tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post8690040847984707090..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: What is aware of everything other than ourself is only the ego and not ourself as we actually areMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger135125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-21755180340954499942017-05-12T12:11:15.566+01:002017-05-12T12:11:15.566+01:00Recently I met someone in Ramanasramam and was dis...Recently I met someone in Ramanasramam and was discussing about the subject.<br /><br />When Bhagavan spoke of self - enquiry it is about paying complete attention to Iam, vigilantly and attentively. As you had mentioned earlier in most of your commentaries, we are always self aware, but not attentively self aware. So self enquiry is about being attentively aware of Iam or being attentively self aware by which all other objects of awareness are excluded automatically. The reason of paying attention to Iam is, it seems to exist holding to other objects (thoughts, sense perceptions, i'm the body sense, emotions etc). Once we turn the attention to itself and hold it vigilantly for long enough it will start to subside revealing our actual self.<br /><br />My friend said, this is like concentration. It is like to place our consciousness upon the self and if we are able to continue it persistently only. <br /><br />He suggested the other way is like we do not give importance to concentration, as in the case of placing our attention upon the I. Instead of creating concentration, we remove the concentration itself. We know the focusing type of torch light. If we put on the torch, the light will be focused in a particular object. If we turn the focus, we will see other objects upon which the focused light touches. This is like the way of concentration. We know the ordinary electrical light. It has no focusing point. So the light of the ordinary electrical light, spreads everywhere equally. Just like the sunlight, the electrical light spreads everywhere without having any focusing aspect. So we do not place our attention upon a particular object, but instead, we spread our awareness everywhere. <br /><br />Here we are conscious of everything at a time. If we hear somebody talking, it is concentration. If we hear all the sounds around us including the talk, it is this total consciousness without concentration. When we attend all the sound at a time, it is placing our consciousness, upon all the things equally. Here we have no concentration. So that we do not know any particular object. Here, consciousness, alone gets importance. Here, neither the I who is conscious of nor the object upon which I is conscious of gets importance. Neither the subject nor the object gets importance. In case they get importance, both subject and object get equal importance. Here, the totality of our consciousness alone gets importance. If we are able to maintain this kind of consciousness, by way of our constant practice, both the observer and the observed become the part of the total consciousness.When everything becomes one, we can have the experience as I am everything and everything are our I consciousness.<br /><br />I tried to understand but couldn't get how he mentioned that totality of consciousness is experienced without subject / object. Is it calling just being aware of nothing specific not ever of awareness?<br /><br />Your thoughts and understanding on this will help me bring more clarity.Palanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18034312448262280563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-62535856106680750912017-04-20T12:24:16.059+01:002017-04-20T12:24:16.059+01:00vivarta, thank you pointing out my typos. Yes, it ...vivarta, thank you pointing out my typos. Yes, it should be: 'The universe is <i>Brahman</i>'. Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-11943573561079681772017-04-20T09:27:24.733+01:002017-04-20T09:27:24.733+01:00Sanjay Lohia,
you quote Shankara using a (new) ter...Sanjay Lohia,<br />you quote Shankara using a (new) term "Bhaman" which I never heard before.<br />Or is it only a typo ? (Bahman instead of Brahman)<br />What means "3) The universe in Bhaman" ?<br />This sentence seems to be incomplete because it has no verb. <br />Or should we read "is" instead of "in" ?vivartanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-91189097634739136552017-01-30T07:01:10.087+00:002017-01-30T07:01:10.087+00:00Ken, when something is unreal and illusory, it is ...Ken, when something is unreal and illusory, it is non-existent in an absolute sense, though it may seem to exist in a relative sense. Anything unreal and illusory is necessarily projected by our ego, and anything projected and experienced by our ego projects is non-existent. The water in a mirage may seem to be real, but if we go near it we will find that what we saw as water is non-existent. Likewise, our waking or dream worlds are non-existent, though when we experience it it seems real in our deluded view.<br /> <br />In your latest comment you quote Shankara:<br /><br />1) <i>Bhahman</i> is real<br />2) The universe is unreal<br />3) The universe in <i>Bhahman</i><br /><br />What it means is this: What exists is only <i>bhahman</i> or <i>atma-svarupa</i>, and therefore when we experience this world full of names and forms, we are merely witnessing an illusion, a projection of our ego. However, when we experience ourself as really are, we will not experience any names and forms, and hence not experience this world as we now seem to experience. What was earlier seen as the world is now seen as <i>brahman</i> or <i>atma-svarupa</i>, because the underlying reality of this world-appearance is only <i>atma-svarupa</i>. <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-34971543545276078252017-01-30T01:39:17.463+00:002017-01-30T01:39:17.463+00:00On Maya and the World
Here is Ramana Maharshi on ...<b>On Maya and the World</b><br /><br />Here is Ramana Maharshi on this subject. He always says the same thing, no matter which source, which translator, he has said the same thing every time. Here are three different quotes from three different sources:<br /><br />"Q: 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 />Ramana Maharshi: Both statements are true. They refer to different stages of development and are spoken from different points of<br />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. The seeker ultimately reaches the Self and there finds unity as the prevailing note.<br />Then, that which was originally rejected as being unreal is found to be a part of the unity. Being absorbed in the<br />reality, the world also is real. There is only being in Self-realization, and nothing but being.<br /><br /><b>Q: Sri Bhagavan often says that maya [illusion] and reality are the same. How can that be?</b><br /><br />Ramana Maharshi: Sankara was criticised for his views on maya without being understood. He said that<br />(1) Brahman is real,<br />(2) the universe is unreal, and<br />(3) The universe is Brahman.<br />He did not stop at the second, because the third explains the other two. It signifies that the universe is real if perceived as the Self, and unreal if perceived apart from the Self. Hence maya and reality are one and the same.<br /><br />Q: So the world is not really illusory?<br /><br />Ramana Maharshi: At the level of the spiritual seeker you have got to say that the world is an illusion. There is no other way. When a man forgets that he is Brahman, who is real, permanent and omnipresent, and deludes himself into thinking that he is a body in the universe which is filled with bodies that are transitory, and labours under that delusion, you have got to remind him that the world is unreal and a delusion. Why? Because his vision which has forgotten its own Self is dwelling in the external, material universe. It will not turn inwards into introspection unless you impress on him that all this external, material universe is unreal. When once he realises his own Self he will know that there is nothing other than his own Self and he will come to look upon the whole universe as Brahman.<br />There is no universe without the Self. So long as a man does not see the Self which is the origin of all, but looks only at the external world as real and permanent, you have to tell him that all this external universe is an illusion. You cannot help it. Take a paper. We see only the script, and nobody notices the paper on which the script is written. The paper is there whether the script on it is there or not. To those who look upon the script as real, you have to say that it is unreal, an illusion, since it rests upon the paper. The wise man looks upon both the paper and script as one. So also with Brahman and the universe."<br /><br />(From Talks, p. 41, Guru Ramana, p. 65 and Letters, p. 94)<br /><br />There are justificable doubts as to whether the sources remembered Ramana's statements correctly.<br /><br />But, seriously, can you really say that S.S. Cohen did not remember the questioner's question correctly? The questioner says "Sri Bhagavan often says that maya [illusion] and reality are the same."<br /><br /><b>So, what some people are doubting today, was common knowledge in the ashram when Ramana was there.</b>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-68278970014431898392017-01-29T23:22:36.191+00:002017-01-29T23:22:36.191+00:00venkat,
we should not even think of maya. Already ...venkat,<br />we should not even think of maya. Already the thought of maya is a terrible vision.<br />There is not anything for knowingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-29038554061330186242017-01-29T23:09:34.636+00:002017-01-29T23:09:34.636+00:00Thank you Sir Michael James for your answer.
It wo...Thank you Sir Michael James for your answer.<br />It would be nice if Blogger could solve the problem on their own initiative or without being told to.<br />Until then your way of working described above is surely practicable.commentatornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-38989663246721303242017-01-29T22:25:06.028+00:002017-01-29T22:25:06.028+00:00There is not anything for knowing said...
You are...There is not anything for knowing said...<br /><br />You are quite right. "Maya" is a provisional explanation for seekers who are looking for a cause.venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-9678162228159937902017-01-29T22:05:39.111+00:002017-01-29T22:05:39.111+00:00Commentator, I have been experiencing the same pro...Commentator, I have been experiencing the same problem since about the end of October, and it seems to be a widespread problem on many or all blogs hosted by Blogger, as you can see from two discussions on the Blogger Help Forum <a href="https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/blogger/JolO3i7ePrI/G-3pD19OAwAJ;context-place=forum/blogger" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/urxE931R1XU;context-place=forum/blogger" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />My way of working around this problem is to draft each of my replies in Notepad (as I always did), then copy and paste it into the comment box, click the ‘Preview’ button, read the preview, make any corrections I need to make in the Notepad draft, and when I am satisfied I close the ‘Post a Comment’ page and open a new one, into which I paste my corrected draft and then click the ‘Publish Your Comment’ button.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-84506986064554449832017-01-29T21:32:05.945+00:002017-01-29T21:32:05.945+00:00Michael,
till now you obviously could not remove t...Michael,<br />till now you obviously could not remove the problem with the "preview"-box and "Bad Request Error 400".<br />May I repeat my just one request as I asked with my comment (nr.75) of 22 November 2016 at 20:51 regarding the Article of 19 October 2016 [As we actually are, we do nothing and are aware of nothing other than ourself].commentatornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-2470943388254888142017-01-29T21:15:46.144+00:002017-01-29T21:15:46.144+00:00venkat,
your understanding is quite good.
But:
1. ...venkat,<br />your understanding is quite good.<br />But:<br />1. You are speaking about "the power of maya".<br />2. Then you are saying that "there is no separation" and that "there is only Brahman".<br />Strictly speaking the second statement is contradictory to your first remark:<br />How can there be (any power of) maya or ignorance if Brahman alone is ? There is not anything for knowingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-54237788030136006492017-01-29T17:19:10.295+00:002017-01-29T17:19:10.295+00:00Sanjay:
Apparently you are reading neither my pos...<b>Sanjay</b>:<br /><br />Apparently you are reading neither my posts, nor your own posts.<br /><br />The post that you replied to, mentioned that "real" and "illusion" are not the same as "exists". So, showing how something is unreal and illusory does not show that it is nonexistent.<br /><br />But then you seem to be agreeing with me when you post Ramana's words:<br /><br />"These names and forms which constitute the world always change and perish. Hence they are called mithya (not true, an illusion). To limit the Self and regard it as these names and forms is mithya. <b>To regard all as Self is the reality.</b>"<br /><br />How is it that the world, names and forms, can be illusory, and yet part of the Self?<br /><br />Ramana over and over again gives the example of the movie screen and the images on it. But modern screens are an ever better example, especially since we are all looking at one now.<br /><br />We look at a picture and it appears be the form of a, say, a mountain, but actually it is just the screen. The "pixels" in the screen change brightness and give us the illusion of looking at a mountain. But it is just the screen.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-86936263398429477412017-01-29T11:02:06.206+00:002017-01-29T11:02:06.206+00:00My understanding of Shankara, which explains Bhaga...My understanding of Shankara, which explains Bhagavan's teaching, is that all there is is Brahman. Due to ignorance, avidya, there arises an erroneous identification with one part of Brahman, as distinct from the rest. This is the suttarivu, the objectifying consciousness that separates subject from object. This is the "i"-thought that arises and simultaneously 'creates' an external objective world, as distinct / separate from the subject, the body-mind. This is the power of maya.<br /><br />But the ultimate truth is that there is no subject or object, there is no separation, there is only Brahman.<br /><br />So jnana, knowledge, removes this ignorance, this superimposition of Self and non-self. Bhagavan's atma vichara, is therefore a means to first clearly distinguish (viveka) the Self and non-self, and understand that the subject-object distinction is not real, does not exist, and through vairagya thereby cease our erroneous and habitual identification with the separate body-mind. And what remains after this superimposed subject-object ignorance is removed, is that which we are.venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-26349961244570916982017-01-29T10:00:46.307+00:002017-01-29T10:00:46.307+00:00Ken, in one of your comments you say that māyā doe...Ken, in <a href="#c2113369186669704162" rel="nofollow">one of your comments</a> you say that <i>māyā</i> does not mean ‘what does not exist’ according to anyone you have ever read, but Bhagavan himself often pointed out that <i>māyā</i> means <i>yā mā</i>, ‘what is not’ or ‘she who is not’ (<i>yā</i> is the feminine form of the Sanskrit pronoun <i>yad</i>, so it means ‘what’ or ‘she who’, and <i>mā</i> is a particle of negation, so it means ‘not’), as recorded in many books (sometimes with the actual words ‘<i>yā mā</i>’ and sometimes with just an English equivalent such as ‘what does not exist’), such as in <a href="http://selfdefinition.org/ramana/Talks-with-Sri-Ramana-Maharshi--complete.pdf" rel="nofollow"><i>Talks</i></a> sections 144, 263 and 288 (2006 edition, pages 129, 226 and 258) and <a href="http://selfdefinition.org/ramana/Ramana%20Maharshi%20-%20ebook%20-%20Day%20By%20Day%20With%20Bhagavan.pdf" rel="nofollow"><i>Day by Day</i></a> 7-4-46 (2002 edition, page 191).<br /><br />If <i>māyā</i> actually existed, there would be two things, <i>brahman</i> (ourself) and <i>māyā</i>, in which case non-duality (<i>advaita</i>) would not be the truth, but according to Bhagavan only one thing actually exists, namely ourself, as he says in in the first sentence of the <a href="http://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para07" rel="nofollow">seventh paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Yār?</i>, ‘யதார்த்தமா யுள்ளது ஆத்மசொரூப மொன்றே’ (<i>yathārtham-āy uḷḷadu ātma-sorūpam oṉḏṟē</i>), ‘What actually exists is only <i>ātma-svarūpa</i> [the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself]’. Therefore nothing other than ourself actually exists, so <i>māyā</i> is <i>yā mā</i>, what does not actually exist.<br /><br />Even though <i>māyā</i> seems to exist, it seems to exist only in the view of the ego, which is itself <i>māyā</i>, so it is a non-existent thing that seems to exist only in its own non-existent view. This is why the ultimate truth (<i>pāramārthika satya</i>) is as stated by Bhagavan in the final sentence of <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/01/ulladu-narpadu-verse-12-other-than-real.html#uu27" rel="nofollow">verse 27</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>, ‘அறிவதற்கு ஒன்று இலை’ (<i>aṟivadaṟku oṉḏṟu ilai</i>), ‘There is not anything for knowing’, and in the <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/01/ulladu-narpadu-verse-12-other-than-real.html#sentence3" rel="nofollow">third sentence</a> of <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/01/ulladu-narpadu-verse-12-other-than-real.html#un12" rel="nofollow">verse 12</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, ‘அறிதற்கு அறிவித்தற்கு அன்னியம் இன்றாய் அவிர்வதால், தான் அறிவு ஆகும்’ (<i>aṟidaṟku aṟivittaṟku aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy avirvadāl, tāṉ aṟivu āhum</i>), ‘Since it shines without another for knowing or for making known, oneself is [real] awareness’.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-21898056020475834412017-01-29T04:35:53.616+00:002017-01-29T04:35:53.616+00:00Ken, Bhagavan had indeed explained consistently an...Ken, Bhagavan had indeed explained consistently and clearly that this world is an illusion, another dream, projected and experienced only by our ego. Therefore when this ego is no more, this dream-world will also be no more. For example, I recently read one of his sayings in which he says:<br /><br />These names and forms which constitute the world always change and perish. Hence they are called <i>mithya</i> (not true, an illusion). To limit the Self and regard it as these names and forms is <i>mithya</i>. To regard all as Self is the reality.<br /> <br />If this world were true and real, why should he ask us to turn away from this ‘real world’ and experience ourself as really are? He had no need to give us the teaching of <i>atma-vichara</i>, if this world were real. Obviously in his direct experience this world is exactly like a dream, and hence the need to totally reject it by experiencing ourself as we really are. <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-9730488952733949542017-01-28T21:28:12.644+00:002017-01-28T21:28:12.644+00:00Celio Leite,
when you say: "But to fall in lo...Celio Leite,<br />when you say: "But to fall in love with your BEING is one of the greatest help for other people we cope with,..." could you please work out your remark in more detail why you believe that.<br />Casablancanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-56134893550155015812017-01-28T21:02:27.576+00:002017-01-28T21:02:27.576+00:00Sanjay also wrote:
"And when we experience o...<b>Sanjay</b> also wrote:<br /><br />"And when we experience ourself as we really are, this world will certainly be destroyed, never to reappear again."<br /><br />You keep saying this, but it is not true. No one says this except you. It is documented that Ramana said otherwise.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-21133691866697041622017-01-28T20:57:32.679+00:002017-01-28T20:57:32.679+00:00Sanjay wrote:
"maya means ‘what does not exi...<b>Sanjay</b> wrote:<br /><br />"maya means ‘what does not exist’."<br /><br />Not according to anyone I have ever read.<br /><br />Here are a few definitions:<br /><br />"A magic show, an illusion where things appear to be present but are not what they seem".<br /><br />"that which exists, but is constantly changing and thus is spiritually unreal"<br /><br />Please note that "unreal" "fictional" "imaginary" and "illusion" are not the same as "nonexistent".<br /><br />From Outline of Advaita Vedanta by D. KRISHNA AYYAR :<br /><br />" Advaita Vedanta says that in Brahman, there is, as a lower order of reality, a mithya, anivacaniiya entity, called 'Maya'. "<br /><br />Arvind Sharma writes in "An Introduction to Advaita Vedanta":<br /><br />"Maya is a fact in that it is the appearance of phenomena. Since Brahman is the sole metaphysical truth, Maya is true in epistemological and empirical sense; however, Maya is not the metaphysical and spiritual truth. The spiritual truth is the truth forever, while what is empirical truth is only true for now. Since Maya is the perceived material world, it is true in perception context, but is "untrue" in spiritual context of Brahman. Maya is not false, it only clouds the inner Self and principles that are real. True Reality includes both Vyavaharika (empirical) and Paramarthika "(spiritual), the Maya and the Brahman. The goal of spiritual enlightenment, state Advaitins, is to realize Brahman, realize the fearless, resplendent Oneness."<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-61297126282248696312017-01-28T18:16:32.716+00:002017-01-28T18:16:32.716+00:00I agree. To help and give love to all human beings...I agree. To help and give love to all human beings and animals is the utmost importance. <br />But to fall in love with your BEING is one of the greatest help for other people we cope with,<br /><br />Lovecelio leitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02274966067973017232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-75719398420213580992017-01-28T10:24:59.106+00:002017-01-28T10:24:59.106+00:00Casablanca
No - you are not wrong. It is very ea...Casablanca<br /><br />No - you are not wrong. It is very easy in vedanta to be escapist, to put your head in the sand.<br /><br />In Bhagavad Gita, Krishna's advice to Arjuna is to practise naiskama karma - desireless action. And Bhagavan and others have said that after realisation, a Jnani's actions are only for the sake of others and not himself.<br /><br />VS Iyer, the teacher of the early Ramakrishna monks had this advice:<br />"The goal of Vedanta is to see the other man’s sufferings as your own. Because in dream all the scenes and all the people are made of the same essence as yourself, they are as real as you are. Do not treat other people as mere ideas but your own self as real. If they are ideas, so are you. If you are real, so are they. Hence you must feel for them all just what you feel for yourself."<br />venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-49813808742572295272017-01-28T09:53:40.149+00:002017-01-28T09:53:40.149+00:00Celio Leite,
what you are aspiring consciously, is...Celio Leite,<br />what you are aspiring consciously, is this not an extremely egotistical undertaking ?<br />When you separate your ego from any world - be it real or unreal - it may be an adventage for you (in the view of your ego), but that seems to be in no way a great help to the remaining brothers and sisters. In your narrow, limited outlook or finite view there may be (remain) no other.<br />Like an ostrich you are putting your head in the sand and because you do not see then any other you believe that there is no other at all. <br />Or is my opinion completely wrong ?Casablancanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-14731886065075524052017-01-28T07:09:49.101+00:002017-01-28T07:09:49.101+00:00Celio Leite, as you say, when we madly fall in lov...Celio Leite, as you say, when we madly fall in love with ourself, we will be least bothered whether or not this world remains. And when we experience ourself as we really are, this world will certainly be destroyed, never to reappear again. As Bhagavan says in seventh paragraph of <i>Nan Yar?</i>:<br /><br />What actually exists is only <i>ātma-svarūpa</i>[our own essential self]. The world, soul and God are <i>kalpanaigaḷ</i> [imaginations, fabrications, mental creations or illusory superimpositions] in it, like [the imaginary] silver [seen] in a shell. These three appear simultaneously and disappear simultaneously. <i>Svarūpa</i> [our ‘own form’ or actual self] alone is the world; <i>svarūpa</i> alone is ‘I’ [our ego, soul or individual self]; <i>svarūpa</i> alone is God; everything is <i>śiva-svarūpa</i> [our actual self, which is <i>śiva</i>, the absolute and only truly existing reality].<br /><br />What actually exists is only <i>atma-svarupa</i>, even when other things seem to exist. However, as Bhagavan explains in <i>Nan Yar?</i>, everything other than ourself is an illusion, a projection of our mind or <i>maya</i>, and <i>maya</i> means ‘what does not exist’. <br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-27104125554907769552017-01-28T05:49:02.492+00:002017-01-28T05:49:02.492+00:00If the world will remain...It does not matter.
Whe...If the world will remain...It does not matter.<br />When I 'fall in Love' with MySELF<br />there is no other..celio leitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02274966067973017232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-65805012131100895312017-01-28T01:06:03.685+00:002017-01-28T01:06:03.685+00:00Michael,
section 15.
How I could stand so long not...Michael,<br />section 15.<br />How I could stand so long not to know the non-existence of the ego remains a complete mystery to me."I always am"noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-67812825126827536952017-01-28T00:38:27.499+00:002017-01-28T00:38:27.499+00:00Michael,
section 14.
"Without this triad of p...Michael,<br />section 14.<br />"Without this triad of perceiver, perceived and perception, nothing other than oneself could be perceived, so since we as we actually are cannot be a member of such a transitory triad — because we alone are what actually exists and we exist forever, unlike the perceiver, who appears and disappears along with whatever it perceives — it should be clear to us that the perceiver of anything other than ourself can only be ourself as this transitory ego and not ourself as we actually are."<br />That we as we actually are - the infinite self-awareness - cannot be a member of the mentioned transitory triad and as such had never to suffer from any kind of illness/disease may be a comfort to us. <br />"I always am"noreply@blogger.com