The ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things
In a comment on one of my recent articles, The ego does not actually exist, but it seems to exist, and only so long as it seems to exist do all other things seem to exist, a friend called Salazar wrote, ‘Did anybody on this blog wonder who is perceiving the thoughts which come into awareness? That what is aware of thoughts cannot be the creator of these thoughts, because a thought is an object apart from that “observer”’. This article is written in reply to this comment and another one written by him.
Salazar, what Bhagavan means by the term ‘thought’ is a mental phenomenon of any kind whatsoever, and since according to his teachings all phenomena are mental phenomena, everything other than our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is pure self-awareness, is just a thought. This is why he says in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, ‘நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை’ (niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam-eṉḏṟōr poruḷ aṉṉiyamāy illai), ‘Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world’, and in the fourteenth paragraph, ‘ஜக மென்பது நினைவே’ (jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē), ‘What is called the world is only thought’.
Therefore when you write, ‘That what is aware of thoughts cannot be the creator of these thoughts’, that implies that what is aware of phenomena cannot be the creator of those phenomena, or what is aware of the world cannot be the creator of it, but is this what Bhagavan taught us? What did he teach us about creation? Did he teach that creation occurs prior to or independent of perception, which is what we all generally believe, and which is what is called sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda, the contention (vāda) that creation (sṛṣṭi) precedes and is the cause of perception (dṛṣṭi)?
No, he asked us to question whether anything other than ourself exists independent of our perception of it, and he taught us very explicitly and emphatically what is called dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, the contention that perception (dṛṣṭi) is the sole cause of creation (sṛṣṭi), or more precisely, that perception itself is creation. Phenomena seem to exist only because we perceive them, so our perception of them alone creates their seeming existence. In other words, we, the perceiver, create phenomena merely by perceiving them.
We can understand this by considering our experience in dream. In dream we perceive a world consisting of phenomena of various kinds, including people, just like the world that we now perceive, and just as we now perceive ourself as a person in this world, in dream we perceive ourself as a person in that world. Why does that dream world seem to exist? Only because we perceive it. It does not exist prior to our perception of it, nor independent of our perception of it. Why? Because it does not exist at all except in our perception. It appears only in our awareness, so it would not exist at all if we were not aware of it.
According to Bhagavan any state in which we are aware of phenomena is just a dream, so the world we now perceive is a dream world. This is why he says in Nāṉ Ār? and elsewhere that the world is nothing but thoughts. Do thoughts exist independent of our perception of them? No, they seem to exist only because we perceive them, so they are created only by our perceiving them.
Thinking is a process of forming thoughts and perceiving them, but the formation (creation) of thoughts and the perception of them are not two processes or even two parts of one process, but are one and the same process, because thoughts are formed in our awareness, so they are formed by our being aware of them. Our perception of them is itself the formation or creation of them. In other words, dṛṣṭi is itself sṛṣṭi. There is no creation (sṛṣṭi) other than perception (dṛṣṭi), because there is no existence (sat) other than awareness (cit).
What actually exists is only awareness, so whatever seems to exist seems to exist only because of awareness. Therefore it is only by awareness that anything is created. Without awareness there could be no creation.
Creation is not real but just an illusory appearance, and nothing can appear except in awareness. Appearance requires perception or awareness of it, because if it were not perceived, to whom or to what could it appear? Whatever appears seems to exist only because it is perceived. In other words, whatever seems to exist seems to exist only in awareness, only to awareness, only by awareness and only because of awareness.
2. The awareness in which and to which phenomena appear is not real awareness but only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa)
However, the awareness in which, to which, by which and because of which all things seem to exist is not real awareness (cit), but is only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa), because real awareness is never aware of anything other than itself. This semblance of awareness, in whose view alone all thoughts or phenomena seem to exist, is not real, because it arises and subsides (appears and disappears) along with all the phenomena of which it is aware, as Bhagavan says in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
3. This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is the ego or mind, which is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear
This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is what is otherwise called the ego or mind, and as Bhagavan says in the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
As he points out in verse 18 of Upadēśa Undiyār, the term ‘mind’ is used in two distinct senses. In a general sense it is a term that refers to the totality of all thoughts or mental phenomena, but since the root of all thoughts is the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’, what the mind essentially is is only the ego, and hence in a more specific sense ‘mind’ is a term that refers to the ego. The ego is the root of all other thoughts because it is the subject, the perceiving thought, whereas all other thoughts are objects perceived by it.
In the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, cited above, the term ‘mind’ refers to the ego, so when Bhagavan says that it ‘causes all thoughts to appear’ or ‘makes all thoughts appear’ he means that the ego (the subject or perceiver) is what causes all other thoughts to appear. However in the next two sentences, in which he says, ‘நினைவுகளை யெல்லாம் நீக்கிப் பார்க்கின்றபோது, தனியாய் மனமென் றோர் பொருளில்லை; ஆகையால் நினைவே மனதின் சொரூபம்’ (niṉaivugaḷai y-ellām nīkki-p pārkkiṉḏṟa-pōdu, taṉi-y-āy maṉam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ illai; āhaiyāl niṉaivē maṉadiṉ sorūpam), ‘When one looks, excluding [removing or putting aside] all thoughts, solitarily there is not any such thing as mind; therefore thought alone is the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or very nature] of the mind’, the term ‘mind’ refers to the totality of all thoughts, namely the ego and all phenomena perceived by it. Therefore whenever Bhagavan uses the term ‘mind’ we need to understand from the context whether he is using it to refer specifically to the ego or more generally to all thoughts.
What Bhagavan teaches us in the second sentence of this paragraph, namely that the mind (in the sense of ego) is what ‘causes all thoughts to appear’, is further emphasised by him later on in the same paragraph by means of an analogy:
4. The ego or mind causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear only from itself, so it alone is their source or origin
Since the ego or mind alone is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear, from where or from what does it cause them to appear? ‘தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து’ (taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu), ‘from itself’ or ‘from within itself’, says Bhagavan. Since the world is nothing but thoughts (mental phenomena of a particular kind, namely sensory perceptions), when he firstly says, ‘அது சகல நினைவுகளையும் தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது’ (adu sakala niṉaivugaḷaiyum tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu), ‘It [the mind] causes all thoughts to appear’, and subsequently says, ‘மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து’ (maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu), ‘the mind also causing the world to appear from within itself’, he clearly implies that the mind or ego causes all thoughts (or all phenomena) to appear from itself.
Therefore Bhagavan teaches us very clearly and unambiguously that the mind, which in this context means the ego, is the source or origin from which all thoughts or phenomena appear, and this accords perfectly with our own experience. From where else could our thoughts come if not from ourself? Thoughts or phenomena appear only in our perception and only because of our perception of them, so their source or origin is only ourself, this ego.
5. A cause and its effect can occur simultaneously, but logically the cause comes first and the effect comes only after it
In the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? he says:
In terms of chronological sequence, a cause must either precede its effect or be simultaneous with its effect, but even when it is simultaneous with its effect, in terms of causal sequence it precedes it, because a cause is what gives rise to an effect, so logically the cause comes first and its effect comes only after it. Consider the example of a moving billiard ball hitting a stationary one. The hit causes some of the momentum of the moving ball to be transferred to the stationary one, as a result of which it begins to move. The hit is the cause, and the movement of the stationary ball is the effect. Both occur simultaneously in time, but in terms of the causal sequence the cause comes first and the effect follows on from it. That is, the hitting comes first, and only after it occurs does the stationary ball begin to move.
It is in this sense that Bhagavan says: ‘நானென்னும் நினைவே முதல் நினைவு. இது எழுந்த பிறகே ஏனைய நினைவுகள் எழுகின்றன. தன்மை தோன்றிய பிறகே முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தோன்றுகின்றன; தன்மை யின்றி முன்னிலை படர்க்கைக ளிரா’ (nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē mudal niṉaivu. idu eṙunda piṟahē ēṉaiya niṉaivugaḷ eṙugiṉḏṟaṉa. taṉmai tōṉḏṟiya piṟahē muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tōṉḏṟugiṉḏṟaṉa; taṉmai y-iṉḏṟi muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ irā), ‘the thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought. Only after this arises do other thoughts arise. Only after the first person [the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist’. That is, though the ego (the thought called ‘I’) and other thoughts arise simultaneously, in the sequence of cause and effect the rising of the ego comes first, because it is the cause, and the rising of other thoughts comes only after that, because it is the effect.
In an earlier comment you wrote, ‘the ego and thoughts appear and disappear simultaneously. To imply that one of these concepts were there before the other one is rather fishy, I believe that the question what is first, the ego or a thought falls under the category of what is first, the chicken or the egg?’ but this seems to be fishy only if we fail to distinguish causal sequence from chronological sequence. Bhagavan did say (as in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu) that ego and other thoughts appear and disappear simultaneously, referring to chronological sequence, but he also said (as in the final four sentences of the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?) that the ego is the first thought and that only after it rises do other thoughts rise, referring to causal sequence.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that the ego (the first person, the thought called ‘I’) is the first thought to appear and that only after it appears do other thoughts (second and third persons) appear, he does not mean that there is any lapse of time between the appearance of the ego and the appearance of other thoughts or phenomena, but is merely emphasising that the appearance of the ego is the cause and the appearance of all other things is its effect. The ego is the first cause, the cause of all other causes, so all chains of cause and effect begin only after the ego has appeared.
The analogy of the chicken and egg that you mention is not appropriate in this context, because chickens and eggs are links in a long chain of cause and effect, whereas the ego is the beginning or origin of every chain of cause and effect. Like both a chicken and an egg, every cause (or potential cause) is an effect of another cause, except the ego, which is the only cause that is not an effect of any other cause. It is the causeless cause, the uncaused cause, because nothing precedes it, whereas it precedes everything.
A chicken is the cause of an egg, which is in turn the cause of another chicken, and so on ad infinitum, but all such chains of cause and effect seem to exist only in the view of the ego, so they can appear only when the ego has appeared, and they must disappear as soon as it disappears. Therefore the ego is the cause and origin of all other causes and effects. This is why Bhagavan says that it is the first thought, and that all other thoughts (including chickens and eggs and all other chains of cause and effect) arise only after it has arisen.
6. Since the ego has created all that it perceives, why does it have so little control over what it has created?
You conclude that earlier comment by writing, ‘Anyway, I do not think that any clarity of that topic can be found in Bhagavan’s texts, I still favor Robert’s comment and I believe that he is in unison with Bhagavan on this matter’, but there is actually abundant clarity on this topic that we can found in his texts if we know how to look for it. The fact that the ego alone is the root cause for the appearance of everything else is one of the fundamental principles of his teachings and is therefore emphasised by him unequivocally in so many ways in his original writings, particularly in Nāṉ Ār? and Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, and also in many of the records of his replies to questions that he was asked.
Earlier in the same comment you asked, ‘Now I am wondering, since the ego cannot control these thoughts which it is supposedly “creating” how can it be the creator of thereof?’ but why do you assume that the creator should necessarily be able to control what it has created? When we dream, is the creator of our dream anyone other than ourself, the dreamer, namely this mind or ego?
Since perception is itself creation, we who perceive a dream are the one who is thereby creating it, but are we able to control all that we perceive in a dream? No, we cannot, and the reason for this is simple: when we create a dream world, we create ourself as a person in that world, and it is only as that person that we perceive that world, so though we are the creator of that world, we experience ourself as a creature in it, and by being a small part of our creation we have to a large extent lost control over it. The same is the case with this world and all that we perceive in it, including all the thoughts that arise in the mind of the person whom we now seem to be.
You are creating this world from moment to moment, but since you experience yourself as a person called Salazar, and since Salazar is a creature in the world you have created, as Salazar you have lost control of most of your own creation. This is the wonderful power of māyā (self-deception or self-delusion), which according to Bhagavan is nothing other than the ego or mind. We have created this world, but we are deluded by our own creation, so we are unable to control this demon that we have conjured up.
This is why in Hindu mythology the first three divine functions, namely creation, sustenance and dissolution, are each attributed to a different deity. According to this allegorical way of expressing the truth, Brahma has created this world, but he is unable to control or sustain it, nor is he able to destroy it, so it is sustained by Vishnu and destroyed by Siva. Of these three forms of God, which two are most highly revered? Only Vishnu and Siva, because creation is not a worthy function, so Brahma, the creator, is not worshipped in any temple, but only in Vedic rituals that are performed for the fulfilment of desires.
Suppose we have an irrational fear or an obsessive desire. That fear or desire is just a thought and it is created only by us, but we have become so caught up in our own creation that we are carried away by it and seem to be unable to control it.
This is not to say that we have absolutely no control over what we think or over other phenomena. We may have some degree of control, but that degree is limited, and the more we are deluded by our own creation, the less control we have over it. However if we patiently and persistently practise self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), our viṣaya-vāsanās (outward-going inclinations, urges or desires) will be gradually weakened, and our mind will thereby be purified. To the extent that it is purified it will be clear, and the clearer it becomes the less dense will be its delusion, so the extent to which we are able to keep a tight rein on our viṣaya-vāsanās, which are the seeds that give rise to thoughts, will increase correspondingly.
7. Thoughts come only from ourself, the ego, the one who perceives them, so we alone are the root of all thoughts
In a later part of the comment whose first paragraph I quoted at the beginning of this article you wrote, ‘So where are thoughts coming from? If patiently investigated one will discover that they come out of nowhere and disappear into nowhere’, but how can anything come out of nowhere? Nowhere does not exist except as an idea or thought, so from where does the idea of nowhere arise? Something cannot come out of nothing, because nothing does not exist, so whatever appears must appear from something.
In the next paragraph of that comment you wrote, ‘it is absolutely clear that they [thoughts] cannot come from the observer of these thoughts’, but from where else could thoughts come if not from ourself, the one who perceives or observes them? Thoughts appear only in the mind, and the source from which they appear is the root thought, the ego (which is why Bhagavan calls it the mūlam, the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause of all other thoughts). The ego rises or appears only out of ātma-svarūpa (the real nature of oneself), and all other thoughts rise or appear only out of the ego, so the ego is the immediate source and foundation of all other thoughts, and ātma-svarūpa is their ultimate source and foundation.
From what does the illusion of a snake appear? It cannot appear from nowhere or nothing, so it appears from something that (in terms of this analogy) actually exists, namely a rope. However it could not appear from a rope without the intervening medium called ego or mind, because it appears to be a snake only in the view of the ego. Therefore the immediate cause for the appearance of the snake is the ego, in whose view alone it appears, and the ultimate cause of it is the rope, because without the rope there would be nothing to be seen as a snake.
This is just an analogy, so there is a limit to the extent to which it accurately represents the truth to which it is analogous, but what it is intended to illustrate here is that the ultimate source, substance and foundation of the ego and of all thoughts or phenomena perceived by the ego is only ātma-svarūpa, but that the immediate source, substance and foundation of all thoughts or phenomena is only the ego, because it is only in the view of the ego that everything else seems to exist.
Without the ego could any other thought or phenomenon appear? It could not, because the ego is that to which and from which all other thoughts or phenomena appear. Likewise, without ātma-svarūpa could the ego appear? It could not, because ātma-svarūpa is that from which (but not to which) the ego appears.
This is why in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? Bhagavan says, ‘மனம் ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தினின்று வெளிப்படும்போது ஜகம் தோன்றும்’ (maṉam ātma-sorūpattiṉiṉḏṟu veḷippaḍum-pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟum), ‘When the mind comes out from ātma-svarūpa, the world appears’, meaning that ātma-svarūpa is the source from which the mind or ego appears, and in the previous sentence said, ‘[…] அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது’ (appaḍiyē maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu), ‘[…] in that way the mind also causes the world to appear from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself’, meaning that the mind or ego is the source from which the world and all other thoughts appear.
If other thoughts or phenomena did not originate from the ego, that would mean that they originate from something else, in which case they would be able to exist independent of the ego, which is contrary to all that Bhagavan taught us. Why should we believe that anything exists independent of the ego, or that anything originates from any source other than the ego? Since everything is perceived only by the ego, we do not have any adequate reason to suppose that anything exists independent of it or comes from anything other than it. This is why Bhagavan repeatedly emphasised that the ego (which is what he often referred to as ‘the thought called I’) is the first thought and the root of all other thoughts.
8. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: everything depends for its seeming existence on the seeming existence of the ego, so when we investigate the ego keenly enough to see that it does not exist, that is giving up everything
Since the ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things, in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan wrote:
Since the ego seems to exist only so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, it will dissolve and cease to exist only when we try to be so keenly self-attentive that we are aware of nothing other than ourself. And since all other things seem to exist only in the view of the ego, if we keenly investigate this ego in order to see what we actually are, not only will the ego cease to exist but everything else will cease to exist along with it.
This is why he concludes this verse by saying: ‘ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்’ (ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr), ‘Therefore, know that investigating what this [the ego] is alone is giving up everything’.
This is the core and essence of his teachings, so it is essential for us to understand very clearly that the ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things (all thoughts or phenomena). Everything originates from the ego and depends upon the ego for its seeming existence, so if we eradicate the ego we thereby eradicate everything.
- According to dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, perception is not only the cause of creation but is itself creation
- The awareness in which and to which phenomena appear is not real awareness but only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa)
- This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is the ego or mind, which is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear
- The ego or mind causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear only from itself, so it alone is their source or origin
- A cause and its effect can occur simultaneously, but logically the cause comes first and the effect comes only after it
- Since the ego has created all that it perceives, why does it have so little control over what it has created?
- Thoughts come only from ourself, the ego, the one who perceives them, so we alone are the root of all thoughts
- Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: everything depends for its seeming existence on the seeming existence of the ego, so when we investigate the ego keenly enough to see that it does not exist, that is giving up everything
Salazar, what Bhagavan means by the term ‘thought’ is a mental phenomenon of any kind whatsoever, and since according to his teachings all phenomena are mental phenomena, everything other than our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is pure self-awareness, is just a thought. This is why he says in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, ‘நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை’ (niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam-eṉḏṟōr poruḷ aṉṉiyamāy illai), ‘Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world’, and in the fourteenth paragraph, ‘ஜக மென்பது நினைவே’ (jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē), ‘What is called the world is only thought’.
Therefore when you write, ‘That what is aware of thoughts cannot be the creator of these thoughts’, that implies that what is aware of phenomena cannot be the creator of those phenomena, or what is aware of the world cannot be the creator of it, but is this what Bhagavan taught us? What did he teach us about creation? Did he teach that creation occurs prior to or independent of perception, which is what we all generally believe, and which is what is called sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda, the contention (vāda) that creation (sṛṣṭi) precedes and is the cause of perception (dṛṣṭi)?
No, he asked us to question whether anything other than ourself exists independent of our perception of it, and he taught us very explicitly and emphatically what is called dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, the contention that perception (dṛṣṭi) is the sole cause of creation (sṛṣṭi), or more precisely, that perception itself is creation. Phenomena seem to exist only because we perceive them, so our perception of them alone creates their seeming existence. In other words, we, the perceiver, create phenomena merely by perceiving them.
We can understand this by considering our experience in dream. In dream we perceive a world consisting of phenomena of various kinds, including people, just like the world that we now perceive, and just as we now perceive ourself as a person in this world, in dream we perceive ourself as a person in that world. Why does that dream world seem to exist? Only because we perceive it. It does not exist prior to our perception of it, nor independent of our perception of it. Why? Because it does not exist at all except in our perception. It appears only in our awareness, so it would not exist at all if we were not aware of it.
According to Bhagavan any state in which we are aware of phenomena is just a dream, so the world we now perceive is a dream world. This is why he says in Nāṉ Ār? and elsewhere that the world is nothing but thoughts. Do thoughts exist independent of our perception of them? No, they seem to exist only because we perceive them, so they are created only by our perceiving them.
Thinking is a process of forming thoughts and perceiving them, but the formation (creation) of thoughts and the perception of them are not two processes or even two parts of one process, but are one and the same process, because thoughts are formed in our awareness, so they are formed by our being aware of them. Our perception of them is itself the formation or creation of them. In other words, dṛṣṭi is itself sṛṣṭi. There is no creation (sṛṣṭi) other than perception (dṛṣṭi), because there is no existence (sat) other than awareness (cit).
What actually exists is only awareness, so whatever seems to exist seems to exist only because of awareness. Therefore it is only by awareness that anything is created. Without awareness there could be no creation.
Creation is not real but just an illusory appearance, and nothing can appear except in awareness. Appearance requires perception or awareness of it, because if it were not perceived, to whom or to what could it appear? Whatever appears seems to exist only because it is perceived. In other words, whatever seems to exist seems to exist only in awareness, only to awareness, only by awareness and only because of awareness.
2. The awareness in which and to which phenomena appear is not real awareness but only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa)
However, the awareness in which, to which, by which and because of which all things seem to exist is not real awareness (cit), but is only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa), because real awareness is never aware of anything other than itself. This semblance of awareness, in whose view alone all thoughts or phenomena seem to exist, is not real, because it arises and subsides (appears and disappears) along with all the phenomena of which it is aware, as Bhagavan says in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
உலகறிவு மொன்றா யுதித்தொடுங்கு மேனுThe world shines by this semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa), which appears and disappears, because it is perceived only by it and therefore seems to exist only in its view. Therefore though the world and this awareness appear and disappear simultaneously, it is only by this awareness that the world is created or brought into seeming existence. In other words, this awareness is the cause and the appearance of the world is its effect. Whenever this awareness appears, the world appears along with it and because of it, and whenever this awareness disappears, the world disappears along with and because of its disappearance.
முலகறிவு தன்னா லொளிரு — முலகறிவு
தோன்றிமறை தற்கிடனாய்த் தோன்றிமறை யாதொளிரும்
பூன்றமா மஃதே பொருள்.
ulahaṟivu moṉḏṟā yudittoḍuṅgu mēṉu
mulahaṟivu taṉṉā loḷiru — mulahaṟivu
tōṉḏṟimaṟai daṟkiḍaṉāyt tōṉḏṟimaṟai yādoḷirum
pūṉḏṟamā maḵdē poruḷ.
பதச்சேதம்: உலகு அறிவும் ஒன்றாய் உதித்து ஒடுங்கும் ஏனும், உலகு அறிவு தன்னால் ஒளிரும். உலகு அறிவு தோன்றி மறைதற்கு இடன் ஆய் தோன்றி மறையாது ஒளிரும் பூன்றம் ஆம் அஃதே பொருள்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ulahu aṟivum oṉḏṟāy udittu oḍuṅgum ēṉum, ulahu aṟivu-taṉṉāl oḷirum. ulahu aṟivu tōṉḏṟi maṟaidaṟku iḍaṉ-āy tōṉḏṟi maṟaiyādu oḷirum pūṉḏṟam ām aḵdē poruḷ.
அன்வயம்: உலகு அறிவும் ஒன்றாய் உதித்து ஒடுங்கும் ஏனும், உலகு அறிவு தன்னால் ஒளிரும். உலகு அறிவு தோன்றி மறைதற்கு இடன் ஆய் தோன்றி மறையாது ஒளிரும் அஃதே பூன்றம் ஆம் பொருள்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ulahu aṟivum oṉḏṟāy udittu oḍuṅgum ēṉum, ulahu aṟivu-taṉṉāl oḷirum. ulahu aṟivu tōṉḏṟi maṟaidaṟku iḍaṉ-āy tōṉḏṟi maṟaiyādu oḷirum aḵdē pūṉḏṟam ām poruḷ.
English translation: Though the world and awareness arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by awareness. Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the place for the appearing and disappearing of the world and awareness is the substance, which is the whole.
Explanatory paraphrase: Though the world and awareness [the awareness that perceives the world, namely the ego or mind] arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by [that rising and subsiding] awareness [the mind]. Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the place [space, expanse, location, site or ground] for the appearing and disappearing of the world and [that] awareness is poruḷ [the real substance or vastu], which is pūṉḏṟam [the infinite whole or pūrṇa].
3. This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is the ego or mind, which is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear
This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is what is otherwise called the ego or mind, and as Bhagavan says in the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
மன மென்பது ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தி லுள்ள ஓர் அதிசய சக்தி. அது சகல நினைவுகளையும் தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது.The verb that Bhagavan uses in the second of these two sentences is தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது (tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu), which is the third person singular present tense form of தோற்றுவி (tōṯṟuvi), which is the causative form of தோன்று (tōṉḏṟu), a verb that means to appear, rise, come into existence or seem to be, so தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது (tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu) literally means ‘it causes to appear’ or ‘it makes appear’, but in this context it is often translated as ‘it projects’ or ‘it creates’, which is what it implies. Therefore by saying that the mind ‘causes all thoughts to appear’ or ‘makes all thoughts appear’, he implies unequivocally that the mind is what creates the appearance of all thoughts.
maṉam eṉbadu ātma-sorūpattil uḷḷa ōr atiśaya śakti. adu sakala niṉaivugaḷaiyum tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu
What is called mind is an atiśaya śakti [an extraordinary power] that exists in ātma-svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself]. It makes all thoughts appear.
As he points out in verse 18 of Upadēśa Undiyār, the term ‘mind’ is used in two distinct senses. In a general sense it is a term that refers to the totality of all thoughts or mental phenomena, but since the root of all thoughts is the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’, what the mind essentially is is only the ego, and hence in a more specific sense ‘mind’ is a term that refers to the ego. The ego is the root of all other thoughts because it is the subject, the perceiving thought, whereas all other thoughts are objects perceived by it.
In the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, cited above, the term ‘mind’ refers to the ego, so when Bhagavan says that it ‘causes all thoughts to appear’ or ‘makes all thoughts appear’ he means that the ego (the subject or perceiver) is what causes all other thoughts to appear. However in the next two sentences, in which he says, ‘நினைவுகளை யெல்லாம் நீக்கிப் பார்க்கின்றபோது, தனியாய் மனமென் றோர் பொருளில்லை; ஆகையால் நினைவே மனதின் சொரூபம்’ (niṉaivugaḷai y-ellām nīkki-p pārkkiṉḏṟa-pōdu, taṉi-y-āy maṉam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ illai; āhaiyāl niṉaivē maṉadiṉ sorūpam), ‘When one looks, excluding [removing or putting aside] all thoughts, solitarily there is not any such thing as mind; therefore thought alone is the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or very nature] of the mind’, the term ‘mind’ refers to the totality of all thoughts, namely the ego and all phenomena perceived by it. Therefore whenever Bhagavan uses the term ‘mind’ we need to understand from the context whether he is using it to refer specifically to the ego or more generally to all thoughts.
What Bhagavan teaches us in the second sentence of this paragraph, namely that the mind (in the sense of ego) is what ‘causes all thoughts to appear’, is further emphasised by him later on in the same paragraph by means of an analogy:
நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை. தூக்கத்தில் நினைவுகளில்லை, ஜகமுமில்லை; ஜாக்ர சொப்பனங்களில் நினைவுகளுள, ஜகமும் உண்டு. சிலந்திப்பூச்சி எப்படித் தன்னிடமிருந்து வெளியில் நூலை நூற்று மறுபடியும் தன்னுள் இழுத்துக் கொள்ளுகிறதோ, அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது.Here again he uses the same causative verb, தோற்றுவி (tōṯṟuvi), which means ‘cause to appear’ or ‘make appear’ and which implies ‘project’ or ‘create’, saying ‘அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது’ (appaḍiyē maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu), ‘in that way the mind also causes the world to appear from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself’. Therefore in this paragraph Bhagavan emphasises very strongly and categorically that the mind or ego is what causes all other things (all thoughts or phenomena) to appear.
niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ aṉṉiyam-āy illai. tūkkattil niṉaivugaḷ illai, jagamum illai; jāgra-soppaṉaṅgaḷil niṉaivugaḷ uḷa, jagamum uṇḍu. silandi-p-pūcci eppaḍi-t taṉ-ṉ-iḍam-irundu veḷiyil nūlai nūṯṟu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉuḷ iṙuttu-k-koḷḷugiṟadō, appaḍiyē maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu.
Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world. In sleep there are no thoughts, and [consequently] there is also no world; in waking and dream there are thoughts, and [consequently] there is also a world. Just as a spider spins out thread from within itself and again draws it back into itself, so the mind also makes the world appear [or projects the world] from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself.
4. The ego or mind causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear only from itself, so it alone is their source or origin
Since the ego or mind alone is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear, from where or from what does it cause them to appear? ‘தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து’ (taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu), ‘from itself’ or ‘from within itself’, says Bhagavan. Since the world is nothing but thoughts (mental phenomena of a particular kind, namely sensory perceptions), when he firstly says, ‘அது சகல நினைவுகளையும் தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது’ (adu sakala niṉaivugaḷaiyum tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu), ‘It [the mind] causes all thoughts to appear’, and subsequently says, ‘மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து’ (maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu), ‘the mind also causing the world to appear from within itself’, he clearly implies that the mind or ego causes all thoughts (or all phenomena) to appear from itself.
Therefore Bhagavan teaches us very clearly and unambiguously that the mind, which in this context means the ego, is the source or origin from which all thoughts or phenomena appear, and this accords perfectly with our own experience. From where else could our thoughts come if not from ourself? Thoughts or phenomena appear only in our perception and only because of our perception of them, so their source or origin is only ourself, this ego.
5. A cause and its effect can occur simultaneously, but logically the cause comes first and the effect comes only after it
In the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? he says:
இந்தத் தேகத்தில் நான் என்று கிளம்புவது எதுவோ அஃதே மனமாம். […] மனதில் தோன்றும் நினைவுக ளெல்லாவற்றிற்கும் நானென்னும் நினைவே முதல் நினைவு. இது எழுந்த பிறகே ஏனைய நினைவுகள் எழுகின்றன. தன்மை தோன்றிய பிறகே முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தோன்றுகின்றன; தன்மை யின்றி முன்னிலை படர்க்கைக ளிரா.When Bhagavan says here that the thought called ‘I’ (the ego) is the first thought and that only after it rises do other thoughts arise, this may seem to contradict what he says in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, namely that the world and awareness (which in this context means the ego, the spurious awareness that appears and disappears) arise and subside simultaneously, but there is actually no contradiction here, because when he says that they arise simultaneously he means at the same time, whereas when he says that the ego is the first thought and that only after it rises do other thoughts arise he is not referring to a chronological sequence but to a causal sequence.
inda-t dēhattil nāṉ eṉḏṟu kiḷambuvadu edu-v-ō aḵdē maṉam-ām. […] maṉadil tōṉḏṟum niṉaivugaḷ ellāvaṯṟiṟkum nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē mudal niṉaivu. idu eṙunda piṟahē ēṉaiya niṉaivugaḷ eṙugiṉḏṟaṉa. taṉmai tōṉḏṟiya piṟahē muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tōṉḏṟugiṉḏṟaṉa; taṉmai y-iṉḏṟi muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ irā.
What rises in this body as ‘I’ [namely the ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’], that alone is the mind. […] Of all the thoughts that appear [or arise] in the mind, the thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought [the primal, basic, original or causal thought]. Only after this arises do other thoughts arise. Only after the first person [the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist.
In terms of chronological sequence, a cause must either precede its effect or be simultaneous with its effect, but even when it is simultaneous with its effect, in terms of causal sequence it precedes it, because a cause is what gives rise to an effect, so logically the cause comes first and its effect comes only after it. Consider the example of a moving billiard ball hitting a stationary one. The hit causes some of the momentum of the moving ball to be transferred to the stationary one, as a result of which it begins to move. The hit is the cause, and the movement of the stationary ball is the effect. Both occur simultaneously in time, but in terms of the causal sequence the cause comes first and the effect follows on from it. That is, the hitting comes first, and only after it occurs does the stationary ball begin to move.
It is in this sense that Bhagavan says: ‘நானென்னும் நினைவே முதல் நினைவு. இது எழுந்த பிறகே ஏனைய நினைவுகள் எழுகின்றன. தன்மை தோன்றிய பிறகே முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தோன்றுகின்றன; தன்மை யின்றி முன்னிலை படர்க்கைக ளிரா’ (nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē mudal niṉaivu. idu eṙunda piṟahē ēṉaiya niṉaivugaḷ eṙugiṉḏṟaṉa. taṉmai tōṉḏṟiya piṟahē muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tōṉḏṟugiṉḏṟaṉa; taṉmai y-iṉḏṟi muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ irā), ‘the thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought. Only after this arises do other thoughts arise. Only after the first person [the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist’. That is, though the ego (the thought called ‘I’) and other thoughts arise simultaneously, in the sequence of cause and effect the rising of the ego comes first, because it is the cause, and the rising of other thoughts comes only after that, because it is the effect.
In an earlier comment you wrote, ‘the ego and thoughts appear and disappear simultaneously. To imply that one of these concepts were there before the other one is rather fishy, I believe that the question what is first, the ego or a thought falls under the category of what is first, the chicken or the egg?’ but this seems to be fishy only if we fail to distinguish causal sequence from chronological sequence. Bhagavan did say (as in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu) that ego and other thoughts appear and disappear simultaneously, referring to chronological sequence, but he also said (as in the final four sentences of the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?) that the ego is the first thought and that only after it rises do other thoughts rise, referring to causal sequence.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that the ego (the first person, the thought called ‘I’) is the first thought to appear and that only after it appears do other thoughts (second and third persons) appear, he does not mean that there is any lapse of time between the appearance of the ego and the appearance of other thoughts or phenomena, but is merely emphasising that the appearance of the ego is the cause and the appearance of all other things is its effect. The ego is the first cause, the cause of all other causes, so all chains of cause and effect begin only after the ego has appeared.
The analogy of the chicken and egg that you mention is not appropriate in this context, because chickens and eggs are links in a long chain of cause and effect, whereas the ego is the beginning or origin of every chain of cause and effect. Like both a chicken and an egg, every cause (or potential cause) is an effect of another cause, except the ego, which is the only cause that is not an effect of any other cause. It is the causeless cause, the uncaused cause, because nothing precedes it, whereas it precedes everything.
A chicken is the cause of an egg, which is in turn the cause of another chicken, and so on ad infinitum, but all such chains of cause and effect seem to exist only in the view of the ego, so they can appear only when the ego has appeared, and they must disappear as soon as it disappears. Therefore the ego is the cause and origin of all other causes and effects. This is why Bhagavan says that it is the first thought, and that all other thoughts (including chickens and eggs and all other chains of cause and effect) arise only after it has arisen.
6. Since the ego has created all that it perceives, why does it have so little control over what it has created?
You conclude that earlier comment by writing, ‘Anyway, I do not think that any clarity of that topic can be found in Bhagavan’s texts, I still favor Robert’s comment and I believe that he is in unison with Bhagavan on this matter’, but there is actually abundant clarity on this topic that we can found in his texts if we know how to look for it. The fact that the ego alone is the root cause for the appearance of everything else is one of the fundamental principles of his teachings and is therefore emphasised by him unequivocally in so many ways in his original writings, particularly in Nāṉ Ār? and Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, and also in many of the records of his replies to questions that he was asked.
Earlier in the same comment you asked, ‘Now I am wondering, since the ego cannot control these thoughts which it is supposedly “creating” how can it be the creator of thereof?’ but why do you assume that the creator should necessarily be able to control what it has created? When we dream, is the creator of our dream anyone other than ourself, the dreamer, namely this mind or ego?
Since perception is itself creation, we who perceive a dream are the one who is thereby creating it, but are we able to control all that we perceive in a dream? No, we cannot, and the reason for this is simple: when we create a dream world, we create ourself as a person in that world, and it is only as that person that we perceive that world, so though we are the creator of that world, we experience ourself as a creature in it, and by being a small part of our creation we have to a large extent lost control over it. The same is the case with this world and all that we perceive in it, including all the thoughts that arise in the mind of the person whom we now seem to be.
You are creating this world from moment to moment, but since you experience yourself as a person called Salazar, and since Salazar is a creature in the world you have created, as Salazar you have lost control of most of your own creation. This is the wonderful power of māyā (self-deception or self-delusion), which according to Bhagavan is nothing other than the ego or mind. We have created this world, but we are deluded by our own creation, so we are unable to control this demon that we have conjured up.
This is why in Hindu mythology the first three divine functions, namely creation, sustenance and dissolution, are each attributed to a different deity. According to this allegorical way of expressing the truth, Brahma has created this world, but he is unable to control or sustain it, nor is he able to destroy it, so it is sustained by Vishnu and destroyed by Siva. Of these three forms of God, which two are most highly revered? Only Vishnu and Siva, because creation is not a worthy function, so Brahma, the creator, is not worshipped in any temple, but only in Vedic rituals that are performed for the fulfilment of desires.
Suppose we have an irrational fear or an obsessive desire. That fear or desire is just a thought and it is created only by us, but we have become so caught up in our own creation that we are carried away by it and seem to be unable to control it.
This is not to say that we have absolutely no control over what we think or over other phenomena. We may have some degree of control, but that degree is limited, and the more we are deluded by our own creation, the less control we have over it. However if we patiently and persistently practise self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), our viṣaya-vāsanās (outward-going inclinations, urges or desires) will be gradually weakened, and our mind will thereby be purified. To the extent that it is purified it will be clear, and the clearer it becomes the less dense will be its delusion, so the extent to which we are able to keep a tight rein on our viṣaya-vāsanās, which are the seeds that give rise to thoughts, will increase correspondingly.
7. Thoughts come only from ourself, the ego, the one who perceives them, so we alone are the root of all thoughts
In a later part of the comment whose first paragraph I quoted at the beginning of this article you wrote, ‘So where are thoughts coming from? If patiently investigated one will discover that they come out of nowhere and disappear into nowhere’, but how can anything come out of nowhere? Nowhere does not exist except as an idea or thought, so from where does the idea of nowhere arise? Something cannot come out of nothing, because nothing does not exist, so whatever appears must appear from something.
In the next paragraph of that comment you wrote, ‘it is absolutely clear that they [thoughts] cannot come from the observer of these thoughts’, but from where else could thoughts come if not from ourself, the one who perceives or observes them? Thoughts appear only in the mind, and the source from which they appear is the root thought, the ego (which is why Bhagavan calls it the mūlam, the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause of all other thoughts). The ego rises or appears only out of ātma-svarūpa (the real nature of oneself), and all other thoughts rise or appear only out of the ego, so the ego is the immediate source and foundation of all other thoughts, and ātma-svarūpa is their ultimate source and foundation.
From what does the illusion of a snake appear? It cannot appear from nowhere or nothing, so it appears from something that (in terms of this analogy) actually exists, namely a rope. However it could not appear from a rope without the intervening medium called ego or mind, because it appears to be a snake only in the view of the ego. Therefore the immediate cause for the appearance of the snake is the ego, in whose view alone it appears, and the ultimate cause of it is the rope, because without the rope there would be nothing to be seen as a snake.
This is just an analogy, so there is a limit to the extent to which it accurately represents the truth to which it is analogous, but what it is intended to illustrate here is that the ultimate source, substance and foundation of the ego and of all thoughts or phenomena perceived by the ego is only ātma-svarūpa, but that the immediate source, substance and foundation of all thoughts or phenomena is only the ego, because it is only in the view of the ego that everything else seems to exist.
Without the ego could any other thought or phenomenon appear? It could not, because the ego is that to which and from which all other thoughts or phenomena appear. Likewise, without ātma-svarūpa could the ego appear? It could not, because ātma-svarūpa is that from which (but not to which) the ego appears.
This is why in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? Bhagavan says, ‘மனம் ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தினின்று வெளிப்படும்போது ஜகம் தோன்றும்’ (maṉam ātma-sorūpattiṉiṉḏṟu veḷippaḍum-pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟum), ‘When the mind comes out from ātma-svarūpa, the world appears’, meaning that ātma-svarūpa is the source from which the mind or ego appears, and in the previous sentence said, ‘[…] அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது’ (appaḍiyē maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu), ‘[…] in that way the mind also causes the world to appear from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself’, meaning that the mind or ego is the source from which the world and all other thoughts appear.
If other thoughts or phenomena did not originate from the ego, that would mean that they originate from something else, in which case they would be able to exist independent of the ego, which is contrary to all that Bhagavan taught us. Why should we believe that anything exists independent of the ego, or that anything originates from any source other than the ego? Since everything is perceived only by the ego, we do not have any adequate reason to suppose that anything exists independent of it or comes from anything other than it. This is why Bhagavan repeatedly emphasised that the ego (which is what he often referred to as ‘the thought called I’) is the first thought and the root of all other thoughts.
8. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: everything depends for its seeming existence on the seeming existence of the ego, so when we investigate the ego keenly enough to see that it does not exist, that is giving up everything
Since the ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things, in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan wrote:
அகந்தையுண் டாயி னனைத்துமுண் டாகுIn the kaliveṇbā version of this verse Bhagavan extended the first sentence of this verse by adding a relative clause to describe the ego, namely ‘கருவாம்’ (karu-v-ām), which means ‘which is the embryo [womb, efficient cause, inner substance or foundation]’ and which therefore implies that the ego is the embryo that develops into everything else, the womb from which everything is born, the efficient cause (nimitta kāraṇa) that creates or produces everything, the inner substance of all phenomena, and the foundation on which they all appear.
மகந்தையின் றேலின் றனைத்து — மகந்தையே
யாவுமா மாதலால் யாதிதென்று நாடலே
யோவுதல் யாவுமென வோர்.
ahandaiyuṇ ḍāyi ṉaṉaittumuṇ ḍāhu
mahandaiyiṉ ḏṟēliṉ ḏṟaṉaittu — mahandaiyē
yāvumā mādalāl yādideṉḏṟu nādalē
yōvudal yāvumeṉa vōr.
பதச்சேதம்: அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும். அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum. ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr.
அன்வயம்: அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், அனைத்தும் இன்று. யாவும் அகந்தையே ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே யாவும் ஓவுதல் என ஓர்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, aṉaittum iṉḏṟu. yāvum ahandai-y-ē ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē yāvum ōvudal eṉa ōr.
English translation: If the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist. The ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this is alone is giving up everything.
Explanatory paraphrase: If the ego comes into existence, everything [all phenomena, everything that appears and disappears, everything other than our pure, fundamental, unchanging and immutable self-awareness] comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist [because nothing other than pure self-awareness actually exists, so everything else seems to exist only in the view of the ego, and hence it cannot seem to exist unless the ego seems to exist]. [Therefore] the ego itself is everything [because it is the original seed or embryo, which alone is what expands as everything else]. Therefore, know that investigating what this [the ego] is alone is giving up everything [because the ego will cease to exist if it investigates itself keenly enough, and when it ceases to exist everything else will cease to exist along with it].
Since the ego seems to exist only so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, it will dissolve and cease to exist only when we try to be so keenly self-attentive that we are aware of nothing other than ourself. And since all other things seem to exist only in the view of the ego, if we keenly investigate this ego in order to see what we actually are, not only will the ego cease to exist but everything else will cease to exist along with it.
This is why he concludes this verse by saying: ‘ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்’ (ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr), ‘Therefore, know that investigating what this [the ego] is alone is giving up everything’.
This is the core and essence of his teachings, so it is essential for us to understand very clearly that the ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things (all thoughts or phenomena). Everything originates from the ego and depends upon the ego for its seeming existence, so if we eradicate the ego we thereby eradicate everything.
Posts
1,351 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 1351 Newer› Newest»Salazar,
regarding funny reminder, as you see I sometimes am ready for a laugh. Hope you have a sense of humour for that kind of redundancy and do not put on a hurt expression.
Sanjay Lohia,
you say "When our ego is destroyed, we will come to know that the heart is the only thing which exists and that our body and everything else was merely our imagination."
Because (my) ego is far away from being destroyed I have simply the desire to see a person whose ego is completely destroyed. Have you seen such one in present India or do you know where else one is to find ? But please do not tell me that pure self-awareness is easily to find in the innermost core of my own heart.
vastu-upalabdhi, I am always game for a good laugh :)
Salazar,
when you reply "you are forgetting two things in your last comment, a) if someone is helping or not helping is entirely dependent on prarabdha, and more importantly b), in believing that one is capable "using one's strength" one is seeing oneself as a do-er and has therefore succumbed to suttarivu and remains in delusion."
ad a): you seem to overlook the important role of free will. But I don't want to discuss this matter again.
ad b): using one's strength does not necessarily or absolutely mean to see oneself as the doer. But I don't want to discuss this matter further and again.
Good evening!
sada-apramada, why even respond if you do not want to discuss this matter further again? LOL
To a} - there is free will, but that only applies to our inner mental world, not to outward actions, but feel free to cling at what you like to believe.
To b) - the phrase "using one's strength" is implying very clearly a do-er, and that is expressed with the word "one" [as THE individual] in that phrase. As long as there is an identification with being an individual who is doing something then there is absolutely a do-er. Bhagavan was not a do-er past 16 years old, you and we certainly are. The notion one could not see oneself as a do-er without Jnana is simply nonsense!
It seems we had that talk previously, I keep forgetting (with these countless Indian monikers which keep showing up here) who is pushing what kind of belief on this blog.
P.S. If you spout out the same nonsense a few weeks down the road I very likely will respond again. I do not like when people distort Bhagavan's teaching.
Vastu Upalabdhi,
Would you approve of the following word change bolded in your earlier comment
-----------------
Since all phenomena are perceived only by the ego - when we rise and stand as this ego - , they do not exist independent of it. When we do not mistake ourself to be this ego all the mental phenomena which are called "the world" do not exist at all.
------------------
And to continue in the vein of your comment, in addition to the perceiving ego, please do not neglect the ashamed ego, the traveling ego, the virtue signalling ego, and above all, the cunning ego.
Best regards.
Clear Shining of 'I', even if we meet a person whose ego has been destroyed, how can we judge this accurately? Outwardly, he or she will be just like us. However, Michael could be the one whose has ego been destroyed. I say this because of the clarity with which he explains or expands on Bhagavan’s teachings. However, even if he is not one it should make little difference, because whatever he writes or speaks is of great value in itself.
If you a desire to see a person whose ego has been destroyed, why not try seeing yourself? This is the only way to see a ‘person’ whose ego has been destroyed. However, once your ego is destroyed, you will no longer experience yourself as a person. Therefore, your desire of seeing a person whose ego has been destroyed, sadly, can never be fulfilled.
We can say that Bhagavan’s ego was destroyed, but that is just an idea in my mind. When we see Bhagavan as a body, we are making him into an ajnani. It is because a jnani is not the body but jnana itself. He appears with a body only in our ignorant outlook. In his view, he is just pure self-awareness. He teaches us this in verse 13 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Oneself, who is jñāna [knowledge or awareness], alone is real. Awareness that is manifold [namely the mind, whose root, the ego, is the awareness that sees the one as many] is ajñāna [ignorance].
Sorry, there was a typo in my previous comment. It should have been:
However, Michael could be the one whose ego has been destroyed.
We are convinced by what we immediately experience. This is the power of the mind. Whatever the mind directly experiences at that moment, seems to be real. While we are dreaming the dream seems to be real, but now we understand that it wasn’t real.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 17th July 2016
Reflections: Our senses and mind will always cheat us; they will always make us see or experience things which are not as they appear to be. Bhagavan says that what exists is only atma-svarupa, but don’t we see all these endless phenomena? These phenomena, which appear and disappear, are unreal - in fact, they are just not there. However, when we are experiencing them we take them to be real, don’t we? It is all the power of the mind, and the mind is the root of maya.
Salazar,
you ask "why even respond if you do not want to discuss this matter further again? LOL".
I used my free will to respond to your instruction given to me with your comment of the day before yesterday about having "forgotten two things".
There you also spouted the problematic remarks "There is no need to be concerned about "others"..."because a mature seeker leaves those things to the Divine or Ishwara".
Huh!
Presumably you live in a single household - only for you alone and nobody could hear your LOL.
To a): Free will also can applied very well to outward actions albeit only in the prevailing conditions and circumstances of prarabdha.
What you write to b) I admit is generally rather correct. However, we can of course do any action completely free of the sense of own doership albeit only in little steps. Try it and you will see it.
Yes we had that talk about those subjects previously. That is the reason why I do not want to discuss this matter further.
But feel free to keep Bhagavan's teaching free of supposed or actual distortions.
We may possibly learn from that. As you say IMHO.
Anonymous,
I would approvingly nod if it is true what we assume that the world and all phenomena are (ultimately) only a mental imagination.
Of course we can include in your list all the delusive facets and cunning aspects of the ego.
Kind regards.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 20
The Lord who shines as ‘I’ in the cave of the heart-lotus, is indeed he who is adored as Guhesan. If, by the strength of constant practice of the meditation ‘He is I’ (soham bhavana) in the form ‘That Guhesan is I’, you abide as that Lord as firmly as ‘I’ is now established in your body, then the ignorance ‘I am this perishable body’ will perish like darkness in front of the red sun.
Sri Sadhu Om: In this verse, Sri Bhagavan reveals how the practice of such soham bhavana, if correctly understood and applied, can lead to the experience of self-knowledge. That is, if by the strength of the conviction ‘I am I’ gained through the constant remembrance ‘The reality which shines in the heart as ‘I’ alone is ‘I’, one abides as that reality, which is the mere existence-consciousness ‘I am’, instead of rising as a separate individual in the form of the feeling ‘I am this body’, then the sun of jnana will shine forth swallowing the darkness of ajnana, which is the attachment to the perishable body as ‘I’.
Reflections: The ignorance ‘I am this body’ has to go before we can hope to achieve anything worthwhile, and this ignorance will go only when we investigate the ego which has this ignorance. However, even while we experience ourself as the body, it is useful to constantly remind ourself that we cannot be this body or mind, which we now seem to be, because we exist without any body or mind in sleep. If we were this body or mind, we can never separate ourselves from these. Therefore, the fact that we experience only self-awareness in sleep clearly establishes the fact that we cannot be this body or mind.
However, mere repetition of ‘He is I’ or any such repetition will not destroy our ego. Who is repeating such formulas? It is our ego. So how can the ego be destroyed by such repetitions? As Bhagavan has indicated, such repetitions can be an aid in the preliminary stages of one’s sadhana, but if we continue with such practices beyond a point, it which show our lack of viveka (true discrimination).
If ‘I am brahmam’, then ‘who am I?’ Because if we know ‘I’ as it actually is, we will automatically know what brahman is. So self-investigation is the only way to experience ourself as brahman or God or whatever.
Sanjay Lohia,
Michael denies to be a jnani. Because of the clarity of his explanations I would like to have my doubts about that his statement.
Admittingly my desire is a bit silly. But I was in this mood to express my wish.
Clear Shining of 'I', a real jnani will never admit or say that he is a jnani. If he says so, it will show that he still distinguishes himself from others – ‘I am a jnani and therefore all of you are ajnanis’. A true jnani can never have such bheda bhavana (an attitude of differentiation), because in his view what exists is only himself. That is, there are no ‘others’ for him.
So we can never know with certainty whether Michael or anyone else for that matter is the jnani or not, and frankly, we should not be concerned about such matters. All such speculations are anatma-vichara. We need to practise only atma-vichara (who am I?).
sada-apramada, you keep saying you do not want to discuss the matter further and yet you do, LOL! Because you do not have free will in that regard (as I mentioned before) but it seems you are a knucklehead :) and therefore only time will give you the correct insights.
If you'd actually practice correctly (and stop giving advises "to try" to others) then you'd realize that you could be the head of a household of 20 people and still leave the responsibility to the Divine. The sickness of your child, your wife going into bed with another man, trying to pay bills etc.
What "you" will be doing at that household is already determined by prarabdha at the birth of your body. That you believe that you actually make a decision to punch the guy who sleeps with your wife is due to the erroneous identification with your body and mind.
If you keep believing in that responsibility or need to care for your loved ones then you will never attain moksha. That is an absolute fact! I suggest to re-examine your beliefs, there are currently rather immature. Of course you won't like hearing that.
Your comments deserve to be ignored because people will pick up a very bad reflection of Bhagavan's teaching.
Sanjay Lohia, I am not a Jnani - hahahahahaha
Sorry, couldn't resist.
David Godman said that there is currently no public known Jnani alive. Now we can say what does he know .... but then why indulge in the imagination of the possibility of Michael being a Jnani? I don't believe he is but what does that matter?
When Annamalai Swami was asked if he has realized Self he answered "yes". And there is nothing wrong with that - there is no rule that they cannot say that even if technically that individual cannot be (as an individual) enlightened.
It is totally up to prarabdha how a Jnani will act (taken from Padamalai), if he has a saintly life like Bhagavan or if he acts like a crazy person, if he prefers solitude or if he is running a kingdom.
It is advised to take certain concepts more casual with a certain fluidity.
Sanjay Lohia,
you say "When we see Bhagavan as a body, we are making him into an ajnani. It is because a jnani is not the body but jnana itself."
I think it is more accurate to say: when we mistake Bhagavan's identity as a body we are not making him into an ajnani but we prove to be ajnanis.
Salazar,
how could be a crazy person considered as a jnani ? Is that your recommended way of looking at "certain concepts more casual with a certain fluidity" ?
clear shining of "I", that's how it is and that is not from me but out of Padamalai, I suggest reading it, it may prevent unnecessary belligerent questions.
Will the jnani ever say ‘I am a jnani? If he says so, it will be a ground for ridicule. Why? Bhagavan answers this in verse 33 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Saying [either] ‘I do not know myself’ [or] ‘I have known myself’ is ground for ridicule. Why? To make oneself viṣaya [an object, something known as other than oneself, the knower], are there two selves [a knowing self and a known self]? Because being one is the truth, [as is known by] the experience of everyone. [That is, since we always experience ourself as one, we are never not aware of ourself, so ātma-jñāna (self-knowledge or self-awareness) is not something that we are yet to attain but is our very nature, and hence what is called the attainment of ātma-jñāna is actually not a gain of anything but a loss of everything along with its root, the ego, which is merely a false awareness of ourself (an awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are), and when the ego is lost there is no one left to say ‘I have known myself’, because what remains is only our real nature, which is pure, infinite, eternal and immutable self-awareness.]
If we say ‘I do not know myself’, it will be a meaningless statement. How can ‘I’ not know ‘I’? Who says, ‘I do not know myself’? The ‘I’ that says so is the very ‘I’ about which we say ‘I do not know myself’. In fact, if we do not know ‘I', how can we know anything else? If I say ‘I see you’, I first confirm my awareness of myself as ‘I’ before I confirm your existence as 'you'. So 'I' is always aware of itself as 'I'.
Likewise, when we are able to experience ourself as we really are, there will be no one left to say ‘I have known myself’. When our ego is lost we will not be able to produce any thoughts, and without the aid of thoughts how can we say, ‘I have known myself’? Bhagavan clearly implies this in verse 33 of Ulladu Narpadu.
Salazar,
your warning "Your comments deserve to be ignored because people will pick up a very bad reflection of Bhagavan's teaching." will fall on deaf ears because according your viewpoint all is entirely dependent on prarabdha. In that case that "people will pick up a very bad reflection ..." only those people's prarabdha is necessarily carried out and they will have not had any possibility of prevention.
By the way, raising one's homespun ideologies and beliefs in the rank of "an absolute fact" is quite original but shows exaggerated confidence in the ego's repertoire of ploys.
However, I cannot and don't claim that my beliefs are not be re-examined.
When we think of God so many other thoughts come to our mind. Our meditation is often interrupted by other thoughts. How can we meditate on God without interruption? We can do so only if we have an all-consuming love for God.
When we think of other things in the middle of our meditation, it is because we are more concerned about those other things - we are more concerned about our little worldly problems, about our family problems, about our work problems, all these things. So other thoughts come. Where our mind goes is what interests us, what concerns us, what we think contributes to our happiness.
So the more we love God, the easier it is to think of God without interruption.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 7th August 2016 (0:11 onwards)
Diogenes, you asked about my trip to Europe. I had to go there for a family related matter and was mostly confined to one location. I was not sure if I even could go because of my health issues, I made arrangements in March for the trip in June and for awhile it looked like I had to cancel the trip.
Looking back Bhagavan orchestrated everything perfectly to push my attachments and in order to have piece of mind I had to fall back to more and more vichara. It is said that Bhagavan has great compassion and I am wondering how people understand that term. Mostly one assumes great empathy with the struggles of people with the wish that people “do well”.
That's what we, mostly habitually, do – we tell the people we like “have a good one” or “I hope things are well for you”. But what does that really mean? I.e. somebody struggles with a disease or pain and of course that somebody wants that disease or pain to subside or go away. Friends share that notion and give their well wishes. And that could be compassion too.
But is it really? I am not so sure the last few months where I wanted to go back to my comfort zone and be “healthy” again. But it never ends and the next ailment is just around the corner and that is the classic attachment to ones body and the pleasant sense perceptions we are so strongly attached to. The solution is NOT to fix the problem (besides that is taken care by prarabdha) but to transcend it and that works only when one can give up the desire for health and accepts disease and pain as it is. No preference for “feeling good” and no preference for “feeling bad”.... only then one may overcome one of the obstacles of being attached to this body.
So Bhagavan's compassion is not that we are “doing great” in the common sense but that we, through the pain, fear and trials of disease go beyond the body and that won't happen if everything is hunky dory. A serious disease is not bad karma but Bhagavan's greatest gift and compassion to lead one to Self.
Nothing really new but it is most certainly different if one idly contemplates about it (as I did many years ago) and then actually is faced with that very situation. It also shows how much BS the mind tells itself in being on a spiritual path. Once actually confronted the mind quickly panics and only Bhagavan's vichara can help us with that.
---------------------------------------
I didn't get a chance to go to Assisi (I didn't plan to do so) what is fine. I have no desire to go to any specific place in the world, not even Arunachala. If my prarabdha brings me there (or any other place), fine - if not, equally fine.
Salazar, thank you for this comment that feels it comes directly from the heart of experience rather than fully from the intellect.
Somehow I realized also that Bhagavan bends but not breaks... unless the situation really requires a radical and "past due" change of perspective.
Let us not forget that healthy times, or when everything seems to happen according to "our wishes" are also hard tests for us to keep abiding. Sometimes even harder than painful ones, when the body "wants" to return to its naturality.
Salazar, thank you for your detailed reply to my inquiry.
Your account about your painful experiences and particularly your spiritual views about them make a stronger impression on me than your philosophical opinions. Certainly these experiences made a mature man of you. Nevertheless, I wish you the best and quick recovery.
When you write "...in order to have piece of mind" presumably you mean "peace of mind".
May I ask you - out of sheer curiosity - from which part of Europe you and/or your family are descended from ?
Mouna,
greetings,
you write "Let us not forget that healthy times, or when everything seems to happen according to "our wishes" are also hard tests for us to keep abiding. Sometimes even harder than painful ones, when the body "wants" to return to its naturality."
There is something true in your statement.
Sanjay Lohia,
"How can we meditate on God without interruption? We can do so only if we have an all-consuming love for God."
So first we have to develop such all-consuming love for God.
The Evolution of the Mother's Temple
(First published in The Mountain Path, 2000, pp. 179-87.)
Bhagavan himself summed up the rapid development of both the temple and the ashram when he remarked to T. P. Ramachandra Iyer, 'I suggested that the body be buried silently before dawn. But things happened the way they had to happen. See how many constructions have now come up on the site where a body was silently buried!'
-------------------
Anecdotes like these are, to my limited mind, as valuable as anything in Ulladu Narpadu or Naan Yaar. I guess we each take our own vessel to the source and fill it to the best of our capacity.
Anonymous,
regarding Mother's Temple,
may I guess if the Mother's body sits also looking in direction of Arunachala Hill like Sri Ramana's body is sitting some 7 meters further slightly to the north of Matrubhuteswara Shrine ?
Anonymous, I agree. Bhagavan’s life itself is a very powerful teaching. I think we have never seen before such love, such compassion, such non-possession, such viaragya (non-attachment), such accessibility, such purity, as we see in Bhagavan's life. So Bhagavan’s life is as powerful and fascinating as his teachings.
You write, ‘I guess we each take our own vessel to the source and fill it to the best of our capacity’. I again agree. However, what is the biggest vessel we can take to Bhagavan? Without any doubt, such a vessel is our practice of self-attentiveness. One dip within and we can carry the entire Bhagavan with us, or in other words, we can carry the infinite ocean itself.
Clear Shining of I, yes, our aim is to develop an all-consuming love for God, but most of us can cultivate such love only over a long period of time. And the most effective and quickest way to cultivate such love is by practising self-investigation to the extent possible.
In other words, as Sri Krishna teaches us Bhagavad Gita, whenever our mind tries to run away from us, we should gently and gradually withdraw one’s mind from activity and fix it on ourself. This is usually a long-drawn-out process, but with untiring persistence, we will finally develop the required all-consuming love to merge within.
Bhagavad Gita verse 6.25 (verse 27 of Bhagavad Gita Saram):
By [an] intellect [a power of discrimination or discernment] imbued with firmness [steadfastness, resolution, persistence or courage] one should gently and gradually withdraw [one’s mind] from [all] activity. Having made [one’s] mind stand firm in atman, one should not think even a little of anything else.
We cannot fail if we persevere. This should be quite obvious and clear to us.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verses 21 and 22:
21: To Rama, who asked, ‘Tell, in which great mirror do all these worlds appear in front as a reflection, and what is that which is declared to be the heart of all the beings in this universe?’, Sage Vasishtha said, ‘When considered, the heart of all the beings of this world is of two kinds’.
Sri Sadhu Om: Verse 21 is adapted from Yoga Vasishtha.
22: (Vasishtha continued): ‘Listen to the characteristics of these two, one which is fit to be accepted and one which is fit to be rejected. Know that the organ called heart which is situated in a place within the chest of the limited body is that which is fit to be rejected, and the heart whose form is the one consciousness is that which is fit to be accepted. That exists both inside and outside, but it is not that which exists only inside or only outside’.
Sri Sadhu Om: The real spiritual heart is not a place in the limited body, but is only the timeless, placeless and unlimited self, whose form is the pure consciousness ‘I am’. Though this real heart is said to exist both inside and outside, it is in truth that which exists devoid of all such distinctions as ‘inside’ or ‘outside’, because these distinctions exist only with reference to the body, which is itself unreal.
Reflections: Heart means the ‘centre’, and the centre of everything is our consciousness. We cannot experience anything if there is no consciousness to perceive that thing, and whatever seems to exist exists only within our consciousness. So it is clear that our consciousness is the heart or centre of everything. As Sri Sadhu Om explains, 'heart' is another name for our true nature.
Someone asked Bhagavan, ‘Bhagavan, what is your central teaching?’ Bhagavan replied, ‘Centre (heart) itself is my teaching’.
Salazar
Excuse me but when I read 'knucklehead' I got a good laugh out it. It must be 50 years or more since I heard that word used.
Maybe this word is being recirculated again and I missed it...or could be you are showing your age?
No need to reply which of the two choices is correct.
Welcome back from your long trip.
Devotee: How to differentiate between dispassion from laziness?
Michael: Good question! Bhagavan says in Nan Yar?, ‘The real vairagya is not attending to anything anya (other than ourself)’. If we assume that we have vairagya and therefore do not go to work, that is not vairagya. If we lie around the home watching T.V., that is not vairagya, because we are still attending to something other than ourself.
So laziness is a feature of the mind. It is when the mind wants to do whatever is easy for it. But that is completely different to vairagya. Vairagya, according to Bhagavan, is when the mind does not move out to attend to anything other than itself.
In the next sentence of Nan Yar? he says, ‘Tying the stone of vairagya to the waist, we should dive within and get the pearl of atman’. So be refraining from attending to other things, by cultivating the love to attend only to ourself, in that way we can dive within and procure the pearl of atman.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 7th August 2016 (1:02 to 1:05)
And yet one can "have" vairagya and also lie around at home and watch TV. Vairagya is not determined by the actions of the body but by the state of mind. So the body can lie on a sofa and the head is turned to the TV while the mind is firmly attending to Self.
Same for not going to work or whatever. The actions of the body cannot reveal or convey what actually the mind is doing. As an extreme example one can make love to his spouse and attending firmly to Self (and with that to be oblivious of any sense perceptions like an orgasm). That will be probably only the case for very advanced practitioners.
Again, it is not the outward actions which count but the accompanying state of mind.
BECAUSE, we do not have the power to decide to NOT watch TV if that is our prarabdha, however we can use our "free will" and instead of paying attention to the actions on the TV rather attend to Self.
I am certain most cannot agree to that but what the heck, I just post it anyway,
I like talking to knuckleheads :)
Salazar,
you say: BECAUSE, we do not have the power to decide to NOT watch TV if that is our prarabdha, however we can use our "free will" and instead of paying attention to the actions on the TV rather attend to Self.
I say: Because we do not know what is our prarabdha we have at any time the power to use our "free will" or at least to try it. There is no need lamenting "we do not have the power to decide to NOT watch TV". Watching TV is never our prarabdha.
Maharshi:
In truth we are everywhere.
We are all that is and there is nothing else.
"Watching TV is never our prarabdha".
This is one of the most idiotic comments I've read on this blog so far and shows your immense ignorance my friend.
Salazar,
thanks for awarding/decorating my comment with holding a record:)
I don't want to mention here in which discipline you certainly are world class.
But we can console one another: Even the most dense ignorance is borne by the One without a second. May the Lord help us. Only He is and we are not.
Yes, the amount of our ignorance is hopeless and we have to pay the penalty for that.
This is in response to Salazar’s comment dated 25 June 2018 at 19:00. I do not entirely disagree with his views, but I would like to share my reflections on this topic:
As Salazar says, the actions of our body are not that important, because what matters is the attitude of our mind. Bhagavan used to say that we should keep our mind in solitude while allowing our hands to work in society. So our eyes could be turned towards the TV but our attention could be on ourself. It is quite possible.
However, as long as we are turned outwards, we seem to have the freedom to use our attention in various ways. For example, if we are turned outwards, we can either chose to attend to the TV, or instead chose to attend to our wife, or chose to turn within and attend to ourself. It could be our prarabdha to watch TV or whatever, but it will still seem to us that we are doing these actions as decided by our will.
For example, if one day I bunk off from my office because I want to watch a football match, my boss will be obviously angry with me if he comes to know the reason for my absence. In a fit of anger, he may fire me. In such a scenario, can I tell my boss that it was my prarabdha to watch this football match, and therefore he is unjustified in firing me? No, I have to assume that I did that action by my will. Likewise, it could be my boss’s prarabdha to fire me, but I will still blame him for firing me for such a petty reason.
In retrospect, I can understand now that all the past events were part of my destiny. That is, I can now understand that I was fired from my previous job because Bhagavan had a better job in mind for me. Likewise, I can also understand that whatever will happen in future will also be also according to Bhagavan’s will, but while these actions are actually happening, it will seem to me that these actions are being done by my will.
In conclusion: So whatever we are currently experiencing seems real to us, and our current actions seem to be done by our will. Such actions could be part of destiny, but how can we know this while it is taking place?
Of course, we should ty the stone of vairagya to Salazar's waist.:)
Sanjay Lohia,
"In conclusion: So whatever we are currently experiencing seems real to us, and our current actions seem to be done by our will. Such actions could be part of destiny, but how can we know this while it is taking place?"
Beyond all these karma, destiny and vasanas we should understand that in the state of sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi we remain undisturbed. So we have rapidly transcend the fields of intellect
By Ishwara's grace, the stone shall be tied
Lingaswarupa, I think you are exactly right about the samadhis of the Mother and Bhagavan but I am not completely sure. Some one more knowledgeable could confirm it...
Fate and Freewill (from Devaraja Mudaliars book Gems from Bhagavan)
Freewill and destiny are ever existent. Destiny is the result of past action; it concerns the body. Let the body act as may suit it. Why are you concerned about it? Why do you pay attention to it. Freewill and destiny last as long as the body lasts. But jnana transcends both. The Self is beyond knowledge and ignorance. Whatever happens, happens as the result of one's past actions, of divine will and of other factors.
There are only two ways to conquer destiny or be independent of it. One is to enquire for whom is this destiny and discover that only the ego is bound by destiny and not the Self and that the ego is non-existent.
The other way is to kill the ego by completely surrendering to the Lord, by realizing one's helplessness and saying all the time, 'Not I, but Thou oh Lord' and giving up all sense of 'I' and mine, and leaving it to the Lord to do what he likes with you. Complete effacement of the ego is necessary to conquer destiny, whether you achieve this effacement through self-enquiry or bhakti marga (Path).
--------------------
The path of devotion dissolves the subject into the object, while the path of jnana dissolves the object into the subject. At some stage on either path there are vague premonitions that there is only one Entity and not two, all strictly IMHO.
Sanjay Lohia, in terms of how prarabdha works we still have to remain in disagreement.
But in that what we can agree on, diligently practicing vichara, we can rejoice.
**************************
Hello gargoyle and Mouna, I never properly thanked you for your welcome wishes, so thank you very much, and gargoyle, I am glad I could be of assistance for making you laugh. Unintended consequences ...
strolling along, except of idiotic, uninformed remarks and spouting out platitudes as observed in your last comment, do you have actually any worthwhile to contribute?
Prarabdha can be anything, raping and torturing little children, making idiotic comments, sitting in the Himalayas meditating, etc. etc.
It is obvious that most people here have not contemplated deep enough about prarabdha based on Bhagavan's comments. When the lifting of an arm is predetermined then it is also predetermined that a head turns to a TV, same thing. If people really would have the power to change the actions of their bodies and could override Divine will chaos would ensue and mankind would be annihilated in a short period of time.
I am amazed that something so obvious eludes most here on this blog.
Ego is the embodiment of attachment. It is the root of attachment, and its very form is attachment. But after a while, we get tired of all this. Because when you grasp things, it is like carrying one’s luggage on one’s head. It is much easier to let go, but we do not let go because we are not willing to let go.
Someone asked Bhagavan, ‘Why haven’t we attained liberation?’ Bhagavan said ‘Because you haven’t yet had enough’. If we had enough, we wouldn’t be here.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 8th October 2016 (0:29 to 0:32)
Reflections: Yes, we haven’t yet had enough. But we are now getting tired of all this, so very soon we will say, ‘Bhagavan, enough is enough. Now end this senseless game’.
Ulladu Narpadu anubandham - verse 23
Vasishtha continued: That - pure consciousness - alone is the important heart (mukhya hridayam). In it all these are existing. It is the mirror to all objects. It alone is the abode of all wealth. Hence, consciousness alone is declared to be the heart of all beings. It is not a small portion in a part of the body, which is perishable and insentient like a stone.
Note: This verse is adapted from Yoga Vasishtha.
Reflections: What is the heart of our body? It is the ego. And what is the heart of our ego? It is ourself as we really are. Therefore our atma-svarupa is the centre or heart of everything. Atma-svarupa is the mirror in which the images of this world appear and disappear, but there is no change in atma-svarupa. It is just like the reflections on a mirror which appear and disappear, but the mirror remains the same.
How can one ever completely attending to Self if one is busy to "decide" one's destiny? Either we attend to Self (and we leave the actions of the body on its own) or we are busy identifying with that body and the mind dreams or imagines making a decision while that decision is already entirely determined by our vasanas.
It will become clear eventually that, in order "to have enough", that one also has to have enough of that mind game that one is actually deciding anything. Our jobs, our family, our environment, our health, anything ...... are irrelevant.
As long as they are relevant we have not had enough yet.
Salazar,
if you had used your brain then you could understand Bhagavan's teachings better. Your mentioned example "When the lifting of an arm is predetermined ...is just a perfect example how Bhagavan's teaching is grossly misunderstood by people whose mind was obviously thrown into confusion. The theory of karma is told only to give people some explanations about the development of their lives.
It is therefore not surprising "that most people here have not contemplated deep enough about prarabdha based on Bhagavan's comments." because Bhagavan did not largeley expound the significance of karma theory. At least that is my opinion.
Dr Nandita Shah: Whether at the airport, in a train, driving or in a conference, regardless of where you are, its commonplace to see people on their mobile phones these days. And, with Facebook, WhatsApp, and mobile calls as our preferred channels of communication, we increasingly tend to live in a virtual world. That’s not all bad; sure social media platforms are a great way to connect with like-minded people. But sometimes we are so preoccupied with our phones that we barely take a break, and forget to raise our heads to look at the people around us. Apart from isolating ourselves from the real world, we also get enveloped in a zone of electromagnetic frequencies with all the mobile phones and network towers around us. And, these are proven to have grave consequences on our health..
I remember several years ago when I was in Switzerland for a seminar, I was pleasantly surprised to see no one using a cell phone, even during the breaks. I was informed that people considered it rude to speak on the phone while in company. That's what I call etiquette..
While we cannot undermine the usefulness of mobile phones, we must be aware that they eventually substitute people in our lives and often become our closest companions. So, here is a gentle reminder to use your phone mindfully without letting it become too addictive.
Reflections: I recently came across this piece of writing by Dr Nandita Shah. Since we were discussing the topic of use and abuse of mobile phones sometime back, I thought it would be a useful sharing. Her main point is, we should use the mobile phones mindfully so that it does not become too addictive. I think most of us need this warning.
In general, mobiles are becoming an addiction, and any addiction makes it that much more difficult to turn within. Hence, we need to use this judiciously and try to keep it away from us whenever it is possible.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 24
(Vasishtha concluded): ‘Therefore, by the practice of fixing the mind in the pure heart, which is of the nature of consciousness, the subsidence of the breath (prana) along with the tendencies (vasanas) will be accomplished automatically’.
Sri Sadhu Om: After reading verse 28 of Ullada Narpadu, some aspirants wrongly conclude that it is necessary to practice some technique of pranayama in order to be able to harness the mind and turn it inwards to know its source, the heart or real self. However, in this present verse, Sri Bhagavan clearly reveals that it is not necessary to practice any special techniques of breath-control, because the breath or prana will subside automatically when one fixes the mind in the heart through self-attention.
Reflections: As Sri Sadhu Om says, some aspirants misinterpret verse 28 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Like sinking wanting to see something that has fallen in water, sinking within restraining speech and breath by a sharpened mind it is necessary to know the place where the rising ego rises. Know.
However Bhagavan makes it clear in verse 24 of Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham that if we practise self-investigation, the subsidence of prana along with the subsidence of vishaya-vasanas will be automatically accomplished.
Sanjay Lohia,
you say "...Sri Bhagavan clearly reveals that it is not necessary to practice any special techniques of breath-control, because the breath or prana will subside automatically when one fixes the mind in the heart through self-attention."
Fixig the mind is done by keen meditation.
But I cannot find any heart to lay down the mind.
It seems the heart does not possess any location in the body or elsewhere.
So how or where can I find it in order to put down the mind (in it) ?
Somewhere it is written that it is difficult to be born in a human body or hard to attain a human birth. How can one be in the position to say that ?
One cannot find the Heart (since it is not an object) because we ARE the Heart.
The mind in activity is covering up the Heart, therefore we have to be still (as in no mind activity).
Salazar,
thank you for your eluminating advice.
Do I conclude correctly from this that the mind is brought into the heart already and only by its stillness ?
realizer
a few verses from Adi Shankara’s Vivekachudamani
For all living creatures, a human birth is indeed rare; much more difficult it is to attain full manhood; rarer than this is a Sattvic attitude in life. Even after gaining all these rare chances, to have steadfastness on the spiritual path as explained in Vedic literature is yet rarer; much more so to have a correct understanding of the deep import of the scriptures.
Discrimination between the Real and the unreal, a personal realization of spiritual Glory and ultimately to get fully established in the living consciousness that the Self in me is the Self in all---these come only later on, and culminate in one‘s liberation. This kind of perfect liberation cannot be obtained without the meritorious deeds of many millions of well-lived lives.
Very rare indeed are these three things and happen only due to the utmost Grace of God—a human birth, a burning desire for liberation, and the blessed refuge of an illuminated sage (jnani).
Is there a man who, having somehow obtained this rare human birth, also a complete knowledge of the scriptures, is foolish enough not to strive hard for realisation? One verily commits suicide, clinging to things unreal.
Is there a greater fool than the person who, having got the rare chance of a human birth and there too, the masculine qualities of the head and heart, falls short in his efforts to realize his own highest good?
I cannot answer your question though.
chitta ekagrata, the mind is not brought to the Heart yet because of its activity. When it becomes still and with that free of desires and attachments it automatically moves to the Heart with the Grace of Bhagavan.
When I said we are already the Heart I was referring to the erroneous idea that we are the mind which we never were, however paradoxically with the emergence of the fictitious mind we give it reality and strangely we have to do vichara do lose that idea of the reality of the mind.
According to Bhagavan, after realization we'll realize that there were never an entity called mind.
One more thing, the fictitious mind is making an effort to find its source however it can never actually find it because the mind does not really exist and that what does not exist (but in imagination) cannot realize or attain anything. So what we do is to seemingly "reduce" the activity of the mind until, and that has nothing to do with the mind whatsoever, Self is realized by the Grace of Bhagavan.
The mind can never attain or realize Self with its own effort, it can only seemingly "prepare" itself to be ready to evaporate as the Fata Morgana it is.
Anonymous has quoted some verses from Adi Sankara’s Vivekachudamani. I will try to paraphrase some of the important ideas mentioned in these verses:
Sankara says, ‘This kind of perfect liberation cannot be obtained without the meritorious deeds of many millions of well-lived lives’. Wherever we are today is because of our past. We have taken many births in the past and through these births, we have gradually climbed up the spiritual ladder. In other words, we must have done sufficient niskamya-karmas in the past, because without such karmas our mind cannot be purified, and without some purification, we will not even be attracted to Bhagavan’s path.
As Sankara says, we need ‘a burning desire for liberation, and the blessed refuge of an illuminated sage (jnani)’. We are fortunate because we have both. However, though we have a desire for liberation, we have still not given up our hold on this world. We still want to do this or that; we still have our desires and attachments. All these things are holding us back from our final liberation.
As Sankara further says, we are ‘foolish enough not to strive hard for realisation? One verily commits suicide, clinging to things unreal’. Though we are striving for liberation but are not striving hard enough. Our striving is still half-hearted. Whenever possible, we should turn within with our entire heart and soul and should continue doing so until we become one with our true nature.
The last verse of Sankara says it all: ‘Is there a greater fool than the person who, having got the rare chance of a human birth and there too, the masculine qualities of the head and heart, falls short in his efforts to realize his own highest good?’ If in spite of having come to Bhagavan, we are still far short of experiencing ourself as we really are, aren’t we great fools? I think we are. So we need to redouble our efforts.
Anonymous,
thank you for quoting some verses of Adi Shankara's Vivekachudamani.
How could Adi Shankara make that statements if he was not (like) a real God or at least a real sage ? Certainly he spoke from own full experience of the truth about mankind.
I think he lived more than thousand years ago somewhere in India.
Could you also tell me what the meaning of "full manhood" in this context is ?
Salazar,
thanks again for your explanations. But I am unclear about some points.
Could you please go into greater detail ?
You say :
"When it becomes still and with that free of desires and attachments it automatically moves to the Heart with the Grace of Bhagavan."
Then you say: "...and strangely we have to do vichara do (meaned "to") lose that idea of the reality of the mind."
Who is the bearer of that false idea und who should lose that idea ?
You say further: "So what we do is to seemingly "reduce" the activity of the mind until, and that has nothing to do with the mind whatsoever, Self is realized by the Grace of Bhagavan."
Why should reducing the mind's activity have "nothing to do with the mind whatsoever" ?
Who is the reducer ?
To whom is the "Self realized by the Grace of Bhagavan" ?
realizer
I will have to let Sanjay answer any questions about the texts I copied and pasted.
I wondered myself what the meaning of 'full manhood' is.
I enjoy reading Sankara's teaching but do not understand much of it.
thanks
Sanjay Lohia,
it seems that Adi Shankara was at least a such great calibre as Bhagavan Ramana.
But what will make us able to give up our unhappy role of being great fools ?
What means "masculine qualities of the head and heart" ? Why are that qualities considered as being male ? Are they not sexless or at least not affecting sex but neutral ?
chitta ekagrata, yes I know, it can be confusing that's why the notion of my last comment is not often used to not confuse sincere seekers.
You asked, "who is the bearer of that false idea and who should lose that idea ?"
The bearer of that false idea is the mind and the mind is supposed to lose its own idea to exist. That can only work when the mind looks where it seemingly comes from and then it will become clear that is does not exist at all. [Of course that can take several life times.]
You also asked, "Why should reducing the mind's activity have "nothing to do with the mind whatsoever" ?"
That was poorly phrased by me, initially the mind is the reducer doing vichara, however at the end it is Bhagavan/Self itself which will "do" the rest. The mind cannot "reach" or even touch Self and also not annihilate itself, that final drop off of the false idea (being a mind and body) is solely an act of Grace by Self.
And that explains also your last question, "To whom is the "Self realized by the Grace of Bhagavan" ?
There is no actual realization since there is no mind or individual, what will transpire is that once the wrong identification with the mind falls away that what always is there will remain and that is Self.
Self can only be a concept for the mind because it is beyond the mind's capacity of comprehension.
I hope I could be helpful to clarify these, especially in the beginning, confusing concepts.
Disclaimer: All the above is paraphrased by me in my own words based on the teachings of Bhagavan. It is of course always advised to either seek out a Jnani (the only "person" who is qualified to truly teach) or to try to grasp Bhagavan's teachings directly from his writings.
Salazar,
many thanks for your effort to clarify my lack of understanding.
Anonymous,
thanks, no matter.
Realizer, Sri Sankara says:
For all living creatures, a human birth is indeed rare; much more difficult it is to attain full manhood; rarer than this is a Sattvic attitude in life. Even after gaining all these rare chances, to have steadfastness on the spiritual path as explained in Vedic literature is yet rarer; much more so to have a correct understanding of the deep import of the scriptures.
You have asked about the meaning of the clause, ‘much more difficult it is to attain full manhood’. We are not sure what term was used by Sankara which has been translated as ‘manhood’. However, let us take it that he did mean ‘manhood’ in his original writing. So if we go by the dictionary meaning of the term ‘manhood’, it means 1) The state or period of being a man rather than a child. 2) The qualities traditionally associated with men, such as courage, strength and so on.
However, Sankara obviously did not use the term ‘manhood’ as a gender-specific term. It applies to both the sexes. That is, it could mean that human birth is rare but even rarer is to be a good human being. It is rare to be a person of courage and strength. Here the term ‘strength’ can mean both, the physical and the mental strength. However in spiritual context the meaning ‘mental strength’ is more appropriate.
Sankara’s says:
Is there a greater fool than the person who, having got the rare chance of a human birth and there too, the masculine qualities of the head and heart, falls short in his efforts to realize his own highest good?
Referring to this verse you asked: ‘What means "masculine qualities of the head and heart"? Why are that qualities considered as being male? Are they not sexless or at least not affecting sex but neutral?’
I think, whether Sankara talks about ‘manliness’ in the verse quoted earlier, or he talks about ‘masculine qualities of the head and heart’ in this verse, he is pointing towards the same qualities in humans. That is, it is easy to be born as a human, but it is relatively difficult to have a pure heart and to have a sharp intellect and so on.
It should be obvious that he is talking about mankind in general. The jnani will never differentiate between a man and a woman. He is about all differentiation because in his clear non-dual view there is only one, so how can he distinguish between two things or two sexes?
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 25
By the ever – unbroken meditation in the heart, ‘what knowledge (or consciousness) is devoid of all adjuncts (upadhis) – that Siva is ‘I’, destroy all the attachments of the mind.
Sri Sadhu Om: Since all attachments beginning with the dehabhimana arises because of the mixing of the adjuncts with the pure consciousness ‘I’, and since adjuncts become mixed with the consciousness ‘I’ only because of one’s failure to keenly scrutinize and know that pure consciousness as it is, in this verse it is taught that one should destroy all attachments by meditating with love upon the pure adjunctless consciousness ‘I’, having the firm conviction that, that consciousness is Siva.
Reflections: Our desires and attachments are our enemies, because they draw our attention away from ourself towards things which are anya (other than ourself). So the only effective and quick way to destroy all our desires and attachments is by attaching ourself to that which is free of attachments and desires. What is free of desires and attachments? It is ourself as we really are.
However, as long as our ego is intact, we can just reduce or modify our desires and attachments but cannot destroy them altogether. So our ultimate aim is to destroy our ego, because the ego is the root of all desires. And the only way to destroy the ego is by looking directly at it. Since it does not really exist even though it may seem to exist, it will disappear only if we find out its real nature.
It is such a simple and direct path. However, very few are attracted to it, because our mind thrives on complexity. What we are is absolutely simple, and if we want to regain this simplicity we need to shun all complexity and return to our native simplicity.
Sanjay Lohia,
thanks for your plausible explanations/interpretations of the related Shankara verses.
It is said that I am ident with Brahman, the self.
But why does you Brahman not place me in harmony with everything ?
Sanjay Lohia,
"...and if we want to regain this simplicity we need to shun all complexity and return to our native simplicity."
I have every trust in me to know instinctively what I shall shun. Is that deceitful ?
It is said that pure consciousness is indivisible. Because it has no parts it therefore includes all. Nothing is outside or apart from it.
Who has to realize what, and how, when all that exists is the self and nothing but the self ?
Fortunately the unreal is not the real.
The true nature of the ego is known when it is out of contact with objects or thoughts.
Transcending the mind is a matter of direct experience.
Is there anyone unaware of the self ?
The self in its purity is experienced in the intervals between two thoughts. One should realize this interval as the abiding, unchangeable reality, our true being.
Hello gargoyle, yesterday I re-read an older article by Michael (which I didn't finish the first time because it was very long) "The need for manana and vivēka: reflection, critical thinking, discrimination and judgement" about the importance of discrimination and he used as an example statements from David Godman, Robert Adams and Nis. Maharaj.
Michael made some interesting and very logical points, however I am not sure if I can entirely agree with some of the subtler points. I believe that "critical thinking" has its limits within the realm of spirituality because the mind is intrinsically limited and unfit to comprehend the goal - "Jnana".
As with all aids like diet, prayer, japa, etc., discrimination is only partially and temporary helpful and it has, with all of the other aids, to be dropped eventually. So its importance is, IMHO, not so high than Michael seems to imply. And I believe that Bhagavan himself saw discrimination in a more lesser role than vichara/surrender.
Frankly, why trying to comprehend a concept while instead being still is utmost superior? As I mentioned above, the mind which is supposed to discriminate is intrinsically flawed and has its limits.
The desire for viveka and manana is itself a vasana and it might be more dominate with others who are into that kind of thing. I like logic myself however I find the compulsion to reflect and discriminate unsatisfying and I prefer to have instead a quiet mind.
**********************
That said, and that is the reason actually for this comment, gargoyle, I believe that you posted there a comment as "Bob" with a more personal revelation. And I can only say wow and your story is quite amazing. I've dealt with a number of people who struggled with addiction and for those where the addiction vanished it was not due to some "momentous effort" but to unrelated events and the addiction basically vanished by itself. My father tried to quit smoking for 30 years, without success, and then he had a very mild heart attack and he went cold turkey from one minute to another without any withdrawal symptoms. Why then no withdrawal symptoms when he had them for 30 years?
Anyway, good to see that there was a time when you were less "private" than nowadays :)
Salazar,
"As with all aids like diet, prayer, japa, etc., discrimination is only partially and temporary helpful and it has, with all of the other aids, to be dropped eventually. So its importance is, IMHO, not so high than Michael seems to imply. And I believe that Bhagavan himself saw discrimination in a more lesser role than vichara/surrender."
It seems that you have taken leave of your senses.
Discrimination is the most important of all "aids". Rather it is a fundamental prerequisite for developing maturity.
How can you practise vichara without discrimination ? - IMHO.
Hello sakshat, that is an interesting comment you are making. We must have a different understanding about vichara, because vichara doesn't need anything which includes discrimination.
For to be or "I am" nothing is necessary, in fact the attempt to discriminate or any other attempt spoils vichara.
And yes indeed, big smile, I am taking leave of my senses since they are the main obstacle to liberation.
Salazar,
so I wish you a happy vichara in your own style.
Evidently everyone has to work out his own salvation :)
sakshat, to be blunt, you have no idea what you are talking about. But looking at your comment you imply you in fact do, LMAO. Connecting vichara with discrimination is sheer stupidity.
Amazing how people distort Bhagavn's teachings.
Salazar
I vaguely recall (very vaguely) the comment you are referring to. I must have written something along the lines of my 46 years of alcoholism and/or my 2 + decades of addiction to narcotic pain killers. It may have included my time of being homeless or the time I spent in prison or my time as a 'speed freak' when I was a hippie. Speed freak was a hippie term for those strung out on Methamphetamines. Of course the hippy era included a laundry list of other chemicals besides meth.
The first 65 years of my life was a living HELL (including childhood), and then one day I heard of Bhagavan. As we all know I nothing to do with any of it.
Regarding the 'vaguely' word used in the first sentence dementia is quickly taking my memory but I consider losing my mind a good thing.
I have my spiritual practice of atma vichara, what else do need?
Bob
Hello gargoyle, I'm guessing that I am about 10 years younger than you are but my memory is not the best too and that with no experience of recreational drugs. Your prarabdha has given you that experience in this life time and the extreme fortunate outcome was the acquaintance of Bhagavan. I am sure that these 65 years have created strong desires for a drug free life and, if you will incarnate again, that must manifest in a future life.
It's amazing how many people with a history of drug abuse have turned later to a spiritual life, it seems almost like a [granted harsh] baptism of sorts. There is also a great book by a guy who turned to a spiritual life while being incarcerated.
See, when I grew up I was scared of recreational drugs and I was not even tempted to smoke pot. Some of my buddies did especially when we went to a rock concert, but nothing extreme, however two guys from my senior class o.d.'d on heroin.
Since I am a firm believer of prarabdha there was no choice in the happenings of your life and neither with mine. The main event of our lives was to get attracted by Bhagavan's teaching, a huge blessing and I am sure, entirely caused by the Grace of Bhagavan.
And yes, we have the spiritual practice of atma-vichara, what else do we need?
Kind regards,
Salazar
Salazar,
of course, discrimination is necessarily and clearly to be understood not as the mind's mental endeavour but as a pearl diver's deep diving and keen scrutiny in the sense of close examination.
What do you say now ?
Geez man, stay on course - you said "How can you practise vichara without discrimination?" ....
and that is BS. So whatever argument you now trying to fish here it can never correct this inane comment. I suggest you give it a rest and just keep quiet. People who cannot make a coherent argument should not post here.
Your last comment is a desperate attempt to cover up your illogical and confused way of reasoning. I never said that discrimination is not necessary at all, it seems you have been to quickly shooting from the hip.
So let's stop here and by all means, you can discriminate your brains out, be my guest :-D
Salazar,
by all means stay for lunch:-)
Salazar, you object to the idea that self-investigation entails controlling the mind, and you say the mind cannot control itself, but do you at least concede that we (this ego or mind) can control our attention? That is, do you agree that we are free to choose what we attend to?
Whenever we choose to attend to ourself rather than to anything, we are thereby refraining from feeding and nourishing our thoughts with our attention, and thus we are weakening the visaya-vasanas that give rise to them. In this way by self-investigation we are restraining the outward going flow of our mind, so in this sense we are controlling our mind, are we not?
It is in this sense that in the sixteenth paragraph of Nan Ar? Bhagavan described self-investigation as being the means to achieve mano-nigraha, restraint, control, subjugation or destruction of the mind.
Salutations to all people who do not set themselves up as guardian of the transcendental truth.
Michael,
my comment was not addressed to you and your recent comment. On the contrary I am surprised and delighted about reading your comments again with pleasure.
Michael, yes - the mind can control attention and we are free to chose what we attend to. I agree 100% otherwise we would be helpless automatons.
You say, "In this way by self-investigation we are restraining the outward going flow of our mind, so in this sense we are controlling our mind, are we not?"
Yes, in this sense one could say "control". However the terms "altering" or "adjusting" would be less prone for misunderstandings, IMHO.
It may seem for some that I claim to know it better but that is not the case. But I am not shy to present my (granted limited, and it will be always limited until Jnana) understanding in a confident manner, to beat around the bush with pseudo humility like some do here is not productive at all.
I feel I have a pretty good understanding, enough at this point to follow Bhagavan's path properly. From my experience, nothing is written in stone and that understanding very likely will change with further refinement. At this point I may not have the desire anymore to comment at all since it will have served its purpose.
However for now I enjoy commenting and unfortunately I am not very forgiving with certain individuals on this blog. Something Bhagavan will take care of in one way or another.
May Bhagavan Arunachala Ramana, the king of sages, clear wrong understanding of aspirants by giving instruction to them in silence.
limitless bliss, I couldn't agree more.
All-pervading Ramana,
we crave your pardon; forgive us whatever faults of omission or commission we might have committed in our ignorance.
Om tat sat
Thanks for your reply, Salazar.
By the way, my latest comment was written in reply to a reply you had written to Sanjay a month ago. The reason I didn’t give a link to that reply of yours when replying to it was this:
I discovered yesterday that Blogger’s system for sending an email notification for every comment posted on a blog to the blog owner has not been functioning since 24th May, so I found that I had missed nearly 400 comments since then. Therefore while travelling by train today I was reading comments since that time on my phone, and I saw that under each comment there was a ‘Reply’ button, which I assumed was a new feature (but I now see it is a feature only on the mobile-friendly version of the blog), so when I clicked on that button to reply to that comment of yours I was expecting my reply to appear under your comment or at least to be linked to it, but obviously I was expecting too much.
Michael, thank you for clarifying, your question seemed a bit out of context and now I know why.
Michael,
how could you assume that since 24 th May 2018 we stopped posting comments on your blog Happiness of Being ? Probably you were fed up with reading our scanty comments or you were so absorbed in your other work:)
Michael,
I am not trying to argue, just putting up a logical question (in my opinion):
You wrote: "Salazar, you object to the idea that self-investigation entails controlling the mind, and you say the mind cannot control itself, but do you at least concede that we (this ego or mind) can control our attention? That is, do you agree that we are free to choose what we attend to?"
If our present state is nothing but a dream, then according to my experience of "seeing" dreams, it looks in a dream as if I have attention and will because it looks that I am taking actions, listening and talking to people, etc but I know it is not true as soon as I wake up and what I see and experience in my dreams I have no control of, while I am seeing that particular dream. Therefore can it be that what we call "attention" and "will" in our waking state is also nothing more than a mental phenomena that we are currently experiencing. The only "true" knowledge that exists in these both states is the knowledge "I exist" and that knowledge does not require any thought process or attention.
In another words: can it be that it has been already preordained that we will be trying to find the answers to all the questions in this blog and it would look like we are actually trying to pay attention to "I"
Noob, according to Robert Adams Self-realization is pre-ordained too. Now I know that Robert has not much street-cred on this blog but according to David Godman (and quite a few others) he was a Jnani.
My question is, what triggers the mind to be attentive to "I am"? We know what holds it back and that is these (imagined) vasanas. It is important to note that vasanas are entirely imagined.
So what is it that makes (or triggers) Mike's mind being attentive and what is it what makes Sanjay's mind attentive?
What is the real power behind the mind? IT IS SELF OF COURSE!!!!!!!!
If that is accepted and grasped then we really know what joke this whole enlightenment process is and that ridiculous notion that the ego is actually doing anything but imagining. It even imagines "doing vichara" but then imagining suddenly stops and only Self prevails. And that is called enlightenment - hahaha.
Salazar,
I absolutely agree that it is the mere presence/existence of self that drives minds to their destruction.
Michael (and Salazar), greetings
I am still not hundred per cent convinced at the level of the intellect about some of the concepts presented in the last few comments by Michael and Salazar. I have some objections. I do understand, though, the necessity of inward turning our attention and the role it plays in atma-vichara. What I am still not convinced is the agency (doership) of the mind to control itself to make that “happen” out of its own “free will”.
Michael writes:
"....you object to the idea that self-investigation entails controlling the mind, and you say the mind cannot control itself, but do you at least concede that we (this ego or mind) can control our attention? That is, do you agree that we are free to choose what we attend to?”
I have doubts about the posssibility to be free to choose what we attend to, what is called our attention. As I understand, our attention is either “controlled” by an external stimuli (of any kind) or an internal one, meaning a thought, desire or feeling, which determine on what this attention will be focused on. These stimuli (either internal or external) “appear” in the field projected by ego without any agency of the person (that actually there isn’t one!). For example, even if I have the “intention” at this very moment to turn attention inwards and I do it, where did this impulse came from? It could be because I just read what I wrote, in which case I didn’t control it or it could come from a thought or desire to self-realize which also “appeared” without any control from my mind, a third possibility would be Ishwara’s help (but this also is not “my control”) If that wasn’t the case (that I “can”control my attention) why wouldn’t we “choose” to turn our attention always and everywhere, at every second of our waking life?.
It is very hard for ego to swallow that even its own extinction doesn’t really depend on him/her/it. But “since we experience the world” we could make use of our “illusion of free will” and try as hard and often as we can to self-investigate if there is really an ego, which is Bhagavan’s advice. If self-realization will “happen” or not really doesn’t depend on our efforts, but at least we maximize our chances since we do not know if is in our cards to self-realize! That is the only possibility I can imagine the concept of “having free will” can serve. To win the lottery is hard and maybe we will never know if it is in our fate to do so, but in any case, there will be no win if we don’t buy a ticket!
Michael also says:
"Whenever we choose to attend to ourself rather than to anything, we are thereby refraining from feeding and nourishing our thoughts with our attention, and thus we are weakening the visaya-vasanas that give rise to them. In this way by self-investigation we are restraining the outward going flow of our mind, so in this sense we are controlling our mind, are we not?” (bold letters are mine)
The first part of the sentence (until the bold letters) is a statement of fact but I can’t see the relationship with having free will. We do have the “illusion of free will” when we choose to attend to ourselves, and again, since we do not know our fate, we have to do everything in our power to try to remember to do so, that is our sadhana. But eventually the way that sadhana will happen and its results, it is not under “our” control, is it?… otherwise why not do sadhana 24/7?
Open to comments.
Thx
M
Noob, yes - that's what it basically boils down too.
Mouna - I never liked the term "control" in connection with the mind, it gives it a sense of power it really doesn't have. I have no objection to your last comment, a few things I'd phrase differently but otherwise it is fine.
As you can see I concur with Noob, but that doesn't mean that I am stopping doing vichara, as you said, why not playing along with the game ....
Maybe all these seekers here on this blog who are so busy to purify and improve their fantasy life (aka mind) become inspired by these notions and relax more and can even surrender the idea of getting realized. If we can surrender the whole idea of mind/body we have arrived at where we never left.
One of the best talks, IMHO, if not thebest one is Talk 28, excerpts below; again IMHO, surrender starts with free will which melts away in “perfect self-surrender”…if the ego is lucky…
D.:If ‘I’ also be an illusion, who then casts off the illusion?
M.: The ‘I’ casts off the illusion of ‘I’ and yet remains as ‘I’. Such
is the paradox of Self-Realisation. The realised do not see any
contradiction in it. Take the case of bhakti- I approach Iswara and
pray to be absorbed in Him. I then surrender myself in faith and by
concentration. What remains afterwards? In place of the original
‘I’, perfect self-surrender leaves a residuum of God in which the ‘I’
is lost. This is the highest form of devotion (parabhakti), prapatti,
surrender or the height of vairagya.
.
You give up this and that of ‘my’ possessions. If you give up ‘I’
and ‘Mine’ instead, all are given up at a stroke. The very seed of
possession is lost. Thus the evil is nipped in the bud or crushed in
the germ itself. Dispassion (vairagya) must be very strong to do
this. Eagerness to do it must be equal to that of a man kept under
water trying to rise up to the surface for his life.
D.:Cannot this trouble and difficulty be lessened with the aid of a
Master or an Ishta Devata(God chosen for worship)? Cannot they
give the power to see our Self as it is - to change us into themselves
- to take us into Self-Realisation?
M.:Ishta Devata and Guru are aids - very powerful aids on this path.
But an aid to be effective requires your effort also. Your effort is a
sine qua non. It is you who should see the sun. Can spectacles and
the sun see for you? You yourself have to see your true nature. Not
much aid is required for doing it!
D.:What is the relation between my free-will and the overwhelming
might of the Omnipotent?
(a) Is omniscience of God consistent with ego’s freewill?
(b) Is omnipotence of God consistent with ego’s freewill?
(c) Are the natural laws consistent with God’s free-will?
M.:Yes. Free-will is the present appearing to a limited faculty of
sight and will. The same ego sees its past activity as falling into a
course of ‘law’ or rules - its own free-will being one of the links
in that course of law.
Omnipotence and omniscience of God are then seen by the ego to
have acted through the appearance of his own free-will. So he comes
to the conclusion that the ego must go by appearances. Natural laws
are manifestations of God’s will and they have been laid down.
When Maharshi Ramana says in Talk 28 above that "The ego must go by appearances.." I interpret it not only as a description of what happens but also as upadesa, following on from his earlier answer about bhakti and surrender. Act one must, as the BG says, and acting with the firm conviction that it is all "appearances" breeds vairagya, lessening of attachment to results. IMHO this need not detract from the skill of action.
Ulladu Narpadu Anudandham - verse 26
(Vasishtha said to Rama) ‘O hero, having enquired into all the states, which are of various kinds, play your role in the world always clinging firmly with the mind only to that one which is the supreme state devoid of unreality. O hero, since you have known that which exists in the heart as the reality of all the various appearances; therefore, without ever abandoning that outlook, play in the world as if you have desire’.
Reflections: Bhagavan teaches us in the 11th paragraph of Nan Yar?: ‘If one clings fast to uninterrupted svarūpa-smaraṇa[self-remembrance] until one attains svarūpa [one’s own actual self], that alone [will be] sufficient’. But in order to cling to uninterrupted self-remembrance, should we abandon all our actions? Not really, because what acts? It is our body, speech and mind that engage in actions. However, are we the body, speech and mind? No. So we should let them act according to their destiny, but we should try and detach ourself from these instruments by remaining self-attentive. Let these instruments act or not act, it should not concern us.
So in the terms of what Vasishtha says to Rama, we should play in this world always clinging firmly to the supreme state, that is, by clinging firmly to ourself. As Bhagavan says in Nan Yar?, ‘that alone will be sufficient’. That is, that alone will be sufficient to liberate us.
Mouna, I was thinking about the whole "control" thing and I have to revise my reply to Michael and say that the mind has no control whatsoever. It is able to choose what it attends to but that is not control because if the mind can "control" what it attends to it could do it non-stop. Otherwise it is not "control" but "capability". Entire different meaning.
Here is also a subtle problem with "the mind is doing something": Let's say the mind can actual "control" attention and it controls that attention 24/7 - does that mean it has arrived at its goal? At what point did the mind make the transition from "I am attending [24/7]" to "I am" [being annihilated]? When did mind "become" Self? How does mind "become" Self? It is at all "becoming" Self? I think not, the so-called transition from mind to Self is entirely an imagination!
Anyway, a few thoughts to anybody interested.
Salazar,
the mind is in its essence nothing but the self.
clear shining of "I", I do not agree. The classic definition for mind is a bundle of thoughts, perceiving an objectified world.
Self on the other hand is devoid of objects. In fact, they cancel each other out, either there is mind OR there is Self. They cannot exist simultaneously and it is easy to conclude that the mind is NOT Self (in essence or whatever sophistry one want to apply).
So I cannot adhere to this belief. In fact, the mind is an imagination by the mind :)
Mouna, I'm sharing my reflections prompted by some ideas you expressed inthis comment:
I have doubts about the possibility to be free to choose what we attend to, what is called our attention. As I understand, our attention is either “controlled” by an external stimuli (of any kind) or an internal one, meaning a thought, desire or feeling, which determine on what this attention will be focused on.
Arguing that phenomenon control what we attend to is like putting the cart before the horse. The truth is that it is attention that creates (and in this sense, 'controls') phenomena, and not the other way round. Phenomena are by their very nature insentient. It is we as an ego who choose which phenomena to project and experience (simultaneously). This inalienable power of choosing what to project and experience is called 'attention'. Since attention can only occur in a state of multiplicity, it follows that attention pertains to and is concomitant with the ego.
The next question that follows is, what influences (or 'controls') attention? The answer: our vishaya vasanas or sat vasana. Attention and vasanas form a feedback loop: the more we attend to a specific vasana the more the vasana will direct our attention towards itself thereby reinforcing itself.
Next usually comes the vexed question about the roles of prarabdha and agamya. An analysis of the Karma theory taught by Bhagavan will lead us to understand that since prarabdha is nothing but a selection of fruits of actions done in past dreams, it only determines what we experience with a sense of experiencer-ship in this dream. Like most fruits, after experiencing prarabdha we are left with the seed of vishaya vasana that reinforces our attention towards those specific actions leading subsequently to the experience of those specific fruits. An analogy is that of seed-soil-water-tree-fruit. vishaya vasanas are seeds planted in the soil of our ego; attention is the water provided to some seeds giving rise to the tree of action producing the fruit known as prarabdha. The fruit of prarabdha consumed in a future dream leaves its seed of vishaya vasanas into the soil of our ego, and then the cycle continues ad-infinitum.
Simultaneously with the experience of prarabdha, we are exercising agamya by doing actions that are either in coherence with or in contravention to what is to be experienced as the fruit/prarabdha of past actions. The fact that what is fated to happen will happen does not detract from our capacity to try to change what is to happen, as Bhagavan implied in his note to his mother. agamya never bears fruit in the current dream, but is stored up as sanchita. From this vast store, oneself as God selects a few which forms the prarabdha for the next dream.
It is important to note that this cycle is applicable only for the seeds of vishaya vasanas. The seeds of sat vasana watered by our attention does not give rise to any tree/action and therefore is incapable of producing any fruit. Hence, it is valid argument that practising atma vichara, which is another way of saying 'cultivating sat vasana', will never produce any fruit, but will rather lead us beyond all dualities like action and its fruit. Therefore, the main takeaway from the study of karma and vasana is that cultivating vishaya vasanas creates the vicious cycle of birth and death, whereas cultivating sat vasana creates, as it were, the virtuous cycle of increasing clarity of self-awareness.
Sanjay Lohia,
you say "However, are we the body, speech and mind? No. So we should let them act according to their destiny, but we should try and detach ourself from these instruments by remaining self-attentive. Let these instruments act or not act, it should not concern us."
Would you maintain that opinion also by going to the extreme case that a murderer should not feel concerned by murdering somebody ?
Of course, if somebody kills somebody and that act was done without any sense of doership then that act, as "bad" as it may seem, has no [karmic] repercussions.
Bhagavan's path goes into ALL avenues of life including the extreme ones, is that so difficult to grasp?
So, instead of trying to be a "good" person (what is the naive and immature way) one rather attends to "I am". Prarabdha may lead us to kill a person by accident, by car or whatsoever.
What is the right course of action for a sadhak? To feel guilty, to indulge into all kind of thoughts, or to be dispassionate about it and attend to 'I am'? The latter of course, no doubt about it.
Some people here really need to develop some dispassion and lessen their compulsive interest about the destiny of "others".
That's one of the reason why we practice vichara, to lose that sense of doership since that sense is an illusion and works only because we give it reality in believing to be an individual.
We do not break the cycle of karma to avoid bad karma and instead create good karma but to transcend that there is somebody who creates karma at all!
Salazar,
an other 'classic definition' is that the self is only superimposed by the mind - at least seemingly in the view of the ego. Because the self is the permanent substance of all objects seen by the ego-mind, the emphasis in my statement lies in the words "in its essence". Therefore your assertion "Self on the other hand is devoid of objects" is not correct.
Also your saying "In fact, they cancel each other out, either there is mind OR there is Self. They cannot exist simultaneously..." is in no way accurate.
On the contrary we are always aware of the self if superimposed by the mind or not - as in waking and dreaming. Compare our state in dreamless sleep.
Salazar,
would you not kindly agree that an accident or road accident is not the same as committing deliberately murder ?
If we are always aware of the Self as you state then we all have attained sahaja samadhi :)
As long as you are aware of objects you are perceiving the world as mind and not Self. Samadhi is a another term for the experience of Self. If you enter samadhi (or Self) then you'll lose your perception of this world including the body and mind. There is no mind in samadhi.
Anyway, I suggest to review your concepts - I do not concur at all.
Are you an incarnation of "*" by the way?
chitta ekagrata, yes, it is not the same. However it is important to understand that there is nobody who "deliberately" does anything but by the imagination of mind. If one kills somebody (seeming deliberately) then it creates only karma if one believes to be the doer of that act what is the case for anybody but a Jnani. So if that extreme action is going to perspire then the "murderer" should practice vichara while doing that act. He cannot avoid it if it is his prarabdha. So vichara is advised.
Vichara is advised when you are about to die. Instead of saying good-bye to your wife, practice vichara instead.
Salazar,
what a great suggestion ! Your recommendation to the murderer is really interesting.
Does saying goodbye to your wife actually exclude vichara ?
Salazar,
"... then we all have attained sahaja samadhi :)".
Of course we are always in sahaja samadhi. However, the seeming presence of the ego-mind
prevents us to be aware of being in sahaja, our perfectly natural state.
Aseem Srivastava, here some reflections on your reflections.
"Arguing that phenomenon control what we attend to is like putting the cart before the horse. The truth is that it is attention that creates (and in this sense, 'controls') phenomena, and not the other way round. “
I do not think that “creation” of phenomena by ego it is the same as “control”, not at all. That is the premise of pseudo philosophies like “The Secret” (if you don’t know what I am talking about please google it, it was a famous film) who proposes that we are the creators of our “own reality” and can change it at will....
Also, ego as creator of phenomena is a figure of speech, otherwise it gives the illusion, not only that ego is something real, but also that first is the ego and then phenomena. Apparent and illusory ego and apparent and illusory insentient phenomena are one and the same, and simultaneously arising. Ego is locked into phenomena in the same way as phenomena is locked into ego. The horse is the carriage!
"It is we as an ego who choose which phenomena to project and experience (simultaneously). This inalienable power of choosing what to project and experience is called 'attention’.”
I never heard the idea that ego "chooses to project and experience" something… I would challenge anyone to try… for example projecting peace and happiness all the time. See what happens. If ego had that inalienable power there souldn’t be a problem to be happy and peaceful for the rest of our lives, but why didn’t we started before?…
"The next question that follows is, what influences (or 'controls') attention? The answer: our vishaya vasanas or sat vasana. Attention and vasanas form a feedback loop: the more we attend to a specific vasana the more the vasana will direct our attention towards itself thereby reinforcing itself.”
No problem with this statement, the only difference with your thinking is that I consider phenomena as vasanas, the same thing (I know, it might not be very orthodox thinking here). In other words, the building blocks of ego’s projection are vasanas. That is why when ego is destroyed (apparently of course because it isn’t there in the first place) all vasanas, karmas and phenomena will also go down the drain.
"The fact that what is fated to happen will happen does not detract from our capacity to try to change what is to happen, as Bhagavan implied in his note to his mother.”
I don’t think that with the statement "the fact that what is fated to happen will happen” Bhagavan was implying that this statement shouldn’t detract from our capacity to try to change what is to happen, but rather keep quiet about what you can’t control...
The rest of your post, what you called “the Karma theory taught by Bhagavan” I don’t have a problem with, except that as you rightly pointed out, is just another theory, even when it was proposed by Bhagavan in Upadesa Undiyar… Karma theory makes sense only within the confines of the illusory ego. The only thing I take as useful in that is that Bhagavan prompted us to investigate if there is such thing as ego, and only after we figured that out we can start figuring out if that karma theory is a theory or a fact…
Thank you for your thoughtful insights Aseem.
M
chitta e., no it does not exclude vichara, it was just an example.
**************************************
clear ... "I", what again is the purpose of our dialog? What is it again you want to say? Sorry, my mind is getting more disinterested with every additional comment you are making. There is no desire to keep splitting hairs nor to convince you to a particular set of concepts.
Great comment Mouna and I endorse it 100%.
Salazar,
"Anyway, a few thoughts to anybody interested.
agreed 99%. the 1% doubt is about the mind having any "capability" whatsoever, but I grant you that, that would be the part you said in a previous comment that we keep playing the game of vichara...
we are in sync on all this.
Salazar asks "When did mind "become" Self? How does mind "become" Self? It is at all "becoming" Self? I think not, the so-called transition from mind to Self is entirely an imagination!"
The statements that the mind does not at all "become" Self and that "the so-called transition from mind to Self is entirely an imagination!" is itself just imagination of the ego.
Dear Urubamba, like your comment and everything else :)
Mouna,
Also, ego as creator of phenomena is a figure of speech, otherwise it gives the illusion, not only that ego is something real, but also that first is the ego and then phenomena. Apparent and illusory ego and apparent and illusory insentient phenomena are one and the same, and simultaneously arising. Ego is locked into phenomena in the same way as phenomena is locked into ego. The horse is the carriage!
My assertion that The truth is that it is attention that creates (and in this sense, 'controls') phenomena, and not the other way round., is corroborated by what is called drishti-srishti vada; i.e. the contention that perception creates and is causally antecedent to yet temporally simultaneous with the world comprised of phenomena. In other words, even though temporally the ego and phenomena rise simultaneously, causally the ego is antecedent to phenomena.
Further, contrary to your assertion, 'apparent and illusory ego' is not the same as 'apparent and illusory phenomena', as by definition ego is chit-jada-granthi; the knot that (seemingly) ties consciousness with insentient phenomena. How can the knot that ties a shoelace to a rope be identical to either of them? In truth, the ego is an inexplicable phantom that seemingly conflates phenomena (the shoelace in the above analogy) with self-consciousness (the rope in the above analogy), but is identical to neither.
Moreover, your assertion that 'Ego is locked into phenomena in the same way as phenomena is locked into ego. The horse is the carriage!' is true in the context of time; however, in the context of causal relationship, the horse (the ego) must of logical necessity be placed in front of the carriage (the phenomena).
I will respond to some other points in your comment addressed to me after around 7:00 PM (Indian Standard Time) when i'll be free from other commitments.
Chitta Ekagrata, a murder should definitely feel concerned if he murders somebody. As long as he takes himself to be the body which has murdered somebody, he has to bear the responsibility for the murder. And if it is in his destiny, he will have to go to jail for this murder.
However, he has the freedom of detaching himself from his body. In such a scenario, even if his body commits a murder according to its destiny, he will not be concerned about it. Why? It is because there will be no one to be concerned about it. In fact, if one transcends the ‘I am this body’ idea, one cannot commit any murder in one’s own view. If there is no murderer (the ego), how can a non-existent entity commit any murder?
Aseem,
Let’s discuss first drishti-srishti vada. I do understand the need for causation saying that is the mind that projects phenomena (although we both agree that they “appear” simultaneously) and not phenomena that projects the mind (which will be closer to srishti-drishti and the materialistic view that consciousness is a function of the brain). But from there to establish that the mind “has control” over phenomena is a very big stretch of the imagination and nowhere in the canon of drishti-srishti I read or being told such a statement. Would be like saying that the projector which projects a film has control over the plot of the movie. In any case, once understood that this “causality” is just a help to make a little more sense of the dr-sr point of view, we need to move on to understand the simultaneous aspect of ego/phenomena. I do still think that the horse is the carriage, but if you wish we can separate both concepts like “horse=moving power” and “carriage=transporting medium”.
Let’s move on to your concept of ego as chit-jada-granthi. I don’t think your analogy (that I never heard before) is appropriate because there are no two “things” like a shoelace and a rope with a phantasmagoric ego tying them together. I found a better analogy in a single rope which has a knot in its middle giving the impression of being two ropes “united” by a knot, whereas in fact there is always one single rope and the knot doesn’t in fact tie anything at all! There isn’t consciousness/existence on one side and inert matter on the other (that’s sankya dualistic philosophy, not advaita), and the ego “unites” them apparently, there is only sat-chit. Chit-jada-granthi is another teaching stepping stone to understand, ultimately, the essence of ego, meaning completely unreal.
Thanks Aseem,
M
A murderer should definitely feel concerned if he murders somebody.
Sanjay Lohia,
yes, as you say, a murderer should definitely feel concerned if he murders somebody, even when it is his prarabdha.
This is really an interesting discussion between Aseem and Mouna. I still tend more to Mouna's viewpoint but Aseem's points have of course merit, too.
I also prefer Mouna's knot analogy to Aseem's. But that's it, it is my preference. Can I say who speaks the truth? Not really, that is reserved for someone of the caliber of Bhagavan who speaks from direct experience. Nonetheless I love to hear from people who obviously have a very good understanding of Bhagavan's teaching and Advaita.
Hopefully there will be more as Aseem promised ....
chitta e., a murderer is usually only concerned to get caught, let's be realistic. Now Sanjay's last paragraph says it all and that's the main idea.
There are many cruel and crazy things going on in this world and as long as one is not directly involved it is best to ignore what seemingly is happening "out there". Let's not forget that Gandhiji was a murderer in a past life (actually we all were and worse) and it caught up to him to be gunned down in 1948.
From Thayumanavar: There are no actions who can classified as 'mine'. It is only proper to say all actions are Yours alone. I have made over to you my body, possessions and soul. It is for you to remove the impurities that abound in my mind and bestow your grace in whatever way you think fit!
Typo in my previous comment, it should say, "There are no actions that can be classified as mine."
Salazar,
how can you know that Mahatma Gandhi was a murder in a past life ?
I admire Thayumanavar's state of self-surrender. Thanks for quoting from his text.
Because he was shot by a murderer, law of karma. He'd never have been shot if he'd have not have committed a similar act in the past.
Salazar,
according your simple theory Jesus Christ must have crucified another one.
This karma theory does not have really plausibility.
Karma is not a compelling or even absolute law but only a theory. IMHO.
Salazar,
you say "In such a scenario, even if his body commits a murder according to its destiny, he will not be concerned about it. ...".
The body acts only as the executing agency of the murder whereas the ego-person is the actual murderer who should be concerned quite well about it. There is no "freedom of detaching himself from his body".
Sanjay Lohia,
you say "In such a scenario, even if his body commits a murder according to its destiny, he will not be concerned about it. ...".
The body acts only as the executing agency of the murder whereas the ego-person is the actual murderer who should be concerned quite well about it. There is no "freedom of detaching himself from his body".
Salazar,
sorry, my comment was erroneously addressed to you instead of Sanjay Lohia.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 27
(Vasishtha continued) ‘O hero, being one who has seeming mental excitement and joy, being one who has seeming mental anxiety and hatred, being one who has seeming effort or initiative but being as one who is devoid of defects, play in the world. O hero, being one who has been, released from the many bonds called delusion, being one who is firmly equanimous in all conditions, yet outwardly doing actions appropriate to your disguise, play in the world.
Reflections: Knowing or unknowingly we all are playing our roles on the stage called life. However, as long as we identify ourselves with our body, we will not understand this role-play fully. If this body is real, whatever role we seem to be playing will also seem to be real and not merely a role. However, if we are able to separate ourselves from our body, we will clearly understand that our mind and body are just acting or playing their parts. This entire screenplay is written by Bhagavan. He pulls our strings and we act or dance like puppets.
Bhagavan also played a role as long as he seemed to be in a body. He used to laugh, shed tears, get angry and so on, but these were just part of the role he was playing. Though he was beyond all these things, he seemed to be doing these things and it appears real. Why? As long as we take ourself to be a body, we will consider our body to be real. If our body is real, Bhagavan’s body is also real, and therefore whatever he did was real.
However, neither we are the body, nor is Bhagavan a body. Therefore in the ultimate analysis, there is no ego, no body and hence no world and no role play of any kind. This is the absolute truth.
Sanjay Lohia,
"This is the absolute truth."
The absolute truth is equaly in force for jnanis and ajnanis.
May Arunachala kindle in everyone of us the dormant divinity so that we can grasp and be aware of the unsubstantiality of the phenomenal world.
Mouna,
[...]But from there to establish that the mind “has control” over phenomena is a very big stretch of the imagination and nowhere in the canon of drishti-srishti I read or being told such a statement.
Drishti-srishti vada limits itself to asserting that perception creates phenomena.
However, the mind using its innate and inalienable power of attention can 'control' phenomena, or more precisely, can influence which phenomena to experience. To qualify and clarify the previous statement, it is my understanding that the power of attention prioritises/accentuates/focusses on one set of phenomena at the expense of others at any given point of time.
A mundane illustration of the above statement: we can choose to watch the FIFA WC match tomorrow at 17:30 hours (local time) at the expense of say, doing a pressing domestic chore like shopping for groceries or doing the dishes. Here, for the duration of the match we have excluded (or more probably, relegated to the back of our mind) thoughts about doing the domestic chores.
This example demonstrates that in our deluded experience as an ego which takes a body-mind complex as 'I', we do have an innate and inalienable power of choosing to attend to phenomena. This choice gives us 'control' (in this limited sense) over phenomena, whether phenomena experienced in the current dream or in a future dream.
Now, we may argue that prarabdha/fate determines whether we watch the match or do the dishes tomorrow at 17:30 hours. Regardless, our desire to watch the match or aversion towards doing the dishes will give rise to agamya. Further, at 17:30 hours tomorrow we cannot prove to others or to ourselves with unimpeachable evidence that it was our prarabdha to watch the match; our mother/spouse/flatmate may likely give us a piece of their mind if we use such a flimsy excuse (as it is unfalsifiable) for not doing the dishes if it was expected/agreed to that we would do the dishes.
Most importantly, even if we accept as valid the argument that watching the match in particular and doing any action in general is solely a mechanical result dictated completely by the iron fist of prarabdha, it still does not detract from or falsify our innate and inalienable capacity to choose to attend to phenomena (because if we do not have the choice of attending to phenomena, then we cannot create any agamya whatsoever and consequently, no prarabdha for future dreams can be created. Moreover, as agamya is logically antecedent to prarabdha, first there must be 'free' action and only later will 'action dictated by prarabdha' follow).
A nuanced understanding of how the mind 'controls' phenomena requires an understanding of the role of vishaya vasanas and attention in determining what we attend to and what the fruits of our labour turn out to be (I elaborated upon my understanding of this topic in my first comment addressed to you).
[..]Would be like saying that the projector which projects a film has control over the plot of the movie.
In this context, the projector which projects the film has 'control' (in the sense of 'influence') over the plot of the sequel to the current movie.
I will (hopefully) respond to the rest of your comments (specially the one regarding 'knot') within the next 20-30 hours.
Regards
Aseem
Salazar,
Most of the people who follow this blog 'love to hear from people who obviously have a very good understanding of Bhagavan's teaching and Advaita'. The reason is simple: Sri Michael James, the author of this blog, certainly stands tall among the people who have a deep and nuanced understanding of Bhagavan's teachings and of advaita.
As for me, whatever amount of understanding I have has been to be great extent a result of my study of the articles and comments in this blog.
Sanjay Lohia,
"This entire screenplay is written by Bhagavan. He pulls our strings and we act or dance like puppets. "
However, puppets do usually not awake to the supreme self and to our intrinsic immortality and infinity.
So do not us compare with puppets on a string :).
chitta e., yes - Jesus was killed because he must have killed somebody in a past life. Now if he had crucified somebody I cannot say but it was at some time a popular way of execution. I do not understand karma in that way that the killing has to be exactly in the way it was done before, so Jesus may just have suffocated somebody and that particular action caused his crucifixion later.
Jesus crucifixion was not a random event, it absolutely was his prarabdha and destined at his birth. Deal with it! :)
And karma is not a theory, it is the compelling force and executor of cause and effect within the phenomenal world. It is essential for a better understanding to adopt that "theory". You like to talk about "ethics" and "concerns" and "shoulds", these are as much a theory as karma.
If you reject karma then you must reject any notion and theory within the phenomenal world. But, as I can see it, you cherry pick beliefs according to your prejudices and it would be wise to investigate your particular prejudices and why you are denying the power of prarabdha and minimizing its importance within the phenomenal world.
chitta e. says, "There is no "freedom of detaching himself from his body".
Sorry chitta, but that is absolutely wrong and that is also not what Bhagavan taught. What the body does is not intended or created by the mind - ever! It just seems that way. That's why sages suggest to be a "witness" and let the body do what it is supposed to do according to its prarabdha and be impartial about it. The belief that one is the creator of the actions of the body is the reason to be bound. Think about that!
Salazar,
how can you know (for sure) what you claim "Jesus crucifixion was not a random event, it absolutely was his prarabdha and destined at his birth...." ?
You rather are expressing merely a mental imagination or presumption.
Therefore on the other hand it would be wise to investigate your particular prejudices and why you are emphasizing the power of prarabdha and maximizing its importance within the phenomenal world.
I do not at all reject karma (theory) generally but resist myself accepting your narrow way of interpretation and limited outlook.
The so-called phenomenal world itself is not real, how then can "the compelling force and executor of cause and effect within the phenomenal world" be real ?
Salazar,
"There is no freedom of detaching himself from his body" is related here only with the example of the murderer's action.
chitta, because everything what happens to a body is destined by prarabdha, including Jnanis like Jesus or Bhagavan.
The way as I interpret prarabdha is not a narrow way but the same as Bhagavan, Annamalai Swami, Robert Adams, Papaji, and quite a few more who were with Bhagavan personally. I could quote quite a few comments but I believe that would be pearls before swine.
You say, "You rather are expressing merely a mental imagination or presumption."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, LOL, LMAO
That is really rich, how dense are you? We are ALL constantly expressing a mental imagination including Michael James you clown. Do you believe that that drivel you post here is not a mental imagination?
You just have lost my respect, good grief, there should be a test before anybody gets the privilege to post here.
P.S. And you clown, "freedom of detaching himself from his body" is valid for ALL. How can you get the inane idea that a certain group pf people would be exempt from that? But who cares, to have a dialog with you is extremely exasperating, why don't you found your own little sect and expound "Bhagavan's teaching according to chitta boom"? :)
Ahimsa's precept of 'cause no injury' includes one's deeds, words, and thoughts.
Ambrose Bierce
"There's no free will," says the philosopher;
"To hang is most unjust."
"There is no free will,"
assents the officer; "We hang because we must."
Salazar,
regarding addressing my person as clown is not too bad.
Getting called my comment as drivel and inane idea I recovered quickly - in the face of the evident divine wisdom you permanently radiate. It was a privileg to listen to such a maturate adept like you.
Therefore I easily resist replying on the same level with confering an appropriate title on you.
Finally I take the freedom to offer my best wishes to you. Have a good time.
Om shanti, om tat sat.
Mouna,
I found your conversations on ‘control of mind’ with Salazar and subsequently Aseem interesting. This started from Michael’s reply to one of Salazar’s comments. What I perceive as your concern is the possibility of control of mind. I recall having read in one of the recorded conversations with Bhagavan someone asking him how to control mind. To this Bhagavan answered, “Show me the mind and I will show you how to control it”, or something amounting to that. Also in verse 13 of Upadēśa Undiyār he says that the subsidence of mind is of two types: laya and nāśa (here manōnāśa). In the very next verse he insists on aiming for the latter (that is, ātma-vicāra leading to manōnāśa), as yogic brute force methods of controlling the mind by direct confrontation invariably lead to the former (the same teaching can be found in eighth paragraph of Nāṉ-Ār?). Therefore Bhagavan never taught direct confrontation of the mind and he used to say it is like a rogue bull and we can deal with it only by tempting it with a bunch of luscious grass. Of course as the mind is actually not real we cannot kill it by direct confrontation just as an imaginary snake cannot be killed by beating it with a stick. The only way is to take a keen look at it and he says in Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu (verse 25) that if we do so, it will take flight, meaning it will result in manōnāśa. Therefore Bhagavan never taught control of mind in the direct sense. This is what Michael also says in his reply to Salazar.
With that prelude, I think it would be profitable to start from where you started saying about attention. You say that attention is determined by sense perceptions, thoughts and desires. But Bhagavan teaches that desires are projected by the ego, through thoughts and sense perceptions. Let us refrain from getting into the discussion of whether these desires are freshly produced or already store ones, as we cannot practically distinguish between the two. What we need to recognize is that of all desires there is a special desire. This special desire is to be free from all desires, which everyone has, albeit in varying proportions. One may directly recognize this desire at some stage. Again with this special desire, we shall refrain from discussing if it is freshly created or brought out from its warehouse (cittam). The important thing is that it is there in everyone. Once recognized directly, it keeps growing and in the process other desires are neglected and eventually completely forgotten, resulting only in this special desire (or complete desirelessness or pūrṇa vairagya, which is equivalent to manōnāśa). Only in this way mind is controlled and eventually annihilated, as per Bhagavan’s teachings. Therefore direct control of mind will never lead to manōnāśa.
As to your question, “If that wasn’t the case (that I “can”control my attention) why wouldn’t we “choose” to turn our attention always and everywhere, at every second of our waking life?”, it is not possible because the ‘special desire’ is weak (although it is there) in comparison with other desires.
I will continue in my next comment.
Continuation of my conversation with Mouna ...
We can think of an analogy here. Let us suppose a man is fat and desires to be Mr. Olympia. Irrespective of his body fat percentage, he would certainly have some muscle, hidden by a thick coating of fat beneath his skin and above his muscle. He needs to torch this fat away, while building muscle. This cannot be done directly as one cannot exercise fat. Exercise is only for the muscle. More the muscle content, more the body expends energy in its exercise and maintenance and in this process it torches away fat indirectly. The fat man needs only to pay attention to strengthen his muscles, irrespective of his beginning level of body fat. If he is dedicated to his program, eats healthy, he may reach the ‘less than three percentage’ of body fat required to compete. How was this possible at all? Because he had some muscle to begin with. Why cannot, say, in the middle of the journey he is not Mr. Olympia? Because his muscle building is in progress and still fat is sticking around! In the same way we have put on fatty desires, together with some muscle (‘special desire’ of pūrṇa vairagya or nirāśā (eleventh paragraph of Nāṉ-Ār? )). This little muscle (which is also the cit portion of the cit-jaḍa-granthi) makes it possible for us to exercise it (that is, paying attention to this cit portion) to the extent our fitness level at this moment allows, and in this process, to get rid of fat (rest of the desires or jaḍa portion of cit-jaḍa-granthi), albeit indirectly, without confronting the one that cannot be directly confronted.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 28
Proclaim that he who has conquered the senses by jnana and who abides as existence-consciousness, is a knower of self (atma-vid); is the fire of knowledge (jnanagni); the wielder of the thunderbolt of knowledge (jnana-vajrayudha); he, the destroyer of time (kala-kala), is the hero who has killed death.
Sri Sadhu Om: The atma-jnani is not merely an incarnation of any particular God; the jnani is jnana itself, and hence he is the reality of all Gods such as Agni, Indra and Lord Siva.
Therefore, since there is no power in this entire universe greater than the power of the jnani’s firm self-abidance, his self-abidance is described as the thunderbolt of knowledge (jnana-vajrayudha).
Reflections: Who is the greatest hero? It is none other than the atma-jnani. He is the bravest one since he has destroyed all sorrows, all attachments and all desires. He has conquered time and death. In fact, the atma-jnani has destroyed this entire universe by the power of his self-abidance.
When the ego is burnt in the fire of knowledge (jnanagni), the ego becomes one with that jnanagni. This jnanagni consumes this entire universe as if it is nothing but a huge pile of cotton – a small spark of jnana and the entire universe is reduced to ashes.
As Bhagavan says in Day by Day, this whole universe is built upon the flimsy (or no) foundation of the ego, and therefore when the atom-bomb of jnana descends on this ego, this universe will also be destroyed along with the ego.
The jnani is jnana itself, and jnana is the supreme power. Thus if we want to meet the most powerful person in this world, we should not go to meet the President of the USA. We should go and meet the jnani. However, since the jnani is jnana itself, we cannot meet him anywhere but within ourself, because only we are jnana. As Bhagavan says in verse 13 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Oneself, who is jñāna [knowledge or awareness], alone is real. Awareness that is manifold [namely the mind, whose root, the ego, is the awareness that sees the one as many] is ajñāna [ignorance].
Wittgenstein, if possible please write your comments using short paragraphs. I find shorter paragraphs easy to read and comprehend. This is merely my suggestion.
Hi gargoyle, it seems you disapprove of my last comment and you state ahimsa. I just would like to say that sarcastic comments like that 'I radiate divine wisdom' (or the other many comments by others in the same venue) is violating ahimsa too.
I never saw you lecture them about that. Unless you think it's okay because since I caused injury to them they are allowed to return in kind.
I am always open for suggestion but be rest assured, I am (as I have stated before) quite aware of that fact and so there is no need to stab your knife of disapproval in the sore wound of 'violating ahimsa'.
P.S. My opinion about chitta has not changed and I am violating ahimsa right now in what I am thinking about him. I am afraid I am sinner until Bhagavan kills that sinner.
Wittgenstein, you said that "little muscle" is the cit-"portion", so with other words consciousness or "Self".
That concurs with one of my previous comments that the driving force (that what actually triggers attention to "I am") is not the mind but Self (without going into the phenomenal details).
Ulladu Narpadu anudandham - verse 29
Know that the lustre and power of intellect will automatically increase in those who have known the reality, like the trees on this earth shining forth with all qualities such as beauty as soon as spring comes.
Note: This verse is adapted from Yoga Vasishtha.
Reflections: Once all the impurities of our mind are removed, our intellect will work with absolute clarity. Such an intellect is capable to separate the real from the unreal or the ephemeral from the permanent. This is the only real benefit of having a sharp and pure intellect. How can one measure the beauty and power of such an intellect?
Salazar,
You are right in saying that it is our (essential) self and it is what attracts us (or drives us, as you say). Since we are not different from it, we are essentially falling in love with ourself. This self-love (svatma bhakti) is the 'desireless desire' (for lack of better term, as conceptual language cannot reach it).
Of course it is not the mind because mind is just knowing-consciousness. What drives mind is anya bhakti (love for something other than ourself). Falling and growing in svatma bhakti happen very naturally and at the expense of anya bhakti.
One of chitta e.'s arguments (posted on July 4, 20:21): "The so-called phenomenal world itself is not real, how then can "the compelling force and executor of cause and effect within the phenomenal world" be real ?"
That is a typical argumentative comment by an ego which cannot keep up and therefore has to use its bag of tricks to seemingly be "right".
Yes, of course, the phenomenal world is not real but to use that true statement in the context of the dialog we had is violating logic in several ways.
Firstly, if one postulates as an counter argument that the phenomenal world is not real then to stay in line with that statement chitta e. must concede that all of his arguments and concepts are not real, too. So my concepts are not real, but neither are his. So what is the point then? There is none but just a reflection of his confusion.
Prarabdha is as real as a body and mind and notions of being an ethical person.
So chitta e., instead of making inane statements go back to school and take some basic classes of logical thinking and then you may be able to discuss in the big league. For now you are just embarrassing yourself arguing from that confused level of yours.
As of now you are an ignorant wannabe with the knowledge of a 3rd grader who goes to a University class and spouts out his ignorant and illogical thoughts and actually believes he could argue with the students present at this class ....
What an utter lack of discrimination.
Aseem,
"Drishti-srishti vada limits itself to asserting that perception creates phenomena.”
As I said before, I completely agree with this, but not with the added parenthesis you include in your first comment: ”(and in this sense, 'controls')”
”However, the mind using its innate and inalienable power of attention can 'control' phenomena, or more precisely, can influence which phenomena to experience.”
This is the biggest illusion, doership which can “control” or “influence” phenomena.
In that sense, let’s examine your example about regarding the World Cup or doing the dishes.
”we can choose to watch the FIFA WC match … at the expense of say, doing a pressing domestic chore...”
”This choice gives us 'control' (in this limited sense) over phenomena,...”
”Now, we may argue that prarabdha/fate determines whether we watch the match or do the dishes tomorrow at 17:30 hours. Regardless, our desire to watch the match or aversion towards doing the dishes will give rise to agamya.”
You use the word “regardless”… but that is the whole point. It is not regardless. if prarabdha determines if we do the dishes or watch the match, where is our “inalienable power of attention that can control something?"
”...if we do not have the choice of attending to phenomena, then we cannot create any agamya whatsoever and consequently, no prarabdha for future dreams can be created. Moreover, as agamya is logically antecedent to prarabdha, first there must be 'free' action and only later will 'action dictated by prarabdha’ follow.”
You are actually sanctifying ego doership in order to explain agamya -> prarabdha.
”In this context, the projector which projects the film has 'control' (in the sense of 'influence') over the plot of the sequel to the current movie.”
??? How?…
One thing to understand is that I am not against making efforts turning attention inwards, sadhana, etc… for whatever reasons: thinning the ego, purify the mind, etc… as instructed by Bhagavan.
All I’m saying is that we are using an illusory free will to perform those actions, which “feels” like one is doing them. But as long as we don’t know or we can’t have control of the impact our actions, this illusion of having (free) will is the only tool available for our erroneous understanding of our infinite, timeless identity called ego to use.
Wittgenstein,
The fact that some here found “interesting” my conversation with Michael, Salazar and Aseem may prove that the objections are not completely unfounded. Some say that a even a non-functional or broken watch gives the correct time two times a day.
”What I perceive as your concern is the possibility of control of mind.”
Actually, not really. Is more about ego or mind having the capacity to control attention (or itself) by its own “free will”, which I consider an illusion (please note that I do not base my understanding on recent neurological experiments). I do believe a certain level of mind control is necessary for atma vichara, no question about it. I am questioning the agency of that.
My thoughts were prompted by Michael’s statement:
”Salazar, you object to the idea that self-investigation entails controlling the mind, and you say the mind cannot control itself, but do you at least concede that we (this ego or mind) can control our attention? That is, do you agree that we are free to choose what we attend to?"
I am questioning the freedom to choose what we attend to.
”You say that attention is determined by sense perceptions, thoughts and desires. But Bhagavan teaches that desires are projected by the ego, through thoughts and sense perceptions.”
One statement does not preclude the other. As in Aseem’s conversation, there is the tendency to create the causality: ego > projecting phenomena > desires. Within this chain of cause and effect, it seems that ego can control projecting phenomena because it is the originator of it.
What I am saying is that way of presenting is only a concept to make sense of the world we see around us, a good teaching tool or stepping stone to start to understand ego’s nature, and to explain drishti-srishti. But in fact, if we dive deep and past those concepts, first we will recognize that ego-phenomena-desires-sense perceptions-thoughts-sensations-etc… are just one illusory thing, which, at the conceptual level, has to be discarded in its entirety, including the sense of “I can control my attention by my own free will”.
(continues in my next comment)
(Continuing the conversation with Wittgenstein)
”We can think of an analogy here. Let us suppose a man is fat and desires… to be Mr. Olympia.” (the three dots are mine)
I’ll stop you right there after the word “desires”. Now tell me, from where that desire of being Mr Olympia came? Definitely a thought and a sense perception perusing “Muscle Magazine” (if something like that exists!!) coupled by the thought and sense perception of looking at his belly on the mirror. Now, those stimuli that prompted the fat man desire, was “his” creation? Even if you argue that the man thought "I will create a desire to start working on my diet” and then the thought appeared, wherefrom the former thought came from?
”This little muscle (which is also the cit portion of the cit-jaḍa-granthi) makes it possible for us to exercise it (that is, paying attention to this cit portion) to the extent our fitness level at this moment allows, and in this process, to get rid of fat (rest of the desires or jaḍa portion of cit-jaḍa-granthi), albeit indirectly, without confronting the one that cannot be directly confronted.”
Now you are implying that cit has agency and doership (even indirectly)!
Ok, even if that is granted, it is not the man itself that “controlled” his reality in order to become leaner.
So to put it in other words, self is not the driving force (as Salazar put it) to control one’s mind because self “wants us to wake up” (that would be the religious view and the word for that is god-ishwara) and “does it”… but mainly is the driving force because self is all there is. And ego senses that, as paradoxial as that might sound.
Once the understanding settles, we continue excercising our “not-so-free-will” but with the attitude that is all we have and it’s free, doing our sadhana, controlling our mind to turn inwards as much as we can because we trust our guru, but inherently in all that, we know that we are not and will never be any makers of our destiny, because what needs to happen will happen regardless of us, including manonasa.
Enough speaking about the shape, color and poisonous behaviour of the snake!!
Sometimes discussions go off course. But is that undignified spectacle a wonder ?
Mouna,
This is the biggest illusion, doership which can “control” or “influence” phenomena.
The biggest illusion is not doer-ship, but the doer. Only if there is a doer will there be doer-ship; hence the doer is a logical prerequisite to doer-ship.
However, if we are the doer of actions, we will experience the resulting fruits and also experience agency in our actions to varying degrees commensurate with the attention we pay to phenomena. It is only in this context does the mind has influence over which phenomena it will experience, at least to phenomena experienced in a future dream.
If we assume that the mind/doer cannot influence what it will experience, then what decides those future experiences? If all actions and all desires and all thoughts in this dream are regimented by the iron fist of prarabdha, then it leaves no scope for creation of any agamya, and which necessarily leads to the conclusion that no prarabdha for future dream can be created, and which further implies that this dream is the first and final one. However, as by definition prarabdha s the fruit of past actions, at least sometime we must have been free to act. But this fact contradicts the premise of the initial argument. Hence, this entire argument is invalidated by its inherent logical fallacy.
It seems that you do not sufficiently appreciate the difference between prarabdha, which is the pleasurable/favourable/neutral/disappointing/miserable fruits of past actions, and vishaya vasanas, which is our desires and inclinations towards projecting and experiencing certain phenomena.
The fact that we have certain vishaya vasanas does not mean that they will materialise to the extent we want them to in this dream. If we have strong vishaya vasana to desire world peace, and even if we attend extensively towards cultivating this vasana, it will not necessary lead to the experience of world peace. To what extent the doer will enjoy the fruit of his labours in one dream is the sole province of prarabdha for that dream. If oneself as God selects the fruits of past actions towards promoting world peace in the prarabdha for this dream, then one will find favourable results in ones efforts towards promoting world peace in this dream. However, if prarabdha is bereft of the fruits of past labours for promoting world peace, then despite all our strong desires for and attention towards promoting world peace, we would experience disappointment in this regard.
Does this mean that one has no power to desire and make efforts for promoting world peace if the resulting success is not in our prarabdha? No. Prarabdha is confined to the result, but has no power over the minutia of our actions driven by our desires and inclinations cultivated by the attention we shower on them.
In fact, the entire premise of atma vichara is based on our innate and inalienable power to attend to what we want. Only if we are free to cultivate sat vasana, the desire-less desire just to be, will atma vichara be possible. However, if we argue that we are free to cultivate sat vasana but at the same time not free to cultivate vishaya vasana, then the burden of proof would lie on us. As default, we are free to cultivate both sat vasana and vishaya vasana.
Whereas the attention towards vishaya vasanas leads to actions leading further to the experience of the fruits of those actions, attention towards sat vasana does not give rise to any action and consequently, no fruit is experienced, but we transcend all duality like action and its fruit. The analogy of seed-soil-water-tree-fruit that i used in a previous comment is pertinent in this regard.
Aseem,
”The biggest illusion is not doer-ship, but the doer. Only if there is a doer will there be doer-ship; hence the doer is a logical prerequisite to doer-ship.”
Doer and doership are synonimous Aseem…
”However, if we are the doer of actions, we will experience the resulting fruits and also experience agency in our actions to varying degrees commensurate with the attention we pay to phenomena. It is only in this context does the mind has influence over which phenomena it will experience, at least to phenomena experienced in a future dream.” [bolding the text is mine]
This is the problem in our discussion Aseem, "IF we are the doers", but… are we?
Are we not starting on the wrong foot here?
I know, "because we see the world” there is no other way to try to explain for the unseasoned mind how to make sense of all this, and Bhagavan did it preciously in Ulladu Narpadu. That’s why we start with srishti-drishti, then continue to drishti-srishti, but if we stop there we don’t get the full meal and we still be hungry forever.
But are we still at the level of discussing doership, with intellectual gymnastics about the differnce between prarabdha and vishaya vasanas? In the big trash can that the illusory ego is there are all kinds of items to be worth noting and being fascinated with, like the karma theory, vasanas (“pure and impure”), sadhanas galore and spiritual traditions with scriptures and theories of all kind.
”If we assume that the mind/doer cannot influence what it will experience, then what decides those future experiences? If all actions and all desires and all thoughts in this dream are regimented by the iron fist of prarabdha, then it leaves no scope for creation of any agamya, and which necessarily leads to the conclusion that no prarabdha for future dream can be created, and which further implies that this dream is the first and final one.”
If doership goes down the drain, karma theory follows… and we are left with what is, which inherently has not such mental constructs like karma.
”Does this mean that one has no power to desire and make efforts for promoting world peace if the resulting success is not in our prarabdha?”
We have all the power and free will to want and make any effort we fancy desire, what I am saying is that it is an illusion like the blueness of the sky, which seeing it and understanding it is not blue won’t prevent us from saying: what a beautiful blue sky we have today!
”In fact, the entire premise of atma vichara is based on our innate and inalienable power to attend to what we want.”
I agree, the only difference is that I call that power an illusion, since its coming from an illusory non-entity like the ego, which still thinks it will attain liberation and still exists, whereas it never did, does or will do. The innate and inalienable esence of ego is that is not.
”Whereas the attention towards vishaya vasanas leads to actions leading further to the experience of the fruits of those actions, attention towards sat vasana does not give rise to any action and consequently, no fruit is experienced, but we transcend all duality like action and its fruit.”
I agree, the only difference between our different points of view is that I say we don’t control our attention to “choose” between VV or SV…
Aseem, at the end of the day, I must say that I agree with your comments in general, and sometimes in the past I heard myself saying exactly the same thing and defending the "innate and inalienable power” of the person to attend to self instead of every-thing other than oneself. Although now I keep “doing” that (yes, I do!) I don’t have any more the illusion it is "my doing”… and I would even risk to say, not even ishwara’s doing…
I consider my part on this discussion close.
Be well and thank you for the exchange my friend,
M
The most important idea Bhagavan gave us to investigate is that we are not what we think, believe or even feel we are, but rather we are that consciousness, existence and peace that permeates (apparently) all states of mind (waking, dream, sleep) without being affected by them. Once investigation takes place, placing one's identity from the point of view (figure of speech) of consciousness/awareness (abiding) will help realize the illusory nature of our “fake identity” with all the premises born out of it: karmas, materiality, theories, birth, death, relationships, etc..
But we do not function much from that viewpoint, we prefer to indulge in all these theories of mind and enjoy its gymnastics, thinking and believing that we are closer to the truth if we figure everything out and solving all paradoxes. Last refuge of the illusory ego, its own search for self-realization, not realizing that wishing its own destruction is also a sign of identity, a banner that one proudly carries on the battlefield of samsaric life.
A few blind men trying to figure out what an elephant looks like by touching it defined it as a rope (tail), a column (leg), a rugged wall (skin), etc…
On the contrary, a few blind elephants were trying to define what a human looks like also by touch… and they all agree, it’s flat.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 30
Just like the one who is listening to a story when his mind has gone far away, the mind of the atma-jnani in which the vasanas have been erased has not done anything even though it has seemingly done many things. On the other hand the mind of an ajnani, which is saturated with vasanas, has done many things even though it has seemingly not done anything, just like the one who thinks in a dream that he has climbed a hill and is falling over a precipice, even though his body is, in fact, lying here without movement (sleeping).
Note: This verse is adapted from Yoga Vasishtha.
Reflections: In our view, Bhagavan’s body, speech and mind were active, but in his experience, he had no body or mind. Bhagavan is achala - the ever unmoving one. So even though he seemed to be doing so many things, he never actually did anything. He is the eternal presence, and it is this presence which enables everything else to move.
In contrast, an ajnani’s mind is always in movement. It is because he has unending vishaya-vasanas, and these vasanas always keeps his mind busy. Thus an ajnani may seem to be sitting or lying down in one place doing nothing, but he is not remaining still. He is always planning this or that. He is always worrying about so many things. He has endless desires and is attached to so many things. All such desires and attachments make him think, speak and act unceasingly.
Salazar,
to bring to an end our dispute:
In order to gain real knowledge I see generally no need to follow your recommendations. Because it is not my aim to "be able to discuss in the big league" there is consequently no need to "take some basic classes of logical thinking."
To be ready for discussions "in the big league" you evidently would rather do well to attend to the recommended lessons.
As you told to me some days ago I may likewise express :"I hope I could be helpful to clarify these, especially in the beginning, confusing concepts."
Kind regards
Mouna,
According to my experience the feeling ‘I am the thinker’ and ‘I am the doer’ accompanies all my thoughts and actions. Hence the source of my thoughts and actions is ‘I’, about which I am sure. What I am not sure is what exactly this ‘I’ is. Therefore it motivates me to investigate this ‘I’.
Thanks to Bhagavan’s Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu for opening my eyes on this and talking to me in the language of dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi, especially as I was not comfortable with sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu asks me to find out who has free will and it does not teach me ‘free will is an illusion’. It could be a stepping stone for a beginner level understanding and it may be my inability to dive deep and beyond that.
Further, as I can only form concepts congruent with my experience, I cannot entertain the concept that ‘free will is an illusion’. I cannot settle with that understanding and continue to exercise my ‘not-so-free-will’ to do my sadhana. Honestly there is nothing in my experience right now that distinguishes ‘free will’ and ‘not-so-free-will’ and hence the latter could only be a redundant concept in the least or absurd concept in the extreme. If ‘free will is an illusion’, then what about ‘not-so-free-will’? Does it become ‘not-so-illusory’?
I never implied cit has agency or doership. The agent or doer is cit-jaḍa-granthi.
Poisonous snakes, non-functioning watch and your understanding not based on neurological experiments. What do you want to say from all that?
I wrote my comments since you said ‘Open to comments’ in your comment. Now you are saying ‘Enough’ and I am not writing anymore. I am sorry if it was an intrusion.
Wittgenstein writes in his comment addressed to Mouna;
Further, as I can only form concepts congruent with my experience, I cannot entertain the concept that ‘free will is an illusion’. I cannot settle with that understanding and continue to exercise my ‘not-so-free-will’ to do my sadhana. Honestly there is nothing in my experience right now that distinguishes ‘free will’ and ‘not-so-free-will’ and hence the latter could only be a redundant concept in the least or absurd concept in the extreme. If ‘free will is an illusion’, then what about ‘not-so-free-will’? Does it become ‘not-so-illusory’?
I agree with Wittgenstein’s views. If free-will does not exist, how can we be free to do any sadhana? If we are free to turn within, we have to be also free not to turn within. Bhagavan says, as long as we are turning outwards, whatever we experience is according to our destiny.
However, when we function in this world, we have to assume that whatever we are doing is according to our will. At least, this is how it seems to us. It could be my destiny to eat a bar of chocolate, but while eating it, it will seem to me that I am eating this bar of chocolate out of my freedom of will. Moreover, in order to function in a civil society, we need to assume that we all are acting according to our freedom of will.
How can we know whether I ate this chocolate according to my destiny or free will? We can parrot that things happen only according to our destiny. It could be true, but it is still a concept in our mind. So it is better to assume that we are acting according to our free will, and thereby take responsibility for our actions. 'I should eat fewer chocolates if I want to keep my weight in check'. Don't we think on these lines? Do such thoughts not imply that we are free to eat chocolates or not to eat them?
If free-will is an illusion then destiny could also be an illusion. How can we believe in one while denying the other? Bhagavan teaches us in verse 38 of Ulladu Narpadu:
If we are the doer of action, we will experience the resulting fruit. When one knows oneself by investigating who is the doer of action, doership will depart and all the three actions will slip off. The state of liberation, which is eternal.
Bhagavan says here that when one knows oneself all the three karmas will slip off. So he clearly implies here that all the three karmas seem to exist as long as our ego exists. What are these karmas? They are, to borrow Michael’s words, ‘āgāmya (actions that the ego does by its own free will), sañcita (the heap of the fruits of such actions that it is yet to experience) and prārabdha (destiny or fate, which is the fruits that have been allotted for it to experience in its current life)’.
So as long as our ego is intact, all these three types of karmas are operating alongside each other. If we say that there is no freedom of will, how have we got this destiny? So as Bhagavan implies through his note for his mother, we are free to act exercising our freedom of will, but we will experience only that which is in our destiny.
However, Michael has made it clear through his comments, emails and videos that the Karma-theory is not an integral part of Bhagavan's teachings. So we should not try to break our heads by going into it in excessive detail. Who has this destiny? Who has the freedom of will? This is the practical application of all such discussions.
Thank you Aseem, Wittgenstein, Sanjay for your comments on my comment about Michael’s comment on Salazar’s comment which in turn was... etc...
Although the theater is empty of public and actors, the play is unfolding perfectly as it should, characters delivering lines in a timely manner. No worries, relax, all is well, the script is being followed perfectly to the letter. And as all things, it will end soon.
Talking about zen, someone once said it could be defined in two words: “not always so”.
Thanks again
M
Sanjay Lohia, you said, "that the Karma-theory is not an integral part of Bhagavan's teachings."
Yes, because that theory cannot bring anybody to realization. According to personal prejudices everybody likes to interpret karma in that way one's ego is most comfortable with. Your ego, Sanjay, needs the idea of a personal will which can change its day to day circumstances, while mine prefers it the other way around.
Nonetheless Bhagavan made a number of comments about karma which are as clear as his instructions for vichara, to my surprise however people tend to either ignore, minimize or dismiss these comments which are supported by a number of close associates of Bhagavan.
Let's look at that exchange between Aseem, Mouna, and Wittgenstein: I enjoyed reading it and I can agree with many parts with all three, but if I had to choose somebody I'd prefer Mouna's viewpoint. Who is correct? I have not the foggiest idea and I have the feeling that "I" Salazar will never be able to answer that question.
Now what that exchange has shown me is that it seems impressive to be able to present these concepts in an intelligent and coherent manner, but how much of that, if at all, contributes to realization? I dare to say not much at all, it keeps the mind busy, but is one closer to Self knowing that? Doubtful or better no.
An illiterate person who has grasped the simple method of vichara/surrender doesn't need to know drishti-shrishti and other fancy terms. His knowledge and attention to "I am" is 100% sufficient. Of course how somebody approaches the path is entirely up to ones vasanas.
Thank you three and Sanjay for the recent comments.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 31
The activity, absorption and sleep, which are unknown to the knower of reality (mey-jnani), who is asleep within the fleshy body, which is like a cart, are similar to the cart moving, standing still and the cart being unyoked, which are unknown to one who is asleep in the cart.
Sri Sadhu Om: The body and mind of a jnani appear to be real only in the wrong outlook of ajnanis, who mistake themselves to be a body and mind. In the true outlook of the jnani, who experiences himself as the space of mere consciousness, ‘I am’, the body and mind are completely non-existent.
Reflections: The jnani knows only one state, and that state is called jagrat-sushupti (wakeful-sleep). The jnani is ever awake to that which is real and at the same time asleep to that which is unreal. What is real is only atma-avarupa, and therefore all the names and forms are completely unreal. So the jnani is aware of only atma-svarupa and nothing else.
Since the body is unreal, an illusion, the jnani is not aware of his body, and without being aware of his body, he has no means of being aware of other bodies. Thus in his view, since he has no body, he is obviously unaware of the activity, absorption and sleep of his body. He body and its three states may seem to be true in our ignorant outlook, but to him, all these simply do not exist.
Mouna, you say, ‘Talking about zen, someone once said it could be defined in two words: ‘not always so’’.
I was curious: What does ‘not always so’ actually means in our context?
Just a few minutes ago I was in a nap and saw a dream where I had to attend an assembly of some sort but I did not have the protocol and I was desperately calling some people, talking with them and trying to get info what was that assembly all about and who would be the attendees. Was this all that I was doing according to my free will? Did I have any sort of attention? Apparently , otherwise you cannot talk, call numbers and ask something without paying attention to all of this processes... But when I woke up , it became apparent that there was no one in my dream but my consciousness that became aware of all those phenomena and hence there was no freedom of will, even though it looked as if I was making decisions.
How about now when I am writing this in the forum? Bhagavan wrote in paragraph 17 of Who am I
Just as one who needs to sweep up and throw away rubbish [would derive] no benefit by analyzing it, so one who needs to know oneself [will derive] no benefit by calculating that the tattvas, which are concealing oneself, are this many, and analyzing their qualities, instead of collectively rejecting all of them. It is necessary to consider the world [which is believed to be an expansion or manifestation of such tattvas] like a dream.
And then in paragraph 18
Except that waking is dīrgha [long lasting] and dream is kṣaṇika [momentary or lasting for only a short while], there is no other difference [between these two mind-created states]. To the extent to which all the vyavahāras [doings, activities, affairs or occurrences] that happen in waking seem [at this present moment] to be real, to that [same] extent even the vyavahāras that happen in dream seem at that time to be real. In dream the mind takes another body [to be itself]. In both waking and dream thoughts and names-and-forms [the objects of the seemingly external world] occur in one time [that is, simultaneously].18
Sanjay, in response to your last comment, I am dealing currently with chronic pain and that shows me how much I (we) am attached to the body. It influences my practice of vichara because the (unwanted and unpleasant) sensations draw my attention more than that what we really are.
Interestingly if I focus my mind on certain thoughts that sensation moves out of my attention and I don't feel any pain as long as I do it. Alas that doesn't work with "I am" [yet!], I guess due to a lack of practice. If my mind can circumvent the pain in focusing on certain thoughts it must also work while attending to "I am". Of course thoughts are objects and therefore for the mind easy to grasp, however "I am" cannot be grasped.
I do not know why Bhagavan has given me these more difficult circumstances to practice vichara, I have no choice [!] but to accept that. The ego certainly clings on quite a few things but then the ego wants to surrender too [at least it is telling itself that - LOL].
That's why personal "will" cannot work, it is a clever game of the ego telling itself that it is in control - what nonsense. But the ego loves to buy that story, it makes it feel strong and important. And it will find just the right justification in the teachings of its preferred teacher or guru.
The ego can be so clever that it is telling people that is does not exist more and those people run around playing guru and giving satsangs or lectures. There are plenty like that roaming this planet.
No response needed by the way.
Sanjay,
”I was curious: What does ‘not always so’ actually means in our context?”
It is a phrase attributed to Shunryu Suzuki, one of the first zen teachers that came to the west from Japan and spread that teaching in the West.
Within the zen tradition there is what we call “koan” that according to the dictionary is: “
a paradoxical anecdote or riddle, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment.” A little bit like a concept that “short circuits” the conceptual mind leaving one face to face to simply what is beyond thought (my explanation).
In this case the paradox, as you might have understood, is the fact that the mind looks for a two word explanation but in fact gets three words that actually address exactly the nature of reality in relation to the conceptual framework we built to understand it... “not always so”, a two words definition!
How that connects with our discussion? well, from one point of view, until final destination (ajata?), concepts, theories, sadhana, Bhagavan, even the feeling of being Mouna and Sanjay, all that could be just summarized in two words: not always so...
Yes Noob, can there be free will in a dream? It is, like everything else, a mere imagination!
Mouna, my favorite koan, what is the sound of one hand clapping?
Salazar, dear brother, that one is easy...
Half the sound of two hands clapping!
Wittgenstein,
"Poisonous snakes, non-functioning watch and your understanding not based on neurological experiments. What do you want to say from all that?”
Poisonous snakes: we keep threading theories about something that isn’t there… Is the snake poisonous?
Non-functioning watch: nobody can be wrong all the time.
Understanding not based on neurological experiments: you gave a long description (in some comment) about the findings of some scientist that experimented with the response-time of an external stimulus trying to find out if the will of the subject was in sync with the response.
I know it was a rhetorical question, but just in case, that’s what I meant in each one of those instances.
Mouna,
greetings, I refer to "Last refuge of the illusory ego, its own search for self-realization, not realizing that wishing its own destruction is also a sign of identity, a banner that one proudly carries on the battlefield of samsaric life."
The wish of the ego for its own destruction is quite legitimate because this wish comes from the source from where it rises. To feel its urgent pressing I even consider as the most estimable driving/motivating force to stand in the universal unity of the non-dual existence.
Where can I go ?, greetings back
"The wish of the ego for its own destruction is quite legitimate because this wish comes from the source from where it rises. To feel its urgent pressing I even consider as the most estimable driving/motivating force to stand in the universal unity of the non-dual existence."
Completely agree that’s why we will continue vichara until the last breath.
Legitimate doesn’t make it more real though.
Also, many states of mind come from the source from where they rise, like ahimsa, peace of mind after the dissolution of a desire, etc…
What is pointed out here is that this very “noble” and satvic desire can be the very last refuge of ego which will feed on it to continue its survival.
Even that sat-vasana needs to be investigated in the form: who is wanting self-realization?...
Mouna,
because we do not exist apart from the supreme being we have to transcend the thought that "someone" is wanting self-realization. To realize our immortality we finally have to surrender to that supreme being which is said to be the sole eternal reality and our real consciousness. Certainly hereby the 'I' and 'mine' would be completely destroyed.
Where can I go ?
Completely agree with your comment.
"Surrender" is the key word, even that last noble desire for self-realization needs to be given up while abiding strongly to oneself, before the big leap into the empty fullness.
Mouna,
I would not assume a "big leap", rather a big discontinuation of all limitations.
Where can I go ?
You are absolutely right.
Chika Ekagrata said to Salazar a while back -
"Therefore on the other hand it would be wise to investigate your particular prejudices and why you are emphasizing the power of prarabdha and maximizing its importance within the phenomenal world.
I do not at all reject karma (theory) generally but resist myself accepting your narrow way of interpretation and limited outlook."
And later, Salazar said
Sanjay Lohia, you said, "that the Karma-theory is not an integral part of Bhagavan's teachings.
Yes, because that theory cannot bring anybody to realization. According to personal prejudices everybody likes to interpret karma in the way that one's ego is most comfortable with. Your ego, Sanjay, needs the idea of a personal will which can change its day to day circumstances, while mine prefers it the other way around.".
Now, Salazar has revealed that he is not in good health and in considerable pain and distress. It is obvious to me that he is trying to cope with his circumstances to the best of his ability.
I happen to think that his understanding of what Bhagavan said is on the mark.
I am sure that there are other untold stories among the crew here and it amazes me that amid all this high flown "spirituality" there is so little attention to context.
Look, everyone is trying to cope, that's all.
Ooops, let me say Chitta Ekagrata before midnight rambler pounces and points it out, heh, heh.
Recently, when my cousin’s daughter was about to get married and when her wedding invitation cards were ready, my cousin carried these cards all over India in order to place them before various Gods and Goddesses. He personally visited about 7-8 temples in different parts of India to seek the blessings or whatever for his daughter’s married life. I was not able to comprehend this. Why visit so many Gods? Why not just pray to one God? However, maybe in the past, we have also indulged in such devotion to various Gods simultaneously.
Sri Sadhu Om explains the process of our spiritual evolution with an analogy of studying in different standards in our school. The following is a paraphrase of an extract from Michael’s video dated 7th January 2017 (1:12 to 1:23):
People who have not entered any spiritual school just want to enjoy their lives, and so they care only about themselves. They believe they can achieve whatever they want by their own actions. These people have no faith in the scriptures, and they often act recklessly. Their only aim is their own happiness at any cost. Since they meet many obstacles in their life, they start looking for a better means to satisfy all their desires. This is where they enter the 1st standard of the spiritual school.
Ist Standard: When people come to the first standard of the school, they start believing in karma-kandas of the Vedas. They start believing in the actions prescribed in the Vedas, but they still believe that the actions themselves are sufficient to fulfil their desires. They try to follow certain rules of cleanliness, certain moral principles and so on. However, they eventually become dejected by these sorts of actions, because they are not able to achieve what they want. So they go back to studying the Vedas in more depth.
2nd Standard: They find in the Vedas that there are different Gods for different needs. So they start worshipping different Gods and Goddesses in order to satisfy their various needs and desires. They may worship Ganapati so that he may remove all their obstacles, Lakshmi for wealth and Sarswati for learning and so on. I think my cousin, about whom I wrote earlier, is at present studying in this 2nd standard of bhakti.
People studying in the 2nd standard still have a lot of desires, and therefore they keep on running from one God to another, praying for this or that. Eventually, they find it quite bothersome to worship so many Gods. When their mind becomes purified, they begin to feel attracted to only one name and form of God.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
In continuation of my previous comment:
3A Standard: In this standard, people start worshipping only one God. So now they are able to bring their devotion to a greater focus. They begin to understand that there is only one God and that all the various Gods and Goddesses whom he worshipped earlier were just different manifestations of one God. So they worship only one name and form, but still they worship God for what they can get from God.
Sometimes their prayers and fulfilled and sometimes they are not fulfilled. Once they develop more love for God, they start to think, ‘Why should I pray for all these things? Why should I not ask for Krishna himself (supposing he is devoted only to Krishna)?
3B Standard: So gradually-gradually his kamya-bhakti matures into niskamya-bhakti. He now begins to worship Krishna just for the sake of Krishna - ‘I want only you, nothing else’. This way slowly-slowly his mind gets purified and his love gets refined. It is here that God appears in the form of the guru. The devotee comes to understand that God and guru are not different. So his devotion becomes focussed on the guru.
However, he is still worshipping the outward name and form of the guru. Eventually, his mind becomes purified by such one-pointed devotion to his guru.
4th Standard: Now the devotee comes to understand that guru is not that body. He understands that guru or God exists within himself as himself. So his devotion shifts from anya-bhakti to ananya-bhakti. The devotee then turns within and merges within. This is our final destination.
Mouna,
Nobody is threading theories here. The necessary, well-knit theory for atma vichara is given for us by Bhagavan in Ulladu Narpadu, which has every thread intact in it. People discuss this theory here. It is not that they are performing any arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) on the theory given by Bhagavan. Therefore it is not mere mental gymnastics.
But I find you are doing some arithmetic operations here by introducing your ‘not-so-free-will’ theory and I have explained its incompatibility with Ulladu Narpadu in my previous reply to you. This is mental gymnastics.
You say the dhrishti-shrishti vada of Ulladu Narpadu as beginner level concept. But Michael says Ulladu Narpadu is PhD level text. You say one needs to go beyond this concept (settling down in the understanding of the illusion of free will) and use the ‘not-so-free-will’ for atma vichara. However, Michael says Ulladu Narpadu is the map we need to carry with us in this journey till the end. Readers of this blog can see this contrast and decide what is suitable for them.
Followed by my long description of the neurological experiments by a scientist, in a reply to Salazar, I had mentioned why I would not base my understanding of Bhagavan’s teaching on such experiments. Further, I gave clear cut reasons as to why I do so. Did you read that? It appears to me that you did not. Not that I am expecting someone to read what I write, but when someone writes on what I write, he should at least read it till the end. If not understood, he may ask questions on that then and there. This is basic courtesy. Your ad hoc proclamation that you do not base your understanding on such experiments (obliquely hinting that I do otherwise – otherwise what was the need to say that out of context?) is not so comfortable for me.
When you invite someone to comment on your comment, do you expect them to share their understanding? If so, why don’t you listen to them till they finish? It appears you invite people to an ‘elephant’ party and present before them an elephant. You ask them to describe what is presented to them. They being blind, believing you are their friend, start describing the object presented to them. But suddenly at one point you say they are threading their own blind theories and tell them ‘enough’. As they hear this ‘enough’, they wonder why they were invited in the first place and start walking off. Here comes the best part. You now pacify them saying, ‘relax, all is well’, because you wanted them to stay and endure your treatment. You don’t know how to respect people.
Look Mouna, this is not my blog and what you do here is none of my business. If I get to see such things here more often, I will simply walk away and never return. That is the only choice I have. Even if I do write, from now on, I will not address you or whatever thoughts you share, either directly or indirectly. May Bhagavan bless you. Good bye.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 32
For those who experience waking, dream and sleep, wakeful sleep, which is beyond those three states, is named turiya (the ‘fourth’). Since that turiya alone exists and since the seeming three states do not exist, know for certain that turiya is atita (the transcendent state known as turiyatita).
Reflections: If we experience the three unreal states of waking, dream and sleep, the real state can be called the ‘forth’ (turiya). However, once we find that there is only the one state called turiya, this turiya cannot be called turiya, because the other three states are no more there. So in fact, this ‘forth’ state is actually the ‘first and the only state’.
Thus ultimately we will find that turiya itself is turiyatita - the state which transcends the three unreal states.
Wittgenstein, please do not walk away. I am certain that most, if not all, on this blog enjoy your comments, I certainly do.
Please forgive my intrusion between you and Mouna, but I had not the same impression of what Mouna said looking at your last comment.
I.e. that dhrishti-shrishti vada of Ulladu Narpadu is a beginner level concept. Now I am not saying it is or it is not, it depends from the viewpoint, however that does not violate Michael's statement that Ulladu Narpadu is a PHD level text. In its entirety it is a PHD level text because it has so many subtle implications which become obvious only after a certain maturity. I believe even Michael says that he finds once in a while an improved meaning reading it.
But the concept of dhrishti-shrishti vada is just a small part of Ulladu Narpadu and therefore not necessarily, on its own, PHD level.
Anyway, you, Mouna, Aseem, Sanjay Lohia, and a few more are the backbone of this blog, it would be sad if one of you would walk away. (I didn't mention Michael, I am afraid I take him for granted :)
Salazar
The recent discussion in the comment section of this blogpost was prompted by Michael's comment to Salazar (which i am unable to locate now), an extract of which Mouna posted in a comment (timestamp 5 July 2018 at 21:25):
”Salazar, you object to the idea that self-investigation entails controlling the mind, and you say the mind cannot control itself, but do you at least concede that we (this ego or mind) can control our attention? That is, do you agree that we are free to choose what we attend to?"
In his comment to Sanjay (timestamp 6 July 2018 at 16:36), Salazar wrote:
Interestingly if I focus my mind on certain thoughts that sensation [of chronic pain] moves out of my attention and I don't feel any pain as long as I do it. Alas that doesn't work with "I am" [yet!], I guess due to a lack of practice. If my mind can circumvent the pain in focusing on certain thoughts it must also work while attending to "I am".
By saying so, Salazar has conceded that we (this ego or mind) are free to choose what to attend to. While stating that '[his] mind can circumvent the pain' by 'focussing on certain thoughts', he actually implies that he is free to attend to 'certain thoughts' to circumvent pain at least temporarily.
Since our attention is in a positive feedback loop with our vasanas, it can be argued that attention is 'not free', ie, it itself is influenced by our vasanas. This argument concludes that our freedom to attend to what we want is constrained by our vasanas.
A weakness of this argument is that is disregards the fact that attention drives vasanas. We can explain this using an analogy of a positive-feedback amplifier. In a positive feedback voltage amplifier, the output of the amplifier is routed back to the non-inverting input, which leads to the saturation of the output (provided that inverting input is grounded). If initially there is positive voltage at the non-inverting input, the result of the positive feedback loop will be positive saturation of the output (and vice-versa).
Attention is analogous to the initial voltage at the input, and vasanas are analogous to the output. The more initial positive voltage (attention) we give to a certain output (vasana), the more it will increase until it attains the point of positive saturation (maxima); similarly, the more negative voltage (deprive of attention) we give to a certain output (vasana), the more it will decrease until it attains the point of negative saturation (minima). In practice, since our attention is divided amongst various vasanas, rarely do we achieve saturation of a certain vasana.
Thus, attention drives vasanas despite being influenced by them. Therefore in our deluded outlook as an ego, we can starve of attention many of our vishaya vasanas; for example, by abstaining from indulging in a particular food which we are presently fond of (let us say meat), until after some time (say a few years), the vasana for eating meat is so weakened and the corresponding vasana for eating something else (say veggies, legumes and fruits) is so strengthened that the very thought of eating meat makes us nauseous.
(To be continued in the following comment)
Post a Comment