Sunday 13 May 2018

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.
  1. According to dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, perception is not only the cause of creation but is itself creation
  2. The awareness in which and to which phenomena appear is not real awareness but only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa)
  3. This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is the ego or mind, which is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear
  4. The ego or mind causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear only from itself, so it alone is their source or origin
  5. A cause and its effect can occur simultaneously, but logically the cause comes first and the effect comes only after it
  6. Since the ego has created all that it perceives, why does it have so little control over what it has created?
  7. Thoughts come only from ourself, the ego, the one who perceives them, so we alone are the root of all 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
1. According to dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, perception is not only the cause of creation but is itself creation

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 மேனு
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].
The 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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.
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.

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 டாகு
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].
In 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.

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.

1,351 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   801 – 1000 of 1351   Newer›   Newest»
love for being said...

Sanjay Lohia,
I would like to share your optimism.
But as far as I am concerned I am only just beginning to find my way of constant self-remembrance or self-investigation in daily life - particularly when my sensual desires get the better of me.

Michael James said...

I have just written a reply to a comment on my latest video on YouTube, and since what I wrote in it is relevant to what has been discussed in many of the comments here, the following is a copy of it:

Ross, I am currently writing a long article on the subject of will and the need to surrender, which I will post on my blog as soon as I have finished it, and which I hope will offer an alternative perspective to what you have written here.

According to Bhagavan everything that we experience in each life is predetermined by fate (prārabdha), so it cannot be changed by anything we do or do not do, and we will be made to do whatever is necessary for us to experience it. This does not mean that none of the actions we do are driven by our will or volition, but just means that whatever we do according to our will (our desires and so on) will not change, add to or subtract from what we are destined to experience. Therefore if we surrender our will (that is, give up all our likes, dislikes, desires, fears, attachments, hopes and so on) our life will go on as it is destined to, but we will be happy and peaceful, irrespective of what happens to us.

Bhagavan uses an analogy to illustrate this. If we are travelling on a train, we do not need to carry our luggage on our head, but can put it on the rack or the seat beside us and sit back and relax until we reach our destination. We are free, however, to carry our luggage on our head and to suffer as a consequence. Acting according to our will and believing that we must do so in order to survive is like carrying our luggage on our head, whereas surrendering our will is like putting our luggage aside and relaxing. Which is preferable? The choice is ours, but whichever option we choose, whatever is predetermined to happen to us will happen, just as the train will take us to our destination whether we carry our luggage on our head or not.

However putting our luggage aside requires trust, which most of us lack, but we can at least try little by little putting it aside and seeing what happens. The more we do so, the more confidence we will gain that the train will carry our luggage for us whether we hold it on our head or not. This is the practice of surrender, and the more we practise it the more confident we will become that everything will happen as it is meant to happen whether our will interferes or not.

Anonymous said...

https://youtu.be/ihhVe8dKNSA

Michael James said...

In reply to what I wrote to him in my previous comment, Ross wrote another comment saying: ‘Yes, Michael, I do agree everything is pre-determined. Including our listening to the talks. And that my actions in response are also pre-determined. I’m just wondering what place my will has in my response to the talks. I come to the talks out of being weary of the world, my addictions to pleasure, and how everything ends in disappointment. So, in that sense my motives for being here are egoistic. Yet here I am. So, my desires to escape my situation have served a purpose. And, yes, they are pre-ordained’.

In reply to him I wrote:

Everything that happens to us is predetermined, so in that sense everything that we experience is predetermined, but our desires are not predetermined. If they were, whether or not we investigate ourself, surrender ourself or do any other spiritual practice would be predestined, in which case we would have no freedom to escape the bondage of self-ignorance.

As Bhagavan pointed out, freedom or independence of our will is the fundamental premise on which the prescription of any form of spiritual practice is based, so he would not have advised us to investigate and surrender ourself if we were not free to choose whether to do so or not.

This is what I explain in great detail in the article I am currently writing, so if you want to understand this crucial point more clearly please read that article whenever I complete it and post it on my blog.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Que Sera Sera - by Doris Day

When I was just a little girl
I asked my mother, what will I be
Will I be pretty
Will I be rich
Here's what she said to me

Que será, será
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours to see
Que será, será
What will be, will be

When I grew up and fell in love
I asked my sweetheart, what lies ahead
Will we have rainbows
Day after day
Here's what my sweetheart said

Que será, será
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours to see
Que será, será
What will be, will be

Now I have children of my own
They ask their mother, what will I be
Will I be handsome
Will I be rich
I tell them tenderly

Que será, será
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours to see
Que será, será
What will be, will be
Que será, sera

Reflections: Michael referred to this poem Que Sera Sera in his latest video while discussing the topic of free will and destiny. I thought that the poem would be an interesting sharing.

What will I be? Will I be pretty? Will I be rich? What lies ahead? Will I have rainbows day after day? Will I be handsome?

We have such questions, hopes, expectations, desires, curiosity about so many things. These are all the workings of our will. Our will is free or independent, and therefore we can have all sorts of hopes and expectations, we can have limitless desires, we can be curious about so many things. This is our freedom, and our destiny cannot stop us from exercising this freedom of will. We can want what we want, we can desire what we desire.

However, Que será, sera, whatever will be, will be - this is our destiny. That is our will cannot change, add to or subtract from our destiny. I am free to want to be pretty or rich or whatever, but I may not necessarily become what I want to be. That is ‘whatever will be, will be’ is our unalterable destiny. Our will cannot change our destiny.




Sanjay Lohia said...

Actually, we have unlimited freedom because we are the infinite whole. However, when we limit ourself as this ego our will also seems to be limited. There seem to be restrictions on our freedom of will.

Our will is the totality of all our likes, dislikes, desires, fears, hopes, interests, aspirations, all these things constitute our will. The elements of our will are what is called vishaya-vasanas. So desire is the very nature of the ego, and the desires manifest as our likes and dislikes and everything. So it is within our power to have a desire for something or to be indifferent to it. That ability we have.

But people generally take free will to mean freedom to do what we want. But actually free will means that we have a will, and ‘free will’ means our will is free. It doesn’t mean that we are free to do what we want, but we are free to want what we want.
Whether we can do what we want is an entirely different matter. Freedom to act is limited. It is because we have to experience our prarabdha.

Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 14 July 2018 (1:23 to 1:25)

Reflections: Michael says, ‘actually we have unlimited freedom because we are the infinite whole’. What does ‘unlimited freedom’ mean? It means that since we are the infinite whole, there is nothing other than ourself to limit us in any manner. It means that we as this infinite whole are not bound to anything, and therefore we are eternally free.

However, when we limit ourself as this ego, we take in all the limitations. As this ego, we have limited freedom, limited existence, limited awareness and limited happiness. We now have limited freedom to act, because we are bound by our destiny.

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

Anonymous, out of curiosity I started watching that youtube video you posted planning to not watch it in its entirety and sure enough I stopped watching when the guy started saying that, because of no free will, the criminal system would make no sense.

I won't elaborate why this conclusion is false, just more proof for me to not watch all of these youtube videos where certain people voice their (usual immature) opinions.

Sanjay Lohia said...

The ego is the doer of actions. Actually, the actions are done by the body, speech and mind. However, because the ego feels ‘I am this body; I am this mind’, when we think thoughts, we feel ‘I think’. What are you doing now? ‘I am sitting; I am asking questions’. All these actions are done by the ego.

The ego is both, the doer and experiencer of the fruits of actions. The ego is the doer of agamya because it has a will, and it is the experiencer of prarabdha.
However, your real nature is not doing or experiencing; your real nature is being. Pure awareness is your nature, not awareness of this or that.

Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 14 July 2018 (1:57 onwards)

Reflections: My following reflections are based on Michael’s article titled: Do we need to do anything at all?

Our body or the person we take to be ourself needs to various tasks in order to continue existing as this body or the person. The person needs to do various tasks, such as breathing, eating, acquiring resources to maintain itself (food, clothing and shelter). However, as long as we (the ego) identify ourself with this person, we feel that we (the ego) need to do all these things. But this is not true.

Are this body or person? If we are not, we don’t need to do all these tasks. Bhagavan says your duty is to be, not to be this or that. We don’t need to think or do anything. That which is to happen will happen; that which is not to happen. Bhagavan says this is certain.

Our body and made will be made to act by the power of parmesvara-shakti. We should remain silent or indifferent to everything. This is vairagya, and such vairagya is a necessary element of our practice of self-investigation.

We are the infinite self-awareness, which never does anything or needs to do anything at all.



Sanjay Lohia said...

My previous comment needs some corrections:

That which is to happen will happen; that which is not to happen will not happen. Bhagavan says this is certain.

Our body and mind will be made to act by the power of paramesvara-shakti.

sivatva said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you quote: "However, your real nature is not doing or experiencing; your real nature is being. Pure awareness is your nature, not awareness of this or that."

Consequently pure awareness seems to be full (of awareness) because there is apparently no room for (being aware of) this and that.

prapatti said...

Michael,
you say "Therefore if we surrender our will (that is, give up all our likes, dislikes, desires, fears, attachments, hopes and so on) our life will go on as it is destined to, but we will be happy and peaceful, irrespective of what happens to us."

Does not our life (will) go on as it is destined to even if we do not surrender our will...? I cannot recognize any difference between both behaviours in that point of "going on".

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

prapatti, may I volunteer my opinion to your question, "Does not our life (will) go on as it is destined to even if we do not surrender our will...? I cannot recognize any difference between both behaviours in that point of "going on"?

Yes, life will go on as destined no matter if we surrender [our will] or not. The point is that we want to stop identifying with "life" and that requires surrendering. Why going through these futile mental interactions with one's "life" which can only create turmoil and discomfort? True surrender is peace, a peace which transcends all notions of mind and body.

Rukmani said...

Michael,
"Everything that happens to us is predetermined, so in that sense everything that we experience is predetermined, but our desires are not predetermined. If they were, whether or not we investigate ourself, surrender ourself or do any other spiritual practice would be predestined, in which case we would have no freedom to escape the bondage of self-ignorance."
To my mind I feel such predestination as being totally treated like a child and as deprivation of the right of decision. But- presumably I did not deserve any better/anything else.
What is the reason that our desires are not predetermined ?

prapatti said...

Salazar,
"True surrender is peace, a peace which transcends all notions of mind and body."

May I question from which reason and to whom I should surrender ?

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

prapatti, I am not sure what you mean with "from which reason should I surrender?".

Do you want to know what is the reason to surrender? I believe I have already mentioned that in my previous comment. Maybe you can clarify what you mean and I'll answer then.

"To whom should you surrender?". Depending on the belief system several answers are possible, for many it is a personal God. The Christian tradition surrenders to God, "thy will be done!". That means to accept and realize that any interaction we experience is done by God. If someone cheats you then it was not that person but God. You get promoted, that was not done by your superior but by God. Somebody insults you, it was not that person but God, etc. etc.

In all of these instances you accept them as they are and you do not try to change anything. If someone slaps you your body may return the favor but what counts is how your mind is reacting to it. If you can walk away calmly after hitting that person then you have shown great restraint. On the other hand if someone slaps you and you keep mentally agonizing about that and imagine all kinds of retaliation scenarios (without actually hitting that person) then you are worse off than when your body would have just hit that person.

Surrender requires faith in a higher power and that that higher power has only our best interest in mind in EVERYTHING you experience.

True surrender is the death of the ego/mind and the belief to be a body. Then there is no more a subject/object relationship but that what we truly are. Ultimately there is also not a personal God but there is no need to worry about that now.







Anonymous said...

Talk 607.
17th January, 1939

Sri Bhagavan said to Lady Bateman: There is a fixed state; sleep, dream and waking states are mere movements in it. They are like pictures moving on the screen in a cinema show.

Everyone sees the screen as well as the pictures but ignoresthe screen and takes in the pictures alone. The Jnani however
considers only the screen and not the pictures. The pictures certainly move on the screen yet do not affect it. The screen itself does not move but remains stationary. Similarly, a person travels in a train and thinks that he moves.

Really speaking he sits and reposes in his seat, and it is the train which is steaming fast. He however superimposes the motion of the train on himself because he has identified himself with the body.

He says, “I have passed one station - now another - yet another - and so on”. A little consideration will show that he sits unmoved and the stations run past him. But that does not prevent him from saying that he has travelled all the way as if he exerted himself to move every foot of the way. The Jnani is fully aware that the true state of Being remains fixed and stationary and that all actions go on around him. His nature does not change and his state is not affected in the least. He looks on everything with unconcern and remains blissful himself. His is the true state and also the primal and natural state of being. When once the man reaches it he gets fixed there. Fixed once, fixed ever he will be.

Therefore that state which prevailed in the days of Pathala Linga Cellar continues uninterrupted, with only this difference that the body remained there immobile but is now active.

There is no difference between a Jnani and an ajnani in their conduct. The difference lies only in their angles of vision. The ignorant man identifies himself with the ego and mistakes its activities for those of the Self, whereas the ego of the Jnani has been lost and he does not limit himself to this body or that, this event or that, and so on...

Sanjay Lohia said...

Anonymous, thanks for sharing the extract from the Talks. In this extract Bhagavan says:

Similarly, a person travels in a train and thinks that he moves.

Really speaking he sits and reposes in his seat, and it is the train which is steaming fast. He, however, superimposes the motion of the train on himself because he has identified himself with the body.

He says, ‘I have passed one station - now another - yet another - and so on’. A little consideration will show that he sits unmoved and the stations run past him. But that does not prevent him from saying that he has travelled all the way as if he exerted himself to move every foot of the way. The Jnani is fully aware that the true state of Being remains fixed and stationary and that all actions go on around him.

Reflections: True. We are the unmoving one. However, because our body, speech and mind are even active, and because we identify with our body, speech and mind, we feel we are acting, speaking or thinking. This is like if we travel on a train from Mumbai to New Delhi, it the train which does all the movement, but we feel that we have travelled all the way to New Delhi. In fact, as Bhagavan says, we just sit on the train at one place and all the movements are done only by the train.

Likewise, we are the fixed one, whereas all the movements happen in us. Since the root of all movements is the ego, once our ego is destroyed we will get fixed in and as ourself. Then we will realise that we have never moved – in fact, we can never move. We are the infinite, immutable, unbroken being-awareness-bliss, and therefore we cannot move or act in any manner. This is the one thing we can never do.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 7

I now compose and string together all the supreme truth that I come to know through the divine glance bestowed upon me by my Lord guru Ramana, who destroyed my delusion caused by the ego sense, leaving me in a state of clarity.

Reflections: What is ‘the divine glance bestowed upon me by my Lord guru Ramana’ that Muruganar talks about? Is it merely the physical glance of Bhagavan Ramana? No, though Bhagavan’s glance would have surely done its work, the real glance of Bhagavan is when we meet eye to eye with inner Bhagavan, our atma-svarupa. As Muruganar explained in one of the previous verses, Bhagavan in his true nature is infinite sat-chit (existence-awareness), so real Bhagavan has no body (or eyes).

When Muruganar met Bhagavan, the effect of this could have been that Muruganar was made to turn within through the powerful gaze of Bhagavan. Since Muruganar was an exceptionally ripe soul, he must have turned within with such intensity that it destroyed his ego then and there. Our ego can only be destroyed when we experience ourself as we really are.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 8

The benefit of this light of supreme truth is the understanding that there is not the least thing such as ‘attainment’, since the supreme self is the ever-attained, one whole. Thus the mental wanderings caused by striving towards dharma, artha, and kama are also removed.

Sadhu Om: [These] three worldly aims are futile and transitory […] We may however still think, ‘Is not the mental effort at least needed to obtain moksha?’ but again this light [Bhagavan] shows us the meaninglessness of striving to ‘attain’ self, which is ever-attained, and instead, it recommends the cessation of all mental activity, thereby fixing us in the eternal, motionless and ever-attained state of self.

Reflections: Moksha (liberation) is ever-attained – in fact, our liberation is our true nature. Bhagavan used to mock at the term ‘self-realisation’ by saying, ‘How can one realise self when it is ever-realised? Since you have now made real what is unreal, you now have to unrealise the unreal. This is self-realisation’.

How to unrealise the unreal? Since the root of everything unreal is only our ego, we can unrealise everything unreal merely by destroying our ego through self-investigation.

Save me ! said...

Anonymous,
"Similarly, a person travels in a train and thinks that he moves.
Really speaking he sits and reposes in his seat, and it is the train which is steaming fast. He however superimposes the motion of the train on himself because he has identified himself with the body."

Actually the person identified himself not only with the body but even with the train.

But...if it is true that there is only one undivided consciousness - the non-dual realiy - the person was definitely not wrong but indeed even completely right in his "wrong" identification ! ...if I am not badly mistaken.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Save me, you say, ‘Actually the person identified himself not only with the body but even with the train’.

Actually, we identify ourself we a body, and since we are real we consider this body to be also real, and since this body is part of this world, we consider the entire world to be real.

If we take an orange and peel its skin, inside, the fruit is divided into ‘segments’, which have thin tough skins that hold together many little sections with juice inside. If we take one segment of the orange to be real because we have eaten it and are enjoying its flavour, we have to take all other segments of this orange also to be real. We cannot say that the segment I ate was real, but all the other segments are unreal. Likewise, since we consider our body to be real, we automatically take all other bodies and all other phenomena also to be real.

Our body acts in so many ways, and we take those actions to be real. Once we consider our body’s actions to be real, we also consider all the other actions we see around us also to be real. So if we are travelling on a train, we take the movement of this train to be as real as our actions. In short, our body and its actions are as real as the train and its actions (movements).

prapatti said...

Salazar,
yes, I want to know what is the reason to surrender. Why shall I surrender ?
Am I not pure self-awareness enough ?
"Life" is but awareness. So why making an attempt to avoid identifying with "life" ?
Is not (trying to) being constantly aware of who is aware of "life" a good venture ?

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

prapatti, I cannot tell you what venture is best for you. If surrender doesn't appeal to you don't do it. You may want to investigate your seeming resistance to surrender.

You said "life is but awareness". That is not correct. Life is that what the mind makes up while being aware of these objects. Actually there is no "life" in pure consciousness.

If you describe with "being aware of who is aware" the practice of vichara then you do just alright. There is one important point, if being "aware of life" means for you that your mind is somehow involved with that what it is being aware of in form of subtle thoughts then you are not doing it correctly.

prapatti said...

Salazar,
it is a good proposal to investigate to whom my lack of understanding and surrender-resistance appear. Indeed I need to go deep in this point.

My statement "life is but awareness" is to be seen from the viewpoint that even the mind's making up is supported by pure consciousness. Since I see "life" as an expression of pure consciousness I do not intend to give the "life" a wide berth.

Admittedly I certainly first have to feel my way of correct atma-vichara.

. . said...

Hello again prapatti, I do not see life as an expression of pure consciousness; it is for me more an aberration of reality. We have to be careful with the idea that “the mind’s making up” is supported by pure consciousness.

Because unless our mind is completely destroyed we have to see this world, life, our body and mind as unreal and incompatible with pure consciousness. Those objects have to be shunned. If we conceptually give it a connection with consciousness we subtly give it reality.

True, pure consciousness is the substratum of everything but as long as we do not have the vision of a Jnani we need to see this world, life, etc. as unreal and it has to be [technically] erased (as in no attention) from consciousness.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 9

Self, which is one’s own true nature, is the substratum of all happiness in this and in other worlds. Therefore, to be firmly established in self, unshaken by thoughts concerning the various other paths [Karmas, Yogas etc.,] that leads only to the pleasures of this and of other worlds, is the fruit of this work.

Reflections: Why does Muruganar say that other paths lead only to the pleasures of this and of other worlds? I think it is because if we practise any path other than self-investigation with nisksmya-bhava, we will accumulate favourable fruits. Such fruits may give us pleasures of this and of other worlds.

However, since self-investigation is not an action, it can leave no fruits. But self-investigation does leave seeds of svatma-bhakti (also called sat-vasana), and such seeds will compel us to practise more and more of self-investigation. Thus only self-investigation is the direct mukti-marga (the path of liberation). Other paths may give us worldly or heavenly pleasures or siddhis or whatever, but what is the use of such pleasures? These other paths may give us some ephemeral and temporary enjoyments, but they cannot lead us directly to liberation.

All paths other than self-investigation entails some action, but no action can ever liberation us. Why?

1) It is because action implies that there is a doer of the action. According to Bhagavan, this doer is the ego. The ego is an erroneous awareness of ourself, and therefore as long as we experience ourself as this ego, we do not experience ourself as we really are. Since liberation entails experiencing ourself as we really are, no action can ever liberate us.

2) Each action done by our volition leaves behind its fruit and its seed. These seeds cast us into more and more such actions, and thus actions obstruct liberation, at least for the time being.

3) All actions entail a movement of our attention away from ourself towards some object. Thus actions result in our being aware of things other than ourself, and liberation entails experiencing only ourself. Thus actions can never liberate us.


prapatti said...

Salazar,
hello again Salazar,
why are we free to aberrate form reality ?
At least pure consciousness seemingly tolerates the "mind's making up".

But is it not said that in truth there is not at all any mind ?

In any case pure consciousness is completely indifferent to the mind's theatre.

I agree the world and our life are merely seeming to be real.
However, in my experience the most important thing is to learn keeping inner distance to the mind's involvements.
Of course I should not turn a deaf ear to your justified warnings regarding the incompability of the mentioned factors with pure consciousness.

prapatti said...

Salazar,
sorry about typo: correct is aberrate "from" reality...

. . said...

prapatti, you said that “the most important thing is to learn keeping inner distance to the mind's involvements.”

That sounds like a plan, but who is keeping an inner distance to the mind’s involvement? That can only be the mind. The problem is that the mind cannot do that since it cannot stay apart from itself. As Bhagavan said, that’s making the thief the policeman.

The only solution is keenly attending to the sense of ‘I am’: Simply being without any intentions including “keeping an inner distance”.

Don’t get fooled by your mind.

. . said...

"But is it not said that in truth there is not at all any mind ?"

Well, as long as we are thinking there seems to be a mind. Once there are no more thoughts that question of the existence of a mind could not even come up. And then there is no mind.

Bhagavan: "I am" with effort is vichara, "I am" without effort is realization.

. . said...

"Why are we free to aberrate from reality ?
At least pure consciousness seemingly tolerates the "mind's making up"."

Who deviates from reality? That would be Bhagavan's question and his hint to vichara.

Pure consciousness does not tolerate "the mind's making up" in the common sense. The "mind's making up" is a reflection on pure consciousness with no substance or impact. Pure consciousness is oblivious of a "mind".

Mouna said...

Salazar, greetings my friend.

You wrote: ”Because unless our mind is completely destroyed we have to see this world, life, our body and mind as unreal and incompatible with pure consciousness. Those objects have to be shunned. If we conceptually give it a connection with consciousness we subtly give it reality.” (bold type my making)

I think I can clearly see your intention writing this paragraph. But actually, when it comes to its content, I do not completely agree. And I’ll try to explain why.

As one famous swami used to say (paraphrasing): “What is the distance between consciousness (your awareness) and the world of phenomena?” What would be the distance between your seeing and reading this comment and your awareness? if there is a distance tat would mean this seeing/reading is out of your awareness, and what can possibly be “out” of our cosnscious experience?

If we investigate the world "out there" (sensations) and also the world "in here” (perceptions, thoughts, feelings, etc..) we will come to the conclusion that not only they are not “away from my awareness” but also they are nothing “but" awareness. Let us remember that the apparent ego borrows consciousness to create its illusion of existence and sentience, same ego borrows the same awareness to project a world of “sentient” beings and inanimate objects, which in turn it identifies with its body separate from that world. (drishti-srishti vada).

Why we see a snake in dim light superimposed on a rope due to our ignorance and not an elephant? because a snake and a rope have similar features, both don’t have legs, both have a tubular shape, etc… The snake “borrows” the tubular aspect of the rope, maybe the “coiled” aspect also, to trick our eye to appear as a snake when not properly illumined.

What I am trying to say is that if we investigate deep into what the world really is, in a circular way we will end up with consciousness also, cannot be otherwise, because awareness/existence is all there is.

Traditional Vedanta stops here, with the knowledge that everything including this body and world and god is only consciousness. Non-duality, from this point of view is realizing that Brahman is everything, including ego which is a power residing in Brahman, which at this point is called God or Ishwara. From a Vedantic point of view, the world and body need not, and cannot, disappear after realization…

We are working with the concept that there is a step further, the ajata point of view, as Bhagavan taught us, which declares the non-creation of this whole thing (including ego), and denies it. But that doesn’t imply that because we still see the world we have to see it as separate from consciousness. That is, IMO, the “connection” this body, this person (Mouna) and this world have with consciousness.

Be well brother,
M

. . said...

Mouna, brother, I have no objections to your comment. Let me repeat the last paragraph of my comment you are referring to: “True, pure consciousness is the substratum of everything but as long as we do not have the vision of a Jnani we need to see this world, life, etc. as unreal and it has to be [technically] erased (as in no attention) from consciousness.”

I prefer to not see a “connection” between this body, person, and this world with consciousness. Why? Because that’s just a mental imagination and there is no reason to establish that, I rather do not think at all about it :)

I am fine if you disagree with the semantics of it, maybe more time in silence will give me further clarity.

prapatti said...

Salazar,
thank you for your comments.
Your advice to keenly attend to the sense of ‘I am’ and simply being without any intentions including “keeping an inner distance” sounds plausibly and seems to be even easy. But did you self already put its reliability to the test in practice ?

That the mind is allowed and evidently able to cause a "reflection on pure consciousness with no substance or impact" one can name it at least as (a form of) connivance.

. . said...

prapatti, the mind is not causing anything, neither on pure consciousness nor in the phenomenal world, it is a Fata Morgana.

This is all conceptual speculation anyway; we should heed Bhagavan’s advice to look to who is asking all these questions than to indulge in idle speculation. Our minds are trying to make sense of Bhagavan’s teachings and that’s where my conceptual understanding stems from but in all reality, we only have to focus on one thing and that is vichara.

The mind will be always a doubter and its inquisitive nature can never be satisfied. It is wise to turn to vichara instead.

I am practicing vichara and I can say that, like with all tasks, it becomes better or easier with continuing practice. It needs persistence and patience but it gives me (most of the time) peace of mind which is a little bonus on the path to realization.

prapatti said...

Salazar,
thanks again.

prapatti said...

Salazar,
I forgot to note that your statement "...the mind is not causing anything, neither on pure consciousness nor in the phenomenal world, it is a Fata Morgana."
is obviously a contradiction to the title/headline of Michael's article.
Perhaps your considerations are developed in some other direction.

. . said...

prapatti, that is well observed by you. No, Michael’s title of this article is just fine. I’d like to emphasize the part “of all other things”.

So, if we take the Fata Morgana “mind/ego” for real then it seemingly creates, causes, projects something, however that is entirely IMAGINARY and is self-sustained by thought. So the mind gives [seemingly] itself its existence [with thought(s)] but as soon as there is no thought it doesn’t exist nor did it ever exist and can ever exist nor can or could it create, cause, project something.

That’s a bit of a paradox but I am afraid that’s what Bhagavan taught.

prapatti said...

Salazar,
therefore let us not forget that silence is the true and perfect upadesa.

Sanjay Lohia said...

I am in the process of watching a YouTube video titled: Ramana Maharshi Realization Anniversary 2018. In this video, a very passionate devotee of Bhagavan is talking about Bhagavan and his importance in our lives. He says something interesting at one place (0:32):

Most of us would not even be focused on spiritual truth if there was no Ramana Maharshi. He is like the godfather of modern spirituality. This is an absolute fact. We can’t overlook it.

Isn’t it interesting? Bhagavan is 'like the godfather of modern spirituality!'

Save me ! said...

Sanjay Lohia,
certainly without Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi I presumably would run around in a circle or creep round little or less convincing "gurus".
However, I grapple now with the correct understanding of Bhagavan's teaching.

jiva-karunya said...

Salazar said "So, if we take the Fata Morgana “mind/ego” for real then it seemingly creates, causes, projects something, however that is entirely IMAGINARY and is self-sustained by thought. So the mind gives [seemingly] itself its existence [with thought(s)] but as soon ...".

If we take the Fata Morgana “mind/ego” for real or not, it is in any case astonishing
that an imaginary Fata Morgana has the power to steal our heart away.
So let us keep a cool head.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Guru Vachaka Kovai - verses 10 and 11

When scrutinised it will be found that these sweet verses of The Collection of the Guru’s Sayings have not been composed by my dull and deluded thinking mind, but that they have been inspired without thought by the divine Venkatavan [Sri Ramana].

Why should I offer a ‘Submission to the Assembly’ for a work which has not been done with the sense of doership, ‘I’? The whole responsibility for this work belongs to him, the supreme Lord [Sri Ramana], whom even the great ones can realise only through the samadhi of mystic silence within their hearts.

Note: It was the tradition in ancient days for a writer to submit his work to an assembly of learned men. He, therefore, had to compose a verse of ‘submission’, requesting the assembly to correct any error found in his work.

Reflections: Bhagavan is the peerless presence which has inspired many to do many things. He has inspired the likes of Muruganar, Sadhu Om and Michael to write relentlessly about Bhagavan and his teachings. It is worth bowing our heads to these devotees for their love and devotion to Bhagavan. Bhagavan has inspired others to sing in his praise, others to give talks and so on.

We have noticed almost an explosion of YouTube videos by Michael in the recent past. It is, without a doubt, Bhagavan’s grace which is the power behind such wonderful videos. We can listen to them again and again and again. Incidentally, he has posted one more video today. His YouTube channel is called: Sri Ramana Teachings.

Of course, Bhagavan’s most important contribution is his teachings, and these teachings have inspired many like us to turn within to experience our true nature.

Bhagavan has been rightfully called the ‘guru of gurus’ because a countless number of ‘gurus’ have been born out of his teachings.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Save Me, yes, we are all grappling trying to understand Bhagavan and his teachings. Our deluded minds can never understand them correctly.

Yes, Bhagavan has saved us from getting attached to other lesser or would-be gurus. We have found the most precious diamond in Bhagavan, so other ornaments - that is, other 'gurus' - do not attract us now.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 12

Since it was my mother who helped me [in giving me this birth] to achieve the attainment (jnana) dispelling ignorance, I gratefully present this work to her. ‘Let this be a dedication to her pure heart which knew not any deceit’.

Reflections: Muruganar dedicated GVK to his mother. Bhagavan is a thousand times kinder than any mother could ever be, so should we not dedicate our lives to Bhagavan? We definitely should!

Sanjay Lohia said...

Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 13

Kanna Murugan (Sri Muruganar), who through the look of grace has seen chit, the grandeur of all wealth, is merely the divine feet of his master (Sri Ramana), strung into a garland some of his guru’s words and has given it [to the world] as the supreme treasure.

Note: This verse was written by another devotee.

Reflections: Guru’s words are the supreme treasure. Can this be overemphasised? No. Guru shows us the path to liberation. Can anything ever surpass liberation?

This life will go in vain if we do not strive for our liberation. Everything else can wait. In fact, nothing else is real. What is real is only our ever liberated state, so we should like a man possessed work towards our liberation.

. . said...

jiva-karunya, yes - that is the power of Maya. Yesterday I read a chapter of GVK and it was stated that it is indeed just a mere false belief to be bound. That includes that there has to me made an effort, that idea feeds and sustains the wrong identification. Bhagavan "blamed" the power of Maya for it.

The paradox is that we should have not the idea or belief in our mind that we have to make an strenuous effort (what just reinforces the belief to be bound) but do vichara just for the love of it. Of course easier said than done.

jiva-karunya said...

Salazar,
as long as we (as our ego) are not dissolved in undivided jnana we are actually bound.
There is nothing to gloss over. Compare Sanjay's quotation of GVK verse 10 and 11 where even the great Muruganar wrote: "When scrutinised it will be found that these sweet verses of The Collection of the Guru’s Sayings have not been composed by my dull and deluded thinking mind, but that they have been inspired ...".
Did he not thus admit that he too was then actually bound by his dull and deluded mind ?

. . said...

jiva-karunya, that's exactly why we are bound, we do not want to believe that we are free thus we seem to be bound. Your quote of Murugunar's saying is just his way of dramatizing the "evil" mind, it should not be understood as a validation of the mind. That would be a misunderstanding and contradict Bhagavan, he never suggested to take the mind for real.

But I do not want to go into an argument about that. Either my previous comment is grasped or it is not - either way everybody will go on according to their (seeming) habit patterns.

It is a grievous mistake to take the mind for real including all of the suffering involved with it. Lamenting about an "evil" mind feeds the delusion and should be avoided.

. . said...

Even now we are not bound, we just THINK we are.

jiva-karunya said...

Salazar,
seen from the viewpoint of a jnani there is of course no ajnani and no bondage ever.
But is it proper for ajnanis to adopt the jnani's view ?
What is the advantage and benefit for ajnanis to laugh triumphantly and claim that there is now and was never any bondage ?

. . said...

There are no Jnanis nor Ajnanis, just as a thought of mind. As there is no liberation nor bondage.

My last comments are not geared to laugh triumphantly at all, that is solely your (mis-) perception.

Neither are there viewpoints but as an imagination), it is time to drop that nonsense of the mind! Thus vichara/surrender seems to be a good idea.




. . said...

That there is no bondage nor liberation is not limited to the "viewpoint" of a Jnani. That is nonsense! The truth is not depending on a "viewpoint". IT IS.

If thoughts keep coming up to object to that, vichara/surrender seems to be a good idea.

Sanjay Lohia said...

While trying to turn within, we also need to give up our desires and attachments. That is, the path of self-investigation and the path of surrender needs to go hand in hand. We cannot have one without the other. We can begin to surrender without vichara, but to go deep into the path of self-surrender, we need to also practise self-investigation. Then the two go side by side, and ultimately they are one and the same.

To make that very clear, in the 1st sentence of the 13th paragraph of Nan Yar (before giving the analogy about the train) Bhagavan says:

Being completely absorbed in ātma-niṣṭhā [self-abidance], giving not even the slightest room to the rising of any thought other than ātma-cintanā [thought of oneself or self-attentiveness], alone is giving oneself to God.

This connects to verse 25 of Ulladu Narpadu, because by attending to things other than ourself, which is what Bhagavan calls ‘grasping form’, the ego comes into existence, continues and flourishes. So by not attending to anything other than ourself, we are cutting at the root, the ego. That is the way to eradicate the ego. We can get rid of the ego, or we can surrender ourself entirely to God, only by attending to ourself and nothing else whatsoever.

So what Bhagavan has taught us about the self-investigation and what he has taught us about the path of surrender, fit together like hand in glove. We cannot investigate ourself without surrendering ourself, and we cannot surrender ourself without investigating ourself. These two are inseparable.

Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 22 July 2018 (53:00 to 59:00)

jiva-karunya said...

Salazar,
truth cannot be without of one who experiences it. Truth is said to be being and knowing.

As you imply vichara/surrender is certainly the best idea.
I wish you (and me) every success.

. . said...

With truth I meant in that regard Self. Because Self is the only "truth". Anything else is mental imagination.

I certainly wish you and all here the utmost success within this world of imagination. In a way it seems silly to wish somebody success. To whom do I direct my wishes? How real is that "person(s)"? If we believe in "wishes" (a polite thing to do), are we not reinforcing the illusion to be a body and mind and thus bound?

That's the schizophrenia of it, on one hand we declare proudly (and showing with that one has understood Bhagavan's teaching) that there is only one mind and all other persons are projections of that mind, and then we turn around and talk to these people as they were in fact real. Sounds pretty crazy for me :)

After waking up from this waking dream we'll realize that all of our "actions" were as real as the actions we performed during the dream we had last night.

jiva-karunya said...

Salazar,
it is clear that while communicating with each other we (cannot) move not in absolute reality but only in relative reality. Therefore we necessarily are left in crazy schizophrenia:)
Ah, we are indeed big dreamers - day and night...in this world of imaginations.
Welcome one the stage of illusions !:)
Waking up ...good idea !:)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 14

In response to the great and befitting penance (tapas) performed by the ocean-girdled mother earth, the nameless and formless supreme brahman itself took the glorious name and form of Sri Ramana Sadguru. May those spotlessly pure feet – sat-chit (existence-consciousness) – be in our hearts.

Sri Sadhu Om: The tapas performed by mother earth is a poetic way of referring to the intense longing for truth of many mature aspirants on earth. This longing naturally brings forth the supreme in the form of a sadguru such as Sri Ramana.

Reflections: As Sadhu Om says, Bhagavan was compelled to come in its human form because of the ‘intense longing for truth of many mature aspirants on earth’. What was the force that compelled him to appear amongst us? It was his limitless love - also called grace. He is pure love, and therefore he cannot see us suffering.

Bhagavan was forced to respond to our innermost need by appearing in his human form. We must have longed for proper guidance on our spiritual journey, so he had to come to show us the way out of this mess, which we now find ourself in.


Dionysos said...

"While trying to turn within, we also need to give up our desires and attachments. That is, the path of self-investigation and the path of surrender needs to go hand in hand."

Giving up my desires and attachments is possible only by suicide of the ego. It is like nosediving in a sea of flames.
Without the help of Arunachala I never will be able to contrive such a heroic deed.

Dionysos said...

Sanjay Lohia,
regarding again to your extract of Michael's recent video:
"So by not attending to anything other than ourself, we are cutting at the root, the ego. That is the way to eradicate the ego. We can get rid of the ego, or we can surrender ourself entirely to God, only by attending to ourself and nothing else whatsoever."
So "attending to ourself and nothing else" may be managed only by focussed attention to the 'I'-feeling. But is that not just an extreme egoistical or even egomaniacal approach ?

Sanjay Lohia said...

Dionysos, you ask, ‘‘attending to ourself and nothing else’ may be managed only by focused attention to the 'I'-feeling. But is that not just an extreme egotistical or even egomaniacal approach?’ No, ‘attending to ourself and nothing else’ is not an egotistical or egomaniacal state, as you seem to assume. In fact, self-attentiveness is the very antithesis of being egoistic or egomaniac.

When we say someone is egoistic, we mean that his strong ego is apparent. They may behave in a proud, arrogant or high-headed manner. However, when we try to attend to attend to ourself, we are trying to subdue and to eventually destroy our ego. So how can self-attentiveness enhance our self-importance?

In fact, a person who has practised self-investigation to a sufficient extent is more likely to behave in a relatively humble and self-effacing way. Self-investigation is the best way to keep our ego in check, and it is the only to destroy it completely.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Devotee: How should we behave towards egoistical people? When somebody offends you or says some nasty things, how should we behave in such situations?

Michael: Why we react to people who are egotistical? It is because of our ego. In Bhagavan’s life, there were people who did horrible things to him, who ridiculed him, but Bhagavan didn’t react because he had no ego. So we should try to emulate Bhagavan to whatever extent possible.

We should behave in a humble manner by accepting whatever people say about us, because we are not perfect. We have our own shortcomings, defects and weaknesses. We just don’t like other people pointing them out to us. So if people find fault in us, if they criticise us, there may be some truth in what they say. Even if what they say is not true, it is still an opportunity for us to suppress our ego. We react only because of our ego.

This is why surrender is so-so important, because at every moment of our lives our egos are constantly reacting. We react to every situation. We either like it or dislike it; we want more of it or we want to avoid it.

So every adverse situation we don’t like is an opportunity for us to surrender ourself.

Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 22 July 2018 (1:23 – 1:28)

Dionysos said...

Sanjay Lohia,
thank you for your kind response. I think I understand what you try to impart.
With "self-effacing" you mean presumably effacing the "ego".

Sanjay Lohia said...

Devotee: How to get rid of unwanted thoughts? Do prayers help us in this regard?

Michael: Bhagavan doesn’t help us just because we pray to him. Bhagavan knows what help we need, and he is unfailingly providing us with that help. But why prayers can be effective? It is because, by the right type of prayers, we are aligning our will with his will.

That is, he doesn’t like us being unhappy by dwelling on unwanted thoughts. So when we pray to him asking him to free us from unwanted thoughts, we are attuning our will with his will. Such right types of prayers are the beginning of surrender. That is, basically, we are saying to Bhagavan, ‘I am not able to surrender myself to you, but I want to surrender myself to you’. That cry from our heart is the beginning of our surrender.

But the ultimate solution is only turning our attention back to ourself.

Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 22 July 2018 (1:33 – 1:36)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Dionysos, the verb ‘efface’ means ‘erase (a mark) from a surface’ or ‘make oneself appear insignificant or inconspicuous’. So the meaning of ‘self-effacing’ can be only ‘ego-effacing’, because our real self can never be effaced.

We are the infinite and eternal existence, so we can never fade or become insignificant in any way. We are the eternal sun whose light never fades.

Mouna said...

Sanjay,

"In fact, a person who has practised self-investigation to a sufficient extent is more likely to behave in a relatively humble and self-effacing way.”

I do agree to a certain extent but not completely with your point of view. I would rather say that sadhana “soften the edges” of whatever the basic psychological structure of the “person” naturally is. There are very different kind of “persons”, either physically and psychologically. This is a fact. From introverts to type AA personalities there is a whole range of variations. While sages like Nisargadatta had a fiery make-up, others like Bhagavan had a completely different one. Of course, I am talking about external features seen from an ajnani’s point of view.

Behavior doesn’t determine wisdom. Many many people change their behavior and become more “self-effacing” and “ umble” in their lives just by going to psychotherapy , to the psychologist who “straighten” their personality-egos… which has nothing to do with “real” illusory ego as we students of Bhagavan understand it.

Again, that is not to say that our practice does not change our behavior, it does, but what I would say is that it put it closer to what the imagined organism (body/mind) is in essence.

Dionysos said...

Sanjay Lohia,
can we experience the infinite and eternal existence of our real self while experiencing us as an ego or as long as we experience us as ego?

When you ascertain that "we are the eternal sun whose light never fades" do you speak from your own experience or do you only believe in that or put trust in truth of it?

Mouna said...

What I meant to say in my previous comment is that associating behavior with wisdom (jnana) is a very subjective way of thinking that might lead one very easily to deception (watch the film “Kumare” if you have doubts).
We usually have an idea of how a sage/jnani should behave or look or speak or even think (!!!). This is embeded in our programmed set of vasanas.
The only think we can be sure of is that we exist at this very moment and that that existence is known by awareness, both of which are our essential and real nature. That’s all. All the rest falls into the magic tricks of the illusory ego (maya).

Nemrut said...

Sanjay Lohia,
I refer to your first today transcription of Michael's video:"So when we pray to him asking him to free us from unwanted thoughts, we are attuning our will with his will. Such right types of prayers are the beginning of surrender. That is, basically, we are saying to Bhagavan, ‘I am not able to surrender myself to you, but I want to surrender myself to you’. That cry from our heart is the beginning of our surrender."

I too am victim and culprit of "unwanted thoughts" which are based on a never satisfied desire. Therefore I am not able to dry out that sensual basis-desire. So my prime concern must be praying for becoming free of that desire, that means eradicating my desire on the root. Another prayer would be only hypocritical.

Nemrut said...

Yes, Mouna, as you say "we usually have an idea of how a sage/jnani should behave or look or speak or even think (!!!). This is embeded in our programmed set of vasanas."
In any case I do not give loutish behaviour of "sages/jnanis" my tacit approval.

Nemrut said...

Sanjay Lohia,
you quote Michael saying:"So every adverse situation we don’t like is an opportunity for us to surrender ourself."

Why should I surrender to every mentally deficient behaviour ?

. . said...

Surrender leads to dissolution of ego/mind/body.

Hanging on to anything, good or bad , deficient or not deficient, sustains ego/mind/body.

. . said...

Surrender means there is no you or me, whatever happens is the exact way it is supposed to be. We do not alter in any way the happenings in our lives. Anything which comes to us is accepted as a gift from Bhagavan. That can be a cheating wife, a drug addicted son or daughter, or terminal cancer.

There is no reason for the mind to get involved with any of the examples above.

Nemrut said...

Surrender to the almighty God/power is on priciple good. But in daily life one sometimes has to make one's own decision. For instance if my cheeky neighbour makes improper noise I do not accept it at Bhagavan's gift but will compel him to stop his impertinent behaviour because he has not at all any right to continue his disturbance. Using one's free will and reacting properly is forbidden not even in spirituality. Of course one has to weigh things up carefully. Sometimes the decision to accept or react may be balanced on a knife-edge and we have to take decisive and courageous action even when one gets into danger. When I am faced with unwarranted occurrences I always say inwardly a short prayer to God/Ramana/Arunachala to make the correct decision. Once I had to remove an agressive passenger from the underground with own hands.
Of course seen from the perspective of eternity every moment and breath is ultimately a gift of Ishwara.

Nemrut said...

sorry typo: instead of "on priciple" it should be "in principle".

Sanjay Lohia said...

Today I sent an email to Michael, in which I wrote:

I have already watched a couple of times your latest video: 2018-07-14 Hampstead Heath: Michael James discusses verses 16 to 20 of Upadēśa Undiyār. This video has a refreshing and a different (natural) feel to it. Please convey my appreciation to the devotee who was instrumental in the production of this video.

Bhagavan willing, we hope to see such videos in the future also. Maybe you can finish the remaining 10 verses of Upadesa Undiyar in your next two such videos. I also liked the half an hour format. Short and crisp. So thanks.

As an afterthought, I realised there was something inherently wrong when I wrote: ‘Bhagavan willing, we hope to see such videos in the future also’. This sentence should have framed either of the following ways: ‘We hope to see such videos in the future’ or ‘Bhagavan willing we will see such videos in the future also’.

That is, we can hope for many things to happen but these may not necessarily happen. However, if something is Bhagavan’s will, it surely will happen.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Mouna, I would tend to agree more with your second comment, in which you say:

What I meant to say in my previous comment is that associating behavior with wisdom (jnana) is a very subjective way of thinking that might lead one very easily to deception […]

However, I think, as a rule of thumb, a person who has gone deep into practising self-investigation is more likely to be loving, humble, caring, and compassionate. But there are hard and fast rules. Someone’s outward behaviour cannot be an accurate guide to their inner state.

Sanjay Lohia said...

But there are no hard and fast rules.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Dionysos, no, either we experience ourself as we actually are or we experience ourself as this ego. We cannot experience both of them together. Our real self and our ego are poles apart. Our real self is infinite, eternal, immutable, pure awareness, whereas our ego is finite, ephemeral and an adjunct-mixed awareness. The ego is a mistaken self-awareness, whereas we are the original and real awareness.

You ask, ‘When you ascertain that "we are the eternal sun whose light never fades" do you speak from your own experience or do you only believe in that or put trust in truth of it?’ No, I certainly speak from theoretical knowledge. However, I believe in that, because this is what Bhagavan has taught us in so many ways.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Sometimes to be free of unwanted thoughts we have to suffer, because the more the unwanted thoughts give us trouble, the more we will have love to be free from them, and the more we have love to be free from them, the easier it will be to turn within.

Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 22 July 2018 (1:36 onwards)

Reflections: Our suffering does make us look for what is beyond all suffering. It is because I have a headache, that I now want to free of this headache.

Likewise, our unwanted thoughts motivate us to be free of such thoughts, and such motivation could be the beginning of our search for our real nature. In other words, all our troubles and unwanted thoughts can be like a trigger making us turn within, because only atma-svarupa is free of all troubles, suffering and unwanted thoughts.

In fact, our true nature is free of all types of thoughts and not just unwanted thoughts. Bhagavan says that thinking is not our nature, so ultimately all thoughts are unwanted.

Dionysos said...

Sanjay Lohia,
perhaps we are aware of the real self even then when we experience ourself as this ego because it is said that the real self is ever present as the basis of any awareness. It seems that the ego is like a cloud covering the heaven which always exists without any interruption as the substratum of the ego's appearance.

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

Nemrut, I do not agree, there are no buts and ifs in surrender, either one surrenders or one surrenders not. You do not [want to] surrender and that is just fine. But do not find pseudo-spiritual excuses for that.

You also have not understood the mechanics of free will/prarabdha. But I really have no interest to point out your misunderstandings, I believe it would fall on deaf ears.

Nemrut said...

Salazar,
feel happy with your way of unquestioning or limitless surrender. Using one's brain is part of everyday life and is thus just a gift of Bhagavan whereas pseudo-spirituality is occasionally shown everywhere.
No matter, lack of understanding of "the mechanics of free will/prarabdha" and misunderstandings are my unchangable prarabdha. There is no need to point them out because as the proverb says: in the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
Only Ishwara is understanding the mechanics of free will and prarabdha.

. . said...

"Using one's brain is part of everyday life and is thus just a gift of Bhagavan ...."

Actually no, that is just your ego's rationalization. Actually Bhagavan's "gift" is the realization that one should forget the "brain", it is irrelevant. Alas you threw that gift into the garbage.

Your are full of rationalizations and your ego has the amazing skill to pick certain spiritual sayings and weave them into your ego's justification and rationalization. Those self-created half-truths are more dangerous than total ignorance.

There is not much to add, you sound similar to some other guy I encountered here.

Nemrut said...

Salazar,
the weaver's answer:
you are completely right, it is no wonder, the ego's nature is just to veil the truth.
Therefore take care and keep away from the dangerous half-truths before they will swallow you:-)
But I mean that quite seriously: Lacking healthy rationalism many on the spiritual path seem to land up in a doubtful nirvana of self-delusion. See you later!

Sanjay Lohia said...

Dionysos, yes, I agree with your last comment. We are aware of our real self, but now we are not aware of ourself as we really are. As you say, our real self, the being awareness, is the substratum of this illusory awareness, the rising awareness. We are in touch with our being awareness even when we experience ourself as this rising awareness, which is what the ego is.

To illustrate, if we see a bright sunlight through a thick white curtain, we will still clearly see the sun, but we will not be able to see it as it really is. We will see a diffused sunlight – a sunlight which is spread out on the curtain. Likewise, we are always aware of ourself bright and clear, because there are not two selves. What we are aware now as ourself is the only self that exists. However, we do not experience ourself with full clarity, because our present awareness is mixed up with our awareness of our body and mind.

Self-investigation entails attending only to our basic awareness. This process will eventually enable us to experience ourself as we really are, without the awareness of any adjuncts.

. . said...

"Healthy rationalism" .............

Yes, very healthy for your ego.


***********************************************************


I talked with David Godman about those many seekers showing up at Sri Ramanasramam and he said that most don't even do vichara but all kind of other practices. So there are not only people who spread pseudo-spiritual nonsense but also pseudo-Bhagavan followers making themselves feeling good having the cake and eat it too (what means they do what their ego loves to do but also tell themselves that they are on a path of some sorts.)

Jack Highgate said...

Sanjay Lohia,
yes nice to see Michael James speaking in the wood of Hampstead Heath about some verses of Upadesa Undiyar. Regrettfully some aircraft noise over Northern London disturbes a bit.
Incidentally, I am surprised that Sadhu Om's voice sounds like a child.
Perhaps the recording tape was played too fast.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Jack, I didn’t notice any aircraft noise. Maybe I was too absorbed in whatever Michael was speaking to notice any such noise. Yes, Sri Sadhu Om’s voice does sound like a child (Can we call this a shrill voice? Not sure if it a correct term to use?), but a jnani is just like a child. So no wonder, his voice was also like a child or perhaps become like a child. Michael will know about this better.

Nemrut said...

Salazar,
nail up the entrance door of your house, there is the acute danger to encounter those pseudo-Bhagavan followers... :)
You should be glad to be a genuine devotee of Bhagavan and not a member of those who spread pseudo-spiritual nonsense. Be grateful to God for having some ability to distinguish between right and wrong.
Who can rightly look down on somebody who does not even vichara ? What can they do if it is their prarabdha to do what their ego loves ?
According your philosophy they only can resign themselves to the inevitable, irrevocable and unalterable.

Jack Highgate said...

Sanjay Lohia,
in any case Sadhu Om is singing very enthusiastically. No wonder, the all-transcending presence of awe-inspiring Arunachala Hill casts its spell over him.

. . said...

Nemrut, there is no "my" philosophy and there is no "my interpretation" of surrender.

But how could your ego understand that with its "healthy rationalism"? :)

Why do you ask all these questions and as soon as the answers are not as your ego would like to hear it you start arguing. What do you gain out of that?

Next time you see your "cheeky" neighbor you may want to pranam in front of him - that would be a nice exercise :-D

Nemrut said...

Salazar,
as you recommend bowing before the noisy neighbour is also a good attitude because his real nature is not different from me.
But in order to stop his impudent emissions on the earthly plan he needs additionally a physically perceptible reprimand.
Perhaps David Godman formed this critical opinion of visitors of Sri Ramanasramam after our eyes met when we walked on the path in direction to Skandashram last February:)

Dionysos said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"Self-investigation entails attending only to our basic awareness. This process will eventually enable us to experience ourself as we really are, without the awareness of any adjuncts."
If I understand you correctly we must only eliminate the awareness of all adjuncts.
But how to separate it from that disastrous and fateful mixture?
What is the adequate solvent?

. . said...

Statement 1: “My noisy neighbor’s real nature is not different from me.”

Statement 2: “But in order to stop his impudent emissions on the earthly plan he needs additionally a physically perceptible reprimand.”


Those two statements reflect an attitude many seekers share, however it does not work that way and violates Bhagavan's teachings. My neighbor is not different from me, BUT …………

But, but, but , but …


Is it not presumptuous to believe one would know who needs a reprimand and that that one is in the position to carry out that reprimand? That’s a judge and executioner in one person. If that is not easily seen as wrong then a lot has to be learned.

It is mere lip service to say “my neighbor is not different from me” but really not believing that because who would reprimand oneself?
In surrendering to what ever comes from that "neighbor" there are no differences anymore and peace follows, reacting to his "wrong doing" creates a difference and friction and sustains samsara.

Mouna said...

Salazar,

You wrote:
"Statement 1: “My noisy neighbor’s real nature is not different from me.”
Statement 2: “But in order to stop his impudent emissions on the earthly plan he needs additionally a physically perceptible reprimand.”
Those two statements reflect an attitude many seekers share, however it does not work that way and violates Bhagavan's teachings. My neighbor is not different from me, BUT …”


I can definitely understand where are you coming from in your last statement.
I don’t necessarily agree with all of it.

Even Bhagavan would reprimand whoever "inflicted pain" to plants or animals.
Even Bhagavan advised to defend defenseless people from wrong doing of others who may be abusing them.

Acceptance is not approval.

Bhagavan didn’t approved many things around him, but as far as I know he also saw everything and everyone as part of Him.
I know that He is not to be put as example because there are many instances where he “let” things happen that we might think we should have done something to stop them from happening (robbers, wasps, etc…)

There is also an attitude of many seekers that we “should” be fine with whatever “comes” to us, which derives from an erroneous understanding of the different “levels” of reality: Paramarthika, Pratibashika and Vyavaharika.This position is as extremist as the one that we should fight every battle or discord.

This play of characters we are living as a person (god’s lila, samsara, etc…) unfolds as it should with a very careful script already written for each of us. The whole point is to not identify with it but (yes, but...) still play our role as best we understand we can.

There is nothing wrong to tell my neighbor that he/she is causing harm to the peace of the neighborhood, what would be the problem in doing that? Even to take him/her to court or call the police if we think it is the right procedure. All these actions are happening (or not) the way they should. Our only option is to try to investigate to whom they are happening to, until the time when even that option will dissappear completely.

. . said...

Acceptance is not approval. I agree.

I do not agree that we should take anybody to court. We take/accept any wrong doing and we move on, we do not retaliate. It just perpetuates the cycle of samsara.

Surrender is a mental attitude, whatever the body does has nothing to do with that.

Also the story of the snake comes to mind which was feared because she hissed at anybody who came by. A sage suggested to be more docile and the snake stopped hissing at those people. So they started throwing rocks at the snake and the snake was miserable. She complained to the sage who replied, 'you do not have to be absolutely passive, just pretend to be dangerous that should do the trick'.

Thus the snake started hissing again at people who came by and from then on people made a wide berth around her. Even though she was peaceful and has surrendered, she kept people at bay by playing/pretending to be dangerous.

I stand with everything I have previously said about surrender.


. . said...

To elaborate further: The body could go to court and sue somebody. And that doesn't matter. What matters is the inner attitude. If there are no hard feelings and one has forgiven totally the perpetrator, fate will unfold as it should and one remains in peace the entire time. And it doesn't matter how it unfolds, sentence of guilty or not guilty, that's up to the Divine and not our concern.

On the other hand one could endlessly resent the perpetrator, feel betrayed and treated incorrectly and plan to get even or to stand one's grounds. That is perpetuating samsara and nothing is gained at all but satisfaction and gratification for the ego.

Mouna said...

"Surrender is a mental attitude, whatever the body does has nothing to do with that."
That is exactly what I was trying to say in my comment.

Nemrut said...

Salazar,
when I said "...because his real nature is not different from me."
I wanted to emphasize that I quite well respect his real nature but not his current egoistical behaviour.
Your statement "It is mere lip service to say “my neighbor is not different from me”
is not correct. I refer you to your above Statement 1: “My noisy neighbor’s real nature is not different from me.” You may easily recognize the difference.
The assertion of my justified desire to put a stop to his making noise is to address to his ego only. If you qualify my demand as presumption you obviously fail to recognize the situation. Now I come back to "healthy (realism or) rationalism" to which you seem to be unable to relate. Indeed I see no cause to practice here any pseudo-surrender. Submitting to nerve-racking/shattering loud "techno music" with its primitive stamping and tramping rhythm is just pseudo-spiritual. Unfortunately on this matter your understanding is grossly inadequate. So who is here actually sustaining samsara ?
Finding a remedy in your "Surrendering to what ever comes from that "neighbor" there are no differences anymore and peace follows" seems to me as deluding yourself.
It must be said that the behaviour of the mentioned neighbour is annoying not only me and my family but also the occupants of about 30 other apartments. But the other inhabitants seem to practise the same kind of surrender as you suggest, however they are frightened of the troublemaker and say nothing in reply to the insolent disturbance.
By the way, did Jesus surrender to the business of the dealer and trader in Jerusalem's Temple ?

Mouna said...

"On the other hand one could endlessly resent the perpetrator, feel betrayed and treated incorrectly and plan to get even or to stand one's grounds. That is perpetuating samsara and nothing is gained at all but satisfaction and gratification for the ego."
I do agree with this paragraph completely.

. . said...

Nemrut, do you actually read my comments? It doesn't seem that way when I look at your responses.

Nemrut, you are projecting that obnoxious neighbor, he can only become a source of friction because you have unresolved issues with noise or whatever. You are not an innocent victim of your surroundings, you are creating those.

But I am afraid that is going way over your head. Peace upon you my friend, selam and shalom.

Nemrut said...

Salazar,
just because I had created that surroundings I will now make by my will power and determination a solution to that problem.
But I am afraid that is going way over your head. Peace upon you my friend, selam and shalom.

. . said...

Hahahahahahaha

Too funny .....

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

mouna, you said that Bhagavan disapproved certain things. That is not entirely true. He did that only for the purpose to educate or teach the people who were with him at that time of the seeming approval or disapproval. For the same reason he told people who were strongly attached to their bodies that the spiritual heart is two digits to the right of the middle of the chest. What is not correct. However it must have been helpful to those people for some reason, otherwise he'd not have mentioned it.

As you commented to me not too long ago, there is no Jnani - only Jnana. Where is approval and disapproval in Jnana? There is none.

Bhagavan made favorable comments about Mussolini and Hitler, how could we dimwits comprehend that? Our mind is so ingrained in duality, only Jnana can give us clarity.

Mouna said...

Salazar,
Let us not mix levels.
There is only jnana is the absolute point of view (figure of speech). At the ajnani level there is ignorance and moksha (which is the eradication of ignorance (that wasn’t there in the first place).
At the transactional level (what I call the play of characters or persons interacting) there are relationships that resolve (or not) in actions of many kind. That is the level I am talking from.

Also, you cannot know (neither do I) what was in Bhagavan’s mind when he disapproved some people’s behavior. According to many stories told by devotees one doesn’t have the impression that he was “teaching” but rather that he was bothered by that abnoxious behavior.
If in coming lectures I come across some of those stories I’ll write the excerpt here.

Again, we create a story about that character in the dream called Bhagavan and we attribute and project unto “him” many of our own projections like love, compassion, sweetness, etc... not that he didn’t have them but mostly is our own judgement that is projected, eventually like everything else (world, person god).

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

Mouna, there are no Jnani or Ajnani levels, just in our imagination. Even though it seems we are bound we are not, and that is the reality. Please stop declaring imagination for being real, that's what most or all do here.

The reality is not this phenomenal world but Self/Jnana, and that is our "reference point", not the other way around. There is no reason to limit us (mentally) to all of these ideas (like ajnani etc.), we are already handicapped enough with our vasanas, why also adding more limitation on a conceptual level affirming to be anything but Self?

As Sadhu Om said, Bhagavan was a visionary who (contrary to most traditions) always maintained that we are Self and not some poor creature who has to reach somehow that illusive Self. And again, we have to take that as our reference.

And yes, as long as we think and not being attentive of Self we suffer from forgetfulness; we have forgotten what we truly are. But how can we remember when we emphasize every day in speech and thought even on this blog that we are a _ _ _ _ _ (fill in your favorite concept like jiva, ajnani, ego, rational mind, etc. etc.)?

Sadhu Om got that, alas I cannot find that on this blog, from no one. Kind of surprising actually.

It is my strong conviction that Bhagavan never ever approved or disapproved of anything after his 16th birthday, whatever was seen is a projection of mind. So you are correct with the projection part, you just mixed it up a bit not drawing it to a full conclusion.

People saw Bhagavan as being sweet, being angry, annoyed, being stingy, and suffering (at the very end) and none of that was really happening, it was just imagined as we keep imagining.

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

Oh I just noticed, you said "you cannot know (neither do I) what was in Bhagavan’s mind when he disapproved some people’s behavior."

That is a big blunder by you Mouna, because Bhagavan had no mind (after that episode in Madurai). So it will be a mystery for us (what exactly seemed to have disapproved) until realization. That realization is always now.

Good night.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Dionysos, you ask, ‘If I understand you correctly we must only eliminate the awareness of all adjuncts. But how to separate it from that disastrous and fateful mixture? What is the adequate solvent?’

When we focus our entire attention on our awareness, all our adjuncts will automatically drop off. So self-investigation is the only solvent which will dissolve the ego into nothingness.

For example, if we are reading a very interesting book and our attention is totally focused on it, we may not notice other things around us. Likewise, we should focus our attention on ourself to such an extent that we do not notice anything other than ourself. This may well happen at this very moment or may happen after a few births, it does not matter. Our job is to be on the job!

Sanjay Lohia said...

A Friend: I have been practising self-investigation for a very long time, but the same thoughts and conflicts keep repeating. Nothing seems to change.

Michael: I have been practising this for 40 years, but there are same desires and attachments, albeit in a slightly different form as the time goes on. We have to live with the same ego and its same desires and attachments until we get rid of them. So to follow this path, we need to have great patience. But Bhagavan said that every little effort we make will not go in vain. Every time we try to turn within, we are getting one step closer to our goal.

As our mind becomes purer and purer all its shortcomings, desires and attachments come into greater focus – we are more painfully aware of them. As our mind becomes purer, even the smallest impurity will seem to us to be very big. Really bad people don’t feel that they are bad. However, when we become aware of our own defects, we are closer to getting rid of them.

So by becoming aware of how imperfect we are, we are getting closer to our goal of surrendering ourself completely.

Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 22 July 2018 (1:41 - :48)

Reflections: Our fight is against our vishaya-vasanas and karma-vasanas which are hidden deep-deep within us. Some of these vasanas are extremely hard to overcome even after 25 – 30 years of struggle against them. These vasanas are elements of our will and our will is our subtlest covering, and therefore these will not disappear that easily. Some of these vasanas will be our unwelcome companion until the very last moment of our final surrender.

However, Bhagavan has given us the most powerful weapon to fight these vasanas - he has given us the bramhastra of atma-vichara. Our vasanas stand no chance, at least in the long run, if we use this weapon to its full potential. This brahmastra, if used correctly, inflicts heavy causality in the enemy camp – the enemy camp being all the elements of our will which make us repeatedly turn away from ourself.

In this context, let us read what Bhagavan says in the paragraphs 10 and 11 of Nan Yar?:

Even though viṣaya-vāsanās [inclinations or desires to experience things other than oneself], which come from time immemorial, rise [as thoughts] in countless numbers like ocean-waves, they will all be destroyed when svarūpa-dhyāna [self-attentiveness] increases and increases.

As long as viṣaya-vāsanās exist in the mind, so long the investigation who am I is necessary. As and when thoughts arise, then and there it is necessary to annihilate them all by vicāraṇā [investigation or vigilant self-attentiveness] in the very place from which they arise.

So this fight against our vasanas is never going to be easy, because these are powerful asuric-shaktis (demonic powers). However, there is no other battle which is as worthwhile as fighting against these demonic powers. As Bhagavan teaches us, all these vasanas will be destroyed when our self-attentiveness increases and increases. Our victory is a foregone conclusion if we don't slacken our practice.



Sanjay Lohia said...

Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 15

Self, that pure brahman which is itself the monosyllable, shining as the heart of all beings and things, is the excellent and sweet benediction to this Collection of the Guru’s Sayings, which removes the delusion of ignorant ones.

Sadhu Om: It is worth referring here to one stray verse of Sri Bhagavan Ramana: ‘One syllable shines forever in the heart as self; who can write it down?’ The one syllable mentioned in both cases is ‘I’ (aham) or self, which is unwritable, being beyond thought, word or expression.

Reflections: We cannot experience ourself as we really are through thoughts or words. That is why Bhagavan used to say that silence was his highest teaching. Our true nature is silence, which means we are that which is devoid of both the thinker and its thoughts. So the one syllable – ourself – cannot be conveyed or explained adequately through words. The only way to teach it or to learn it is in silence.

It is because of this that Sri Dakshinamurti had to eventually resort to silence in order to impart brama-vidya to his four ripe disciples. Bhagavan used to say that silence is uninterrupted eloquence, and thoughts and words are a disturbance to this eloquence.

So Bhagavan’s words are mere pointers, but these pointers are powerless if we do not follow his advice and try to turn within and remain quiet.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Ekatma Panchakam verse 1

Know that one’s formerly forgetting self, thinking a body alone to be oneself, taking countless births, and finally knowing self and being self, is only like one’s waking up from a dream of wandering about the world.

Michael talked about this verse in his video filmed on 20 May 2017 (31:00 – 33:00). He said:

No analogy is perfect. This analogy is useful to a limited extent, but actually, when we wake up we will know we never dreamt at all. Because for whom is the dream? The dream is for the ego. We wake up only when we find that there was never any such thing as the ego. So in the absence of any ego, there could never have been any dream.

. . said...

Thayumanavar sang,“Remain still, mind, in the face of everything!
This truth that was taught to you, where did you let it go?
Like wrestlers, bent upon their bout, you raised your arguments.
Where is your judgement?
Where, your wisdom?
Begone!”


My reflection in light of recent dialogs: Thayumanavar said to be still in face of everything. That would include the annoyances of a cheeky neighbor unless one wants to rationalize what ‘everything’ means :)

At the end of that verse he throws out judgment and wisdom, a clear disdain for a “rational mind” and the use of mind in general. There is not even a nanometer room for the mind, it has to be shunned - always!

Begone [rational] mind!

Nemrut said...

Thayumanavar's wise advice is uplifting. Doubtless he was above mind.
However, Thayumanavar did actually not sing while getting annoyed by the harrasment of a cheeky neighbour:)
Who might consider himself being on an equal footing with poet-sage Thayumanavar ?
Begone presumption !
Nevertheless, we all know in which field of life rational mind has its useful place. There's much to much discussion about that.

Rukmani said...

Sanjay Lohia,
when you refer to the supreme weapon given to us by Bhagavan you mean correctly 'brahmastra', not bramhastra.

Rukmani said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"We wake up only when we find that there was never any such thing as the ego. So in the absence of any ego, there could never have been any dream."
I would say it in reverse order: Only when we find that there was never any such thing as the ego we are waking up...

Rukmani said...

Salazar said:
"It is my strong conviction that Bhagavan never ever approved or disapproved of anything after his 16th birthday, whatever was seen is a projection of mind."

Instead of Ramana's 16th birthday on 30th December 1895 more accurately Salazar would refer to "after his deep "death-experience"/self-investigation in the middle of July 1896 (in Madurai).

counter said...

Regrettably Blogger does not prevent commercial break like such one on 27 July 2018 at 08:34(Gulai...) and Michael has not time to delete them instantly.

from time immemorial said...

Salazar,
taking up your statement "The reality is not this phenomenal world but Self/Jnana, and that is our "reference point", not the other way around. There is no reason to limit us (mentally) to all of these ideas (like ajnani etc.), we are already handicapped enough with our vasanas, why also adding more limitation on a conceptual level affirming to be anything but Self?

As Sadhu Om said, Bhagavan was a visionary who (contrary to most traditions) always maintained that we are Self and not some poor creature who has to reach somehow that illusive Self. And again, we have to take that as our reference.....".

Your comment reminds me of repeating like a mantra 'I am brahman, I am brahman, I am brahman.....? But is this a useful/purposeful sadhana ?

. . said...

from time immemorial, no it is not. There is no substitute for vichara/surrender. That paragraph was not a suggestion for any affirmation or mantra, however what I meant with that paragraph was that instead of automatically affirming “I am such and such” to drop that and refuse to even entertain that thought.

We all are not doing vichara always (at least I am not) and in those non-vichara times it is better to affirm being Self (just in the subtle background, not as a particular practice) than to lower the beam and reinforcing the already false idea to be a person, jiva, etc.

Of course as long as thoughts pop up in the mean time and we still distinguish between objects vichara is still necessary. I'd say that we all probably will end up doing vichara on our death-beds meaning we'll realize in a next life. I gladly would like to be proven wrong with that assumption :)

from time immemorial said...

Salazar, is affirmation of being Self as still the ego's effort necessary ?
Is not the self already and always realized ?

. . said...

Affirmations are not necessary, they can be an aid. To your second question, I’d say that we are self but have forgotten that and therefore not have realized it :)

from time immemorial said...

On the one hand it is scarcely conceivable that we ourself are "self" or "the Self" which is said to be the only one common and undivided consciousness.

On the other hand, how can one forget that and not realize that we are that self ?
Is it for instance possible to forget one's own head ?

There must have been a big destructive occurrence like the impact of a comet or similar celestial body on earth which possibly destroyed the right awareness of people.

Unfortunately I did not study all the philosophic ideas of all the confessions and religions about that mysterious occurrence.

from time immemorial said...

To me it seems rather strange that the self did not intervene in the process of forgetting our real origin. There must be any possibility to bring us back from that comatose state to the actual state of our self-awareness.

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

From time immemorial, we can easily forget our head: When a heterosexual man encounters a beautiful woman wearing a blouse with a wide cleavage (not uncommon in Europe and even the States) then all of the attention will be on her breasts and one's head will be forgotten. Same goes for a car enthusiast who sees a Porsche or Ferrari.

Why was Self forgotten? Religions have stories but those are just stories. The sage Sri Ramana suggested to not waste one's time to wonder why we have forgotten Self. There is no need to study the philosophies and religions, it could be an obstacle.

The Self does not intervene because in order to do so there must be a Self and another object like a person. But that is not the case. I do not want to go into the details but it might be a good idea to conceptually get the idea what Self really is and Bhagavan's Nan-Yar has a section which describes what Self is not. That can give one an idea what it could be.

from time immemorial said...

Salazar, thank you for your hint to Ramana's Nan Yar?.
If there is only one Self and no persons who then has forgotten that we are the self ?
Regarding wide cleavage: My question if one can forget one's head I meant not figuratively but literally/word-for-word.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Rukmani, yes, it should have been brahmastra. Thanks.

Sanjay Lohia said...

From Time Immemorial, we, that is, our real, do not forget ourself even for a moment. We are aware of ourself whether or not we are aware of things other than ourself. So our ‘right awareness’ is never destroyed, as you seem to assume.

So we do not need to come back to our actual state of self-awareness. What we need to do is just give us our false awareness, which is the awareness ‘I am this body’. If we are able to do so, what will remain is only our actual and permanent awareness. It is like, we do not have to create a rope. We just need to remove our deluded belief that there is a snake on top of that rope.

So if we investigate ourself keenly and vigilantly enough, we will discover that we were never this ego, and therefore that we had never ever forgotten ourself. So we were never in a ‘comatose state’. We are the eternal and undying reality, so how can we be in any such state ‘comatose state'? We are the one substance who is ever awake, ever living.

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

from time immemorial, "who" has forgotten? Exactly!

If we investigate that according to Bhagavan and with his vichara we'll find that this forgetfulness is a mirage, an imagination.

Sanjay Lohia also made a helpful comment about that topic.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 16

The experience of our own existence, which is the supreme reality, jnana itself, shines as the mystic silence and is the true Self behind the fictitious first person ‘I’. May that absolute supreme self, the feet, be upon our heads.

Bhagavan clarifies 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].

So we are eternal jnanis. That being so, isn’t it surprising that we go around the world looking for jnanis or guru?. We just need to turn within, and we will directly experience jnana in and as ourself. So-so simple, but we are still not convinced. So we again go here and there looking for an ‘enlightened being’ to guide us. What foolishness!

According to Oxford Dictionary, one of the meanings of enlightenment is ‘spiritually aware’. Is there any spiritual awareness outside ourself? No, as Bhagavan says in verse 13 of Ulladu Narpadu, ‘Awareness that is manifold [namely the mind, whose root, the ego, is the awareness that sees the one as many] is ajñāna [ignorance]’.

Therefore everything worthwhile is only within ourself. What is outside is just ignorance. So we should try and live within.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 17

For those who turn within, the perfect asset is the grace of guru Ramana, whose true form is the sleepless-sleep (turiya); it is the sweet fruit whose juice is the supremely pure bliss that creates in the aspirant an ever-increasing taste, free from aversion, and it is the beautiful lamp which, without need of kindling, leads one to the heart.

Sadhu Om: Grace is here shown to be the same as turiya, the true form of guru Ramana, which shines eternally as ‘I am I’, the self-luminous heart and is therefore called the lamp which needs no kindling.

Reflections: What keeps us at our practice of self-attentiveness? It is the ‘ever-increasing taste’ of peace and happiness we experience when we turn within. Without such a taste, we would not stick to this practice? So once we start practising self-investigation, we cannot leave it mid-way. It is because our inherent happiness will pull us more and more towards itself until finally, we will drown in that ocean of bliss.

Bhagavan sings in verse 101 Sri Arunachala Aksharamanamalai:

Arunachala, like ice in water, lovingly melt me as love in you, the form of love.

So Bhagavan or Arunachala is that pure love and happiness, and who is not looking for love and happiness. So we are sticking to this path of vichara because of our own selfish reasons. That is, we want more and more love, and we want more and more happiness, and since these exist only within, we cannot help but repeatedly try turning within.




from time immemorial said...

Sanjay Lohia,
thanks for your reply.
Possibly in your comment of today at 12:34 there are two inaccuracies:
when you write "we, that is, our real" you obviously mean "our real awareness".

Presumably instead of "give us our false awareness" you meant "give up...".

The statement "We are aware of ourself whether or not we are aware of things other than ourself. So our ‘right awareness’ is never destroyed..." seems to be a bit bizarre:
If all is okay with our ‘right awareness’ so what then is the problem or disadvantage when we are additionally aware of things other than ourself?

Sanjay Lohia said...

A Friend: What happens to the ego when the body dies?

Michael: In verse 26 of Ulladu Narpadu Bhagavan says, ‘If the ego come into existence everything else comes into existence, if the ego doesn’t exist everything doesn’t exist, so ego itself is everything’.

So when the ego doesn’t rise, nothing happens all. When it rises, it rises by grasping a form of a body as itself. So if you ask, ‘What happens to the ego in sleep?’ Well, nothing happens, because in sleep the ego doesn’t exist. It is only in waking and dream that the ego seems to exist. It doesn’t exist even in waking and dream, but it seems to exist, and because it seems to exist everything else seems to exist.

Ok, what happens to the ego in sleep or in death? It merges back into its source, if you want to accept that there is an ego. But when it merges back into its source the ego doesn’t exist at all. Then people ask, ‘How does the ego rise again?’ In whose view does it rise again? It rises in its own view.

In the view of what we actually are, the only state which exists is sleep. The real ‘we’ exist in one of the three states which we now call sleep. The only defect in sleep is that we come out it again. But in whose do we come out again? We come out only in our own view.

So it is all a matter of perceptive. So long as we experience ourself as this ego, all these three states will be alternating. When we see ourself as we actually are, there will be only one state, which is sleep – the base from which waking and dream appear.

Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 20 May 2017 (1:00 – 1:04)




from time immemorial said...

Salazar,
you seemingly refer to the truth that our real self is never aware of anything other than itself.
Perhaps you consider in this respect the extreme theory of ajata vada.
But for our practical purposes we cannot well apply it though according to Sri Ramana it is the ultimate truth.
In any case I thank you for your communication.

Sanjay Lohia said...

From Time Immemorial, I thank you for pointing out my various typos. Like a small child (and even some grown-up adults) cannot eat without dropping some food outside their plate, it seems that I cannot type anything without a few typos.

You ask, ‘If all is okay with our ‘right awareness’ so what then is the problem or disadvantage when we are additionally aware of things other than ourself?’ Our aim is to experience ourself as we actually are. Since we are bereft of all otherness, ‘when we are additionally aware of things other than ourself’, we are not aware of ourself as we actually are.

Why should we try to be aware of ourself as we actually are? It is because without experiencing ourself as we actually are, we cannot experience pure happiness, which is our true nature. Since all of us aspire to experience happiness without even a tinge of misery, we are knowingly or unknowingly trying to experience our true nature, which is happiness. We may be looking in the wrong direction, but nevertheless, our aim is to experience happiness in its absoluteness.

It will be worth reflecting on the 1st paragraph of Nan Yar? in this context:

Since all living beings desire to be always happy without what is called misery, since for everyone the greatest love is only for oneself, and since happiness alone is the cause of love, [in order] to attain that happiness, which is one’s own [true] nature that is experienced daily in [dreamless] sleep, which is devoid of the mind, oneself knowing oneself is necessary. For that, jñāna-vicāra [knowledge-investigation] ‘who am I’ alone is the principal means.

from time immemorial said...

Thank you Sanjay Lohia for your clearing explanation.
Now I recognize roughly what is meant by the terms 'real nature' and 'pure happiness'.

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

from time immemorial, ajata is not an extreme theory. How can that be? Also it is not a theory but reality according to Bhagavan. However a theory is that something or anything has to be "applied". What has to be applied? That is an imagination and an unproven theory.

In any case, please follow Sanjay Lohia's concepts since they seem to be more palatable to your mind than mine. In fact, you should have addressed him in the first place and left me out.

In fact, people should only address me when they are mainly agreeing with my interpretation of Bhagavan's teachings. I am not interested in arguing about it. I may discuss the finer points with people like Mouna, venkat, Wittgenstein, etc. but that would be just to satisfy my mind.

ezhuttu said...

Sanjay Lohia,
regarding your recent transcription-extract of Michael's video of 20 May 2017(Houston-Texas),
"Ok, what happens to the ego in sleep or in death? It merges back into its source, if you want to accept that there is an ego. But when it merges back into its source the ego doesn’t exist at all."
How shall one connect the above explanation with Bhagavan's statement that there is only one ego ? Does that mean that the only one ego is connected on the one hand only with the waking and dreaming people (namely not with sleeping people) and on the other hand only with the living human beings (namely not with people who have died) ?

"When we see ourself as we actually are, there will be only one state, which is sleep – the base from which waking and dream appear."
Everybody sleeps every night and sees himself as he actually is, but nobody knows anything about that state. Is that not highly paradoxical ?

from time immemorial said...

Thanks Salazar, let the good times role.

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

from time immemorial, also you stated that you had not the time to study the philosophies and religions but then you throw around the concept of ajata? Huh?

It seems you are just regurgitating other comments you have read here without knowing what you are talking about. It's strange, there so many people here who start with simple and basic questions and then when the dialogs progresses they suddenly reveal all kind of concepts they have accumulated and not only that, suddenly the innocent questioner became the knower of the truth and argues about the correctness of interpretations. LOL

That happened here quite often with different monikers. Is that the Indian way of communication? It looks quite deceptive for me.

from time immemorial said...

Salazar, it should be...the good times roll.
Do not worry about innocent questioners; they belong to your prarabdha:)
By the way, what do you have against the Indian way of communication ? I am not Indian.

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

What a BS answer. Playing your green fiddle again? :)

from time immemorial said...

Sorry Salazar, your pitiful vocabulary does not fit here. Leave me out.

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

On the contrary, it is very fitting. Let's call a spade a spade.

from time immemorial said...

Just out of sheer curiosity: What means playing a green fiddle ?

from time immemorial said...

a queer fish: first distributing "blessings" and then after harvesting not just some blandishment comes an outcry of an oversensitive mimosa.
This is my last word.

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

I mentioned in a previous comment that Gandhiji was killed because he had killed before in a previous life and that it was his prarabdha catching up with him.
Naturally certain doubters, not having comprehended prarabdha, asked me how I could know.

I'd like to refer to the events when thieves invaded Bhagavan's ashram and he was beaten by one of them. Later Bhagavan said that he was beaten by this thief because he had beaten him in a previous life.

From that it is easy to conclude that every action which is happening to us is just a reflection of the same actions we have done to others in a previous life. Another incentive to break out of this samsara and instead to increase karma (by reacting to it) to step out of it in surrender and dispassion.

An extreme example, all of the atrocities committed on this planet, the slaughter of the American natives, the Jews and others in Poland 1942-1945, the Ukrainians in the 1930s, the Rohonga in Burma, the Armenians in Turkey in the 1920s, Indians in 1919, and many more examples must be an echo of previous atrocities committed by exactly those people who were then the victim. They switched from being a perpetrator in a previous life to a victim in that life.

If one reflects long enough about that one must conclude that these whole perpetrator/victim scenarios are an endless cycle and it is wise to take a step back and to not take any sides but remain neutral. Vichara is perfect for that.

Anonymous said...

Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt...

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

I do not write comments to remove doubts, that is not in my power anyway. The only one who can remove doubts is Bhagavan. I also do not write comments to generate a certain image, people will perceive me as they must and if they think I am a fool I cannot and certainly do not want to change that. What do I gain that people think I am the greatest and smartest in the world? It can only have a negative impact for a sadhaka.

In fact, the more people are adverse towards me the more I can benefit from it. So do I seek then adversity? No - because that would be as crazy as trying to remove the doubts of someone, I leave that to prarabdha.

To remain silent is a good idea, however posting comments does not mean one is not in silence. One can write and post a comment and be silent at the same time [I am not claiming that I do].

Sanjay Lohia said...

Ezhuttu, you have asked two questions, but since your first question is not very clear, I will just try to answer your second question, which is, ‘Everybody sleeps every night and sees himself as he actually is, but nobody knows anything about that state. Is that not highly paradoxical?’

When you rise up from sleep, we clearly know that we were asleep a few moments ago. We may say, ‘Oh, I slept like a log yesterday night’, or ‘I am so refreshed after this sleep’ and so forth? So we know that we have a state called ‘sleep’ which is quite different from our other two states of waking and dream. In sleep, we are just aware, without being aware of any phenomena, but we are nevertheless aware of ourself.

However, when we get up and start dreaming (this waking is also a dream), we cannot recollect the pure awareness of sleep as it really is, because we now experience ourself as this ego, and as this ego we are not able to form a correct picture about our sleep. We view our sleep through the prism called the ego, and this ego always distorts things - that is, it does not let us know the real nature of things. Our ego is an illusory self-awareness, so as this illusory self-awareness we can only see illusory things. In this context, we can read verse 4 of Ulladu Narpadu:

If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise; if oneself is not a form, who can see their forms? How? Can the seen be otherwise than the eye? The eye is oneself, the infinite eye.

So as this ego, which is a form or an idea called 'I am this body', we can only see other names and forms, and since sleep is a formless state, we as this ego can't recollect sleep as it really is.

We may feel that our sleep is a state of blackness or unconsciousness or darkness of self-ignorance or whatever. However, this is not the case. Bhagavan says in the first chapter of Maharshi’s Gospel (2002 edition, page 9):

Sleep is not ignorance, it is one’s pure state; wakefulness is not knowledge, it is ignorance. There is full awareness in sleep and total ignorance in waking.

So according to Bhagavan, sleep is our pure state in which we are fully aware of ourself, so it is not a state of ignorance or blankness. In fact, our aim is to get back to sleep, but not just a temporary sleep but an eternal sleep. This eternal sleep is called jagrat-shusupti (waking-sleep). In such a sleep, we are eternally awake to what is real and at the same time asleep to everything unreal.

venkat said...

Salazar,

Bhagavan / vedanta talks about everything being pre-destined according to prarabdha, and that even the raising of my arm at a particular is similarly predestined. And, as you note the assassination of Gandhi, may also be due to 'his' killing of someone in a previous life.

But my discomfort with this is if everything is predestined, Gandhi's killing of someone in a previous life was not his doing either, so why should he 'suffer' a similar fate in this life?

If we are saying that everything is predestined by the Self, including atma vichara and realisation (a point of view for which I have some empathy for), then we must come to the conclusion that the Self has created a dream and a full dream script which is being enacted, in which the ennui / suffering of life is self-inflicted (literally!). So Self, in the form of Bhagavan, is teaching 'us' to do atma vichara, to end the suffering script that it itself has imposed. That doesn't seem to be a particularly compassionate Self?

I haven't figured out an answer to this - but would welcome your / others' views.

Anonymous said...

Talk 368.
A young girl of 9 or 10, whose mother is a Research Scholar in Sanskrit in the University of Madras, accompanied by Mr. Maurice Frydman met Sri Bhagavan in Palakothu at about 12 noon. Sri Bhagavan, as usual with Him, kindly smiled on her. She asked Sri Bhagavan: “Why is there misery on earth?”
M.: Due to Karma.
D.: Who makes Karma bear fruits?
M.: God.
D.: God makes us do Karma and gives bad fruits for bad Karma. Is it fair?
Sri Bhagavan almost laughed and was very pleased with her. Later he was coaxing her to read something on returning to the hall. Since then He is watching her.

ezhuttu said...

Sanjay Lohia,
thanky for your plausible explanation of sleep and waking-sleep(correct spelt: jagrat-sushupti) which is called also the forth state which is said to be actually our one real state.
Now I understand why we do not and cannot recognize that truth by our own empirical experience as an ego but only with the help or by the advice of a sage.
Relating to my first question about the seeming existence of only one ego: You quote Michael saying that in both sleep and death the ego merges back into its source. So my inquiry regards to the assumption that the only one ego naturally serves exclusively the living people no matter whether they are waking or dreaming. Because that would entail that death people in their next world would have no ego at all - which circumstance I do not even assume as correct.

sat-vasana said...

venkat,
the practical significance of karma theory is widely overvalued/overrated. Moreover the mind cannot grasp fully the way that mechanism operates. Because we are not Ishwara himself there is no need to understand this cryptic and unfathomable mode of action.

Anonymous said...

Sat-vasana, I couldn't agree more strongly with you...

http://baharna.com/karma/mystknow.htm#Problems_in_the_Theory_of_Karma

Guhesa said...

"Bhagavan / vedanta talks about everything being pre-destined according to prarabdha, and that even the raising of my arm at a particular (time) is similarly predestined."

Who believes this words becomes blessed.
Who does not believe that comes also in the heaven:-)

I consider that karma theory in the above example of predestined arm-raising is tremendously overworked.
In any case Bhagavan did generally give not great importance of karma theory.
That even so humdrum actions like raising an arm or putting a cup of tea on the table would be done not voluntarily but predestined by the "law of karma" is at least for my mind not easily understood if not completely incomprehensible because it contradicts my experience of life.
If that rather spectacular answers of Bhagavan were actually given and are correctly recorded I presume they have a special background:
Only in response to some particularly simple-minded visitors who put a question to Bhagavan on the significance of karma, Bhagavan gave them the mentioned somehow incredible answers.
Regarding "But my discomfort with this is if everything is predestined, Gandhi's killing of someone in a previous life was not his doing either, so why should he 'suffer' a similar fate in this life?" : Because I consider the ego as a subject not interrupted by birth and death even through the period of many lives it seems to me not illogical when one has to get the fruits of previous deeds.

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

venkat, of course when Gandhiji killed that person it must have been his agyama what then changed to parabdha. Same with the other examples. If Gandhijis original killing would have been prarabdha then it would have not created any karma and he'd not have been killed in a later life. Is that so hard to understand?
I never mentioned that agyama doesn't exist we just don't know when it is created, but people get so excited with their fixed ideas and concepts that they come up with all kinds of rationalizations as I can see with sat-vasana and especially Guhesa's recent comments.

An [not complete] explanation of agyama/prarabdha: If you kill somebody it is very likely creates agyama because even though your body acts based on prarabdha your MIND is thinking and intending to kill that person and that mind involvement creates agyama. It could be prarabdha too if the mind's attitude is different. However we do not know.

But no matter what, agyama or prarabdha, the BODY is ALWAYS governed by prarabdha and it is the attitude of mind which makes it to agyama or leaves it as prarabdha! Again, vichara/surrender is an excellent solution to that. NOT to try to change the circumstances, that idea is based on ignorance.

Guhesa's conclusions are simply nonsense - "it is not his experience". Well, pure consciousness is also not his experience, with the same logic suttarivu is then reality and Bhagavan's comments about Self must have been overrated :)

Anyway, I am not trying to decipher the mystery of karma but it is certainly helpful in order to explain why certain actions happen in this phenomenal world and that can help with surrender. It does for me.

If people like to imagine something else, I have no problem with that. But at least they should make some more pointed comments then just some vague and squishy rationalizations. I cannot respect that. Best would be if they would not say anything at all and that is not addressed to you, venkat.

sat-vasana said...

If one talks about the Sanskrit term 'agamya' karma one should spell at least correctly 'agamya' and not "agyama".

Guhesa said...

There is nothing but pure consciousness. Not even a schoolmasterish lecturer can plausibly deprive someone of experiencing pure consciousness:-)

ever-present 'I' said...

Only Ishwara himself must know how "to explain why certain actions happen in this phenomenal world". So why trying to play the role of Ishwara ?

ezhuttu said...

Sanjay Lohia,
please read "fourth" state instead of forth...

chidrasa said...

Anonymous,
Talk 368
"D.: God makes us do Karma and gives bad fruits for bad Karma. Is it fair?"

Does really God make us do karma ? Are not rather we as the ego making karma ?

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

Guhesa, it is not me who is depriving you from pure consciousness but it is your mind.

Your platitude "There is nothing but pure consciousness" is just an empty conceptual imagination, it is of course not your direct experience. But feel free to claim that in your next inane comment.

You guys are quite ridiculous, especially those spelling Nazis who keep pestering Sanjay Lohia and now one simple-minded guy had to find some ammunition and here we go, I misspelled a word. You guys are pathetic.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 18

My master Sri Ramana has taken possession of me, destroying the miseries caused by my inattention to self; his beauty is his oneness with jnana and his true form lies beyond both attachment and detachment. His feet are the perfect example of all precepts of the truth.

Reflections: All our miseries are caused by our inattention to ourself. This inattention is called pramada or avichara. Why is pramada a problem? It is because such self-negligence detaches us from our real nature, which is infinite happiness. So we become dissatisfied and miserable in so many ways

It is said in texts such as Sanatsujatiya that pramada is death. That is, if we are inattentive to ourself we in effect kill our true self, because self-ignorance causes us to take a body to be ourself, so we do not experience ourself as really are. When we experience ourself as a body, the body brings with it all sorts of problems and limitations.

So the only way to become perfectly happy is to always attend to ourself. This will restore us to original deathless nature.

sat-vasana said...

Sanjay Lohia,
one might entrust all of us and particularly Salazar with your reflections: "All our miseries are caused by our inattention to ourself...such self-negligence detaches us from our real nature, which is infinite happiness. So we become dissatisfied and miserable in so many ways."

Guhesa said...

To consider the words "There is nothing but pure consciousness" as "a platitude and just an empty conceptual imagination" shows one's abysmal ignorance. Regrettably.

Michael James said...

In a comment on one of my recent videos, 2018-07-14 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 8, a friend wrote:

‘Michael, a dear relative of mine is addicted to alcohol. Can he resign himself to his fate as an alcoholic or can he do something about it? Is it just his prarabdha? I have been pondering this question for some time and I can’t seem to find an answer. Some of us are born with an addictive personality. Others have the type of temperament that allows them to lead a healthy life eating the right diet and getting enough exercise. The rest of us spiral out of control into apparent self-destruction. Aren’t our temperaments also given to us by destiny/God. Makes me think we have no will at all. You have spoken about this but it's still not clear in my mind’.

Since many of the comments on this article and my previous two articles have been discussing this subject of will and destiny, what I replied to this comment may be of some interest:

I am sorry to hear about your relative, but he can do something about his alcohol addiction if he wants to.

Fate or destiny (prārabdha) determines what we are to experience in each life, whereas our will determines what we want to experience. In order to experience whatever we are destined to experience we need to do certain actions by mind, speech and body, so such actions are driven by prārabdha, but because we desire to experience many things that we may or may not be destined to experience, and because we also desire to avoid experiencing many things that we likewise may or may not be destined to experience, many of the actions of our mind, speech and body are driven by such desires. Therefore will and fate are the two forces that drive our actions, and often they are both driving them in the same direction, but often in different directions.

Whatever we do by our will cannot change even an iota of what we are destined to experience, but nevertheless we do it or at least try to do it, because it is what we want to do. Therefore if a person is destined to suffer from an addiction, they can give up that addiction only if they are destined to do so, but destiny does not prevent them wanting to give it up and trying to do so.

However destiny is tailor-made to suit our present level of spiritual development, so if a person sincerely wants to and tries to give up an addiction, it is quite likely that they are already destined to give up it, as if as a result of their current desire and effort to do so. Therefore, since we do not know what our destiny will be until we experience it, we should not conclude that we are destined to remain an addict, but should try to give it up, knowing that it is not good for us. Even if we are not able to give it up, because we are not destined to do so, our wanting to give it and trying to do so is good for us in the sense that it will help our spiritual development.

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

The last paragraph of Michael's comment is an important point re. destiny and it reflects of course Bhagavan who suggested to slightly resist desire and that slight resistance eventually will yield results.

Of course that all still happens in imagination but heck, if Bhagavan suggests that it is worthwhile to remember and apply.

. . said...

asat-vasana, yes - compared to your (and everybody else's) inattention, my inattention must be even greater and as such I must be inferior to anybody else.

You figured out my secret, I am nothing.

. . said...

Guhesa, you really do not know what you are talking about.

What counts is your direct experience, not your mind parroting undigested concepts. But it appears that your mind cannot grasp the implications. Don't you think it would be best to stop spouting out inane comments?

. . said...

It seems that the karma-haters on this blog keep harping that karma-theory is an unimportant part of Bhagavan's teaching but that is nonsense of course.

Just take the GVK edited by David Godman and going through that book, prarabdha and destiny is mentioned countless times. It cannot be neglected or omitted, that is a gross prejudice of the ignorant.

In fact, all of the Self-realized direct disciples of Bhagavan kept mentioning prarabdha and one must conclude that this is not by coincidence.

But how can one change the stubborn prejudices of ignorant people? I am afraid they lack the qualities to be a sadhaka :)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 19

As cause alone is seen as its effect, and since consciousness (brahman), which is the cause, is as clearly true as an amalaka fruit on one’s palm, this vast universe, its effect, which is described in the scriptures as mere names and forms, may also be called true.

Reflections: I was not able to understand the correct meaning of this verse, so I wrote to Michael asking for clarification. I will reproduce below a copy of our exchange on this topic:

Sanjay: As you must have observed (on your blog), I am writing my reflections on each verse of Guru Vachaka Kovai. However, I am slightly confused about verse 19, which is as follows: [The verse is typed above]

The verse says that consciousness (brahman) is the cause of this vast universe. However, Bhagavan has clearly said that only our ego is the cause of this universe or for that matter of any universe we may see. So in what sense does Muruganar say that brahman is the cause of this universe? It is not quite clear to me, so could you please clarify.

Michael: There are said to be three kinds of cause, namely material cause (upādāna kāraṇa), efficient cause (nimitta kāraṇa) and auxiliary or instrumental cause (called tuṇai-k-kāraṇam in Tamil). Consider a table, for example: its upādāna kāraṇa is wood, its nimitta kāraṇa is a carpenter, and its instrumental cause is the carpenter's tools.

The ego is the nimitta kāraṇa of all phenomena, whereas brahman is the upādāna kāraṇa of both. Therefore when Bhagavan says that cause alone is seen as its effect, he is referring to the upādāna kāraṇa.

Does this make the meaning clear to you.

Sanjay: Yes, it is clear now.

For example, we can ask ‘what was cause for the appearance of an illusory snake on top of a rope?’ The answer is, our ego (seer) was the efficient cause (nimitta karana), because only this ego created this snake by misperceiving the rope as a snake. What was the instrumental cause? It was the ego’s attention on the snake (or rope) which was the instrumental cause. What was the substantial cause (upadana karana) of this snake? It was the rope.

So we can say that the rope, which was the substantial cause, was itself seen as the effect in the form of a snake. In other words, there was no difference between the cause and effect, because both were only the rope.







Mouna said...

For those interested in widen their mental landscape, one of the best talks on Free Will (or its absence/illusion) by one of the foremost thinkers of our time, Sam Harris.

https://youtu.be/_FanhvXO9Pk

Mouna said...

Forgot to say the actual talk starts at minute 6

. . said...

If someone wants a laugh, here is a link to a self-proclaimed expert of spirituality and that link connects to an article about Sam Harris, or "Sam the Sham" as the author calls him.

http://www.electricalspirituality.com/sam-harris-on-waking-up/

. . said...

Before somebody misunderstands, the laugh is about the contents of the article, not about Sam Harris. The author seems to envy Harris' success as an author.

sivatva said...

"But how can one change the stubborn prejudices of ignorant people? I am afraid they lack the qualities to be a sadhaka :)"

Since Salazar did not exclude himself from "ignorant people" we are able to go home with our mind set at ease :-)

Mouna said...

Why did I say that Sam Harris is one of the foremost thinkers of our time?
Not only because he is one the most articulate speakers and writers (even when he goes “live” in his debates and podcasts) but also because he was a seeker for long time. His talks' range covers politics, science, moral ethics, philosophy (graduated in philosophy), religion (he is an atheist), neurology/brain functions (he also graduated as a neuro-physicist) but most importantly consciousness studies and meditation. He went full circle in his “seeking” and holds Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism as one of the foremost philosophies that make more (or any) sense.

I know, I know, this blog is not about “personality” cults (although sometimes it feels like it) but people like Sam Harris actually help develop critical thinking when it comes discussing ideas and concepts (which this blog is actually what is about…)

My two cents.

Anonymous said...

This is in reference to the link http://www.electricalspirituality.com/sam-harris-on-waking-up/. The author of that article Mr. L Ron Gardner considers Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi as the only Jnani ever who realized his Self in the 20th and 21st century from his actual death experience when his jiva died.

Ron Gardner says there has been not been a single Jnani after Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi. He says there has not been a single person who is a jnani because to be Jnanai or jivanmukta one has to the cut the Heart knot of desires in the subtle body enabling the causal or seed body to die. As per Ron Gardner the jiva has to actually die so it will not be reborn again in another body. Ron Gardner is a follower of Kashmir Shaivism.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the typo in the previous comment. Correction made for Jnanai to be Jnani. Lol!

Anonymous said...

This is what L.Ron Gardner says about Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi and cutting of the heart knot.

Quote.

Harris deserves credit for at least being a serious spiritual seeker—but, unfortunately, he is not a finder. He describes his journey to the East and his encounters with his two “gurus” after he attempted to move beyond Burmese master U Pandita Sayadaw’s Vipassana meditation instructions. His first guru was H.W.L Poonja (1910-1997), commonly known as Papaji (see my two-star Amazon review of his book Truth Is). Because Harris lacks spiritual discrimination, he mistakenly considered Papaji to have been as Enlightened as his guru, Sri Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950). Unlike Papaji, Ramana Maharshi truly “cracked the spiritual code” (see my five-star reviews of Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Sri Ramana Gita, and Sat Darshana Bhashya).

If Sam had read and grokked Ramana Maharshi, he’d be a step ahead of his fellow brain scientists, because he’d realize that the root locus of consciousness (where it intersects a human being) before it “crystallizes” as thought-forms (or mind) in the brain is the spiritual Heart-center (Hridayam in Hinduism, Tathagatagarbha in Buddhism), located two digits to the right of the center of one’s chest. The human soul-matrix, one’s “storehouse consciousness” (alaya-vijnana in Yogacara), or complex of psychical seed tendencies, is located here relative to an incarnated human vehicle. But Sam has nothing to say about the Heart-center, the root-locus of citta, and its relation to the mind and brain.

If Harris understood the En-Light-enment project, he would also know that it is only through the descent of the Shakti, or Sambhogakaya (which is literally sucked into the Hridayam, along with the mind, the “crystallized” outflow of psychical seed tendencies), that one can Awaken. It is the Shakti, or Stream, that precipitates the “Heart-release,” which grants Nirvana. Nirvana, or Self-realization, is achieved when the Heart-knot is cut (which Ramana Maharshi describes in his esoteric teachings). When the Heart-knot is cut, universal (timeless, spaceless) Consciousness radiates ceaselessly through the “Heart-hole” to Infinity. This Consciousness, or Awareness, is the One Mind, described by the great Zen master Huang Po (see my five-star review of the The Zen Teaching of Huang Po); but Harris, a pompous and deluded pontificator, assures us that there is no such thing as the One Mind.

Quote.

. . said...

What I find interesting is that Bhagavan and Thayumanavar both stated that one cannot become Self-realized with Kundalini Yoga. The yogi may raise the Kundalini to the crown chakra and subsequently experience samadhi, however that is only a temporary state and coming out of that samadhi the yogi's mind is still around.

The yogi can do that a Million times and be longer and longer in samadhi, 10 years, a hundred years, and yet he must come out of this state. It is an endless cycle with no real progress.

Only vichara/surrender can result into realization and Sahaja Samadhi. There is nothing else what could do that!

sivatva said...

"Only vichara/surrender can result into realization and Sahaja Samadhi. There is nothing else what could do that!"

Yes, provided one is mature enough to put it into practice in the right manner.

Sanjay Lohia said...

This is in continuation on my comment of 30 July 2018 17:24:

In reply to my email, Michael wrote another email to me on the topic of efficient cause, instrumental cause and substantial cause. It is as follows:

Yes, but an instrumental cause is not always necessary, so though we could say that the perceiver's attention is the instrumental cause, I do not think it is necessary to do so.

The threefold analysis of cause is useful in some cases, but not in all cases. In the case of the rope-snake and brahman-world a two-fold analysis is sufficient (just an upādāna and a nimitta kāraṇa), and in other cases we need not even look for an upādāna kāraṇa. For example, if a moving billiard ball hits a stationary one, that causes the stationary one to move, so it is sufficient just to say that the moving billiard ball or its momentum is the nimitta kāraṇa. Generally identifying an upādāna kāraṇa is necessary only when something is produced from something else, such as a snake from a rope, a pot from clay, a table from wood, a necklace from gold or names and forms from sat-cit-ananda.

Michael James said...

In continuation of the comment I wrote here yesterday, the same friend wrote another comment in reply to my reply, saying, ‘I just wanted to add that even his wanting to quit seems to not be in his control. One week he does and the next he doesn’t. It’s as though even the desire to do and not to do, isn't upto us’, to which I replied:

Each like, dislike, desire, fear, hope, attachment and so on is an element of our will, and often the elements of our will are in conflict with one another. We want to do something, such as drinking alcohol, but we consider it to be bad for us, so we also want to give up wanting to do so. Our wanting to do it and our wanting to give up wanting to do it are obviously in conflict with one another, so whichever desire is stronger will win most of the time. This seems to be what is happening in the case of your relative.

Though we know that trying to satisfy a certain desire is not good for us, our desire to give up that desire is not yet strong enough. So in such cases we have to work hard to cultivate the desire to give up and to weaken the desire that we consider bad. This is what spiritual practice is all about: cultivating the better elements of our will and thereby weakening the worse elements, until we reach the point where our one desire is to give up all desires, which we can do only by eradicating their root, the ego, which is the sole aim and purpose of the practice of self-investigation and self-surrender, the path that Bhagavan taught us.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 20

When viewed from the standpoint of the eternally self-existent cause, even the three, seven or twenty-one worlds will appear to be real. But when one sees only the names and forms of the world as real, then even brahman, their cause, will appear to be absolutely non-existent or void (sunya).

Reflections: In this context, we may read verse 18 of Ulladu Narpadu:

For those who do not have knowledge, for those who have, the world is real. For those who do not know, reality is the extent of the world; for those who have known, reality pervades devoid of form as the support for the world. This is the difference between them. Consider.

So this world is real for all. In the sense that to a person who does not have knowledge, only the names and forms of this world is real, and to a person who does have knowledge, the reality is only the adhara (support, foundation or container) of this world. In other words, what we see as this world is seen as brahman by the jnani, and therefore there is nothing unreal for a jnani.

It is a subtle point. What Bhagavan implies is what exists is only the infinite, unchangeable and formless reality, and therefore if all at there is anything called a ‘world’, it cannot be other than this infinite reality. However, this world is made of up forms, but the reality is formless, so how can any forms exist in something which is formless? So the final conclusion has to be, this world is utterly unreal and non-existent. It has never come into existence.

The world exists in whose view? It exists in our ego’s view. However, Bhagavan says that this ego is a formless phantom which will take flight if we investigate it. So if it takes flight, where is the world? Who can see any world without the ego? Therefore even when this world seems to exist, it does not really exist. We have to come to this conclusion.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 21

For the sake of those who take the world, which appears before them, as real and enjoyable (it became necessary for the scriptures to say that) it is God’s creation. But for those who have obtained unobstructed knowledge of self, the world is seen merely as a bondage-causing mental imagination.

Reflections: When we are spirituality immature, we can understand only srsti-drsti vada. That is, the contention that this world is real - it is there since time immemorial. Srsti-drsti vada means that we see the world only because there is a solid world out there for us to see.

However, Bhagavan teaches us dsrti-srsti vada. That is, the contention that this world seems to exist only when we project and experience a world in front of us. In other words, this world is our own mental creation, and therefore it does not exist when we do not perceive it. We need some spiritual maturity even to tentatively accept this.

Dsrti-srsti vada is too much for many of the devotees of Bhagavan. It is because of such radical teachings that many stay away from Bhagavan’s core teachings contained in Upadesa Undiyar, Ulladu Narpadu and Nan Yar. These devotees are comfortable with their devotion to Arunachala. They may sing devotional hymns by Bhagavan, like Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam and so on but try to maintain a safe distance from Upadesa Undiyar, Ulladu Narpadu and Nan Yar.

atmabodha said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"Therefore even when this world seems to exist, it does not really exist. We have to come to this conclusion."

However, such a mental/intellectual conclusion is only made by the mind. If it is not empirically and consciously experienced by awareness one should not attach much value to it. Much more estimable is therefore the clear awareness of that which is actual reality because knowledge of brahman alone is the goal to be attained.

ekanta said...

Michael,
"Each like, dislike, desire, fear, hope, attachment and so on is an element of our will,...".
I understand this elements only as indirect factors/components of our will.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Atmabodha, what is the benefit of accepting that ‘even when this world seems to exist, it does not really exist?’ It may just be an intellectual understanding, but such understanding is essential or at least extremely beneficial if we want to turn away from this world.

If this world is real, why should we turn away from it and dive within in order to experience ourself as we actually are? However, if we understand that this world could be our mental creation, it will make it much easier for us to ignore this world. As Bhagavan says in the 11th paragraph of Nan Yar?:

Just as a pearl-diver, tying a stone to his waist and submerging, picks up a pearl which lies in the bottom of the ocean, so each person, submerging [beneath the surface activity of their mind] and sinking [deep] within themself with vairāgya [freedom from desire to experience anything other than self], can attain the pearl of self.

Immediately after saying the above, in the next sentence Bhagavan says:

If one clings fast to uninterrupted svarūpa-smaraṇa [self-remembrance] until one attains svarūpa [one’s own actual self], that alone [will be] sufficient.

What Bhagavan clearly implies (through the sequence of these two sentences) is that in order to cling to uninterrupted self-remembrance, we need extreme vairagya. Thus any intellectual understanding that cultivates vairagya in us is extremely useful.


chidrasa said...

Sanjay Lohia,
your reflections on verse 21 GVK,

of course you wanted to explain 'drsti-srsti-vada', not as misspelled dsrti-...

Regarding devotees who content themselves with singing devotional hymns...
Can anyone understand more than what is enabled or provided by the mind's capability/faculties/talents ?

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

sivatva, I do not believe that maturity is a required to do vichara "in the right manner". Very likely a maturity is required to have the desire to do vichara.

Vichara is learned by simply doing it. It cannot be learned through someone else. Even Bhagavan didn't teach "how to do" vichara because it can't be put into words. Michael and Sadhu Om went very much into the specifics and there is an great article by Michael (maybe from 2008) where he goes into the details as much as one can go.

But that cannot be a substitute for actually doing it.

atmabodha said...

Sanjay Lohia,
"Thus any intellectual understanding that cultivates vairagya in us is extremely useful."
May I express my doubts that intellectual understanding (alone) would/could ever cultivate vairagya ?

sivatva said...

Salazar,
you are right in saying that maturity is required to have the desire to do vichara.
But in doing vichara quite well it is easily possible to lose one's way and stray from the straight and narrow. That at least is my impression when I read some comments of people who claim doing vichara.
I agree with you that vichara is learned by simply doing it and cannot be learned through someone else. Thanks also for your hint and suggestion to read an old relevant and detailed article of Michael. It must be always time to keep one's eye on not going astray.:-)

. . said...

sivatva, doing vichara doesn't change somebodies behavior (if so very subtly) or the way they comment, that is not how it works. As Bhagavan said, virtue is the result of Self-realization and not the means to it.

sivatva said...

Salazar,
vichara as such let the mind flow towards the self. Therefore vichara must finally just change the whole behaviour of any sadhaka.
How can self-realization result without virtue ?

. . said...

sivatva, what counts is what happens within and not what one sees as outward behavior. All con-men, many politicians, (self-proclaimed) spiritual gurus have a polite and pleasant manner but when you look inside you see a different story.

So you cannot judge anybody from their outward behavior, that is a common misunderstanding. Same with virtue, to pursue virtue per se is fine if so desired but it will not lead to Self-realization. Why? Because we need to transcend virtue and vice in order to gain moksha. Therefore the pursuit of virtue should not be the main goal, if at all. It keeps one bound in the dyads. Important to grasp.

. . said...

Also, the mind is not really moving to Self, that is another misunderstanding. It is a blueprint postulated by Bhagavan to give people a working model of some sorts. But since there is really no mind how could it move to anything?

True virtue will only unfold after the mind is gone what is moksha. There cannot be any true virtue on the path to moksha because mind will always defile it.

sivatva said...

Salazar,
of course I mean the inner conduct/behaviour.
The "flow of the mind" has to be considered metaphorically because the self is nothing to attain but actually experienced uninterruptedly.

sivatva said...

Salazar,
in better English I should say that the self is not something to be attained because it is ever experienced by all as 'I-I'.

«Oldest ‹Older   801 – 1000 of 1351   Newer› Newest»