40:02.030+00:00D Samarender Reddy,
thanks for quoting Ramana Maha...D Samarender Reddy,<br />thanks for quoting Ramana Maharshi's statements "on the Self".<br />However, the first clause of the last sentence:"To know that everything we see is the Self, it is enough that the" I am the body" thought ceases to exist."<br />extremely deviates from our day-to-day experience in waking and dreaming state.<br />For example: I am looking just now out of my window and what I am seeing is only the neighbouring house and above that some clouds. How can it be said that "everything we see is the Self" and relating to the named example of seeing a house and clouds ?<br />I will first of all assume that the statement of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi is absolute correct. I do not mistrust him. On the contrary he looks trustworthy and inspires confidence by his appearance.<br />Of course, my perception of the neighbouring house is based only on the optical sense perception made by my eyes and the centre of vision in my brain in this waking state. But that very sense-impression imparts the picture of that neighbouring house as an object separated from me as separated from any other "seer". In this very moment I do not feel any closeness/sympathy/attachment to that house and clouds. So it is clear that the "I am this body-thought" reigns over me - at least seemingly. In order to maintain my every trust in Bhagavan (and Michael James) I have therefore to mistrust my own mental sense-perception and should try to cast off the seeming yoke of bondage. Because it is stated that to gain the correct knowledge "it is enough that the false "I am the body-thought ceases to exist" I have primarily to try to eradicate that erroneous and fatal attitude.<br />May I get released from my suffering from my wrong view by the recommended remedy (perseverance in practising self-investigation), oh Arunachala.<br /><br /> "I always am"noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-1913838684716128982017-01-27T13:31:20.755+00:002017-01-27T13:31:20.755+00:00The idea that Mind is projected from reality is al...The idea that Mind is projected from reality is also illusory? And concepts of unreal and real also doesn't exist. And that is the reason we are taught to be as we are? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04435289281370413861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-4278825004135022082017-01-27T10:21:38.650+00:002017-01-27T10:21:38.650+00:00Ramana Maharshi on the Self
from http://www.inner...<b>Ramana Maharshi on the Self</b><br /><br />from http://www.inner-quest.org/Ramana_Abide.htm<br /><br />Question: I have read much of the Vedas and the scriptures, but no Self-knowledge has come to me. Why is this?<br /><br />Ramana: Self-knowledge will come to you only if it is there in the scriptures. If you see the scriptures, knowledge of the scriptures will come. If you see the Self, Self-knowledge will shine.<br /><br />Question: How to see the Self?<br /><br />Ramana: Everyone says "I am." How do we know that this is true? Do we know this by looking in the mirror or do we know it only after looking in the scriptures? Tell me.<br /><br />If the Self is something to be seen, there should be two selves, the self which looks and the Self which is seen. Would you agree that you have two "I"s?<br /><br />Question: No.<br /><br />Ramana: The Reality that exists is only One. Then how can there be another self which is to be seen? All are seeing the Self everywhere but they don't understand. What a pity! What to do? If the thought "I am this body" is given up, what is seen is only the Self.<br /><br />Question: You have stated that knowledge of the Self is very easy. How is this very easy?<br /><br />Ramana: As an example of direct perception everyone will quote the simile of the nellikai [similar to a gooseberry] placed in the palm of the hand. The Self is even more directly perceivable than the fruit on the palm. To perceive the fruit there must be the fruit, the palm to place it on and the eyes to see it. The mind should also be in the proper condition to process the information. Without any of these four things, even those with very little knowledge can say out of direct experience, "I am."Because the Self exists just as the feeling "I am," Self-knowledge is very easy indeed. The easiest path is to see the one who is going to attain the Self.<br /><br />Question: Why cannot the Self be perceived directly?<br /><br />Ramana: Only the Self is said to be directly perceived [pratyaksha]. Nothing else is said to be pratyaksha. Although we are having this pratyaksha, the thought "I am this body" is veiling it. If we give up this thought, the Self, which is always within the direct experience of everyone, will shine forth.<br /><br />Question: Sri Bhagavan has stated this so simply. But the thought "I am the body" does not leave us.<br /><br />Ramana: It is not leaving you because it is very strong.<br /><br />Question: Why and how did that thought come into being?<br /><br />Ramana: It came into being only through a lack of enquiry on your part. A verse in Kaivalya Navanitam gives the same explanation: "Because its nature is not determinable, the illusion [maya] is said to be inexpressible. They are in its grip who think: "This is mine", "I am the body", "The world is real." O son, no one can ascertain how this mysterious illusion came into being. As to why it arose, it is because of the person's lack of discerning enquiry."<br /><br />If we see the Self, the objects which are seen will not appear as separate from us. Having seen all the letters on a paper, we fail to see that paper which is the base. Likewise, suffering only arises because we see what is superimposed on the base without seeing the base itself. What is superimposed should not be seen without also seeing the substratum.<br /><br />How were we in sleep? When we were asleep the various thoughts such as "this body", "this world" were not there. It should be difficult to identify with these waking and dreaming states that appear and disappear, but everyone does it.<br /><br />Everyone has the experience, "I always am." In order to say "I slept well", "I awoke", "I dreamt", "When unconscious I knew nothing", it is necessary that one exists, and knows that one exists, in all these three states. If one seeks the Self, saying, "I don't see myself", where can one find it? To know that everything we see is the Self, it is enough that the" I am the body" thought ceases to exist.D. Samarender Reddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18029954852517079748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-35919256332646118662017-01-27T06:59:46.696+00:002017-01-27T06:59:46.696+00:00Ken, I suggest you carefully read Bhagavan’s texts...Ken, I suggest you carefully read Bhagavan’s texts written by him in his own words, namely <i>Nan Yar?, Ulladu Narpadu and Upadesa Undiyar</i>. A clear answer to all our relevant spiritual questions can surely be found in these three gems by Bhagavan. These three texts contain Bhagavan's undiluted teachings in a clear, systematic and coherent form. Books such as <i>Talks, Day by Day</i> and other such books are not very reliable because:<br /><br />• they were recorded after a few hours of Bhagavan having had these conversations, and therefore they are as good as the recorder’s memory<br /><br />• recorders of these books (specially the recorder of <i>Talks</i>) have added a lot of their ideas and beliefs in their recordings<br /><br />• often Bhagavan had to give his teachings in a diluted form (in his conversations) in order to suit the understanding capacity of the listener<br /><br />This is not to say that these books do not contain Bhagavan’s teachings, but they are not in very clear terms, and even have sometimes been twisted by the recorders. Therefore, first we have to carefully read his three gems, and also <i>Guru Vachaka Kovai</i> (a detailed recordings of his teachings) by Muruganar. These are accurate (because these were checked by Bhagavan), though not in such brief form as his three gems. <br /><br />Afterwards we can definitely read <i>Talks, Day by Day</i> and other such books, and try to separate the grains from its husk. Michael has been relentlessly reiterating this in his writings and videos, and with a very good and clear reason. <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32758526596084455562017-01-27T03:32:21.204+00:002017-01-27T03:32:21.204+00:00Another compelling and applicable quote from Talks...Another compelling and applicable quote from Talks #33:<br /><i><br />A visitor: “The Supreme Spirit (Brahman) is Real. The world (jagat) is illusion,” is the stock phrase of Sri Sankaracharya. Yet others say, “The world is reality”. Which is true?<br /><br />M.: Both statements are true. They refer to different stages of development and are spoken from different points of view. The aspirant (abhyasi) starts with the definition, that which is real exists always; then he eliminates the world as unreal because it is changing. It cannot be real; ‘not this, not this!’ <b>The seeker ultimately reaches the Self and there finds unity as the prevailing note. Then, that which was originally rejected as being unreal is found to be a part of the unity. Being absorbed in the Reality, the world also is Real. There is only being in Self-Realisation, and nothing but being. </b> Again Reality is used in a different sense and is applied loosely by some thinkers to objects. They say that the reflected (adhyasika) Reality admits of degrees which are named....<br /></i>Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12886674544129003153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-71806632119047783282017-01-27T02:37:43.830+00:002017-01-27T02:37:43.830+00:00Thanks all for the interesting conversation. A cou...Thanks all for the interesting conversation. A couple of thoughts:<br /><br />Michael prefers elimination of the world and body as the way. Such as above:<br /><i>12: In order to be aware of ourself as we actually are, we must be willing to cease forever being aware of anything else whatsoever.</i><br /><br />I believe it is subtler than that. Bhagavan is quoted as saying both Nirvikalpa Samadhi (elimination of body and world in awareness) AND savikalpa samadhi ("pure intransitive awareness" but during waking state) BOTH lead to Sahaj.<br /><br />If we think of Bhagavan, he was in one of two states: withdrawn inwardly and out of the world, OR interactive in the world but certainly still in the transcendental state.<br /><br />Therefore, the practice of <i>"being aware of ourself as we actually are"</i> is not just confined to deep meditation without awareness of body & world... but ALSO during waking state. Michael says <i>"cease forever being aware of anything else what-so-ever"</i> but this can also be cultured during waking state by total focus on our inner essence while in the midst of objects.<br /><br />Quoting from Talks 19th May 1936:<i><br />D.: What does Maharshi say about hatha yoga or Tantric practices?<br /><br />M.: Maharshi does not criticise any of the existing methods. All are good for the purification of the mind. Because the purified mind alone is capable of grasping his method and sticking to its practice.<br /><br />D.: Which is the best of the different yogas, Karma, Jnana, Bhakti or Hatha?<br /><br />M.: See stanza 10 of “Upadesa Sara”. To remain in the Self amounts to all these in their highest sense.<br /><br />Maharshi added: <b>In dreamless sleep there is no world, no ego and no unhappiness. But the Self remains. In the waking state there are all these; yet there is the Self. One has only to remove the transitory happenings in order to realise the ever-present beatitude of the Self. Your nature is Bliss. Find that on which all the rest are superimposed and you then remain as the pure Self. </b><br /><br />D.: Yes. It amounts to the removal of alien limitations for discovering the ever-present Self. That is what Sankara says. There is no attainment or loss.<br /><br />M.: Quite so. (Aside) He understands. </i>Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12886674544129003153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-38114606018284016822017-01-26T23:26:26.624+00:002017-01-26T23:26:26.624+00:00Ken,
thank you for pointing out the meaning of sup...Ken,<br />thank you for pointing out the meaning of superimposition on Brahman, the substratum.dawn of knowledgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-89777716919520452472017-01-26T23:22:01.987+00:002017-01-26T23:22:01.987+00:00Sanjay Lohia,
thank you for giving your appropriat...Sanjay Lohia,<br />thank you for giving your appropriate comment.<br />Indeed we should experience only the sight of the 'real and endless eye'.dawn of knowledgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-87722997690022721542017-01-26T19:14:39.355+00:002017-01-26T19:14:39.355+00:00dawn of knowledge
To answer your question, here i...<b>dawn of knowledge</b><br /><br />To answer your question, here is part of an Outline of Advaita Vedanta that can be found on the Web:<br /><br />"Mithya can be either vyavaharika satyam or pratibhasika satyam (Mithya common to all is vyavaharika. Mithya perceived by a particular person and not by others is pratibhasika.) Mithya is defined as that which is cognised but which has no independent existence and is subject to change. The perceived world, which is mithya, is a superimposition on Brahman, the substratum (adhistaanam) viewed in its aspect of Existence. Mithya cannot appear without an adhishtaanam. Erroneously perceived snake cannot appear if there is no rope. The dream cannot appear unless there is a waker. (‘Waker’ is a technical term used for a person who is dreaming and takes the dream world to be real but realizes that it is unreal when he wakes up from sleep.) If there were no substratum of Existence, we would not experience a world. If there is no superimposition of the perceptible part of the world on the sub-stratum, then also we would not experience a world. Another definition of mithya is that which can neither be said to be existent nor said to be non-existent. (The technical word in Sanskrit is 'anivacaniiya'). "Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-51795072152123335412017-01-26T17:27:46.359+00:002017-01-26T17:27:46.359+00:00Sanjay
Then how do you reconcile my last post? I...<b>Sanjay</b><br /><br />Then how do you reconcile my last post? It is at:<br /><br />http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/01/like-bhagavan-sankara-taught-that.html?showComment=1485109265822#c3320863672042274374 <br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-39205310993125715872017-01-26T16:48:03.876+00:002017-01-26T16:48:03.876+00:00dawn of knowledge, yes, we cannot understand the s...dawn of knowledge, yes, we cannot understand the state of the <i>jnani</i>. Since we experience ourself as this finite form, we can only experience things which are finite, and therefore separate from us. Whereas the <i>jnani</i> experiences himself only as infinite self-awareness (‘endless eye’), and therefore he cannot experience anything finite - even if he wants to. Michael explains verse 4 of <i>Ulladu Narpadu</i> in his article: <i>Ulladu Narpadu – an explanatory paraphrase</i> as follows:<br /><br />In verse 4, by asking a rhetorical question, ‘கண் அலால் காட்சி உண்டோ?’ (<i>kan alal katchi undo?</i>), which means ‘is the sight otherwise than the eye?’, he teaches us a subtle but very important truth, namely that the ‘sight’ (whatever is seen or experienced) cannot be otherwise than the ‘eye’ (the consciousness that sees or experiences it). Hence he says that if we are a form (a body), the world and God will be likewise, but if we are not any form, who could see their forms, or how could we see them? He then ends this verse by saying that the real eye is only our essential self, which is the ‘endless eye’ (the infinite consciousness of being, ‘I am’).<br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-5450504152252144922017-01-26T16:28:45.895+00:002017-01-26T16:28:45.895+00:00manana …
According to me, the most important mess...<i>manana</i> …<br /><br />According to me, the most important message of this article is in its last but one paragraph: <br /><br />Since the ego rises, stands and flourishes only by grasping form (namely <i>viṣayas</i>: objects, phenomena or things other than itself), as Bhagavan explains in verse 25 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, it is naturally inclined to continue doing so, because it cannot survive unless it does. However, by persistent practice of self-attentiveness it can gradually cultivate the love to be aware of itself alone, and thereby weaken its inclination to cling to other things, until eventually its love to be aware of itself alone will consume all its other desires and attachments.<br /><br />We are constantly grasping objects, phenomena or things other than ourself, and it is only our interest in <i>vishayas</i> (<i>vish</i> incidentally means ‘poison’ or ‘venom’), that is keeping our ego fat and healthy. Our ego will always make us go after <i>vishayas,</i> because only such transitive pursuits can keep it alive, and obviously it wants to live as long as possible.<br /><br />Therefore, we have to fight a fierce battle against these <i>vasanas</i>, and this can only be done by our persistent and extraordinary effort at self-attentiveness. Our <i>svatma-bhakti</i> or <i>sat-vasana</i> should increasingly grow, and only then this highly obstinate enemy, ego, can be defeated.<br /><br />This <i>battle-royal</i> is not for weak hearted. We have to give it our heart and soul, and try to ignore all our worldly concerns as much as possible. There is no short cut. ‘Perseverance and more perseverance, patience and more patience’, this is Bhagavan’s golden advice to us. <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-48546099909137803672017-01-26T16:10:44.685+00:002017-01-26T16:10:44.685+00:00Sanjay Lohia,
thank you for your reply. In our lim...Sanjay Lohia,<br />thank you for your reply. In our limited/finite ego's everyday view of seeing material objects of the world it is hard to comprehend for example being aware also of material things like a manuscript, the paper or the pen as not separated from atma-svarupa. dawn of knowledgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-10474985402916038652017-01-26T15:11:05.618+00:002017-01-26T15:11:05.618+00:00dawn of knowledge, I was quoting Bhagavan when I w...dawn of knowledge, I was quoting Bhagavan when I wrote:<br /><br />Therefore when the world appears, <i>svarupa</i> [our ‘own form’ or actual self] does not appear [as it really is]; when <i>svarupa</i> appears (shines) [as it really is], the world does not appear.<br /><br />The <i>jnani</i> sees only himself. His experience is simply, as Michael often reminds us, ‘I am I’ or ‘I am I and nothing but I, and therefore I know nothing other than I’. Therefore he (or she, to be absolutely accurate ‘it’) does not see the form of the child (or for that matter any form) as separate from himself. <br /><br />The <i>jnani</i> loves himself because love is his very nature, and since he perceives the child as himself, he loves the child as himself. Therefore his love for the child is infinite and total. We are incapable of such love because of our <i>bheda-buddhi</i> (the idea of differentiation). <br /><br />In fact, we see the <i>jnani</i> lovingly playing with a child, or correcting manuscripts and so on, but it is only in our view. In his view there is no child and no manuscript. The <i>jnani</i> is <i>anadi ananta akhanda, sat-chit-ananda</i>. By the very definition of these terms (which means ‘beginningless infinite unbroken, existence-awareness-happiness’), nothing can exist apart from this absolute non-dual self-awareness. <br /><br /><br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-65049979684599020132017-01-26T13:32:08.222+00:002017-01-26T13:32:08.222+00:00Ken,
I do not see any difference between "emp...Ken,<br />I do not see any difference between "empirical reality" and "subjective reality" because the viewpoint of the consensus of jivas is just as based only on subjective experience.dawn of knowledgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-45362433920785793412017-01-26T13:14:48.708+00:002017-01-26T13:14:48.708+00:00Sanjay,
one could extend the question also to the ...Sanjay,<br />one could extend the question also to the situation when Bhagavan was correcting manuscripts/texts by hand. This work can hardly imagined without perceiving the manuscripts as an object.dawn of knowledgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-48725555432553500792017-01-26T10:38:29.565+00:002017-01-26T10:38:29.565+00:00Sanjay Lohia,
your final conclusion "Therefor...Sanjay Lohia,<br />your final conclusion "Therefore when the world appears, svarupa [our ‘own form’ or actual self] does not appear [as it really is]; when svarupa appears (shines) [as it really is], the world does not appear." prompts me question regarding the included simultaneousness of seeing:<br />When we see a jnani (who is recognising himself/herself to be brahman or atma-svarupa) playing with a child does he/she simultaneously perceive/recognise the form of the child's body as an object (separate from atma-svarupa)?<br />The presumption is that the jnani's play with the child happens without any perception of separation from atma-svarupa.<br /><br /><br />dawn of knowledgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-91978062024653873292017-01-26T08:18:50.525+00:002017-01-26T08:18:50.525+00:00manana ...
Section 4 of this article is titled:
...<i>manana</i> ...<br /><br />Section 4 of this article is titled:<br /><br />Objects are nothing other than <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>, but we cannot see <i>ātma-svarūpa</i> as it is while seeing it as objects<br /><br />I share my <i>manana</i> on what Michael is trying to explain us in this section:<br />When it is said that the <i>jnani</i> perceives this entire world as nothing other than himself, what does that mean? Does he (or she) see all the objects of this world and at the same time see himself as he really is? In other words, does he see both, but at the same time perceive them to be non-different?<br /><br />This is not the case. Though in reality the objects of this world are nothing other than <i>atma-svarupa</i> (the real <i>svarupa</i> of the <i>jnani</i>), <i>atma-svarupa</i> is only aware of itself, and is therefore totally ignorant of this world-appearance. <i>atma-svarupa</i> is only aware of itself as <i>anadi ananta akhanda sat-chit-ananda</i>, whereas the the objects of this world have a beginning and an end, and are broken up in parts. They are unreal, unaware of itself, and totally devoid of happiness. <br /><br />Therefore, how can <i>atma-svarupa</i> experience all its contrasting attributes or properties within itself? How can ‘truth’ experience ‘untruth’; ‘pure light’ experience ‘darkness; ‘infinite’ experience ‘finitude’?<br /> <br />Bhagavan clarifies this in the fourth paragraph of <i>Nan Yar?</i>:<br /><br />Therefore when the world appears, <i>svarupa</i> [our ‘own form’ or actual self] does not appear [as it really is]; when <i>svarupa</i> appears (shines) [as it really is], the world does not appear.<br /><br /><br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.com