The ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things
In a comment on one of my recent articles, The ego does not actually exist, but it seems to exist, and only so long as it seems to exist do all other things seem to exist, a friend called Salazar wrote, ‘Did anybody on this blog wonder who is perceiving the thoughts which come into awareness? That what is aware of thoughts cannot be the creator of these thoughts, because a thought is an object apart from that “observer”’. This article is written in reply to this comment and another one written by him.
Salazar, what Bhagavan means by the term ‘thought’ is a mental phenomenon of any kind whatsoever, and since according to his teachings all phenomena are mental phenomena, everything other than our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is pure self-awareness, is just a thought. This is why he says in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, ‘நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை’ (niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam-eṉḏṟōr poruḷ aṉṉiyamāy illai), ‘Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world’, and in the fourteenth paragraph, ‘ஜக மென்பது நினைவே’ (jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē), ‘What is called the world is only thought’.
Therefore when you write, ‘That what is aware of thoughts cannot be the creator of these thoughts’, that implies that what is aware of phenomena cannot be the creator of those phenomena, or what is aware of the world cannot be the creator of it, but is this what Bhagavan taught us? What did he teach us about creation? Did he teach that creation occurs prior to or independent of perception, which is what we all generally believe, and which is what is called sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda, the contention (vāda) that creation (sṛṣṭi) precedes and is the cause of perception (dṛṣṭi)?
No, he asked us to question whether anything other than ourself exists independent of our perception of it, and he taught us very explicitly and emphatically what is called dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, the contention that perception (dṛṣṭi) is the sole cause of creation (sṛṣṭi), or more precisely, that perception itself is creation. Phenomena seem to exist only because we perceive them, so our perception of them alone creates their seeming existence. In other words, we, the perceiver, create phenomena merely by perceiving them.
We can understand this by considering our experience in dream. In dream we perceive a world consisting of phenomena of various kinds, including people, just like the world that we now perceive, and just as we now perceive ourself as a person in this world, in dream we perceive ourself as a person in that world. Why does that dream world seem to exist? Only because we perceive it. It does not exist prior to our perception of it, nor independent of our perception of it. Why? Because it does not exist at all except in our perception. It appears only in our awareness, so it would not exist at all if we were not aware of it.
According to Bhagavan any state in which we are aware of phenomena is just a dream, so the world we now perceive is a dream world. This is why he says in Nāṉ Ār? and elsewhere that the world is nothing but thoughts. Do thoughts exist independent of our perception of them? No, they seem to exist only because we perceive them, so they are created only by our perceiving them.
Thinking is a process of forming thoughts and perceiving them, but the formation (creation) of thoughts and the perception of them are not two processes or even two parts of one process, but are one and the same process, because thoughts are formed in our awareness, so they are formed by our being aware of them. Our perception of them is itself the formation or creation of them. In other words, dṛṣṭi is itself sṛṣṭi. There is no creation (sṛṣṭi) other than perception (dṛṣṭi), because there is no existence (sat) other than awareness (cit).
What actually exists is only awareness, so whatever seems to exist seems to exist only because of awareness. Therefore it is only by awareness that anything is created. Without awareness there could be no creation.
Creation is not real but just an illusory appearance, and nothing can appear except in awareness. Appearance requires perception or awareness of it, because if it were not perceived, to whom or to what could it appear? Whatever appears seems to exist only because it is perceived. In other words, whatever seems to exist seems to exist only in awareness, only to awareness, only by awareness and only because of awareness.
2. The awareness in which and to which phenomena appear is not real awareness but only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa)
However, the awareness in which, to which, by which and because of which all things seem to exist is not real awareness (cit), but is only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa), because real awareness is never aware of anything other than itself. This semblance of awareness, in whose view alone all thoughts or phenomena seem to exist, is not real, because it arises and subsides (appears and disappears) along with all the phenomena of which it is aware, as Bhagavan says in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
3. This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is the ego or mind, which is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear
This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is what is otherwise called the ego or mind, and as Bhagavan says in the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
As he points out in verse 18 of Upadēśa Undiyār, the term ‘mind’ is used in two distinct senses. In a general sense it is a term that refers to the totality of all thoughts or mental phenomena, but since the root of all thoughts is the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’, what the mind essentially is is only the ego, and hence in a more specific sense ‘mind’ is a term that refers to the ego. The ego is the root of all other thoughts because it is the subject, the perceiving thought, whereas all other thoughts are objects perceived by it.
In the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, cited above, the term ‘mind’ refers to the ego, so when Bhagavan says that it ‘causes all thoughts to appear’ or ‘makes all thoughts appear’ he means that the ego (the subject or perceiver) is what causes all other thoughts to appear. However in the next two sentences, in which he says, ‘நினைவுகளை யெல்லாம் நீக்கிப் பார்க்கின்றபோது, தனியாய் மனமென் றோர் பொருளில்லை; ஆகையால் நினைவே மனதின் சொரூபம்’ (niṉaivugaḷai y-ellām nīkki-p pārkkiṉḏṟa-pōdu, taṉi-y-āy maṉam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ illai; āhaiyāl niṉaivē maṉadiṉ sorūpam), ‘When one looks, excluding [removing or putting aside] all thoughts, solitarily there is not any such thing as mind; therefore thought alone is the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or very nature] of the mind’, the term ‘mind’ refers to the totality of all thoughts, namely the ego and all phenomena perceived by it. Therefore whenever Bhagavan uses the term ‘mind’ we need to understand from the context whether he is using it to refer specifically to the ego or more generally to all thoughts.
What Bhagavan teaches us in the second sentence of this paragraph, namely that the mind (in the sense of ego) is what ‘causes all thoughts to appear’, is further emphasised by him later on in the same paragraph by means of an analogy:
4. The ego or mind causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear only from itself, so it alone is their source or origin
Since the ego or mind alone is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear, from where or from what does it cause them to appear? ‘தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து’ (taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu), ‘from itself’ or ‘from within itself’, says Bhagavan. Since the world is nothing but thoughts (mental phenomena of a particular kind, namely sensory perceptions), when he firstly says, ‘அது சகல நினைவுகளையும் தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது’ (adu sakala niṉaivugaḷaiyum tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu), ‘It [the mind] causes all thoughts to appear’, and subsequently says, ‘மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து’ (maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu), ‘the mind also causing the world to appear from within itself’, he clearly implies that the mind or ego causes all thoughts (or all phenomena) to appear from itself.
Therefore Bhagavan teaches us very clearly and unambiguously that the mind, which in this context means the ego, is the source or origin from which all thoughts or phenomena appear, and this accords perfectly with our own experience. From where else could our thoughts come if not from ourself? Thoughts or phenomena appear only in our perception and only because of our perception of them, so their source or origin is only ourself, this ego.
5. A cause and its effect can occur simultaneously, but logically the cause comes first and the effect comes only after it
In the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? he says:
In terms of chronological sequence, a cause must either precede its effect or be simultaneous with its effect, but even when it is simultaneous with its effect, in terms of causal sequence it precedes it, because a cause is what gives rise to an effect, so logically the cause comes first and its effect comes only after it. Consider the example of a moving billiard ball hitting a stationary one. The hit causes some of the momentum of the moving ball to be transferred to the stationary one, as a result of which it begins to move. The hit is the cause, and the movement of the stationary ball is the effect. Both occur simultaneously in time, but in terms of the causal sequence the cause comes first and the effect follows on from it. That is, the hitting comes first, and only after it occurs does the stationary ball begin to move.
It is in this sense that Bhagavan says: ‘நானென்னும் நினைவே முதல் நினைவு. இது எழுந்த பிறகே ஏனைய நினைவுகள் எழுகின்றன. தன்மை தோன்றிய பிறகே முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தோன்றுகின்றன; தன்மை யின்றி முன்னிலை படர்க்கைக ளிரா’ (nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē mudal niṉaivu. idu eṙunda piṟahē ēṉaiya niṉaivugaḷ eṙugiṉḏṟaṉa. taṉmai tōṉḏṟiya piṟahē muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tōṉḏṟugiṉḏṟaṉa; taṉmai y-iṉḏṟi muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ irā), ‘the thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought. Only after this arises do other thoughts arise. Only after the first person [the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist’. That is, though the ego (the thought called ‘I’) and other thoughts arise simultaneously, in the sequence of cause and effect the rising of the ego comes first, because it is the cause, and the rising of other thoughts comes only after that, because it is the effect.
In an earlier comment you wrote, ‘the ego and thoughts appear and disappear simultaneously. To imply that one of these concepts were there before the other one is rather fishy, I believe that the question what is first, the ego or a thought falls under the category of what is first, the chicken or the egg?’ but this seems to be fishy only if we fail to distinguish causal sequence from chronological sequence. Bhagavan did say (as in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu) that ego and other thoughts appear and disappear simultaneously, referring to chronological sequence, but he also said (as in the final four sentences of the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?) that the ego is the first thought and that only after it rises do other thoughts rise, referring to causal sequence.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that the ego (the first person, the thought called ‘I’) is the first thought to appear and that only after it appears do other thoughts (second and third persons) appear, he does not mean that there is any lapse of time between the appearance of the ego and the appearance of other thoughts or phenomena, but is merely emphasising that the appearance of the ego is the cause and the appearance of all other things is its effect. The ego is the first cause, the cause of all other causes, so all chains of cause and effect begin only after the ego has appeared.
The analogy of the chicken and egg that you mention is not appropriate in this context, because chickens and eggs are links in a long chain of cause and effect, whereas the ego is the beginning or origin of every chain of cause and effect. Like both a chicken and an egg, every cause (or potential cause) is an effect of another cause, except the ego, which is the only cause that is not an effect of any other cause. It is the causeless cause, the uncaused cause, because nothing precedes it, whereas it precedes everything.
A chicken is the cause of an egg, which is in turn the cause of another chicken, and so on ad infinitum, but all such chains of cause and effect seem to exist only in the view of the ego, so they can appear only when the ego has appeared, and they must disappear as soon as it disappears. Therefore the ego is the cause and origin of all other causes and effects. This is why Bhagavan says that it is the first thought, and that all other thoughts (including chickens and eggs and all other chains of cause and effect) arise only after it has arisen.
6. Since the ego has created all that it perceives, why does it have so little control over what it has created?
You conclude that earlier comment by writing, ‘Anyway, I do not think that any clarity of that topic can be found in Bhagavan’s texts, I still favor Robert’s comment and I believe that he is in unison with Bhagavan on this matter’, but there is actually abundant clarity on this topic that we can found in his texts if we know how to look for it. The fact that the ego alone is the root cause for the appearance of everything else is one of the fundamental principles of his teachings and is therefore emphasised by him unequivocally in so many ways in his original writings, particularly in Nāṉ Ār? and Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, and also in many of the records of his replies to questions that he was asked.
Earlier in the same comment you asked, ‘Now I am wondering, since the ego cannot control these thoughts which it is supposedly “creating” how can it be the creator of thereof?’ but why do you assume that the creator should necessarily be able to control what it has created? When we dream, is the creator of our dream anyone other than ourself, the dreamer, namely this mind or ego?
Since perception is itself creation, we who perceive a dream are the one who is thereby creating it, but are we able to control all that we perceive in a dream? No, we cannot, and the reason for this is simple: when we create a dream world, we create ourself as a person in that world, and it is only as that person that we perceive that world, so though we are the creator of that world, we experience ourself as a creature in it, and by being a small part of our creation we have to a large extent lost control over it. The same is the case with this world and all that we perceive in it, including all the thoughts that arise in the mind of the person whom we now seem to be.
You are creating this world from moment to moment, but since you experience yourself as a person called Salazar, and since Salazar is a creature in the world you have created, as Salazar you have lost control of most of your own creation. This is the wonderful power of māyā (self-deception or self-delusion), which according to Bhagavan is nothing other than the ego or mind. We have created this world, but we are deluded by our own creation, so we are unable to control this demon that we have conjured up.
This is why in Hindu mythology the first three divine functions, namely creation, sustenance and dissolution, are each attributed to a different deity. According to this allegorical way of expressing the truth, Brahma has created this world, but he is unable to control or sustain it, nor is he able to destroy it, so it is sustained by Vishnu and destroyed by Siva. Of these three forms of God, which two are most highly revered? Only Vishnu and Siva, because creation is not a worthy function, so Brahma, the creator, is not worshipped in any temple, but only in Vedic rituals that are performed for the fulfilment of desires.
Suppose we have an irrational fear or an obsessive desire. That fear or desire is just a thought and it is created only by us, but we have become so caught up in our own creation that we are carried away by it and seem to be unable to control it.
This is not to say that we have absolutely no control over what we think or over other phenomena. We may have some degree of control, but that degree is limited, and the more we are deluded by our own creation, the less control we have over it. However if we patiently and persistently practise self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), our viṣaya-vāsanās (outward-going inclinations, urges or desires) will be gradually weakened, and our mind will thereby be purified. To the extent that it is purified it will be clear, and the clearer it becomes the less dense will be its delusion, so the extent to which we are able to keep a tight rein on our viṣaya-vāsanās, which are the seeds that give rise to thoughts, will increase correspondingly.
7. Thoughts come only from ourself, the ego, the one who perceives them, so we alone are the root of all thoughts
In a later part of the comment whose first paragraph I quoted at the beginning of this article you wrote, ‘So where are thoughts coming from? If patiently investigated one will discover that they come out of nowhere and disappear into nowhere’, but how can anything come out of nowhere? Nowhere does not exist except as an idea or thought, so from where does the idea of nowhere arise? Something cannot come out of nothing, because nothing does not exist, so whatever appears must appear from something.
In the next paragraph of that comment you wrote, ‘it is absolutely clear that they [thoughts] cannot come from the observer of these thoughts’, but from where else could thoughts come if not from ourself, the one who perceives or observes them? Thoughts appear only in the mind, and the source from which they appear is the root thought, the ego (which is why Bhagavan calls it the mūlam, the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause of all other thoughts). The ego rises or appears only out of ātma-svarūpa (the real nature of oneself), and all other thoughts rise or appear only out of the ego, so the ego is the immediate source and foundation of all other thoughts, and ātma-svarūpa is their ultimate source and foundation.
From what does the illusion of a snake appear? It cannot appear from nowhere or nothing, so it appears from something that (in terms of this analogy) actually exists, namely a rope. However it could not appear from a rope without the intervening medium called ego or mind, because it appears to be a snake only in the view of the ego. Therefore the immediate cause for the appearance of the snake is the ego, in whose view alone it appears, and the ultimate cause of it is the rope, because without the rope there would be nothing to be seen as a snake.
This is just an analogy, so there is a limit to the extent to which it accurately represents the truth to which it is analogous, but what it is intended to illustrate here is that the ultimate source, substance and foundation of the ego and of all thoughts or phenomena perceived by the ego is only ātma-svarūpa, but that the immediate source, substance and foundation of all thoughts or phenomena is only the ego, because it is only in the view of the ego that everything else seems to exist.
Without the ego could any other thought or phenomenon appear? It could not, because the ego is that to which and from which all other thoughts or phenomena appear. Likewise, without ātma-svarūpa could the ego appear? It could not, because ātma-svarūpa is that from which (but not to which) the ego appears.
This is why in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? Bhagavan says, ‘மனம் ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தினின்று வெளிப்படும்போது ஜகம் தோன்றும்’ (maṉam ātma-sorūpattiṉiṉḏṟu veḷippaḍum-pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟum), ‘When the mind comes out from ātma-svarūpa, the world appears’, meaning that ātma-svarūpa is the source from which the mind or ego appears, and in the previous sentence said, ‘[…] அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது’ (appaḍiyē maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu), ‘[…] in that way the mind also causes the world to appear from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself’, meaning that the mind or ego is the source from which the world and all other thoughts appear.
If other thoughts or phenomena did not originate from the ego, that would mean that they originate from something else, in which case they would be able to exist independent of the ego, which is contrary to all that Bhagavan taught us. Why should we believe that anything exists independent of the ego, or that anything originates from any source other than the ego? Since everything is perceived only by the ego, we do not have any adequate reason to suppose that anything exists independent of it or comes from anything other than it. This is why Bhagavan repeatedly emphasised that the ego (which is what he often referred to as ‘the thought called I’) is the first thought and the root of all other thoughts.
8. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: everything depends for its seeming existence on the seeming existence of the ego, so when we investigate the ego keenly enough to see that it does not exist, that is giving up everything
Since the ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things, in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan wrote:
Since the ego seems to exist only so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, it will dissolve and cease to exist only when we try to be so keenly self-attentive that we are aware of nothing other than ourself. And since all other things seem to exist only in the view of the ego, if we keenly investigate this ego in order to see what we actually are, not only will the ego cease to exist but everything else will cease to exist along with it.
This is why he concludes this verse by saying: ‘ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்’ (ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr), ‘Therefore, know that investigating what this [the ego] is alone is giving up everything’.
This is the core and essence of his teachings, so it is essential for us to understand very clearly that the ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things (all thoughts or phenomena). Everything originates from the ego and depends upon the ego for its seeming existence, so if we eradicate the ego we thereby eradicate everything.
- According to dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, perception is not only the cause of creation but is itself creation
- The awareness in which and to which phenomena appear is not real awareness but only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa)
- This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is the ego or mind, which is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear
- The ego or mind causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear only from itself, so it alone is their source or origin
- A cause and its effect can occur simultaneously, but logically the cause comes first and the effect comes only after it
- Since the ego has created all that it perceives, why does it have so little control over what it has created?
- Thoughts come only from ourself, the ego, the one who perceives them, so we alone are the root of all thoughts
- Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: everything depends for its seeming existence on the seeming existence of the ego, so when we investigate the ego keenly enough to see that it does not exist, that is giving up everything
Salazar, what Bhagavan means by the term ‘thought’ is a mental phenomenon of any kind whatsoever, and since according to his teachings all phenomena are mental phenomena, everything other than our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is pure self-awareness, is just a thought. This is why he says in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, ‘நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை’ (niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam-eṉḏṟōr poruḷ aṉṉiyamāy illai), ‘Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world’, and in the fourteenth paragraph, ‘ஜக மென்பது நினைவே’ (jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē), ‘What is called the world is only thought’.
Therefore when you write, ‘That what is aware of thoughts cannot be the creator of these thoughts’, that implies that what is aware of phenomena cannot be the creator of those phenomena, or what is aware of the world cannot be the creator of it, but is this what Bhagavan taught us? What did he teach us about creation? Did he teach that creation occurs prior to or independent of perception, which is what we all generally believe, and which is what is called sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda, the contention (vāda) that creation (sṛṣṭi) precedes and is the cause of perception (dṛṣṭi)?
No, he asked us to question whether anything other than ourself exists independent of our perception of it, and he taught us very explicitly and emphatically what is called dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, the contention that perception (dṛṣṭi) is the sole cause of creation (sṛṣṭi), or more precisely, that perception itself is creation. Phenomena seem to exist only because we perceive them, so our perception of them alone creates their seeming existence. In other words, we, the perceiver, create phenomena merely by perceiving them.
We can understand this by considering our experience in dream. In dream we perceive a world consisting of phenomena of various kinds, including people, just like the world that we now perceive, and just as we now perceive ourself as a person in this world, in dream we perceive ourself as a person in that world. Why does that dream world seem to exist? Only because we perceive it. It does not exist prior to our perception of it, nor independent of our perception of it. Why? Because it does not exist at all except in our perception. It appears only in our awareness, so it would not exist at all if we were not aware of it.
According to Bhagavan any state in which we are aware of phenomena is just a dream, so the world we now perceive is a dream world. This is why he says in Nāṉ Ār? and elsewhere that the world is nothing but thoughts. Do thoughts exist independent of our perception of them? No, they seem to exist only because we perceive them, so they are created only by our perceiving them.
Thinking is a process of forming thoughts and perceiving them, but the formation (creation) of thoughts and the perception of them are not two processes or even two parts of one process, but are one and the same process, because thoughts are formed in our awareness, so they are formed by our being aware of them. Our perception of them is itself the formation or creation of them. In other words, dṛṣṭi is itself sṛṣṭi. There is no creation (sṛṣṭi) other than perception (dṛṣṭi), because there is no existence (sat) other than awareness (cit).
What actually exists is only awareness, so whatever seems to exist seems to exist only because of awareness. Therefore it is only by awareness that anything is created. Without awareness there could be no creation.
Creation is not real but just an illusory appearance, and nothing can appear except in awareness. Appearance requires perception or awareness of it, because if it were not perceived, to whom or to what could it appear? Whatever appears seems to exist only because it is perceived. In other words, whatever seems to exist seems to exist only in awareness, only to awareness, only by awareness and only because of awareness.
2. The awareness in which and to which phenomena appear is not real awareness but only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa)
However, the awareness in which, to which, by which and because of which all things seem to exist is not real awareness (cit), but is only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa), because real awareness is never aware of anything other than itself. This semblance of awareness, in whose view alone all thoughts or phenomena seem to exist, is not real, because it arises and subsides (appears and disappears) along with all the phenomena of which it is aware, as Bhagavan says in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
உலகறிவு மொன்றா யுதித்தொடுங்கு மேனுThe world shines by this semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa), which appears and disappears, because it is perceived only by it and therefore seems to exist only in its view. Therefore though the world and this awareness appear and disappear simultaneously, it is only by this awareness that the world is created or brought into seeming existence. In other words, this awareness is the cause and the appearance of the world is its effect. Whenever this awareness appears, the world appears along with it and because of it, and whenever this awareness disappears, the world disappears along with and because of its disappearance.
முலகறிவு தன்னா லொளிரு — முலகறிவு
தோன்றிமறை தற்கிடனாய்த் தோன்றிமறை யாதொளிரும்
பூன்றமா மஃதே பொருள்.
ulahaṟivu moṉḏṟā yudittoḍuṅgu mēṉu
mulahaṟivu taṉṉā loḷiru — mulahaṟivu
tōṉḏṟimaṟai daṟkiḍaṉāyt tōṉḏṟimaṟai yādoḷirum
pūṉḏṟamā maḵdē poruḷ.
பதச்சேதம்: உலகு அறிவும் ஒன்றாய் உதித்து ஒடுங்கும் ஏனும், உலகு அறிவு தன்னால் ஒளிரும். உலகு அறிவு தோன்றி மறைதற்கு இடன் ஆய் தோன்றி மறையாது ஒளிரும் பூன்றம் ஆம் அஃதே பொருள்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ulahu aṟivum oṉḏṟāy udittu oḍuṅgum ēṉum, ulahu aṟivu-taṉṉāl oḷirum. ulahu aṟivu tōṉḏṟi maṟaidaṟku iḍaṉ-āy tōṉḏṟi maṟaiyādu oḷirum pūṉḏṟam ām aḵdē poruḷ.
அன்வயம்: உலகு அறிவும் ஒன்றாய் உதித்து ஒடுங்கும் ஏனும், உலகு அறிவு தன்னால் ஒளிரும். உலகு அறிவு தோன்றி மறைதற்கு இடன் ஆய் தோன்றி மறையாது ஒளிரும் அஃதே பூன்றம் ஆம் பொருள்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ulahu aṟivum oṉḏṟāy udittu oḍuṅgum ēṉum, ulahu aṟivu-taṉṉāl oḷirum. ulahu aṟivu tōṉḏṟi maṟaidaṟku iḍaṉ-āy tōṉḏṟi maṟaiyādu oḷirum aḵdē pūṉḏṟam ām poruḷ.
English translation: Though the world and awareness arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by awareness. Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the place for the appearing and disappearing of the world and awareness is the substance, which is the whole.
Explanatory paraphrase: Though the world and awareness [the awareness that perceives the world, namely the ego or mind] arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by [that rising and subsiding] awareness [the mind]. Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the place [space, expanse, location, site or ground] for the appearing and disappearing of the world and [that] awareness is poruḷ [the real substance or vastu], which is pūṉḏṟam [the infinite whole or pūrṇa].
3. This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is the ego or mind, which is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear
This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is what is otherwise called the ego or mind, and as Bhagavan says in the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
மன மென்பது ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தி லுள்ள ஓர் அதிசய சக்தி. அது சகல நினைவுகளையும் தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது.The verb that Bhagavan uses in the second of these two sentences is தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது (tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu), which is the third person singular present tense form of தோற்றுவி (tōṯṟuvi), which is the causative form of தோன்று (tōṉḏṟu), a verb that means to appear, rise, come into existence or seem to be, so தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது (tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu) literally means ‘it causes to appear’ or ‘it makes appear’, but in this context it is often translated as ‘it projects’ or ‘it creates’, which is what it implies. Therefore by saying that the mind ‘causes all thoughts to appear’ or ‘makes all thoughts appear’, he implies unequivocally that the mind is what creates the appearance of all thoughts.
maṉam eṉbadu ātma-sorūpattil uḷḷa ōr atiśaya śakti. adu sakala niṉaivugaḷaiyum tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu
What is called mind is an atiśaya śakti [an extraordinary power] that exists in ātma-svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself]. It makes all thoughts appear.
As he points out in verse 18 of Upadēśa Undiyār, the term ‘mind’ is used in two distinct senses. In a general sense it is a term that refers to the totality of all thoughts or mental phenomena, but since the root of all thoughts is the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’, what the mind essentially is is only the ego, and hence in a more specific sense ‘mind’ is a term that refers to the ego. The ego is the root of all other thoughts because it is the subject, the perceiving thought, whereas all other thoughts are objects perceived by it.
In the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, cited above, the term ‘mind’ refers to the ego, so when Bhagavan says that it ‘causes all thoughts to appear’ or ‘makes all thoughts appear’ he means that the ego (the subject or perceiver) is what causes all other thoughts to appear. However in the next two sentences, in which he says, ‘நினைவுகளை யெல்லாம் நீக்கிப் பார்க்கின்றபோது, தனியாய் மனமென் றோர் பொருளில்லை; ஆகையால் நினைவே மனதின் சொரூபம்’ (niṉaivugaḷai y-ellām nīkki-p pārkkiṉḏṟa-pōdu, taṉi-y-āy maṉam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ illai; āhaiyāl niṉaivē maṉadiṉ sorūpam), ‘When one looks, excluding [removing or putting aside] all thoughts, solitarily there is not any such thing as mind; therefore thought alone is the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or very nature] of the mind’, the term ‘mind’ refers to the totality of all thoughts, namely the ego and all phenomena perceived by it. Therefore whenever Bhagavan uses the term ‘mind’ we need to understand from the context whether he is using it to refer specifically to the ego or more generally to all thoughts.
What Bhagavan teaches us in the second sentence of this paragraph, namely that the mind (in the sense of ego) is what ‘causes all thoughts to appear’, is further emphasised by him later on in the same paragraph by means of an analogy:
நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை. தூக்கத்தில் நினைவுகளில்லை, ஜகமுமில்லை; ஜாக்ர சொப்பனங்களில் நினைவுகளுள, ஜகமும் உண்டு. சிலந்திப்பூச்சி எப்படித் தன்னிடமிருந்து வெளியில் நூலை நூற்று மறுபடியும் தன்னுள் இழுத்துக் கொள்ளுகிறதோ, அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது.Here again he uses the same causative verb, தோற்றுவி (tōṯṟuvi), which means ‘cause to appear’ or ‘make appear’ and which implies ‘project’ or ‘create’, saying ‘அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது’ (appaḍiyē maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu), ‘in that way the mind also causes the world to appear from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself’. Therefore in this paragraph Bhagavan emphasises very strongly and categorically that the mind or ego is what causes all other things (all thoughts or phenomena) to appear.
niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ aṉṉiyam-āy illai. tūkkattil niṉaivugaḷ illai, jagamum illai; jāgra-soppaṉaṅgaḷil niṉaivugaḷ uḷa, jagamum uṇḍu. silandi-p-pūcci eppaḍi-t taṉ-ṉ-iḍam-irundu veḷiyil nūlai nūṯṟu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉuḷ iṙuttu-k-koḷḷugiṟadō, appaḍiyē maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu.
Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world. In sleep there are no thoughts, and [consequently] there is also no world; in waking and dream there are thoughts, and [consequently] there is also a world. Just as a spider spins out thread from within itself and again draws it back into itself, so the mind also makes the world appear [or projects the world] from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself.
4. The ego or mind causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear only from itself, so it alone is their source or origin
Since the ego or mind alone is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear, from where or from what does it cause them to appear? ‘தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து’ (taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu), ‘from itself’ or ‘from within itself’, says Bhagavan. Since the world is nothing but thoughts (mental phenomena of a particular kind, namely sensory perceptions), when he firstly says, ‘அது சகல நினைவுகளையும் தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது’ (adu sakala niṉaivugaḷaiyum tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu), ‘It [the mind] causes all thoughts to appear’, and subsequently says, ‘மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து’ (maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu), ‘the mind also causing the world to appear from within itself’, he clearly implies that the mind or ego causes all thoughts (or all phenomena) to appear from itself.
Therefore Bhagavan teaches us very clearly and unambiguously that the mind, which in this context means the ego, is the source or origin from which all thoughts or phenomena appear, and this accords perfectly with our own experience. From where else could our thoughts come if not from ourself? Thoughts or phenomena appear only in our perception and only because of our perception of them, so their source or origin is only ourself, this ego.
5. A cause and its effect can occur simultaneously, but logically the cause comes first and the effect comes only after it
In the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? he says:
இந்தத் தேகத்தில் நான் என்று கிளம்புவது எதுவோ அஃதே மனமாம். […] மனதில் தோன்றும் நினைவுக ளெல்லாவற்றிற்கும் நானென்னும் நினைவே முதல் நினைவு. இது எழுந்த பிறகே ஏனைய நினைவுகள் எழுகின்றன. தன்மை தோன்றிய பிறகே முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தோன்றுகின்றன; தன்மை யின்றி முன்னிலை படர்க்கைக ளிரா.When Bhagavan says here that the thought called ‘I’ (the ego) is the first thought and that only after it rises do other thoughts arise, this may seem to contradict what he says in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, namely that the world and awareness (which in this context means the ego, the spurious awareness that appears and disappears) arise and subside simultaneously, but there is actually no contradiction here, because when he says that they arise simultaneously he means at the same time, whereas when he says that the ego is the first thought and that only after it rises do other thoughts arise he is not referring to a chronological sequence but to a causal sequence.
inda-t dēhattil nāṉ eṉḏṟu kiḷambuvadu edu-v-ō aḵdē maṉam-ām. […] maṉadil tōṉḏṟum niṉaivugaḷ ellāvaṯṟiṟkum nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē mudal niṉaivu. idu eṙunda piṟahē ēṉaiya niṉaivugaḷ eṙugiṉḏṟaṉa. taṉmai tōṉḏṟiya piṟahē muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tōṉḏṟugiṉḏṟaṉa; taṉmai y-iṉḏṟi muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ irā.
What rises in this body as ‘I’ [namely the ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’], that alone is the mind. […] Of all the thoughts that appear [or arise] in the mind, the thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought [the primal, basic, original or causal thought]. Only after this arises do other thoughts arise. Only after the first person [the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist.
In terms of chronological sequence, a cause must either precede its effect or be simultaneous with its effect, but even when it is simultaneous with its effect, in terms of causal sequence it precedes it, because a cause is what gives rise to an effect, so logically the cause comes first and its effect comes only after it. Consider the example of a moving billiard ball hitting a stationary one. The hit causes some of the momentum of the moving ball to be transferred to the stationary one, as a result of which it begins to move. The hit is the cause, and the movement of the stationary ball is the effect. Both occur simultaneously in time, but in terms of the causal sequence the cause comes first and the effect follows on from it. That is, the hitting comes first, and only after it occurs does the stationary ball begin to move.
It is in this sense that Bhagavan says: ‘நானென்னும் நினைவே முதல் நினைவு. இது எழுந்த பிறகே ஏனைய நினைவுகள் எழுகின்றன. தன்மை தோன்றிய பிறகே முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தோன்றுகின்றன; தன்மை யின்றி முன்னிலை படர்க்கைக ளிரா’ (nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē mudal niṉaivu. idu eṙunda piṟahē ēṉaiya niṉaivugaḷ eṙugiṉḏṟaṉa. taṉmai tōṉḏṟiya piṟahē muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tōṉḏṟugiṉḏṟaṉa; taṉmai y-iṉḏṟi muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ irā), ‘the thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought. Only after this arises do other thoughts arise. Only after the first person [the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist’. That is, though the ego (the thought called ‘I’) and other thoughts arise simultaneously, in the sequence of cause and effect the rising of the ego comes first, because it is the cause, and the rising of other thoughts comes only after that, because it is the effect.
In an earlier comment you wrote, ‘the ego and thoughts appear and disappear simultaneously. To imply that one of these concepts were there before the other one is rather fishy, I believe that the question what is first, the ego or a thought falls under the category of what is first, the chicken or the egg?’ but this seems to be fishy only if we fail to distinguish causal sequence from chronological sequence. Bhagavan did say (as in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu) that ego and other thoughts appear and disappear simultaneously, referring to chronological sequence, but he also said (as in the final four sentences of the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?) that the ego is the first thought and that only after it rises do other thoughts rise, referring to causal sequence.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that the ego (the first person, the thought called ‘I’) is the first thought to appear and that only after it appears do other thoughts (second and third persons) appear, he does not mean that there is any lapse of time between the appearance of the ego and the appearance of other thoughts or phenomena, but is merely emphasising that the appearance of the ego is the cause and the appearance of all other things is its effect. The ego is the first cause, the cause of all other causes, so all chains of cause and effect begin only after the ego has appeared.
The analogy of the chicken and egg that you mention is not appropriate in this context, because chickens and eggs are links in a long chain of cause and effect, whereas the ego is the beginning or origin of every chain of cause and effect. Like both a chicken and an egg, every cause (or potential cause) is an effect of another cause, except the ego, which is the only cause that is not an effect of any other cause. It is the causeless cause, the uncaused cause, because nothing precedes it, whereas it precedes everything.
A chicken is the cause of an egg, which is in turn the cause of another chicken, and so on ad infinitum, but all such chains of cause and effect seem to exist only in the view of the ego, so they can appear only when the ego has appeared, and they must disappear as soon as it disappears. Therefore the ego is the cause and origin of all other causes and effects. This is why Bhagavan says that it is the first thought, and that all other thoughts (including chickens and eggs and all other chains of cause and effect) arise only after it has arisen.
6. Since the ego has created all that it perceives, why does it have so little control over what it has created?
You conclude that earlier comment by writing, ‘Anyway, I do not think that any clarity of that topic can be found in Bhagavan’s texts, I still favor Robert’s comment and I believe that he is in unison with Bhagavan on this matter’, but there is actually abundant clarity on this topic that we can found in his texts if we know how to look for it. The fact that the ego alone is the root cause for the appearance of everything else is one of the fundamental principles of his teachings and is therefore emphasised by him unequivocally in so many ways in his original writings, particularly in Nāṉ Ār? and Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, and also in many of the records of his replies to questions that he was asked.
Earlier in the same comment you asked, ‘Now I am wondering, since the ego cannot control these thoughts which it is supposedly “creating” how can it be the creator of thereof?’ but why do you assume that the creator should necessarily be able to control what it has created? When we dream, is the creator of our dream anyone other than ourself, the dreamer, namely this mind or ego?
Since perception is itself creation, we who perceive a dream are the one who is thereby creating it, but are we able to control all that we perceive in a dream? No, we cannot, and the reason for this is simple: when we create a dream world, we create ourself as a person in that world, and it is only as that person that we perceive that world, so though we are the creator of that world, we experience ourself as a creature in it, and by being a small part of our creation we have to a large extent lost control over it. The same is the case with this world and all that we perceive in it, including all the thoughts that arise in the mind of the person whom we now seem to be.
You are creating this world from moment to moment, but since you experience yourself as a person called Salazar, and since Salazar is a creature in the world you have created, as Salazar you have lost control of most of your own creation. This is the wonderful power of māyā (self-deception or self-delusion), which according to Bhagavan is nothing other than the ego or mind. We have created this world, but we are deluded by our own creation, so we are unable to control this demon that we have conjured up.
This is why in Hindu mythology the first three divine functions, namely creation, sustenance and dissolution, are each attributed to a different deity. According to this allegorical way of expressing the truth, Brahma has created this world, but he is unable to control or sustain it, nor is he able to destroy it, so it is sustained by Vishnu and destroyed by Siva. Of these three forms of God, which two are most highly revered? Only Vishnu and Siva, because creation is not a worthy function, so Brahma, the creator, is not worshipped in any temple, but only in Vedic rituals that are performed for the fulfilment of desires.
Suppose we have an irrational fear or an obsessive desire. That fear or desire is just a thought and it is created only by us, but we have become so caught up in our own creation that we are carried away by it and seem to be unable to control it.
This is not to say that we have absolutely no control over what we think or over other phenomena. We may have some degree of control, but that degree is limited, and the more we are deluded by our own creation, the less control we have over it. However if we patiently and persistently practise self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), our viṣaya-vāsanās (outward-going inclinations, urges or desires) will be gradually weakened, and our mind will thereby be purified. To the extent that it is purified it will be clear, and the clearer it becomes the less dense will be its delusion, so the extent to which we are able to keep a tight rein on our viṣaya-vāsanās, which are the seeds that give rise to thoughts, will increase correspondingly.
7. Thoughts come only from ourself, the ego, the one who perceives them, so we alone are the root of all thoughts
In a later part of the comment whose first paragraph I quoted at the beginning of this article you wrote, ‘So where are thoughts coming from? If patiently investigated one will discover that they come out of nowhere and disappear into nowhere’, but how can anything come out of nowhere? Nowhere does not exist except as an idea or thought, so from where does the idea of nowhere arise? Something cannot come out of nothing, because nothing does not exist, so whatever appears must appear from something.
In the next paragraph of that comment you wrote, ‘it is absolutely clear that they [thoughts] cannot come from the observer of these thoughts’, but from where else could thoughts come if not from ourself, the one who perceives or observes them? Thoughts appear only in the mind, and the source from which they appear is the root thought, the ego (which is why Bhagavan calls it the mūlam, the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause of all other thoughts). The ego rises or appears only out of ātma-svarūpa (the real nature of oneself), and all other thoughts rise or appear only out of the ego, so the ego is the immediate source and foundation of all other thoughts, and ātma-svarūpa is their ultimate source and foundation.
From what does the illusion of a snake appear? It cannot appear from nowhere or nothing, so it appears from something that (in terms of this analogy) actually exists, namely a rope. However it could not appear from a rope without the intervening medium called ego or mind, because it appears to be a snake only in the view of the ego. Therefore the immediate cause for the appearance of the snake is the ego, in whose view alone it appears, and the ultimate cause of it is the rope, because without the rope there would be nothing to be seen as a snake.
This is just an analogy, so there is a limit to the extent to which it accurately represents the truth to which it is analogous, but what it is intended to illustrate here is that the ultimate source, substance and foundation of the ego and of all thoughts or phenomena perceived by the ego is only ātma-svarūpa, but that the immediate source, substance and foundation of all thoughts or phenomena is only the ego, because it is only in the view of the ego that everything else seems to exist.
Without the ego could any other thought or phenomenon appear? It could not, because the ego is that to which and from which all other thoughts or phenomena appear. Likewise, without ātma-svarūpa could the ego appear? It could not, because ātma-svarūpa is that from which (but not to which) the ego appears.
This is why in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? Bhagavan says, ‘மனம் ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தினின்று வெளிப்படும்போது ஜகம் தோன்றும்’ (maṉam ātma-sorūpattiṉiṉḏṟu veḷippaḍum-pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟum), ‘When the mind comes out from ātma-svarūpa, the world appears’, meaning that ātma-svarūpa is the source from which the mind or ego appears, and in the previous sentence said, ‘[…] அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது’ (appaḍiyē maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu), ‘[…] in that way the mind also causes the world to appear from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself’, meaning that the mind or ego is the source from which the world and all other thoughts appear.
If other thoughts or phenomena did not originate from the ego, that would mean that they originate from something else, in which case they would be able to exist independent of the ego, which is contrary to all that Bhagavan taught us. Why should we believe that anything exists independent of the ego, or that anything originates from any source other than the ego? Since everything is perceived only by the ego, we do not have any adequate reason to suppose that anything exists independent of it or comes from anything other than it. This is why Bhagavan repeatedly emphasised that the ego (which is what he often referred to as ‘the thought called I’) is the first thought and the root of all other thoughts.
8. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: everything depends for its seeming existence on the seeming existence of the ego, so when we investigate the ego keenly enough to see that it does not exist, that is giving up everything
Since the ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things, in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan wrote:
அகந்தையுண் டாயி னனைத்துமுண் டாகுIn the kaliveṇbā version of this verse Bhagavan extended the first sentence of this verse by adding a relative clause to describe the ego, namely ‘கருவாம்’ (karu-v-ām), which means ‘which is the embryo [womb, efficient cause, inner substance or foundation]’ and which therefore implies that the ego is the embryo that develops into everything else, the womb from which everything is born, the efficient cause (nimitta kāraṇa) that creates or produces everything, the inner substance of all phenomena, and the foundation on which they all appear.
மகந்தையின் றேலின் றனைத்து — மகந்தையே
யாவுமா மாதலால் யாதிதென்று நாடலே
யோவுதல் யாவுமென வோர்.
ahandaiyuṇ ḍāyi ṉaṉaittumuṇ ḍāhu
mahandaiyiṉ ḏṟēliṉ ḏṟaṉaittu — mahandaiyē
yāvumā mādalāl yādideṉḏṟu nādalē
yōvudal yāvumeṉa vōr.
பதச்சேதம்: அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும். அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum. ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr.
அன்வயம்: அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், அனைத்தும் இன்று. யாவும் அகந்தையே ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே யாவும் ஓவுதல் என ஓர்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, aṉaittum iṉḏṟu. yāvum ahandai-y-ē ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē yāvum ōvudal eṉa ōr.
English translation: If the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist. The ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this is alone is giving up everything.
Explanatory paraphrase: If the ego comes into existence, everything [all phenomena, everything that appears and disappears, everything other than our pure, fundamental, unchanging and immutable self-awareness] comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist [because nothing other than pure self-awareness actually exists, so everything else seems to exist only in the view of the ego, and hence it cannot seem to exist unless the ego seems to exist]. [Therefore] the ego itself is everything [because it is the original seed or embryo, which alone is what expands as everything else]. Therefore, know that investigating what this [the ego] is alone is giving up everything [because the ego will cease to exist if it investigates itself keenly enough, and when it ceases to exist everything else will cease to exist along with it].
Since the ego seems to exist only so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, it will dissolve and cease to exist only when we try to be so keenly self-attentive that we are aware of nothing other than ourself. And since all other things seem to exist only in the view of the ego, if we keenly investigate this ego in order to see what we actually are, not only will the ego cease to exist but everything else will cease to exist along with it.
This is why he concludes this verse by saying: ‘ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்’ (ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr), ‘Therefore, know that investigating what this [the ego] is alone is giving up everything’.
This is the core and essence of his teachings, so it is essential for us to understand very clearly that the ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things (all thoughts or phenomena). Everything originates from the ego and depends upon the ego for its seeming existence, so if we eradicate the ego we thereby eradicate everything.
Posts
1,351 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1200 of 1351 Newer› Newest»I do not want to be a stickler but Self is not experienced uninterruptedly. Because as long as we give attention to all of the adjuncts we experience the imaginations of the mind and not Self. So even in practicing vichara we do not experience Self since we have not our attention 100% on it, there is always a percentage which goes to the adjuncts.
You will know if you experience just Self because then you have lost your awareness of the surroundings including your body and mind. Except for Sahaja Samadhi but that seems to be something extremely illusive and we can leave that out since it can't be explained.
Is not the self revealed in deep sleep, without body-mind-ego ? Even now despite of the limitations of waking and dream states - due to identification of the 'I'-thought with the body and other adjuncts - , what is experienced as 'I' is Brahman only.
"What is experienced as I is Brahman only".
No, that what you are actually currently experiencing as I is your mind. Otherwise you'd be Self-realized and there would be no need for you to discuss spiritual concepts on this blog.
Anyway, that's it for me. Either you take it or get it or not. Either way is fine with me. It is always better to do some vichara/surrender than to speculate about Brahman. That what speculates is that what deprives you of Brahman.
Micheal James' quote:
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.
End Quote.
To
Sri Michael James,
So according to you as Michael James and the drsti-srsti-vada logic, I am the Self or Brahman and not the finite imaginary person or 'eka jiva". Same rule applies to every apparent "eka jiva" as well. Let me know if you have the time. Thanks.
By
ajnani
Sri Micheal James,
I cannot distinguish between awareness and cidabhasha or semblance of awareness you have also mentioned. That is why I posted the previous comment. Thanks.
By
ajnani
Salazar,
you are correctly implying that the self is clearly recognized and has to be experienced only in the state of nirvikalpa samadhi.
I remember having read in a book about Shankara:
The knowledge of the self is clear as crystal to those who are pure of heart, but hidden from those whose mind are contaminated by attachment and aversion.
Thanks for being in contact with me.
Ekanta, in the comment you wrote yesterday you quote my previous comment, in which I wrote, ‘Each like, dislike, desire, fear, hope, attachment and so on is an element of our will’, and you remark, ‘I understand this elements only as indirect factors/components of our will’. What do you mean by ‘indirect factors/components of our will’? In what way or what sense do you consider them to be ‘indirect’?
What is our will if not made up solely of elements, components or factors such as likes, dislikes, desires, fears, hopes and attachments?
Anonymous, I am not sure which previous comment of yours you refer to in your latest comment, but can you not distinguish the awareness you experience in sleep, in which you are not aware of any phenomena, from the awareness of phenomena that you experience in waking and dream? The awareness you experience in sleep is real awareness, which is awareness of nothing other than yourself, whereas your current awareness of phenomena is what is called cidābhāsa, the ‘semblance [likeness or reflection] of awareness’.
However, though we now experience this semblance of awareness, which is what is also called ego or mind, we have not ceased to experience real awareness, because we could not be aware of phenomena if we were not really aware. Real awareness is what we actually are, so it is eternal and uninterrupted, and hence it is the background or foundation on which awareness of phenomena appears and disappears, just like a cinema screen on which pictures appear and disappear.
Sivatva, it can be confusing and the choice of words is important. Even though I like to express my understanding of Bhagavan's teaching it is, compared to Michael's understanding, less refined. So he would be always a good source for questions, alas, since he's busy he has only limited time.
One thing I'd like to add, as Michael said in the last paragraph of his previous comment on August 1, 13:28, "Real awareness is what we actually are, so it is eternal and uninterrupted, [...]" and I, of course, agree.
However as I mentioned in a previous comment to you, even though awareness is uninterrupted and eternal, we do not experience that awareness uninterrupted since we usually get sidetracked by all of these adjuncts and that seemingly interrupts that awareness; but in fact it is also that awareness which is aware of the adjuncts, so in that regard it is uninterrupted.
However according to Bhagavan, since we are more attached to these adjuncts than to that awareness itself, we ought to drop our interest/attention to the adjuncts and keep our attention solely to that what we really are. Once we could let have gone of all of these adjuncts it will become clear that we are not only that underlying background but also all of these adjuncts which appear and disappear.
Anyway, I hope I could have been a bit helpful and not created any confusion :)
Michael, thank you for responding.
because I understand 'will' primarily in the sense of wish, will power, strength of will, Willigness, self-discipline,mental faculty of the mind, determination to do or to avoid something I considered the mentioned elements like, dislike, desire, fear, hope, attachment and so on only as triggering, causing, provoking, evoking factors of the formulation of will.
But when I read your question "What is our will if not made up solely of elements, components or factors such as likes, dislikes, desires, fears, hopes and attachments?" you make it clear to me what you mean.
Salazar,
as you say "...since we usually get sidetracked by all of these adjuncts and that seemingly interrupts that awareness; but in fact it is also that awareness which is aware of the adjuncts, so in that regard it is uninterrupted."
That is also the reason why I insisted to take to heart the Upanishadic assertion/claim 'I alone am, Brahman alone am I'.
However, I do not understand your final conclusion "Once we could let have gone of all of these adjuncts it will become clear that we are not only that underlying background but also all of these adjuncts which appear and disappear."
Why should we be "also all of these adjuncts which appear and disappear" ?
sivatva, because the adjuncts get their reality from Self and they are not separate from Self. I have read stories from Jnanis who were aware of several bodies (of devotees in their vicinity) simultaneously. They could perceive the same sensations of these bodies as those devotees.
Salazar,
when you say "because the adjuncts get their reality from Self and they are not separate from Self."
It seems to me that the reason you gave above is no objectively based evidence to support your thesis. From which other reason do you (seriously) attribute any reality to unreal adjuncts ?
sivatva, I have that from GVK (and other sources) and it can be confusing since suddenly what we are supposed to take for unreal is suddenly real in the way that they gain their reality from Self.
For the sadhaka we have to take anything for unreal but Self. That's the way according to Bhagavan. So I am not worried about that and focus on vichara/surrender. That will give clarity eventually ...
Why speculate about something we cannot yet verify ourselves?
Salazar,
as you propose, our sadhana should be mainly focussing on vichara/surrender.
If we attend to 'I' keenly enough, we will thereby separate ourself from all adjuncts.
So instead of shining as the adjunct-mixed ego our self-awareness will shine clearly as 'I am just I'.(Free according Sadhu Om, as recorded by Michael James, The Paramount Importance of Self Attention, Part Twenty Six, in Mountain Path July-September 2018).
I love the "The Paramount Importance of Self Attention", fabulous detailed info, highly recommended for anyone who has not already read it. I have to admit I absolutely resonate with Sadhu Om's way of approaching Bhagavan's teachings. He really must have realized Self to convey such clarity and brilliance.
I hope eventually all parts will be available on Michael's website in .pdf form.
Michael,
sorry, please read "willingness" instead of "Willigness".
Even Michael can do only one thing after the other. So we must exercise patience.
Sadhu Om - such a rare gem. It is up to us to benefit from his diamond clarity and brilliance.
sivatva
The point about unreal adjuncts being real could be interpreted as follows.
Advaita says that the we perceive-interpret the world, in terms of subject - object dichotomy, I/mine vs other, is the fundamental illusion. Hence to enable us to see this, it teaches viveka, to discriminate the I (the real) from what is not I (the unreal) - and thereby wean us away, through careful investigation, from the instinctive (but illusory) attachment / identification with our property, our family and ultimately our body - mind - thoughts - feelings. Once this detachment / disidentification is complete (the ego is dead), then all there is, is the Self, reality.
As Sankara is reported to have written:
The world is illusion.
Brahman alone is real.
Brahman is the world.
venkat,
if Sankara has consciously experienced that logically inconsistent four-leaved text-compendium as essentially correct and consistent perfect harmonic truth one can hardly object against it.
On the other hand - what you say in your last sentence: "Once this detachment / disidentification is complete (the ego is dead), then all there is, is the Self, reality." - sheds equally clarifying light on the subject of discussion.
Thanks for your illuminating comment.
In a comment on one of my videos, 2017-03-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on life as a dream, a friend wrote ‘But the waking dreams are of a long duration of suffering than enjoyment. Dreams of night are not the same kind of ordeal and suffering as the waking dreams. That is the huge difference. Even if the waking state is realistically unreal the effect of suffering is very real’, to which I replied:
It may seem to be so, but remember you are speaking from the perspective of your present dream, which now seems to be waking, and you might have written the same comment in any other dream, because whatever dream we are currently experiencing always seems to be waking. The fact that our current dream seems to be waking, whereas we recognise all past dreams as being dreams, distorts our perspective when we compare this dream with others.
The reason why our current dream always seems to be real, and other dreams are seen to be unreal, is simple. What is actually real is only ourself, but in any dream we always experience ourself as if we were a body, so our current body always seems to be real, and since any such body is part of a world, that whole world seems to be equally real. In other words, we superimpose our own reality on whatever body we currently experience as ourself, and thereby we superimpose it on whatever world that body is a part of.
While dreaming any dream, we experience a body in that dream as ourself, so for the duration of that dream that body and world seem to be real, but as soon as we leave one dream and start another dream, our identification with the body of the previous dream is severed, so it no longer seems to be real, and hence in retrospect we immediately see that it was just a dream, and our new dream seems to be waking.
Therefore our current dream always seems to be more real than any of our other dreams, and hence whatever joys or sufferings we experience in our current dream seem to be more real than those that we experienced in other dreams. Such is the delusive nature of māyā.
Michael,
yes, what you say is certainly correct.
But is it not also certain that we have to do our duty or stand up for ourself even in this maya-world ?
Michael,
"Even if the waking state is realistically unreal the effect of suffering is very real’, to which I replied:
It may seem to be so, but remember you are speaking from the perspective of your present dream, which now seems to be waking, and ...... The fact that our current dream seems to be waking, whereas we recognise all past dreams as being dreams, distorts our perspective when we compare this dream with others."
Are you seriously assuming that the suffering is only a seeming one and that the actual suffering is a case of distorted perspective or of a comparison of past dreams with current ones ?
The deeper and deeper we go into this investigation, the clearer the way will become. But when it becomes completely clear, we will understand that what seemed to be the way, the path, was actually nothing, because what exists is only ourself, the pure self-awareness. In other words, we will find that we never were any ego at all. There never were any problems. There never was any self-ignorance. There was never a moment when we were not aware of ourself as we really are.
But that will all become clear at the end of the journey. At the end of the journey, we will find that we are where we always have been. Bhagavan said that waking up to the state of self-knowledge is like waking up from a dream of wandering or travelling all over the world. When we wake up, we find that we never travelled at all. But while we were dreaming we seemed to be travelling.
So now we seem to be travelling on the spiritual path, this path of self-investigation and self-surrender, but when we reach our destination, we will find that we have never travelled anywhere. We will find that we have always been what we always were – nothing has changed, and nothing has happened. But we have to get there first to see that.
Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 29 July 2018 (2:00 onwards)
Reflections: That is, our final experience will be that of ajata, which means ‘non-born’. It means that our final experience will be that nothing has ever been created, or nothing has ever come into existence even as a seeming reality.
We seem to be making all these efforts to return to our source, to return to our real nature. But if we have never actually left our source, how can we return to our source? If the ego which is making all these efforts is nothing but an illusion, how can any of this ego’s efforts, problems, miseries, desires, attachments and fears be real? All these are just part of our ego’s web of illusions.
So nothing has ever happened. This, according to Bhagavan, will be our ultimate experience.
"...we will find that we never were any ego at all. There never were any problems. There never was any self-ignorance. There was never a moment when we were not aware of ourself as we really are.
But that will all become clear at the end of the journey. At the end of the journey, we will find that we are where we always have been.
When we wake up, we find that we never travelled at all.
...but when we reach our destination, we will find that we have never travelled anywhere. We will find that we have always been what we always were – nothing has changed, and nothing has happened.
But we have to get there first to see that."
Therefore we have to bow to the inevitable and to go through all the ego's problems caused by its ignorance.
- Although there was never a moment when we were not aware of ourself as we really are.
- Although at the end of the journey, we will find that we are where we always have been.
- Although we (will) find that we never travelled at all.
- Although we will find that we have never travelled anywhere.
- Although we will find that we have always been what we always were – nothing has changed, and nothing has happened.
Because we just have to get there first to see that.
Are there any further questions ?
tattva darsanam, you said, “[…] we have to go through all the ego's problems caused by its ignorance.”
Actually we do not have to; if we do vichara/surrender we are not going through any problem - no matter what.
A personal example: I live in an area which currently has a few big wild fires which lessen the quality of air to unhealthy conditions. Two days ago the ozone level went to very unhealthy and (I have a lung condition) faltering away from attending to my self, my mind got all psyched up how my breathing will be affected, imagining trips to the emergency room etc.
Then I “woke up” and realized that I had fallen again to my cunning mind and immediately dropped that story and went back to attending my self ignoring what the mind had to tell me. Since I already allowed my mind to also bring up emotions like anxiety it took a little longer than usual to get settled but then the problem faded away and I calmly could go to sleep.
I left that problem to Bhagavan, it’s up to him to solve any problems, my only job is attending to self. It cannot get more simpler than that.
The more we attend to ourself, the weaker our vishaya-vasanas will become. It is because these vasanas (our desires) have no strength of their own. What gives them the power is the attention we pay to them. So if we attend to thoughts those thoughts will become stronger, but instead if we attend to ourself those thoughts will lose their strength. Some people have obsession or phobias. It is because of their giving excessive attention to whatever they are obsessed about or afraid of.
Most of us don’t have such problems, but even if we observe ourselves, we have certain patterns of thinking. If we think about our problems again and again, they become bigger and bigger. But if we are following the path of self-surrender, we will think, ‘This is not my problem. This is God’s problem, so let him take care of it’. So by cultivating such an attitude, we withdraw our attention from our worries and problems.
What happens in the path of self-surrender, the same thing happens in the path of self-investigation, because they are the same. So whenever any worry arises in our mind, we try and turn our attention back to ourself by investigating ‘who has this worry?’ So this way we ignore our worries, and thus they become weaker and weaker. This is the practical method Bhagavan has given us to avoid being troubled by unpleasant thoughts.
However, some thoughts seem to be quite pleasant. We have happy memories of the past. But we should deal with our peasant thoughts as we deal with our troublesome thoughts, because however pleasant our current situation may be, this is not going to last forever.
Our beloved ones are going to pass away. We are going to pass away one day. So none of the pleasant things we experience in our life is lasting. So rather than attaching too much importance to these pleasures, we should try to turn our attention slowly-slowly back to ourself. Who is feeling happy? Who has good memories of the past? Who is attached to his or her relatives? It is ‘I’, so who is this ‘I’? This is the beauty of this path.
Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 29 July 2018 (0:40 onwards)
Even if [one] remains thinking ‘I, I’, it will take and leave [one] in that place. (Nāṉ Yār?)
Even if one unceasingly remembers that divine name ‘I-I’, it will safely lead one to the source from which thoughts rise, thereby destroying the body-rooted ego. (GVK v716)
Sri Ramana Maharshi's core practice for aspirants is to cling to the first person subject and ignore the second and third person objects, [to cling to second or third persons, sustains the first person ego; refer verse 25 Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu].
But in the two quotes above Sri Ramana Maharshi sanctions clinging to a second person object; in this case the thought I-I-I-I-I. Stating, "it will safely lead one to the source from which thoughts rise, thereby destroying the body-rooted ego."
This contradicts the assertion that when the first person subject clings to a second person object, the ego "grows abundantly" [refer verse 25 Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu].
Secondly, if we are to accept that the first person subject can cling to a second person object (in this case the thought I-I-I-I-I), and thereby, "it will safely lead one to the source from which thoughts rise, thereby destroying the body-rooted ego", then logically other sadhana's involving a first person subject clinging to or examining a second person object, have the possibility of doing the same; given one false object (the thought "I-I-I-I-I") cannot be superior to another false object (a different thought or multiple thoughts).
Disclosure: I only practice vichara and am not looking to change my practice. However I wanted to better understand the points raised above and so decided to post them here.
Anonymous, a few thoughts which came up spontaneously while reading your comment: Firstly, vichara is not repeating “I, I”, that has nothing at all to do with vichara. Secondly, a second person object is not “I-I-I-I-I”, from where or how do you get that idea? It is a very odd statement.
And finally the two statements in bold are incorrect, there is no contradiction and I've read several times your comment and still cannot find where there should be a contradiction by Bhagavan. And with that your logical conclusion of the second bold statement is incorrect too since it is based on the false premise of a non-existing contradiction.
I was wondering what the real motivation is behind your comment and it might be to justify, deduce, declare that other sadhanas than vichara could/would do the same but that is not the case. Since you claim to do vichara, why bother considering other sadhanas or even discuss them? There is nothing to gain by that, they are irrelevant for a devotee of Bhagavan.
By the way, Bhagavan did not sanction clinging to second person objects in those quotes or ever, you do not comprehend from where Bhagavan is coming from Roger.
I say Roger because it was him who made many comments like that obsessing about the statement that vichara is the only practice which can lead to Self-realization. He did not like that at all.
And here again, same topic, just new undigested quotations to apparently reveal a contradiction by Bhagavan. Give it a rest, buddy :)
You may be partly conscious under general anesthesia
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322375.php
Clear implication that Consciousness persists in deep sleep too, as Bhagavan said.
Great link, Sam...thanks.
Anonymous, Bhagavan teaches us in paragraph 5 of Nan Yar?:
What rises in this body as ‘I’, that alone is the mind. If [one] investigates in what place the thought called ‘I’ rises at first in the body, [one] will come to know that [it rises] in the heart [the innermost core of oneself, which is what one essentially is]. That alone is the birthplace of the mind. Even if [one] remains thinking ‘I, I’, it will take and leave [one] in that place.
Why did Bhagavan say, ‘Even if [one] remains thinking ‘I, I’, it will take and leave [one] in that place?’ It is true that the thought ‘I’ is the second person, and therefore attending to the ‘I, I’ like a mantra cannot directly take us to our heart.
However, Bhagavan asks us to repeat this mantra only if we are not able to understand what self-attention is? Many used to ask Bhagavan, ‘Bhagavan, where is the ‘I’ that I should attend to? I have tried but I am not able to do it’, or something to this effect. Bhagavan used to patiently explain to them that self-investigation means turning one’s attention within to face the ever-present ‘I’. However, if people were still confused, he used to say, ‘Ok, just go on repeating ‘I, I, I’, it will do its work’.
Why did he say so? Michael has explained this. It is because if we say ‘apple’, immediately an image of an apple comes to our mind. Likewise, if we repeat ‘I, I’ it will automatically draw our attention towards ourself, because ‘I’ is only within. However, as you rightly imply, by repeating ‘I, I’ we can merge back within. So once we have repeated this for some time, we should try and let go of such repetition by trying to cling to our inner consciousness, our real thoughtless ‘I’. So repeating ‘I, I’ can take and leave us in our heart in an indirect way, but, nevertheless, such repetition may be useful for some, at least in the initial stages.
Moreover, many are used to repeating some mantra, like ‘Rama, Rama, Rama’, or some other such mantra. Bhagavan didn’t discourage this, but if someone asked him ‘what is the best and most effective mantra?’, Bhagavan would say ‘repeat I, I,…’. It is because such repetition does not allow our mind to move far away from ourself. Suppose if we repeat ‘Rama, Rama’, our attention moves away towards the name or form of Rama, and Rama is something other than ‘I’.
So if we are not capable to directly attending to ‘I’, we can repeat ‘I, I, I’, because it is better than attending to any other second and third person objects. However, we have to leave even this repetition and turn within to find out, as Bhagavan says, ‘in what place the thought called ‘I’ rises at first in the body’. Only such self-investigation will enable us to reach our destination.
Typo:
However, as you rightly imply, by repeating ‘I, I’ we cannot merge back within.
In a long comment on one of my videos, 2018-07-14 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 8, a friend argued against dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda and ēka-jīva-vāda, saying that they make absolutely no sense at all because ‘All of you as Michael James, the earth, the world and the infinite Universe have existed all along, will exist and will continue to exist and does not depend a hoot on my coming into existence’ and ‘If I die now all of you as sentient beings will still continue to exist in this world and will not disappear from the world because of my death’, to which I replied:
When you dream you see a world filled with countless people, other creatures, planets, stars and so on, just like the world you see now, and while you are dreaming it seems to you to be just as real as this world now seems to be. What happens to all those people, other creatures, planets and stars when you cease dreaming that dream? Do they continue to exist independent of your perception of them?
If our present state is just a dream, then this vast universe with all the people, other creatures, planets and stars that it contains do not exist independent of our perception of them. This is the meaning of dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda (the contention that perception is the sole cause of creation).
In a dream there are many people and other sentient beings, but how many perceivers are there? All those other people and sentient beings seem to be perceivers so long as we are dreaming, but when we wake up we recognise that we, the dreamer, were the only one perceiving that dream world and those dream people and other sentient beings. Likewise, if our present state is just a dream of ours, then we are the only one who actually perceives anything. This is the meaning of ēka-jīva-vāda (solipsism or the contention that there is only one perceiver).
Thank you for your reply Sanjay.
Yes, as you rightly point out, repeating I-I-I-I-I is an approach for those unable or unwilling to undertake vichara.
Sri Ramana Maharshi's quotes in my first post are also an admission that attention to a second person object, in this case I-I-I-I-I, will resolve itself into the first person subject, and ultimately Self; "it will safely lead one to the source from which thoughts rise, thereby destroying the body-rooted ego."
As stated in my first post, this then raises the question that if one false object (the thought "I-I-I-I-I") can resolve into the first person, then feasibly other false objects (a different thought or multiple thoughts) can also. To this you reply, "if we repeat ‘Rama, Rama’, our attention moves away towards the name or form of Rama, and Rama is something other than ‘I’ ".
Perhaps you are right clinging only to the second person I-I-I-I-I can resolve into the first person. Clinging to all other second person objects lead one astray. I do not know!
Nevertheless, I concede that ultimately all must come to cling to the first person, as stated by Maharshi. And the aspirant either clings directly to that first person, or indirectly via a second person (for example, I-I-I-I-I). But what that second person need be is contentious.
In reply to 3 August 2018 at 10:39
Michael, I am convinced of your answer and also of the other articles that deal with this subject, but every time I have something that holds me back from accepting it completely.
I say to myself since I read this article I must be the creator of all the people who come on this blog, all the answers that are made by you and so something in me can not manage to join. And I'm sure everyone says the same thing.
I can not (even if I have total confidence in what Ramana says) tell me that I am the only creator of all this mess.
And of course I am aware that to have the answer is to do the investigation (atma-vicara).
The paradox of all is that I will never have the answer, because once in the state of the complete destruction of the ego (manonasa) there will be no one to really say what happened .. .
Alas these thoughts come every day to put a little doubt ....
And as I had written to you once if I seem to exist other people can also seem to exist and your answer was satisfactory but the doubt is always there .... until the moment of manonasa ......
Jacques Franck
Continuing from my previous post (3 August 2018 at 11:23),
"But what that second person need be is contentious."
Sanjay wrote:
Suppose if we repeat ‘Rama, Rama’, our attention moves away towards the name or form of Rama, and Rama is something other than ‘I’.
Sri Ramana Maharshi has unequivocally stated that attention to the second person, that is through the repetition of I-I-I-I-I, the aspirant can resolve into first person absorption (refer post, 3 August 2018 at 03:44).
And in verse 659 of GVK (Om and James), Maharshi again sanctions clinging to second person objects, this time not via repeating I-I-I-I-I, but via worshiping the "form of their beloved God"; perhaps the 'Rama, Rama' referred to by Sanjay.
In so doing the aspirant "will gradually lose their delusion [towards names and forms and action]" (presumably via resolving into first person absorption) and "finally attain the Supreme Self".
Again, if the aspirant is able, directly hold the first person. But for those who are unable, or whom even declare that Maharshi's vichara is not the only way, actually Maharshi admits that clinging to second person objects (some objects at least), will resolve into the first person subject, and ultimately Self.
Let those who have become a prey to the delusion of action [karma], being unable to follow the original path of the light of Self, existence-consciousness, worship the form of their beloved God. Then they will gradually lose their delusion [towards names and forms and action] and finally [by the Grace of God or Guru] attain the Supreme Self. (GVK v659)
Anonymous, Bhagavan has unequivocally taught us that we should try to cling only to the first person, which is our ego, until the very last trace of our ego is destroyed. If this first person vanishes, all the second and third persons and everything else will vanish along with it. However, if for some reason we are not able to hold on to the first person, we should try to hold on to those second and third person objects which remind us of the first person (or to be more accurate, which remind us of the reality of the first person).
So I think there are three objects which we can safely hold on to if the need so arises. These three objects are the word or thought ‘I’, the name'Ramana' and the name 'Arunachala'. Bhagavan has explicitly approved the japa of ‘I, I’ and of Arunachala, and since Bhagavan is our guru, we can do the japa of his name if and when we feel like doing so.
Bhagavan once told Amritanatha Yati that Arunachala Ramana is nothing but the absolute consciousness which shines in the heart of all jivas. Bhagavan also explained that in order to reach Arunachala Ramana, one should melt in love for him by diving within the inmost recess of one’s heart. If we do so, Arunachala Ramana will reveal its true nature to us, and its true nature is nothing but pure consciousness.
Therefore whether we repeat ‘I, I’ or ‘Ramana, Ramana’ or ‘Arunchala, Arunachala’, we should try to remember that these names represent ourself - our pure consciousness. In other words, to make full use of such repetitions, we should try to keep a part of our attention on ourself, the real form of Bhagavan.
However, it should be obvious to us that no amount of japa of even the name of Bhagavan will enable us to experience ourself as we actually are, because the real Bhagavan is beyond all names and forms. He is the aadhara, the foundation, of all the names and forms. So in order to experience him as he really is, we have to turn within leaving our attachment to all names and forms.
According to Sadhu Om, when Bhagavan said to "think of I,I" he meant "to attend to the source where I,I shines" what is the practice of vichara.
When Bhagavan said that repeating the word "I" mentally will lead to Self then that was in the same category when he said that many other practices will lead to Self. However, at the end it must be vichara what will finalize that realization and NO OTHER practice. Nothing else can do that!
Eventually that has to be accepted Roger/Anonymous.
By the way, I am to 90% convinced that the "I,I" Anonymous is indeed old pal Roger Isaacs. The comments including certain terms and the whole agenda of that Bhagavan acknowledged the validity of other practices than vichara was an old pet peeve of his and actually only HIS pet peeve :)
As it already was said years and months ago, Bhagavan suggested practices according to the maturity of the questioner but vichara/surrender (besides summa iru what most people can't do) was his main and ideal suggestion.
For me this whole topic chewed up again is quite redundant.
Re. Michael's last comment, even Major Chadwick couldn't believe that topic and he asserted too that when he goes to sleep that the world must still exist while he was in deep sleep. But Bhagavan disagreed and did not alter his statement.
I have no problem to accept that, in fact it is an incentive for surrender and to be dispassionate about this phenomenal world.
Thank you for your reply Sanjay. It seems that you and I are fairly well on the same page.
Salazar, friend, you are actually preaching to the converted but do not realise it.
To summarise my three posts:
[1] clinging to the first person subject is the only "doorway" to SELF.
Sri Ramana Maharshi called this practice vichara. Other traditions use other names, Zen's shikantaza is a good example.
(*incidentally Michael has posted an entry on the subject of shikantaza click here)
[2] Sri Ramana Maharshi sanctions at least some forms of second person absorption, conceding that this second person absorption can resolve into first person absorption.
[3] Given Point 2, this begs the question, "what other second person absorptions resolve into first person absorption?" Perhaps there are other practices within other traditions, perhaps there are none!
I am not invested in a need for there to be. Rather, my 3 previous post have been an exercise in my own critical thinking, as applied to the exceptional Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi.
June 10, 1962
Questioner: When there is no `I', what is it that looks and listens?
Krishnamurti: You see, this becomes a theoretical question. When you die to everything you have known, when all your yesterdays and all your tomorrows are gone, and also the present in the sense of psychological time, then what is there? How can I answer you? Verbally I can say there is something immense, something tremendously alive; but that will have no meaning at all. I think the question really is: is it possible to eliminate the `I'? If you go deeply into that, you will answer your own question.
Questioner: I am contaminated by society. How am I to be free of that contamination?
Krishnamurti: Surely, the question is not how to be free of that contamination, for then you merely create another conflict, another problem. The `I' is not contaminated by society; it is the contamination. The `I' is a thing that has been put together through conflict, through envy, through ambition and the desire for power, through agony, guilt, despair. And is it possible for that `I' to dissolve itself without conflict?
These are not theoretical or theological questions. If one is at all serious about understanding oneself one sees that any effort to dissolve the `I' has a motive; it is the result of a reaction, and therefore still part of the `I'. So what is to be done? One can see the fact and not do a thing about it. The fact is that every thought, every feeling is the result of society with its ambitions, its envies, its greeds; and this whole process is the `I'. The very act of seeing this process in its entirety, is its dissipation; you do not have to make an effort to dissipate it. To see something poisonous is to leave it alone.
Anonymous,
Apropos the following statement from your comment with the timestamp 03 August 2018 at 11:39:
Sri Ramana Maharshi's quotes in my first post are also an admission that attention to a second person object, in this case I-I-I-I-I, will resolve itself into the first person subject, and ultimately Self; "it will safely lead one to the source from which thoughts rise, thereby destroying the body-rooted ego."
The translation of that section from para 5 of Nan Yar has been clarified by Michael as meaning 'I am I' instead of the ambiguous 'I-I' (the 'am' is implicit in the Tamil 'Nan-Nan'). 'I am I' is a thought that encourages us to experience with more clarity the consciousness of our own being implicit in our awareness of phenomena; 'I-I' seems like a mantra to be repeated mentally/verbally.
This being the case, it follows that thinking 'I am I' is the same as attending to the consciousness of our own being. Therefore, the Maharishi has not sanctioned attention to a second person object as a means to destroy the body-rooted ego, but has actually repeated (in different words) that atma vichara is the means to destroy the body-rooted ego.
Apropos point 2 of your comment with the timestamp 04 August 2018 at 01:03:
[2] Sri Ramana Maharshi sanctions at least some forms of second person absorption, conceding that this second person absorption can resolve into first person absorption.
It is not the second person absorption, but the extent of one-pointedness in our attention to a particular second person that facilitates atma-vichara. As per para 9 of Nan Yar: "For the mind which has gained one-pointedness when thoughts shrink and shrink [that is, which has gained one-pointedness due to the progressive reduction of its thoughts] and which has thereby gained strength, ātma-vicāra [self-investigation, which is the state of self-attentive being] will be easily accomplished."
Further, not all second person absorption resolve into atma vichara, as you rightly doubted:
[3] Given Point 2, this begs the question, "what other second person absorptions resolve into first person absorption?" Perhaps there are other practices within other traditions, perhaps there are none!
The Maharishi states in Updesha Undiyar that action (whether through mind, speech or body) done for the love of God and offering its fruits to God, will purify the mind and show the way to liberation. He further grades actions according to their efficacy in purifying our minds in the same poem.
Attention is like a tool, and the mind is the wielder of this tool. Second person absorption develops our capacity of one-pointed attention. One-pointed attention is like a sharp tool. The purer the mind, the more will it use this sharp tool to experience what it really is.
To summarise, it is the purity/clarity of mind developed consequent upon second person attention performed with devotion/love, that directs our capacity of one-pointed attention into first person absorption.
Thank you for your reply Aseem. We are mostly in agreeance it seems.
Accept that thinking is never "attending to the consciousness of our own being".
"This being the case, it follows that thinking 'I am I' is the same as attending to the consciousness of our own being. Therefore, the Maharishi has not sanctioned attention to a second person object as a means to destroy the body-rooted ego, but has actually repeated (in different words) that atma vichara is the means to destroy the body-rooted ego."
Thus, to advise one to think "I am I" is to sanction a form of second person absorption. And it is conceded that this second person absorption can resolve into first person absorption; "....it will safely lead one to the source from which thoughts rise, thereby destroying the body-rooted ego." (GVK v716)
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 22
This world of empty names and forms, which are the imagination of the five senses and an appearance in the pure supreme self, should be understood to be the mysterious play of maya, the mind, which rises as if real from self, sat-chit.
Reflections: Bhagavan has explained this point in verse 6 of Ulladu Narpadu:
The world is a form of five sense-impressions, not anything else. Those five sense-impressions are impressions to the five sense organs. Since the mind alone perceives the world by way of the five sense organs, say, is there a world besides the mind?
Anonymous,
In the paragraph previous to the one that you have quoted, I had qualified " thinking 'I am I' " and contrasted it with the mantra-like 'I-I' as follows: 'I am I' is a thought that encourages us to experience with more clarity the consciousness of our own being implicit in our awareness of phenomena; 'I-I' seems like a mantra to be repeated mentally/verbally.
It was only in this context that I wrote "thinking 'I am I' is the same as attending to the consciousness of our own being". That statement did not mean nor imply that thinking 'I am I' is a direct means to destroy the ego, but stated explicitly that thinking 'I am I' encourages us to practice the means to destroy the ego.
Re GVK v716, "unceasingly remember that divine name ‘I am I’" can either mean literally trying to remember and repeat 'I am I' as a divine name, or can mean unceasingly remembering what 'I am I' denotes - i.e, unceasingly trying to bring our attention back to the consciousness of our own being. Only the latter practice "will safely lead one to the source from which thoughts rise, thereby destroying the body-rooted ego"; the former practice may be an aid to self-attention and may purify and quieten our minds. A pure mind may subsequently direct its attention back onto itself. So it is only in this sense that second person absorption can resolve into first person absorption.
I-I-I-I-I resonates eternally within the Heart, not I am I.
As such, I strongly doubt Sri Ramana Maharshi ever spoke or implied repeat 'I am I'; despite that one can construe this from Tamil, as you claim.
On Being Still
http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.com/2008/06/yes-but-what-do-i-do.html
While scrolling down David Godman’s blog, I found the following on the topic of being still.
Here is a Thayumanavar verse (‘Udal Poyyuravu’, verse 52) on this topic that Bhagavan was fond of quoting:
Bliss will arise if you remain still.
Why, little sir, this involvement still
with yoga, whose nature is delusion?
Will [this bliss] arise
through your own objective knowledge?
You need not reply,
you who are addicted to ‘doing’!
You little baby, you!
Reflections: I think this a very a powerful reminder to remain still. As Bhagavan once said, ‘Your duty is to be, not to be this or that’. One may ask, ‘Is there any difference between being still and practising self-investigation?’ The answer is ‘No, there is no difference’. These are just two ways to describe the same practice of being still.
Now, let us reflect on what Thayumanavar says in the verse quoted above. I will take one sentence of the verse at a time and try to reflect on it:
Bliss will arise if you remain still.
What is real bliss or happiness? It is our true nature, and we can experience our true nature if and when we are able to remain still, and if we are absolutely still we will drown in bliss.
Why, little sir, this involvement still with yoga, whose nature is delusion?>
We should remain still without even a little stir – that is, we should try to go deeper and deeper into the ocean of self in order to experience our innate innermost stillness. Why does Thayumanavar imply that we should not get involved in practices such as yoga? It is because yoga means union, but if there is only one without the other, where is the question of any union? So sages like Bhagavan and Thayumanavar say that practices other than being still is a delusion.
Will [this bliss] arise through your own objective knowledge?
Bliss can only arise if we turn towards our subject, leaving behind all our objective knowledge. Bhagavan has unequivocally said that all objective knowledge in ignorance. Why? It is because such objective knowledge is for the ego, and since this ego is self-ignorance, whatever this ego projects and experiences is also nothing but an extension of ignorance.
You need not reply, you who are addicted to ‘doing’! You little baby, you!
If we are addicted to doing, which most of us sadly are, we are like little babies in the spiritual context. As Bhagavan says in Upadesa Undiyar, no action can ever give us liberation. In fact, actions compel us to do similar actions again and again, and thus we are pushed deeper and deeper into this samsara (the endless cycle of birth and death).
So 'Bliss will arise if you remain still' - there can be no doubt about this.
UG Krishnamurti on Ramana Maharshi
(from the book The Mystique of Enlightenment -
http://remembering-ug.blogspot.com/2012/01/january-27th-2012.html)
You see, there are so many flowers there -- look at them! Each flower is unique in its own way. Nature's purpose seems to be (I cannot make any definitive statement) to create flowers like that, human flowers like that.
We have only a handful of flowers, which you can count on your fingers: Ramana Maharshi in recent times, Sri Ramakrishna, some other people. Not the claimants we have in our midst today, not the gurus -- I am not talking about them. It is amazing -- that man who sat there at Tiruvannamalai [Ramana Maharshi] -- his impact on the West is much more than all these gurus put together -- very strange, you understand? He has had a tremendous impact on the totality of human consciousness -- that man living in one corner, you understand?
I visited an industrialist in Paris. He is not at all interested in religious matters, much less in India; he is anti-Indian. (Laughs) So, I saw his [Ramana Maharshi's] photo there -- "Why do you have this photo?" He said "I like the face. I don't know anything about him. I'm not even interested in reading his books. I like the photo, so it's there. I'm not interested in anything about him."
Maybe such an individual can (I can't say 'can') help himself and help the world. Maybe.
Thank you for the link D Samarender Reddy.
All start with "doing stillness". Years later we realise that our very nature is Stillness, we need no longer do stillness, simply remain as you are, adding nothing....and all vasanas are washed off.
But typically we ask "Who am I?" or try clinging to 'I' for years first.
Is is it the consensus at this website that Talks with Ramana Maharshi was not verified and approved by the Maharshi?
I ask because V.Ganesan assures us, on page 211 of Ramana Periya Puranam, that it was verified and approved by Bhagavan himself.
"Munagala kept a record of whatever he interpreted. He would then take the notebook to Bhagavan, who would edit or correct what had been written. That is how we have Talks with Ramana Maharshi. I have seen the original manuscript myself, in the form of note books, with Bhagavan's corrections. I also had the honour of typing some of those handwritten manuscripts along with devotees like Typist Kittu and Ramamani."
Nishta, ‘doing stillness’ may not be an accurate term to describe our practice of trying to be still. Yes, we do need effort to remain still, but such trying is ‘being still’ and not ‘doing still’. ‘Doing’ means an action – it means a movement of our attention away from ourself. However, ‘stillness’ means cessation of our mental activities.
As Bhagavan has taught us, we can be still only by attending to ourself. It is only by self-attentiveness that we (that is, our mind or ego) can remain still.
Bhagavan’s teachings are like the sparks from the fire of jnana…
Bhagavan used to say that Arunachala is the fire jnana. That is if we stay near the hill, or regularly go around it, or even think of it from afar, it will start burning our ego. That means, our proximity to Arunachala will start destroying our vishaya-vasanas, and we may not even be consciously aware of it. Such closeness with the hill will give us an inner clarity, as Michael often tells us. We need not necessarily have faith in the power of Arunachala. Like a fire will burn us if we go near it, likewise, Arunachala will do its work even if we do not have faith in it.
Bhagavan’s teachings are also like the sparks from this fire of jnana. If we go on reading and reflecting on his teachings, it will start destroying our vishaya-vasanas. The more we read and reflect on his teachings, the more inner clarity we will develop. Such clarity will give us more and more love to turn within and put Bhagavan’s teachings to practice.
Our reading (even listening to Michael’s videos) and reflecting on Bhagavan’s teachings is akin to a moth going round and round a flame. We may not yet have sufficient love to go very near the flame to be burnt by it. But at least by going round and round, we are preparing ourself for our final surrender. We are being tested by Bhagavan. We can pass his test only if we muster up enough courage and go right into the flame and thereby be burnt by it.
Bhagavan is the huge fire of jnana, and he exists in our heart as pure-awareness. One wholehearted step towards this flame, and our ego will disappear forever and become one with this fire. Until then, at least, we should go round and round this flame by reading and reflecting on Bhagavan’s teachings.
According to Michael, if we are able to understand verse 25 of Ulladu Narpadu, we can understand the entire advaita-vedanta. If we can understand and assimilate all the implications of this verse, not only Bhagavan’s teachings but the entire vedanta will be on our fingertips. Bhagavan teaches us in this verse:
Grasping form the formless phantom-ego comes into existence; grasping form it stands; grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly; leaving form, it grasps form. If it seeks, it will take flight. Investigate.
When Bhagavan says, ‘Grasping form the formless phantom-ego comes into existence; grasping form it stands; grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly; leaving form, it grasps form’, what does Bhagavan mean by the term ‘form’? When we begin to understand Bhagavan’s teachings, we take the word ‘form’ to mean the form of our body. However, the word ‘form’ does not just refer to our body, it refers to all types of forms. Michael has made this clear in the following extract taken from his video filmed on 3 June 2017 (0:44 to 0:46):
That which is unlimited can see only that which is unlimited. Every form is a limitation, so every form has an extent. There is no such thing as an infinite form. The meaning of the term implies ‘form’ implies something that is in some way limited. So form can be a physical form or a mental form or an emotional form. Every form is something within limits.
(end of the extract)
So in the context of Bhagavan’s teachings, the term ‘form’ does not mean just a physical form, even though the body is the first form we grasp. The term ‘form’ includes all phenomena, it includes anything that appears and disappears. As Michael says, a form could be physical or mental or emotion or whatever. Our every idea, every emotion and every thought is a form, because they exist within a certain extent of time and within a certain extent of our mental space. All forms have a beginning and an end. What is formless is only ourself, because we are the infinite awareness.
So when we rise as this ego, we do so by grasping a body as ourself. But we do not stop there. Through the form of this body, we unceasingly grasp other physical, mental and emotional forms, and such non-stop grasping keeps our ego in business.
But how does our ego grasps forms? It grasps them by being aware of them. It grasps them by projecting and being aware of them, and such projection and being aware of them happen simultaneously. So we can understand the principle of drsti-srsti vada if we understand verse 25 (and also verse 26) of Ulladu Narpadu.
We create and experience all forms only within our mind. So nothing exists when we are not experiencing them. I think this is the essence of advaita-vedanta. So if we do not rise and project forms, there will be no forms for us to experience. So when our ego is destroyed, our final experience will be that of advaita (infinite, limitless and eternal oneness).
Michael,
your comment of 3 August 2018 at 10:39,
did you leave out intentionally the last paragraph of your video-reply to the friend (Cristoval J.A.) who argued against dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda and ēka-jīva-vāda, saying that they make absolutely no sense at all because ‘All of you as Michael James, the earth, the world and the infinite Universe have existed all along, will exist and will continue to exist and does not depend a hoot on my coming into existence’ ...in your comment ?
That paragraph was as follows:
"Therefore the questions we need to consider are: Is this state a dream or not? Does anything we perceive exist independent of our perception of it? How can we know for certain that anything we perceive exists independent of our perception of it? We each have to find our own answers to these questions, because the testimony or beliefs of other people cannot help us to answer them, since if nothing perceived exists independent of our perception of it, those other people and their testimony and beliefs do not exist independent of our perception of them."
Salazar,
thanks for your reply of 2 August 2018 at 15:52.
Hopefully the wild fires in your residential area could have been under control and your lung condition did not deteriorate. I will keep my fingers crossed for you.
Actually placing your trust unconditionally in Bhagavan set a good example of vichara/surrender.
Would you please describe what the significance of "Bhagavan" is for you ?
When the ego looks in the direction of the so-called jnani, it tends to expect a "certain" personality and behaviour to come with Self-realisation. But in fact personality and behaviour are scripted and are unrelated to jnana.
As such personality and behaviour are no measure of who is or isn’t a jnani, nor are they a measure of your own unfolding.
If God is the infinite whole and if he is love, there cannot be any love other than God. So all the manifestations of love we see in this world are emanating from the love which is God. We love our family, we love our friends, we love material objects which seem to give us pleasure, but that feeling of love in us is not love in its pure form. It is the limited expression of the love that exists within us. These are impure forms of love, which obviously are not God in its pure form.
Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 3 June 2017 (0:23 onwards)
Reflections: In other words, we love or desire things because our very nature is love. As we cannot stop being our true nature, so also we cannot stop loving or desiring things. However, if we love things other than ourself, that is a limited expression of our true nature. Why? It is because we are infinite love, but when we love a person or a thing, we are limiting our love to that person or thing.
So in order to experience pure and infinite love, we need to merge back into our true self. Then we will become one with love, and infinite love is also infinite happiness.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 23
The realised who do not know anything as being other than self, which is absolute consciousness, will not say that the world, which has no existence in the view of the supreme brahman, is real.
Reflections: However, when we rise as the ego and project a world, we also imagine a God which is other than ourself and other than this world. Such a God is called Ishvara (the supreme ruling power). Though in the view of brahman there is no world, in the view of Ishvara we have to assume that there is a world and there are also many jivas. Thus in the view of the jiva there is a Ishvara and a world, and in the view of Ishvara there are many jivas and a world.
When we pray to God – like Bhagavan prayed to Arunachala – it is implied that there is a God which is listening to our prayers, otherwise why should we pray to a God who cannot listen to anything? Likewise, when God seems to fulfil our prayers, it is again implied that God can see and listen to us, otherwise how can he fulfil our wishes?
Once someone asked Bhagavan to the effect, ‘Bhagavan, can we to talk to God?’ Bhagavan replied ‘Why not? If we can talk to each other, why can’t we talk to God? Is God deaf?’ However, Bhagavan also clarified that in order to talk to God we need purity of heart and mind. It is said that sages like Sri Ramakrishna talked to God as if God was right there in front of those sages.
However, if we do not rise as this ego there is no God or world apart from us. When we do not rise as the ego, we are one with the ever-existing God. Bhagavan makes this clear in verse 25 of Upadesa Undiyar:
Knowing [or being aware of] oneself leaving aside adjuncts is itself knowing God, because [he] shines as oneself.
hearing Muruganar, GVK verse 23,
"The realised who do not know anything as being other than self, which is absolute consciousness, will not say that the world, which has no existence in the view of the supreme brahman, is real."
Because I am actually not in the position to maintain that I do not know anything as being other than self, which is absolute consciousness, I would urgently like to press/shake such a realised one's hand - and become with this enthusiastic and ecstatic.
Is that possible for me, being a rather ignorant stray dog roaming across the fields ?
tattva darsanam, you asked about the significance of Bhagavan for me. It seems like an odd question asked on a blog frequented by devotees of Bhagavan. I suppose at least the majority here consider themselves as devotees of Bhagavan.
I believe that being a devotee describes adequately the significance of Bhagavan. If you have something else or more specific in mind please elaborate.
Salazar,
it is indeed an odd question, and more specific: I thought Bhagavan is the well-known master or guru Ramana Maharishi of Tiruvannamalai or Arunachala Hill (1879-1950).
Reading some comments of this blog I somehow have the impression that the sphere of influence of "Bhagavan" cannot be restricted to the South Indian area. So who and what else is Bhagavan ? If you are not interested to answer my quite unsophisticated question I do not take that amiss.
tattva darsanam, greetings
If I may jump in to your question (Salazar, with your permission…)
"So who and what else is Bhagavan ?”
• For many many many people Bhagavan simply doesn't mean anything. They never heard that name, or seen any image of him.
• For many many people Bhagavan is just a person born in India, usually related with an old photograph of a kind old man, a middle age half-naked man or an intense gazing young boy staring at the camera.
• For many people He is a saint to be revered with daily pujas, repeating his name and/or worshiping his image.
• For some people He is a teacher of Vedanta, and for others is a teacher of Advaita Vedanta, who taught by example through the means of compassionate actions, talks, writings, poems, songs but most important, silence.
• For a few, Bhagavan is the dream figure that embodying the Self, gives us dreamers the opportunity to wake up. The lion that wakes up the elephant from his dream.
• For "I" He is "I". Oneself. Brahman.
The different "Bhagavans" relate to us in the same way we see and experience ourselves in relation to our own body, mind and self.
A body sees only bodies, worlds, objects of different kind.
A mind feels emotions, sees thoughts and concepts, day-dreams and dreams with dream-bodies, dream-worlds, dream-objets and dream-thoughts of different kinds.
Self only knows Self.
Which Bhagavan do I relate most?…
tattva darsanam, I’d not say that this is an unsophisticated question.
Who and what else is Bhagavan? The simplest answer is: Bhagavan is Sri Ramana as you stated in your previous comment. How well known is he?
Three years ago I was on a plane flying from San Francisco to London and my neighbor happened to be a young Indian (around 30) from Chennai. He was well educated and a pleasure to talk to and he told me that he was on his way home, catching a connection to Chennai in Heathrow. Eventually I mentioned Tiruvannamalai which he of course knew and then I mentioned Ramana Maharshi. Surprisingly he was referring to someone alive with that name (?) and when I told him that he’d died in 1950 he had no clue who that person was.
That can happen of course anywhere, for some reason I assumed that most if not all in Tamil Nadu would know of Bhagavan. Like as anybody knows of Jesus Christ in the Western world.
That goes along the comment by mouna, aka Carlos.
On the other hand, go to any spiritual center in the Western world and anybody knows of Bhagavan and at least consider him as a major player ;) and he is often quoted by many even when it often seems that they have not grasped Bhagavan’s main message of summa iru.
What is Bhagavan? Again mouna covered what is to say in conceptual language. For me what he is can’t be put into words. Since I take my body for real Bhagavan is my anchor and polestar, pure wisdom and pure grace. I bow at his feet well remembering the story of the lady who always wanted to touch Bhagavan’s feet and he reminded her of that what is beyond feet. I can go on but there are things which better remain unspoken.
Hopefully I could give you a satisfying answer.
Carlos Grasso,
greetings, hope your place is not again affected by the present California forest fires.
Many thanks for your beautiful six-storey list of different "Bhagavans".
As you say it depends entirely on our point of view or frame of mind what we see in Bhagavan. It is obviously impossible to separate "Bhagavan" from the supreme self or Lord Siva-Arunachala himself.
Salazar,
thank you for your explanation of your view of Bhagavan's true feet which are beyond his bodily feet.
Are we not fortunate to bow to the radiance of his universal pure grace ?
Salazar, while referring to a young Indian whom you met on a flight to London and who was not aware of Sri Ramana Maharshi, you wrote: ‘[…] for some reason I assumed that most if not all in Tamil Nadu would know of Bhagavan. Like as anybody knows of Jesus Christ in the Western world’.
We in India are extremely fortunate because we are the centre of spirituality. I think the best of spirituality has emanated from the Indian subcontinent. We have had in our midst Bhagavan Ramana, Bhagavan Ramakrishna, Gautama Buddha, Sri Sankara and so on. We have Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, Brahma-sutras and such sublime texts. We have had countless poet-saints in the past and these may be still there scattered here and there.
However, in spite of such an unmatched legacy, there are few to here who want to wholeheartedly follow these saints and texts. So it is no wonder that that young man was not aware of Bhagavan Ramana even though he was from Chennai. By the way, Chennai is the largest big city near Tiruvannamalai.
Presently in our midst, there are countless of ‘swamis’, ‘gurus’ and the self-proclaimed ‘enlightened beings’. So even if people come to know about Bhagavan, they think that he is just like one of these ‘swamis’. Thus very few are able to understand Bhagavan’s uniqueness and greatness. He is para-brahman itself who has appeared before us as if simply to tell us:
Enough, you have had enough of this world, and now the time has come to return to your home. So turn within, go to your true residing place and be in eternal rest. What have you gained by all your wanderings in this world except miseries, dissatisfaction and unhappiness? So leave everything and follow me, and I will take you to a place from where there is no return to this miserable world.
I think very few are listening to Bhagavan, at least here in India. I do not know the scene outside India, but I believe there will be very takers for his pure teachings even there. His teachings are extremely simple but at the same time extremely radical, and therefore very few will be attracted to it. However, those who have understood Bhagavan and his teachings, even to a limited extent, will not look beyond his teachings. This is for sure.
Friend: In Jainism you can commit suicide in a ritualistic way. I think this can be practised only if they become very old and they will die anyway. I believe friends gather around them and are there with the person who is dying (I think they fast till death) to share the experience. It is a loving experience.
Michael: Well, the culprit is not the body. When we are committing suicide, the body is dying – it is the body that we are killing. However, the body is innocent. If you have done something to hurt me, I should come and beat you and not beat your chair. So Bhagavan said punishing the body is like punishing the chair on which the criminal is sitting.
Friend: But Jains are not punishing the body.
Michael: But they are still separating themselves from the body. One day we will all die when we will be separated from our body, but the body is not the root of the problem. When one body dies – that is, when one dream comes to an end, we begin to dream another dream. So whatever body we take to be ourself is just a mental projection.
Who is it that projects this body and says, ‘this body is I’? That is the ego. That is what we have to kill. The body is going to come to an end one day. We should let it go in its own time. Bhagavan’s whole teaching focuses on one thing and one thing alone, which is the ego. The root of all problems is the ego. That is what we should concentrate on dealing with. That is what we need to kill.
How to kill the ego? Bhagavan says that first, we need to see whether there is an ego in the first place. If we look for it, it disappears – that is, we find that there is no such thing as the ego. If we look at ourself to see what we actually are, we will see that we are infinite pure-awareness and that we never were this ego. Then in effect, that ego is dead – actually, it is known that it never existed in the first place.
The ego is nothing but a wrong awareness of ourself, a mistaken awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are. When we are aware of ourself as we actually are, then there is no ego and there never was actually an ego.
Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 10 June 2017 (0:42 – 0:51)
Sanjay Lohia,
even in Tiruvannamalai once (probably at my first visit in the year 2000) I was asked on the street by an middle-aged man (Indian from the state of Andhra Pradesh) : Why are so many foreigners here in Tiruvannamalai ? I told him quite proudly that I for instance came because of Ramana Maharshi and that I particularly intensely feel the powerful vibration of the Arunachala Hill. The questioner shaked his head somehow uncomprehendingly. Astonished I continued walking in direction of Arunachaleshwarar Temple...
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 24
O man, like a parrot waiting expectantly for the silk-cotton fruit to ripen, you persist in your sufferings, believing this world appearance to be real and enjoyable; if the world is real simply because it appears to your senses, then a mirage would be water.
Note: The fruit of a silk-cotton tree always remains green, not turning colour even after ripening; the parrot meanwhile waits expectantly, hoping to eat it when it changes colour, but is finally disappointed when it bursts, scattering its hairy seeds.
Reflections: Bhagavan has made it clear in Nan Yar? and other places that what is real is only atma-svarupa, and that the ego, world and God are mere appearances in atma-svarupa. These appearances are like water in a mirage. That is, when we see water in a mirage, it is just an optical illusion. There is no water there – in fact, there never was any water there. Likewise, anything called 'world' simply does not exist, even though it may seem to exist in our present deluded view.
We can take another example. When we look up at the sky, we see that the sky is blue. However, the sky is just an empty space, and therefore the blueness we see is another optical illusion. Likewise, our dream world seems to be solid and real as long as we are dreaming, but when we wake up we realise that the dream world was just our mental projection.
Bhagavan says that this current world is nothing but another dream. That is, there is nothing solid or physical about this seemingly physical world. Everything is just our mental projection. Who projects this world? It is our ego, but when we look at this ego to see what it is, it is nowhere to be found. If our ego is ‘killed’, all our mental projections will also stop, and we will experience ourself as we actually are.
Amai Parai, those of us who are practising some sort of spiritual discipline may consider worldly people we around us as fools. Likewise, in the view of these worldly people, we may be fools. However, as long as we experience ourself as this ego, we are all fools. That is, there is no essential difference between so-called ‘worldly-people’ and so-called ‘spiritual people’. As long as we take ourself to be a body, we are all sailing in the same boat.
Sanjay Lohia,
as you say, as long as we take ourself to be a body and experience ourself as this ego, we are all fools sailing in the same fool's ship. Ship ahoy !
Sanjay Lohia,
"How to kill the ego? Bhagavan says that first, we need to see whether there is an ego in the first place. If we look for it, it disappears – that is, we find that there is no such thing as the ego."
If I look for the ego it does not at all disappear. Quite the contrary it continues to be present very vividly. Presumably my 'looking' goes fundamentally wrong or weak.
Nadutal, in order to make our ego disappear, we need to look at it long enough and hard enough. It is an extremely stubborn fellow. It will not leave us that easily. We need to try and focus our entire attention on our ego and that too very-very keenly. Just a cursory glance will not work.
Sanjay Lohia,
it seems that the ego itself undermines my readiness to focus my entire attention on the ego. Therefore my attempts "to look at it long enough and hard enough" are not sufficiently focussed. So the ego is not attacked and weakened decisively enough.
Regrettably at present I have not the power to remove all the obstacles/obstructions to be fully aware of being Brahma svarupa. Apparently my willingness is too low-powered.
Exercising patience and surrender to Bhagavan seems to be my last resort.
Sanjay Lohia,
"...the ego is an extremely stubborn fellow. It will not leave us that easily."
I am surprised that an actually non-existent ego can (seem to) be at all
"an extremely stubborn fellow."
From which source does come its obvious power of thousandfold deception ?
Amai Parai, it is we ourselves who do not allow this stubborn fellow – our ego – to leave us. It is only because we ignore to investigate it. As long as we are looking at things other than ourself this ego will seem to exist, but if we begin to scrutinise it, it will sense trouble and take to its heels. So it is our avichara (non-investigation), which is also called pramada (self-negligence), which feeds and sustains this ego.
Therefore, there is no power outside of us which is forcing us to remain as this ego. This ego is there only because we are too attached to things other than ourself, and the real solution is detachment from these objects. However, the more we practise self-investigation the more detached we will become, and the more detached we become the weaker our ego will become.
Eventually, one final dive within and the game is over – the ego is gone.
Sanjay Lohia,
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 24,
"...if the world is real simply because it appears to your senses, then a mirage would be water."
"...Likewise, anything called 'world' simply does not exist, even though it may seem to exist in our present deluded view."
Assuming you would lose your head by a sword's cut would you - now by means of your subtle body - also give us the same hint to your present deluded view?
Sanjay Lohia,
"it is we ourselves who do not allow this stubborn fellow – our ego – to leave us."
Let us consider the terms used more keenly:
1. You seem to differentiate between "we ourselves" and "the ego" as different subjects.
2. If you actually do not distinguish between "we ourselves" and "the ego" you are implying that either
2a. "we ourselves" are just (the same as) "the ego" and inversely or
2b. "we ourselves" are (actually) just never (the same as) "the ego".
3. Regarding point 2a.: How can "we ourselves (as the ego)" leave "us ourselves (as the ego)" ?
4. Regarding point 2b.: If we ourself are actually nothing but only atma svarupa there is no need of discussion about that.
asat, you said to Sanjay, “[…] to YOUR present deluded view.”
Actually, what Sanjay said was not deluded (so your choice of words was inappropriate) however he referred to OUR deluded view to identify with that body. Your comment is just re-enforcing that erroneous belief. We could lose all of our heads, nonetheless there was nothing lost but as an imagination by mind.
The mind imagines the creation of the body (waking up in the morning) and the mind imagines losing that body/head. However nothing really has changed. The apparent change was in the imagination of the mind. And as long as there is that identification it seems real.
I wonder how often that has to be repeated before it sinks in?
Salazar,
when Sanjay said"...even though it may seem to exist in our present deluded view." can you be sure that he did exclude his own view from "our present deluded view" ?
It takes a lot of courage to seriously suppose that losing one's head by a sword's cut is nothing but the loss of the mind's creation/imagination losing that body/head.
I believe that theory only one can produce proof in support of it. So you may try out the truth of that theory and would report me thereafter about the proof of truth :-).
Admittedly I am quite a doubting Thomas and do not believe anything what is not immediately and actually experienced by me.
It is easy to take over Bhagavan's experience and say that "nothing really has changed".
asat, saying that "nothing really has happened" doesn't mean that one has arrived at that realization, it is hinting to the truth.
Nobody says that non-attachment to the body is an easy task, nonetheless it doesn't make sense to agonize about the strength of delusion and with that affirm one's delusional outlook. Either Bhagavan is correct or he is not. If you feel he is not you should pursue a different course of action and quit commenting here.
If he is correct posting doubts is not doing anything. Your mind very unlikely will be convinced by mere answers from people on this blog. It is a waste of time.
You have to get rid of the doubter. Doubt will be a companion until realization.
Amai Parai, yes, we need to clearly understand the intended meaning of the terms we use. When I wrote, ‘it is we ourselves who do not allow this stubborn fellow – our ego – to leave us’, who is this ‘we ourselves’? Is it the same as ‘the ego’? Yes, ‘we ourselves’ and ‘the ego’ refer to the same thing. Ourself as we actually are (atma-svarupa) is not even aware of the ego, so how can it allow or not allow the ego to leave? It is totally unconcerned as it were.
When we rise as this ego, we cling to one form after another due to our unending desires and attachments, and such clinging keeps our ego intact. However, ultimately we cannot even blame our desires and attachments, because who has these desires and attachments? It is this ego. We (the ego) give strength to these desires and attachments by our constant attention to them. So it is the ego which is the cause of its own bondage.
If the ego chooses to face away from itself, it is the cause of its own existence, and it chooses to turn within to know what it actually is, it itself will be the cause of its own liberation. So it is upon this ego, it can choose to stay alive or it can choose to die. It is free to do choose whatever it prefers.
asat, you said, "I do not believe anything what is not immediately and actually experienced by me."
Well, it seems you do not get the point. What you describe as "experience" is that what your senses are feeding your mind. As such you believe to be that body. But you are not according to Bhagavan.
If you cling at that statement above you'll never be realized because your mind is using that seemingly logical statement as an excuse to stick to what is seemingly knows what is in fact delusional.
It takes faith and courage to leap into an area which cannot be grasped by the mind and
you may want to let go of your idea of "experience" because the Self is not experienced at all.
Salazar, thanks for your shaking comment.
I do not doubt Bhagavan's radical experience. Of course due to my delusional outlook and my adjunct-mixed self-awareness in all honesty I cannot reinforce Bhagavan's absolute view even I would like to can.
You are certainly right in saying: You have to get rid of the doubter. Doubt will be a companion until realization.
(Sometimes the mind has something to grumble about):-)
asat, I agree with you, it is not easy.
It is important to understand that doubt itself is the obstacle. There is nothing to try, the obstacle is our firmly held wrong beliefs.
Annamalai Swami asked Bhagavan to grant him (figuratively) the use of a jet on the path to Jnana and Bhagavan answered that a jet is not necessary because there is no difference between him and Annamalai Swami.
Bhagavan would have said the same to 'asat'. It is not just an empty statement but the truth. It is us who do not want to believe that and I suppose we can blame immaturity or vasanas for that.
It always comes back to be just quiet (mentally). When being quiet doubts cannot even arise.
Salazar,
thank you for giving me a reminder to keep and be just quiet.
Sanjay Lohia,
"So it is upon this ego, it can choose to stay alive or it can choose to die. It is free to do choose whatever it prefers."
Only when the ego makes out the hopelessness/senselessness or pointlessness of individual selfish desires (which lead finally always to its sufficient dissatisfaction) made an indelible impression on it, it will be able to choose its own annihilation.
To those who are interested, Michael has recently uploaded another video on his YouTube channel. You can click the link below to watch the video:
2018-08-04 Kensington Gardens: Michael James discusses verses 21 to 25 of Upadēśa Undiyār
It has been shot in natural surroundings, so it is a visual delight. We can hear the chirping of birds in the background - it is like sweet music to the ears. This adds to the overall viewing experience.
Who is this ‘I’ which is aware of all these things?
In order to be aware of ourself as we actually are, we need to withdraw our attention from everything else and focus it only on ourself. What is it that is aware of all these things? Who is this ‘I’ which perceives all these things?
When we start out, our power of attention is relatively gross, so we are able to perceive only relatively gross things. What we are is something infinitely subtle, so our attention has to become subtle in order to attend to our subtle self. So by turning our attention within we are refining our power of attention - making is more and more subtle. In one verse of Arunachala Astakam Bhagavan says that when the stone called mind is polished on the mind – that is polished on itself… That means when we turn out attention on ourself, we are polishing and refining our power of attention until we are able to see what we actually are.
Our self-awareness is now mixed with various mental and physical adjuncts, so when we first look at ourself, we are looking at this adjunct-mixed self-awareness. But by trying to look more and more keenly at ourself – ‘who is it that is aware of all these things – our focus on ourself is getting sharper and sharper. We can only separate ourself from all our adjuncts by isolating our awareness.
In science, they may have various instruments and techniques to isolate a particular ingredient from other compounds, but we do not have any such instruments which will help isolate ourself. The only instrument we have is our power of attention. It is our attention which has given rise to this world. It is only because we allow our attention to go out that we perceive all phenomena. So attention is the key.
So now we have to use the same attention – we need to turn our attention back to ourself to find out ‘Who is aware of all these things? Who is aware of all these phenomena? Who am I?’ It is an extremely subtle process, but this is the only process to experience ourself as we actually are.
Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 10 June 2017 (1:01 onwards)
Sanjay Lohia,
thanks again for your transcription.
1. "In order to be aware of ourself as we actually are, we need to withdraw our attention from everything else and focus it only on ourself. What is it that is aware of all these things? Who is this 'I' which perceives all these things?"
ad 1. When I try to do so I only see
that the ego is aware of all these things and
that this ego is the 'I' which perceives all these things.
So I cannot even recognize that this sadhana is anyhow useful for me.
2. "So now we have to use the same attention – we need to turn our attention back to ourself to find out ‘Who is aware of all these things? Who is aware of all these phenomena? Who am I?’ It is an extremely subtle process, but this is the only process to experience ourself as we actually are."
ad 2. When I try to investigate this ego-'I' more keenly I do not come further.
3. "It is an extremely subtle process, but this is the only process to experience ourself as we actually are."
ad 3. That extremely subtle process does not become accessible to me - regrettably.
4. "It is only because we allow our attention to go out that we perceive all phenomena. So attention is the key."
ad 4. The reason of that permission is obviously that attention to inner subtle processes do seldom grant my longings to be fully happy.
5. When you write "That means when we turn out attention on ourself..." it presumably should mean "turn our attention"...
My Recollections of Bhagavan Sri Ramana
Devaraja Mudaliar.
Pg 92
--------
One summer afternoon I was sitting opposite Bhagavan in the old hall, with a fan in my hand and said to him: "I can understand that the outstanding events in a man's life, such as his country, nationality, family, career or profession, marriage, death, etc., are all predetermined by his karma, but can it be that all the details of his life, down to the minutest, have already been determined? Now, for instance, I put the fan that is in my hand down on the floor here. Can it be that it was already decided that on such and such a day, at such and such an hour, I shall move the fan like this and put it down here?''
Bhagavan replied "Certainly''. He continued: "Whatever this body is to do and whatever experiences it is to pass through was already decided when it came into existence.''
---------
Ergo, all volition is ignorance...summa iru.
Drik, I thank you for pointing out my typo.
We have unending questions, but ultimately only one question is important – Who am I? If we know ourself as we actually are, all our questions and answers will resolve in the fire of atma-jnana. So let us seek jnana with single-minded focus.
Bhagavan says in verse 1 of Upadesa Undiyar:
Karma [action] giving fruit is by the ordainment of God [the kartā or ordainer]. Since karma is jaḍa[devoid of consciousness], can karma be God?
This verse clearly implies that we are free to do actions by our freedom of will; otherwise, the question ‘action giving fruit is by the ordainment of God’ will be redundant. If we are not capable to do anything by our will, why is God required to give us fruits of our karmas?
So contrary to what people believe and infer from Bhagavan’s various recorded statements (which may not always be correct recordings), Bhagavan clearly implies in the above verse that we do have freedom of will. Yes, whatever we are to experience is according to Bhagavan’s will, but we have our will and this will is free to want and to try to change whatever Bhagavan has ordained for us.
In addition, we can draw this same inference after reading verse 38 of Ulladu Narpadu:
If we are the doer of action, we will experience the resulting fruit. When one knows oneself by investigating who is the doer of action, doership will depart and all the three actions will slip off. The state of liberation, which is eternal.
What are the three actions which will slip off? Bhagavan again implies here that we do have freedom of will, because if we do not have such freedom, why is Bhagavan talking about the three actions which will slip of. The three actions which will slip off are prarabdha, agamya and sanchita, and agamya means actions done by our will.
Further, we can also draw the same inference from the note that Bhagavan wrote for his mother. That is, we can read in this note that though we are free to desire and to act according to our will, we cannot change our pre-ordained destiny.
Therefore Bhagavan never meant that we have no free-will.
Anonymous,
"Ergo, all volition is ignorance...summa iru."
That is certainly not Bhagavan's general recommendation but your own home-grown conclusion. Predetermination is only the one side of the medal. Bhagavan also gave us many hints to use our free will and act of our own volition.
Just the given example of putting down the fan on the floor to an certain moment shows clearly that Devaraja Mudaliar was not at all forced to put down the fan on the floor but fairly free to do so in order to illustrate his question.
One should never be induced to derive from the given answer that there is no free will at all. That would be full humbug. Predetermination leaves enough space to think and act voluntarily/of one's own accord. Thus we are free to use our free will to do actions or not.
The next question could be: if Devaraja Mudaliar was predetermined to ask his question he was also predetermined to get that answer of Bhagavan. Was then also Bhagavan predestined to give that answer ? We would quickly reply 'no' because Bhagavan did not act as an ego.
Sanjay Lohia,
"So let us seek jnana with single-minded focus."
I gave up seeking jnana because it is always shining brilliantly.
Why seeking what is always there self-effulgent? :-)
KM. Jivrajani: In the early stages would it not be a help to man to seek solitude and give up his outer duties in life?
Bhagavan: Renunciation is always in the mind, not in going to forests or solitary places or giving up one’s duties.
The main thing is to see that the mind does not turn outward but inward. It does not really rest with a man whether he
goes to this place or that or whether he gives up his duties or not. All that happens according to destiny. All the activities
that the body is to go through are determined when it first comes into existence. It does not rest with you to accept or reject them. The only freedom you have is to turn your mind inward and renounce activities there.
Anonymous,
"The only freedom you have is to turn your mind inward and renounce activities there."
Turning the mind inward is actually a big amount of freedom. Why strive for still more freedom ?
Nimitta,
"Was then also Bhagavan predestined to give that answer ? We would quickly reply 'no' because Bhagavan did not act as an ego."
Bhagavan's body-mind was destined to give that answer. Not his ego because there was no such thing.
Yes, his intellect did work, he read, wrote, talked, added, subtracted, multiplied, etc.
Ramana had karma to fulfill with respect to Devaraja Mudaliar, that lucky man.
"The only freedom you have is to turn your mind inward and renounce activities there."
Yes, that is how our free will works. It cannot EVER change the actions of out body in this life! That will be eventually understood even by Sanjay Lohia.
Sanjay, we can use our free will to wish, hope, struggle, against any actions of our body, and that will create new karma of course, however what the body actually does was determined by birth and cannot be altered at all. The mind has no power whatsoever to alter the actions of ones body. Not in this life.
If you do not agree with that then you must be confused because you stated the same in a few comments of yours but I am afraid that these comments are just copy and paste jobs and not really completely digested by your mind.
You seem to be able to quote verses from Ulladu Narpadu and Nan Yar? but it seems that your strong bias let you be blind to certain aspects of Bhagavan's teaching. Just my observation.
What do you say about the recent post that the Talks were reviewed by Bhagavan according to V. Ganesan? How inconvenient or is there now another rationalization why the Talks are taboo on this forum?
My point it is not necessary to try to understand the complete karma theory but what is immensely helpful is the notion that all actions of our bodies are predetermined by birth. Who cares why and how as long as Bhagavan (and other sages) have stated that quite clearly. That clarity is lost by egos like Sanjay's who don't have the humility to accept that their power is limited in turning within. (What is actually all we need).
Not accepting prarabdha as described above is the refusal to surrender, it is as simple as that! It is a defilement by mind.
Salazar,
”...however what the body actually does was determined by birth and cannot be altered at all.”
Just to clarify my thinking of what you wrote, when you say “body”, are you referring to the gross, subtle or causal? Or all of the above together as one?...
On the same vein, are you considering the five sheaths together or separate?
Mouna, I do not think much about the 5 sheaths. I have no idea if prarabdha affects all 5 sheaths, it affects at least the gross body, however since these 5 sheaths are supposed to be interconnected it may be all of them.
When I talk about body I usually mean all 5 sheaths, I find it unimportant to go into much detail about these bodies and their apparent role and functioning.
The body is not real, nor are the five sheaths, so why giving it importance but for the satisfaction of the mind to have an "explanation".
In regards to the five sheaths I need only to know one thing stated by Bhagavan and that is that all 5 sheaths get "destroyed" simultaneously with vichara, they have not to be destroyed one by one. So in that regard it is most prudent to see them as one body only. Why looking for branches in the Fata Morgana of a tree?
Salazar,
I asked because if we consider “body” as “body/mind” then what you said before: "what the body actually does was determined by birth and cannot be altered at all” takes a different meaning than if we consider only the gross body not conected with the intellect or the feelings.
I think the whole discussion is already flawed from the beginning if we give the ego doership (what Sanjay does in his statements) by stating that ego has “freedom of will” (I never heard that phrase before nowhere, but I am philosophically and scholarly challenged, no doubt). We certainly have the "illusion of choice" in front of us when time and space are coordinates of our illusory existence as ego, but that doesn’t mean we control the only choice that will come out from that “freedom of choice”.
What is a fact is that we keep talking about the snake, instead of asking the question if there is one to start with. In this sense, I always liked the extreme non-dual descriptive (not prescriptive) fundamentalism of a Tony Parsons (yes, you heard me right) who cuts the crap and goes directly to the heart of the matter: "there is only what is, which it isn’t at the same time”. It really matches the ultimate teachings of Bhagavan. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Salazar, you seem to be saying that our mind is free to wish, hope, and struggle against any actions of our body, but our body is not free to do anything which is not in its destiny. However, as Mouna’s comment prompted me to think, Bhagavan says in verse five of Ulladu Narpadu:
The body is a form of five sheaths. Therefore all five are included in the term ‘body’.
Therefore all these five sheaths arise together and likewise subside together. In other words, all these five sheaths operate as one unit. Since this is the case, how can our mental sheath have the freedom to wish, hope and struggle, but at the same time our physical sheath have no freedom to act on this wish, hope and struggle? By saying that our mental sheath has freedom but our physical sheath has no freedom, you are separating our mental sheath from our physical sheath and making them into two separate entities, are you not?
I think if our mental sheath has the freedom to wish, hope and so on, our intellectual sheath and our physical sheath should also logically have the same freedom to act on this wish, hope and so on. Yes, the freedom of these sheaths is limited, because the destiny always has the upper hand and it has the right of first use of our body and mind. Therefore, as I understand, our physical, mental and intellectual sheaths have the same degree of freedom or bondage.
You write, ‘Yes, that is how our free will works. It cannot EVER change the actions of out body in this life! That will be eventually understood even by Sanjay Lohia’. I cannot comment anything on this, but one this I am sure – that is, we will eventually understand that we never had any destiny or will. It is because our destiny and will are only for the ego, but when we find there never was any ego in the first place, we will also discover that we never had any destiny or will. All these three – the ego, its destiny and its will – rise together and subside together.
You also wrote, ‘If you do not agree with that then you must be confused’. Yes, I agree, as this ego, I cannot but be confused. Our ego is a confused mixture of our awareness and all its insentient adjuncts, so as long as it exists it will remain confused. All our confusions will be removed only when we experience ourself as we really are because we are infinite clarity. As long as we experience ourself as this ego, our understanding and power are limited, no one can deny this.
However, to bring a closure of our discussion on destiny and free-will, let us give the final word to the ‘supreme court’ – Bhagavan Ramana. He teaches us in verse 19 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Only for those who do not have discernment of the root of fate and will is there dispute about which prevails, fate or will. Those who have known themself, who is the one origin for fate and will, have discarded them. Say, will they thereafter be associated with them?
So we need to know the root of fate and will in order to end all disputes on this matter. If we investigate our ego and see that it does not exist, all our concepts of destiny and will will also be destroyed along with it. This is the clear message in the verse quoted above.
Sanjay Lohia,
"So we need to know the root of fate and will in order to end all disputes on this matter. If we investigate our ego and see that it does not exist, all our concepts of destiny and will will also be destroyed along with it. This is the clear message in the verse quoted above."
I agree fully with you on this statement.
Discussions in a bit smart-alleck way does not even satisfy the inquisitive mind.
"So we need to know the root of fate and will in order to end all disputes on this matter."
I agree, nonetheless you suggest to try to change the habit of checking one's cell phone (and other things like diet), thus you state that we could do that. With that you have violated the statement above, because you have not gone to the root of fate and will what is transcendence but you have remained within the dyads what is delusional.
You used the statement above in vain. Also it is quite convenient to blame your ego, but is it learning anything? No, it just regurgitates and quotes the "holy" scripture undigested.
nimitta karana, you should not make comments like smart aleck when you are obviously have no clue and are as biased and confused as Sanjay. You guys are using quotes without having them properly digested and you are switching like schizophrenics from the absolute viewpoint to the ego-viewpoint without the maturity to navigate in these treacherous waters.
This forum a la Sanjay is like Bible study where confused people are seeking for meaning without the appropriate maturity but with the arrogance to not conceit where it is appropriate. Who can quote the best Bhagavan's texts? LOL
***********************
Mouna, I concur including the Parsons comment, however I do not concur with Parsons notion that any sadhana is not necessary. Is he Self-realized? I highly doubt it.
"Our ego is a confused mixture of our awareness and all its insentient adjuncts, so as long as it exists it will remain confused. All our confusions will be removed only when we experience ourself as we really are because we are infinite clarity. As long as we experience ourself as this ego, our understanding and power are limited, no one can deny this."
We are taught that we really are infinite clarity.
My self-awareness did never share that infinite clarity but only yield my longing for that infinite clarity. If it would help I would like to howl and weep with rage and pain.
It is undisputed that we have to be always grateful to get navigated safely by our captain Salazar in his widely known mature way through the treacherous waters of schizophrenia - thus negotiating every dangerous obstacle successfully.:-)
Sanjay uvach: "Karma [action] giving fruit is by the ordainment of God [the kartā or ordainer]. Since karma is jaḍa[devoid of consciousness], can karma be God?
This verse clearly implies that we are free to do actions by our freedom of will; otherwise, the question ‘action giving fruit is by the ordainment of God’ will be redundant. If we are not capable to do anything by our will, why is God required to give us fruits of our karmas? "
Freedom of will is an illusion. Feeling that "we are free to do actions by our will" is also an illusion. We need god to give us fruits of our karmas because that is how we make sense of the karma. You yourselves deduced that free will is as illusory as the ego is, but you did that only after your arguments were challenged. How can a pandit like yourself fail to separate reality and maya?
Sanjay uvach: "So contrary to what people believe and infer from Bhagavan’s various recorded statements (which may not always be correct recordings), ..."
So..., what makes your inferences true? How are you different from those you just patronized? Lohia, itna hawaa mein udata hai..., zameen pe aake baat kar...
/-/
Please, re. Sanjay Lohia, he cannot be possibly patronizing. He just has the direct connection the the supreme court of Bhagavan. :)
Salazar said:
"Not accepting prarabdha as described above is the refusal to surrender, it is as simple as that! It is a defilement by mind."
Exactly right.
Traditionally, there are at least 2 ways to accept prarabdha..
1) Jnani marga
2) Bhakti marga
Many a gas bag labours under the delusion that he is on path 1) when he is actually on path 2). Hagiographical outpouring clearly is path 2).
Anonymous, these "free will" advocates as in "I am the one who is controlling and directing my arms and legs etc." are immature seekers who show their immaturity with that belief. They belong into the lower or lowest class of seekers according to Sadhu Om.
Amazing how they rationalize clear statements by Bhagavan and others, what better example of the power of maya than that!
Eventually they will learn that the surrender of one's so-called will is the secret to Self-realization. They must even confuse vichara because vichara is the same thing. Vichara and the idea one can control the movement of one's arm are incompatible, they exclude each other, thus those "free will" advocates as explained above are quite confused about the true meaning of vichara/surrender and what it entails.
One cannot have free will [as in I control my arm] and also do [properly] vichara, that is impossible but for confused minds.
Following up on Nishta's comment about Ramana Periyapuranam, download here.
https://m.facebook.com/notes/the-teachings-of-ramana-maharshi/ramana-periya-puranam-inner-journey-of-75-old-devotees-by-v-ganesan/10153706852496294
Salazar, I agree with you when you say:
"One cannot have free will [as in I control my arm] and also do [properly] vichara, that is impossible but for confused minds."
That is why the word/notion of "vichara" should not be bandied about casually.
Sure, one can make a beginning, but apart from Ramana I can't think of anyone who "completed" vichara.
Vichara is the question without an answer because all answers are false. The question must dissolve itself and that cannot happen as long as there is "free will" or "ego".
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 25
Forgetting self, which gives you light to see, and being confused, do not run after this appearance. The appearance will disappear and is hence not real, but self, the source of you can never disappear, so know that alone is real.
Reflections: As we were discussing yesterday, when we forget our real nature and experience ourself as this ego, we will always be confused. As this ego, we are confused and deluded, and therefore we run after all these fleeting appearances. We do not realise that there is no happiness in things external to ourself, because these things are all asat (unreal) and jada (insentient) and hence devoid of happiness.
However, our real nature is sat (what is real) and sentient, and we are happiness. Thus we should try and turn away from all unreal appearances and investigate ourself. Eventually, this process will result in the destruction of our ego. Once this happens we will recapture our own fort which seems to be with our enemy at present.
The king of our enemy is our ego, and the soldiers of this king are our vishaya-vasanas. Our aim is to kill the king because if we are able to do so, his soldiers will automatically surrender to us. However, to make this king weak we need to kill his soldiers one by one as they attack us. This is akin to destroying our vishaya-vasanas as and when they rise by vigilant and keen self-investigation.
Since in this battle Bhagavan is our charioteer – like Sri Krishna was for Arjuna – our victory is assured. It is only a matter of time. However, as Sri Krishna advised Arjuna, we should fight this battle without attachment. What is preventing us from turning within a full 100%? It is our desires and attachments. So we need to surrender all our desires and attachments to Bhagavan and investigate ourself without care and concern for anything external.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 26
Is the word ‘real’ befitting to this world, which is seen only by the illusory and changeful mind, but not by self, the source of the mind? As self knows itself alone to be, any imagination such as this world is entirely non-existent to it and thus is never seen by it.
Reflections: This world is unreal – it is nothing but another dream. Like our other dreams, this present so-called ‘waking state’ is also just a creation of our mind and is seen only by this mind. It is important to state this fact over and over again in order to impress this on our mind. This is because if we take this world to be real, it will be difficult to turn away from it.
So if this world is unreal, what is real? The underlying base or aadhara of this world is real. This aadara is ourself as we actually are. In fact, there is nothing called an unreal world, because this world simply does not even exist. What exists is only one non-dual self, which is infinite and eternal self-awareness. Bhagavan says in the second half of verse 18 of Ulladu Narpadu:
For those who do not know, the 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.
Most of the spiritual and religious teachings prompt us to turn away from ourself towards this world and an outside God. It is because these teachings are based on the premise that this world is real. Conversely, Bhagavan's teachings are a powerful reminder of the fact that this world is utterly unreal, and therefore we should know what is real. What is real is only ourself, so we can know what is real only by knowing ourself, and to know ourself we need to turn within.
Nimitta karana said, “Just the given example of putting down the fan on the floor to an certain moment shows clearly that Devaraja Mudaliar was not at all forced to put down the fan on the floor but fairly free to do so in order to illustrate his question.”
Amazing how a mind can distort things. There are several confused assumptions: I.e. prarabdha is not “forcing” anyone, because there is nobody who can be forced!
How has Mudaliar’s ‘putting down the fan’ become “free will”? What fantasy in nimitta karana’s mind created that delusion? How could he possibly know? From what inane assumption?
How can one Bhagavan’s comment as in, “Whatever this body is to do and whatever experiences it is to pass through was already decided when it came into existence” misconstrue????
It is obvious that the “free will” advocates here are in denial and it is a pity to observe that on this forum. How deluded must somebody be to ignore, minimize, and rationalize Bhagavan’s clear statement in addition to many other statements by him and Murugunar (in GVK) which expounded the exact same thing?
Sorry, I have no respect for these individuals, in fact I cannot take them seriously, and they fit with the group of holocaust deniers who equally deny clear facts and statements.
Every action in this universe is predetermined, the action of human beings, animals, plant life, weather phenomena, supernovas in space, etc. etc.
Every fall of a leaf, movement of a wing of a butterfly, falling of a rain drop is exactly predetermined and will happen exactly when it is supposed to happen. There are no accidents or random events. If there could be an action which is not ordained by God the whole universe would go into chaos.
The problem is the mind assuming differently. And that is a powerful imagination what needs many incarnations to lose its hold. Even reading Ulladu Narpadu and Nan Yar? is not helping with that delusion if the mind is too immature to grasp.
Since one's whole life is predetermined, where is the need to be concerned about health, family obligations, money, etc.? The "future" events will happen no matter if one thinks about it or not. I.e. one is supposed to take a trip to Simla. Well, there is no need to make plans or worry to get train tickets or for other arrangements, that trip will transpire even without spending one thought about it!
What freedom is in that!
There is no need for any attempts or effort, if effort is needed the body will automatically make that effort, it does not need the mind imagining it.
That is the message of the sages but most minds are too foolish to accept that. What a pity indeed!
JaiHind,
It is called the "ahankara' of the pandits. We have couple of self-styled pundits here with huge ahankar because they feel they are more qualified to lecture others. They refuse to step down from their pedestals. Such is the nature of the ego. Let them have their fun at the expense of those they feel should be patronized. After all "Bhagawan" said that there are no "others" but only the Self or Brahman or whatever other name by which you may wish to call the Nameless.
An interesting thought experiment.
We still think about free will or the absence of it in linear/temporal terms. Another point of view will be to consider this whole dreamlike ego projection as a whole. I like the Tao Te King description of it as “the uncarved block.” All possibilities are already there ready to be actualized in and by our spatial/temporal illusory framework.
In that regard, and since everything has/is/will take place what it seems to us being the cause of a future action (free will / doership in the form of a thought) may well be the “effect of a cause in the future”, because in order that that action be actualized, other actions (or thoughts) need to precede it.
From this point of view, pre-determination goes beyond the simple idea of cause/effect since a cause can well be effect and viceversa.
Practically speaking, sometimes we have the feeling that certain thoughts “appear” in a bizarre way without connecting with a past tendency, specially when they are creative or “out of the box”, and intuitively feel they are necessary components for events to come, which may well have created those thoughts in the past!
Just an interesting thought experiment within the non dual dream...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7xjJm8bUEA
we just dream on
Michael rightly said that that are we "I" who should find out if this is all a dream, are w e ready to see the world go down ? The problem is in " We", am I ready?
https://youtu.be/SHSLt8W0hME
https://youtu.be/WqMWFhtx5d0
Last minute conclusion....
The ego is the ultimate cause of everything, but it is through its will that the ego causes everything else to appear
Bhagavan refers to anandamaya kosa as irul (darkness), because anandamaya kosa is actually the will. When the ego functions as the willing entity, it is called the chittam, and chittam is the storehouse of our all our desires, likes, dislikes and so on. So this ananyamaya kosa or chttam is the ego’s subtlest sheath. However, the ego is not a sheath.
Anandamaya kosa is also called the karana sarira (causal body), because everything is caused by our desires. When we rise as this ego we have all these desires, and these desires are the cause of this world and everything else. So in this sense anadamaya kosa is the karana sarira. But who is it who likes to rise and experience so many things? It is the ego. So the ego is the ultimate cause, but it is through its will that the ego causes everything else to appear.
We can have desires for the things other than ourself only in the darkness of self-ignorance. If we were aware of ourself as we actually are we will be perfectly satisfied, because our real nature is happiness. As a finite person what we experience is always finite, so it is always imperfect. So the very nature of the ego is dissatisfaction. So we seek all these objects of this world – all the physical, mental and intellectual pleasures – because we are dissatisfied. But actually, there is no happiness in any of the things we desire. Happiness is only within us.
In fact, our desires do not have any awareness of their own. It is we who are aware, and it is we who desire. Not only are all our desires jada but they are also asat. That is, they do not really exist, even though they may seem to exist. They seem to exist only when we rise as this ego, but when we subside back into our source, as we do every day in sleep, they no longer exist. So they do not really exist - they are mere appearance.
Only we, who are sat and chit, actually exist, and none of the things we take to be ourselves actually exist. They are all asat and jada.
Edited extract from Michael's video: 2018-08-04 Kensington Gardens: Michael James discusses verses 21 to 25 of Upadēśa Undiyār (0:20 onwards)
Reflections: Buddha said that the desires are the root of all our problems. However, Bhagavan goes deeper - he teaches us that the ego is the root of even our desires. Though these desires are the basic problem for the ego, the ego itself is its most fundamental problem. If we can prevent our ego from rising, no desire can ever come into play. So ultimately we need to get rid of the ego to get rid of all our desires.
As Michael says our desires are jada and asat, and hence they have no existence of their own. It is only when we attend to them that these are fed and nourished. So in order to give up our desires and attachments, we need to ignore them and instead attend to ourself. This is by far the quickest and most effective way to give up all our desires and attachments.
Sanjay uvach: [...This is because if we take this world to be real, it will be difficult to turn away from it...]
Is that so? Around 800,000 people, who kill themselves every year, disagree.
Sanjay uvach: [Most of the spiritual and religious teachings prompt us to turn away from ourself towards this world and an outside God. It is because these teachings are based on the premise that this world is real.]
What are these "most" that were brought up? Care to name some? Without evidence, this is, at best, an incorrect generalization.
Sanjay uvach: [Buddha said that the desires are the root of all our problems. However, Bhagavan goes deeper - he teaches us that the ego is the root of even our desires.]
Another one? Why is one compelled to paint RM in a good light? Is that the meaning of devotion?
In the same condescending tone, one can say that Buddha went one step ahead of RM, and said there's no Self at all - nothing at all (Anatta). But that's perhaps just a semantic difference in their teachings. Would Lohia's ego not like to see what is beyond the Self? If you are willing to be judgmental, why then not go after someone who claims an even deeper realization of nothingness?
Mumukshu uvach: [It is called the "ahankara' of the pandits. We have couple of self-styled pundits here with huge ahankar because they feel they are more qualified to lecture others. They refuse to step down from their pedestals. Such is the nature of the ego.]
True. When talking with a foreigner, Buddhism was called upon like a pawn in support of India's spiritual legacy, but little did the poor, unsuspecting, innocent BuddhaPawn know that he was soon to be sacrificed in another post...
"Nobody should be shinier than RM".
Religions, gods, teachings, books, spirituality, my ego, your ego, other mukta beings - these are all chess pieces to play with, so that the "king", RM, is exalted above everyone else. RM standing shoulder to shoulder with any other lineage is a sin. "He has to be #1. I need HIM to be #1, GAWWWWWDDAMMIT!!! I ALWAYS CHOOSE #1..."
Salazar uvach: [Please, re. Sanjay Lohia, he cannot be possibly patronizing. He just has the direct connection the the supreme court of Bhagavan. :)]
(To Lohia:)
Oh la-di-da, pardon me Panditji! I am just a 'gutter ka keeda' (a worm who lives and dies in the gutter). Thanks for the patronage, Sir. I know that
all of this is boosting your ego: "Look at me! I can take crap."
. . .
(Sheepishly scurries back into the rusted pipes.)
/-/
The pure self-awareness which shines as ‘I’ is the real import of the word ‘I’
Verse 21 of Upadesa Undiyar:
That [the one infinite whole that appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’ where the ego merges] is at all times the substance [or true import] of the word called ‘I’, because of the exclusion of our non-existence even in sleep, which is devoid of ‘I’ [the ego].
The real import of the word ‘I’ is only the pure self-awareness which shines within us as ‘I’. When I say, ‘I am Michael’, that person is not what ‘I’ actually am. I am only ‘I am’ in that ‘I am Michael’, and this ‘I am’ is the true import of the word ‘I’. If I was not self-aware, I would not be aware of myself as Michael. So even when ‘I’ rise as the ego and experience myself as ‘I am Michael’, I am aware of the underlying self-awareness.
The ego appears against the background of self-awareness. The ego is a mistaken self-awareness, a confused self-awareness, an awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are. So what the word ‘I’ refers to is only that self-awareness. ‘I am’ must precede, logically, ‘I am Michael’. There can be no awareness of ourself as anything without the basic self-awareness. That basic awareness of ourself, according to Bhagavan, is the true import of the word ‘I’.
Then Bhagavan gives a logical reason for this. It is because we exist in sleep when this ego does not exist, the real import of the word ‘I’ is only that self-awareness. This real ‘I’ shines in all our three states – waking, dream and sleep. We say ‘I am awake’, ‘I slept’ or ‘I dreamt’ – so there is an ‘I’ underlying all these three states.
‘I’ plus the ego and phenomena are waking and dream; ‘I’ without the ego and phenomena is sleep. But our real nature does not merely exist in all our three states, but it clearly shines in all the three states. Even now what we are aware of as ‘I’ is nothing but pure self-awareness. It just happens to be seemingly concealed in the view of the ego, because the ego takes itself as ‘I am this’, ‘I am Michael’.
‘I’ is the centre of our whole life – I want this; I want that; I hope this; I fear that… Thus our whole life is centred around this ‘I’. However, the ‘I’ around which our life is centred is the ego. What underlies this ego is the real import of the word ‘I’.
Edited extract from Michael's video: 2018-08-04 Kensington Gardens: Michael James discusses verses 21 to 25 of Upadēśa Undiyār (0:08 – 0:16)
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 27
Fear not on seeing this empty world, which appears as a dream in the sleep of self-forgetfulness. This imaginary and bondage-causing world-picture, (projected on the background) of the dark, dense mind, will not stand in the light of supreme knowledge, sat-chit-ananda.
Reflections: Bhagavan has always maintained that this world can appear only in the sleep of self-forgetfulness. He conveys this message beautifully in verse one of Ekatma Panchakam:
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 waking up from a dream of wandering about the world.
As this person, we live in fear and die in fear. We are always apprehensive and fearful about the unknown tomorrow, and, simultaneously, we have many regrets about our past. What is our greatest fear? It is perhaps the fear of death. Thus we hardly live in the present. Bhagavan knows this weakness of ours, so he has written in verse 15 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Past and future stand holding the present. While occurring, they too are actually the present. The present is the only one. Not knowing the reality of now, trying to know the past or future is trying to count without one.
So we need to live in the present and, eventually, merge in the eternal present. Only then will all our fear vanish forever.
Jaihindji: Please remember this blog is meant only for Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi's teachings. No disrespect is intended toward Buddha or any other spiritual teacher or sage here. Bloggers here will naturally extol Sri Ramana Maharshi since they are his die-hard devotees. Why are you upset about it? There will always be a few scholars in every blog who post majority of comments and seem to take charge of the blog. You seriously cannot expect anyone posting comments on what the great Buddha said here, can you? Best wishes to you.
JaiHindji: No one knows exactly what the Buddha actually taught. His original teachings have been corrupted and substituted by the people over the centuries according to their own understanding. I seriously doubt if Buddha denied the existence of TuriyaAtman or Brahman or the Transcendental Reality. He only denied the existence of the jiva or the ego which is taken to be imaginary self. He may have denied the existence of the various Gods or God per se because of which his teachings was never embraced by the God loving Hindus and so it spread across the east of Hindustan. Perhaps you can enlighten us what the Buddha actually taught.
The Resident Disciple brought up the Buddha in order to inform us that RM goes even further...etc. Now, it is evident to me that neither the Master nor the Disciple is worth listening to on anyone other than RM. You may not agree, so Whatever floats your boat, as they say.
Quote from a recent comment above by Mr.Lohia.
The pure self-awareness which shines as ‘I’ is the real import of the word ‘I’
Verse 21 of Upadesa Undiyar:
Quote from Michael in same comment above.
So even when ‘I’ rise as the ego and experience myself as ‘I am Michael’, I am aware of the underlying self-awareness.
Quote.
This may be true for Bhagavan and for Michael. But no, not for me. In my own experience I am not directly aware of the underlying awareness at any time waking, dreaming or sleeping. For an ordinary person like me who is not a Jnani and who identifies only with the cidabhasa all the time how can I be ever be directly aware of the underlying pure awareness unless me or I as cidabhasa am totally erased and destroyed by Cit or the underlying pure awareness like it happened to Bhagavan? Perhaps Michael himself would care to reply on this.
adhistana, greetings
"But no, not for me. In my own experience I am not directly aware of the underlying awareness at any time waking, dreaming or sleeping.”
I am not jnani to tell you anything, and maybe Michael can answer your query much better and to the point. But I couldn’t help responding before he does (if he does).
Let me ask you: do you “feel” you are existing right now, or rather you feel you are not existing?
Also, if you feel there is existence going on at this moment, it means you know it, right? (you can’t say no…)
That existence and that knowing (or awareness of that existence) is what people refers as underlying self-awareness or self or brahman or whatever, as simple as that.
Turning one’s attention towards that “feeling” (figure of speech) of existing, and knowing it, is all that is required.
Cidabhasa is turning attention towards everything else but not that existence/awareness.
Recognizing and staying in that awareness/existence or consciousness/being” is call abiding and is the fruit of atma-vichara. Also, we may notice that this “underlying” feeling of existence (actually is not underlying, it all permeating!) is borderless, infinite, timeless and carries a “sense of profound peace and expansion”.
That is why is called satyam/sat (existence), jnanam/chit (awareness), anantam/ananda (infinite peace)
Don’t take my word for it, I just shared what helps me recognize what is really but really going on here.
Trying to keep it simple also...
Good luck on your path brother or sister.
Upasana uvach:[No disrespect is intended toward Buddha or any other spiritual teacher or sage here]
You're misunderstanding. I did not mean that Lohia is disrespecting Buddha. Do you believe that Buddha and his teachings are affected by Lohia's ramblings? My intention is to point out the shit people throw around in the name of spirituality.
Upasana uvach: [There will always be a few scholars in every blog who post majority of comments and seem to take charge of the blog. You seriously cannot expect anyone posting comments on what the great Buddha said here, can you?]
You're misunderstanding again. Nobody is asking Lohia to praise Buddha.
But the fact that Lohia needs to lift up RM by comparing him with other teachers is a reflection on Lohia.
Upasana uvach: [ Bloggers here will naturally extol Sri Ramana Maharshi since they are his die-hard devotees.]
I chuckled, that you call yourself and Lohia, die-hard devotees.
So, you and Lohia would carry RM's excreta in your hands, so that a sick RM would not need to get up from his bed? David Godman confessed that he probably wouldn't. But he is not as 'die-hard' as you are.
Wasn't there a devotee who did not know that he was mukta, and had to be told by RM that he indeed was, upon hearing which the devotee was overjoyed? And here, the egos of the 'die-hard devotees' of RM have become so fat they can't see their own feet.
Dattatreya made 24 gurus. And the 'die-hard' devotees of RM can't stand that there could be anybody else in the world as attained as RM himself, let alone anyone 'superior' (in your own view) to RM.
Upasana uvach: [No one knows exactly what the Buddha actually taught.]
That assertion can be used against me, but not against Lohia? It was Lohia who brought up Buddha's teachings in order to show RM as "superior". This inconsistency means either (1) that you agree that
Lohia knows what Buddha taught (unlikely), or (2) that for some reason Lohia must be treated differently.
I wonder why people here need Lohia's ramblings to understand RM. It seems that Lohia thinks there's a dearth of literature on RM's teachings and so he should do his part and "write" something, you know, "for the benefit of the lesser beings".
Or is Lohia under training to become the next guru? Lohia's behaviour is the evidence that many need a human guru. A living, human guru would shoot down Lohia's ego so hard, he would not be able to get up from his bed the next morning. But it seems he is not so fortunate to have a living, human guru; or if he has one, there has to be some reason Lohia's ego is not shot down yet.
There was a talk about a man from Chennai unaware of RM. Lohia pooh-poohed the current state of affairs, as if he was teaching the foreigner the reason for that man's unawareness. But being unaware of RM is one thing - being aware of him, posting a corrupt understanding, believing it to be true, of his teachings.
If that man from Chennai ever found a true need for spirituality, he would be a better devotee that any of us here. For us, spirituality has become a thing to acquire, like the plasma TV that hangs in Lohia's home.
To summarize for Upasana: You misunderstand that this is about Buddha. This is completely about RM's devotees and their behaviour. Lohia was focusing on Buddha to show RM as 'better', you are focusing on Buddha to defend Lohia.
I like this Buddha guy a lot, since he does not mind if he is not #1, or if he is used as a cushion so that RM's 'die-hard' devotees can enjoy being the devotees of the "#1" sage.
Anyways, I am not going to hang my head in shame for the likes of Lohia, today of all days.
Vande Mataram!
15th Aug 1947!
/-/
Mouna
Likewise greetings to you. Thanks for the good luck wishes on the path of my liberation from "chidabhasa" for a brother. That is kind of you.
Anyway coming to your reply maybe my earlier comment was not quite clearly posted.
As per Michael James this is what he said May 13, 2018.
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. Quote.
My comment earlier was based on the above quote of Michael James which applies to me and based on my present level of existence and awareness which is only as cidabhasa and not the absolutely pure existence and awareness (as is of Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi) which is never aware of anything other than its own existence, consciousness, bliss and awareness.
This is what I was trying to convey earlier. So as per this what you said to me does not apply to me because that is not my own experience. What you referred to is sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi of a sage which is present in all 3 states of waking, dreaming and sleeping and beyond in the transcendental state which I in my present state as cidabhasa do not directly experience and enjoy. It may all be there for sure but it is all hidden from me as cidabhasha and I have no direct knowledge or awareness of it. This is what I meant earlier.
JaiHind
Do you know what the Buddha actually say and teach other than your usual rhetorical ramblings
about Sanjay Lohia besides your total disrespect to Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi. Shame on you s. o. b. and a fucking die-hard Buddha devotee. Lol!
JaiHind
I forgot to mention. Today being Independence day, you can carry Narendra Modi's excreta from his no good behind in your hands and eat it to you heart's content. LMAO!!! Hahahaha!!!
Anonymous uvach: [Do you know what the Buddha actually say and teach other than your usual rhetorical ramblings about Sanjay Lohia besides your total disrespect to Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi. Shame on you s. o. b. and a fucking die-hard Buddha devotee. Lol!]
Good, Anonymous! That will teach me a lesson.
See, you feel the extreme need to defend your view of RM, when RM does not need any defending - either from you or from Lohia.
There's nothing in my statements which disrespects RM, but you are too eager to see what is not there. The core of RM's teachings (snake vs. rope) applies to you perfectly, and you cannot see that, which has been my point all along.
Buddha does not need any defending, nor does RM.
But it is good to know that RM's devotees can call someone's mother, who is not involved here other than giving me birth, a bitch. Somehow, I think that RM did not teach that.
If I know this blog and the people who frequent here, your words will be highlighted as the ultimate act of devotion towards RM. Fine with me though.
/-/
Anonymous uvach: "I forgot to mention. Today being Independence day, you can carry Narendra Modi's excreta from his no good behind in your hands and eat it to you heart's content. LMAO!!! Hahahaha!!!"
I take it that you are a RM devotee, correct? Please read up on the story about Perumal Swami on how he used to carry RM's excreta in his hands when RM was sick with diarrhea.
You can listen to David Godman speak about it here: https://youtu.be/MtN7R8N1nCc?t=923
Again, it is very good to know that the 'die-hard' devotees of RM are willing to go against his teachings in order to defend their own worthless egos.
Mouna, that was an excellent explanation and I just want to add (and I know that you know that too) that there is nobody (it only seems that way) who is aware of the underlying awareness and therefore there is nobody who could "enjoy bliss" or anything else.
We ARE that underlying awareness and just one thought defiles that knowledge because that thought (I) stipulates that there is an individual who seemingly experiences things. As long as the belief to be an individual exists pure consciousness will always elude that individual.
There is no subject (me, the individual) who experiences the object, (underlying awareness or pure consciousness), but just pure consciousness, one without a second. Any activity of the mind, any doubt, any question, simply reinforces the age-old delusion to be an individual, therefore summa iru.
"There is consciousness along with quietness in the mind; this is exactly the state to be aimed at. The fact that the question has been framed on this point, without realising that it is the Self, shows that the state is not steady but casual."---Ramana Maharshi (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 348)
How many of us are seriously done with this world?
Can we really be dispassionate about what happens "outside" of us? Are we ready so say good-bye (forever) to our loved ones, friends, possessions and other attachments?
Pure consciousness will elude us as long as we have just a tiny little bit amount of interest left in this world. Because we choose the imagination with our interest seemingly not satisfied with pure consciousness. Even though the underlying awareness is uninterrupted, we ignore it with our interest for other things aka this phenomenal world.
Understanding the whole context in which the practice is done makes us go deeper and deeper into the practice
Having a clear understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings - understanding the whole context in which the practice is done - makes us go deeper and deeper into the practice. That is why it is useful to be reading about Bhagavan’s teachings and to be thinking about them, because it is one coherent whole. It is all pointing towards one thing – turning our attention within. We have to think deeply about Bhagavan’s teachings and understand all the connections.
There is a lot more to Bhagavan’s words than that appears superficially. What he says is extremely deep. The more we put his teachings into practice, the more meaningful the words will be. The more meaningful the words, the more deeply we will think about them. The more deeply we think about them, the more deeply we will put it into practice. These three go hand in hand.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-08-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 9 (1:04 onwards)
Reflections: We are here to deepen our understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings. By participating on this blog, we are implicitly admitting that we are students of Bhagavan’s teachings. So there is no question of teaching anything to anybody when we ourselves are in a process of learning.
We discuss Bhagavan’s teachings and other related topics on this blog, but we do not go out into the world to preach this or anything. Bhagavan’s teachings are meant to prompt us to turn within, so it is not to teach others. Therefore, when we share our understanding with others, we are basically refining our own understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings. In this process, others might be also benefitted, but that should not be our main concern.
We should be ready and willing to accept our mistakes if these are pointed to us logically and with proper reference to Bhagavan’s teachings.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The last comment by Sanjay Lohia (Understanding the whole context in which the practice is done makes us go deeper and deeper into the practice) is obviously and specifically intended to a certain person.
Sam, I read Talk 348 several times after your comment and found the whole talk very instructive, so decided to post it below.
Talk 348.
D.: There are times when persons and things take on a vague, almost transparent form, as in a dream. One ceases to observe them as from outside, but is passively conscious of their existence, while not actively conscious of any kind of selfhood. There is a deep quietness in the mind. Is it, at such times, ready to dive into the Self? Or is
this condition unhealthy, the result of self-hypnotism? Should it be encouraged as a means of getting temporary peace?
M.: There is consciousness along with quietness in the mind; this is exactly the state to be aimed at. The fact that the question has been framed on this point, without realising that it is the Self, shows that the state is not steady but casual.
The word ‘diving’ is appropriate to the state of outgoing tendencies when the mind is to be diverted and turned within so as to dive below the surface of externalities. But when deep quietness prevails without
obstructing the consciousness, where is the need to dive? If the state be not realised as the Self, the effort to do so may be called ‘diving’. The state may in that way be said to be suitable for realisation or ‘diving’.Thus the last two questions in the paragraph are unnecessary.
D.: The mind continues to feel partial towards children, possibly because of the form sometimes used to personify the Ideal. How can't this preference be outgrown?
M.: Hold the Self. Why think of children and reactions towards them?
D.: This third visit to Tiruvannamalai seems to have intensified the sense of egoism in me and made meditation less easy. Is this an unimportant passing phase or a sign that I should avoid such places hereafter?
M.: It is imaginary. This place or another is within you. Such imaginations must end so that the places have nothing to do with
the activities of the mind. Even your surroundings are not of your own accord; they are there as a matter of course. You must rise above them and not get yourself involved.
Sam, it seems to me that Talk 348 is unusual in one respect. Bhagavan has discerned a degree of ripeness and receptivity in the questioner and so replies with more than the normal "Who is asking?..."...Though he has made it clear in other talks that there is no "how" to proceed on the quest, he comes close in this talk by diagnosing the predicament of the questioner and, it seems to me, encouraging him along. The last 2 questions are unnecessary, he says, just carry on, you are pointed in the correct direction.
Or am I just spinning my wheels and revealing some Bhakti, lol !
Agnostic,
I think you are right. Bhagavan is indeed saying that the questioner is on the right path and confirms his realization (though as being casual and not steady) and that, in turn, gives us an indication as to how to proceed with our own sadhana - aim at thought-free consciousness.
It is important that we not only take in sattvic food, but also take in sattvic sensual impressions
If we take the metaphorical meaning of ahara (food), it is just not food; it is all the things we take it through our senses. If we always watch violent or war movies, or watch pornography or things like that, these obviously will not be having a sattvic effect on our mind. These indulges will be drawing our mind outwards, creating thoughts of violence or sex – all types of unwanted thoughts will be created in our mind.
So it is important that we not only take in sattvic food, but also take in sattvic sensual impressions. Obviously, we can’t avoid such things altogether because we live in this world which is full of such things around us. But we should not allow our mind to dwell on them. That is, we should at least try to keep a distance from the things that are likely to agitate and disturb our mind.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-08-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 9 (0:38 onwards)
Reflections: Yes, we have taken in such unwanted sensual impressions, and we know by experience that these do agitate our mind. So if we can avoid such indulges, we should try to avoid them. For example, if we have a habit of taking our mobile phones with us when we visit the toilet, we can surely try and refrain from such habits. In fact, I find the toilet an excellent place to turn within.
So though Bhagavan has given us the most powerful tool to deal with our rogue mind, we should also use other methods to keep it in check. Every little effort in this direction will help our sadhana. Such restrains will aid the process of experiencing ourself as we actually are.
The so-called gurus outside may want our praise or money, but Bhagavan doesn’t want anything from us except ourselves
The guru is inside us, but we look outside. Guru is our own self. The sun is shining in the sky, but if we say, ‘I can’t see the sun; I can’t see the sun,’ who can help us? The whole purpose of guru outside is to tell you to turn within. We go outside saying, ‘Oh, I must have a guru; I must have a guru.’ People attach a lot of importance to their external type of sat-sanga. Bhagavan never asked us to do so.
The first five verses of Uladu Narpadu Anudandham is about the greatness of sat-sanga. Those are all verses that Bhagavan translated from Sanskrit to Tamil on various occasions. But people make too much of this. Bhagavan himself said that sat-sanga is association with sat. Sat is what actually exists and you are that. So atma-sanga is the real sat-sanga.
Bhagavan taught us in paragraph 12 of Nan Yar?:
God and guru are in truth not different. Just as what has been caught in the jaws of a tiger will not return, so those who have been caught in the glance of guru’s grace will surely be saved by him and will never instead be forsaken; nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly along the path that guru has shown.
So we need to follow unfailingly the path shown to us by the guru. This is the most important task we have.
In the sea, there are lots of sharks. In the sea of spiritual business that is going on in the world, there are plenty of big sharks. Those sharks will tell you, ‘come to me, I will give you salvation,’ or ‘you must be in my presence to be uplifted.’ These are sharks. Such sharks haven’t come to help you: they have come to help themselves. They want your praise; they want your money…
Bhagavan doesn’t want anything from us except ourselves, and that is the one thing we are not yet ready to give.
Edited extract from Michael’s video: 2018-08-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 9 (2:09 onwards)
All questions about the ego or mind are meaningless
It seems to us that there is a mind and that there is a world, but Bhagavan says that is not the case. The ego or mind is a wrong or a false awareness of ourself. As this ego, I am aware of myself as ‘I am Michael.’ ‘I am’ is true but ‘Michael’ is an adjunct. This Michael comes and goes. It is just a name of this body.
So this ego or mind is just a misperception of ourself. We are aware of ourself as something other than what we actually are. So if we look at ourself very keenly, very closely, we will see what we actually are; and this ego or mind will be dissolved forever.
So asking questions about this ego, such as ‘What is its purpose? How has it come into existence?’ is like asking ‘Why was the barren woman’s child born?’ or ‘How was her child born?’ Obviously, she is a barren woman so she cannot have any child. So any question we ask about the ego or mind, we are asking about something which simply does not exist.
We can give all sorts of answers. We can say, ‘The purpose of this life is to know God or love God.’ Or we can say, ‘The purpose of life is to serve humanity.’ We can say so many things, but all such answers assume that there is an ego or mind.
So long as we don’t investigate the mind, there seems to be a purpose. However, all questions about our mind are ultimately meaningless.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-08-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 9 ~ (1: 22 onwards)
Sanjay uvach: [The so-called gurus outside may want our praise or money, but Bhagavan doesn’t want anything from us except ourselves]
Very good, Lohia. RM again needs to be compared with other teachers, this time those which you label as false ones. Who says Lohia is anything but a humble student? Doesn't he learn so quickly?
About your post late at night on 15th Aug, there's quite a lot in your statements which is pretentious. But there won't be any end to it if one goes dwelling on them, especially since you are the blogger-in-charge of being a worthy student.
I believe that Lohia is the same poster who posted under the name Upasana and (the hateful) Anonymous. So, I am taking what you say with a quarry full of salt.
If I assume that those 3 posters are the same, then another picture emerges from your posts about Buddhism - you really, actually, hate Buddha and Buddhism, and this hatred is permeating your practice of RM's teachings.
I initially assumed that you were using Buddha to lift up RM, which, though unnecessary, misguiding, worldly disrespectful towards him, but making not one
bit of a difference to him or to Buddha, is a comparison not uncommon.
But it may well be the other way around: you are abusing RM and his teachings to feed your hatred against Buddha. All that you 'learn' and 'study' here, is secretly put into the service of hating him, in order to show your mental projection of Buddha who's the real boss.
That realization is an extreme, 'rakshasa'- level of twisted, psychopathic, vile, scary, and evil.
Whatever did that beggar, with nothing but robs and bowls to play with, do to YOU?! How did he hurt you?
From what I gather from those posts about Buddhism - the hate arrives from Brahmins (which I assume form the major portion of Indian RM-devotees). So, the Brahmins did not like anyone standing up against their "elite" status, is it? Enlighten us, please, O Sir.
Even if it was not you who posted as Upasana and Anonymous, all of above about the hatred, still applies to the guy who did indeed post in your defence. You keep great friends, Lohia.
Nevertheless, I assume that it was you, and will stay away from learning from any of your posts - what you paste is available elsewhere, and I do not need your reflections.
/-/
We should accept responsibility for all our actions because even those actions which we are destined to do, we do it because we want to do it
How to treat others? We have to take it that we are responsible for all our actions. Certain actions we may be made to do according to our destiny in order to experience our destiny. We should, however, accept responsibility for all our actions because even those actions which we are destined to do, we do it because we want to do it. So our destiny and will work in sync in most cases.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-08-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 9 ~ (0: 1:58)
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 28
O aspirants who hide away fearing this world, nothing such as a world exists! Fearing this false world which appears to exist is like fearing the false snake which appears in a rope.
Reflections: According to Bhagavan, the world we see in front of us is nothing but a collection of sense impressions. That is if we do not experience any sense perception, nothing exists. When we rise as this ego, we take ourself to be a body and through the senses of this body we project and experience a world.
If, however, we do not rise as this ego, we will not experience ourself as a body and without a body, we can never experience any world. So if we cease to rise as this ego, there can be no body, no world, nothing. So our aim is to give our ego so that along with this ego we can also give up this world. Why do we want to give up this world? It is because this world or any world is nothing but unceasing misery.
Jaihind, geetings
With all due respect, let me ventilate some thoughts regarding recent comments of yours.
I still can’t find a reasonable reason (pun not intended!) to understand why you make so many Ad Homini attacks on Mr Sanjay Lohia. As he demonstrated through all this years, he is a solid devotee not only of Sri Bhagavan but also of this sanga called Michael James’ blog, and he continues unrelentesly to provide his views on many topics related to Bhagavan’s teachings, that certainly not only benefits himself but also many others in this blog.
A reasonable criticism of the ideas one can expound here is definitely welcome to enrich our understanding of the concepts presented, but when the underlying energy behind the words turms into angry ad homini attacks those comments defeat the purpose of adding sense to a conversation (if they any to start with).
You might say it’s none of my business… but it is. Because at a certain level, the conversation becomes toxic and we all (or at least me) start to feel the pollution. Such is life, with positive and negative “ions in the air” and in no way I am naive about that aspect of this apparent cellular existence and want (or is in my capacity) to change the outcome of events, but at least by the freedom of my will I can always try to change a course of action I consider unhealthy by pointing at it, in a reasonable way. I know the results are not in my power to control so I don’t expect a change of attitude from you.
But still, this blog space, by definition, is an exchange of ideas and concepts at its core. As long as we keep it respectful there is no limit at what we can express.
Thanks for your attention.
M
One can't reason with a mad dog. Only solution is to snuff it out of it's rage through radical action. Michael James has the authority to keep away such constantly barking dogs from posting spam in the blog. Otherwise spam in this blog will continue unabated.
Mouna, I do not agree with most of your last comment. It is none of your business to interfere no matter how justified you may feel for the sake of the “sanga”.
What emotion of yours triggered your last comment on behalf of Sanjay? (No need to answer that.)
Even though I can understand your desire for harmony and respect, however it is rather naïve to expect it always or even to desire it. Personal and angry attacks are part of this phenomenal world, also at this sanga, to desire something else as “that what is” is not accepting God’s will what happened to be in this case an angry personal attack.
It is up to the individual to find the “right” way and he/she doesn’t need the input from seekers (what can only be flawed) but from the highest source what is self.
Sanjay is a devotee alright, however he comes over as school-masterly and patronizing and I am not the only one who has that impression. And I do not believe that anybody could benefit from his musings unless they are just a copy and paste of Michael’s lectures. I in fact stopped reading his comments.
And re. “Anonymous’ ” last comment, that comment is as angry as JaiHind’s and the proposal of his is a rather immature response. Anonymous barks back at the barker but of course believes that his bark is quite alright. Too funny.
Salazar,
As I said in my last comment, I was ventilating my thoughts on the topic, if you or other people agree with me or not I couldn't care less. I just say what I want to say.
Agreed we are in a free space to say what we want, and that makes for much of the trolling and fakes going on in the internet. Maybe that is the price to pay for the rare jewels we found in the global communication.
I will continue to express my disgust when someone doesn't respect the rules of engagement of a healthy communication. As I said before, my intent is not to "change" anyone's behavior, but at least I feel at ease with myself pointing out their misplaced (according to my standards) train of thought, as you do also most of the time.
Last but not least, it IS my business when it comes to express what I feel. Sorry to disagree on that point. If I see something I don't like the way it is expressed, I'll point it out.
Many of your comments are also Ad Hominem but I kind of feel I have a hint of what lies behind your words, so I don't really react (except in only one past comment). But many of these "anonymous" or "pick a sanskrit name" guys or gals comments I feel they are coming from a vindictive and not so real place, so I react. My bad? maybe, sure, but... who cares?
First Mouna, then Salazar, then Anon:
Mouna uvach: [I still can’t find a reasonable reason (pun not intended!) to understand why you make so many Ad Homini attacks on Mr Sanjay Lohia. As he demonstrated through all this years, he is a solid devotee not only of Sri Bhagavan but also of this sanga called Michael James’ blog, and he continues unrelentesly to provide his views on many topics related to Bhagavan’s teachings, that certainly not only benefits himself but also many others in this blog.]
In that case, you should also focus on those of my comments which are not Ad Homini attacks. And since you need them, I do not mind dissecting Lohia's reflections and providing the dissection for your reasons.
We are dismissive even of a buddha. Of course, everybody knows that that does NOT contribute toxic ions or pollution in any way, is not considered disrespectful at all, and is definitely a core idea of RM's teachings.
What else is that, other than our fat ego, and why should anything else that we write after, not be considered as being abused to fatten our egos even more?
Do you guys think it is a sin to respect Buddha, or Dattatreya, or so many other mukta beings, and so you go out of your way to disrespect them as a 'proof' of your 'love' for RM? If you knew enough about Buddha to dismiss him, you would already be a jivanmukta. Are you saying that you guys are all experientially a jivanmukta, and so have earned the 'right' to dismiss other mukta beings? Hold the presses!
If you are an elite group of RM devotees, please ask Michael to identify this place as such. Obviously, I do not belong here - I know for a fact that RM will have a difficult time accepting my worth as a mere liquid or even a gaseous devotee, let alone a solid one.
Does this sangha need support of other teachers as a cushion so that you can be comfortable while you discuss RM's teachings? Are his teachings so thorny that you can't resist using a cushion? If other teachers are being used as a cushion, what else are you using as a cushion? If you want to use Buddha as a cushion, may be you should investigate yourself, see what you are really doing and whom you are really depending upon.
If the solid devotee says "if we take this world to be real, it will be difficult to turn away from it", is that the truth that THIS sangha believes? As I had highlighted in my "Non-Ad Hominem" comment, there are about 800,000 people (+20 times more) every year, who disagree, and who would slap Lohia if they cared enough.
That statement above, about turning away, is a very good test to decide your target audience - those who agree with it are your audience, those who do not, they jump off the Golden Gate bridge.
There are generalizations about other religions and traditions, which are uncalled for, but are accepted since the solid devotee is the authority here. And one may find quite a bit if we rummage through the past posts.
I believe that, since RM would adjust his message according to its intended receiver and that's the justification for any contradictions, we can also take advantage of that.
It seems that, over the years (as you mention), you have acclimatized yourself to the type of material Lohia produces. I have no intention to turn into you.
Salazar:
I agree with your assessment of Lohia's work. I am scared of learning from it.
Anonymous:
It is funny that you considered a few of my post as spam, but Lohia's years worth of baggage as what? Gems to be cared for?
By calling me a mad dog, you are insulting mad dogs. RM would care for a mad dog, not me.
It is good that you showed some restraint in not dragging my mother into it (if you are that same Anon), although RM already knows he needs to place such crap on my head, not hers. So harp on.
/-/
This is something that perplexes me any time I hear it, people are part of this blog although they know they get no benefits from it, just a short satisfaction trolling here and there. What a waste of time, definitely they don’t have anything better to do.
Just read a wonderful quote from Henry David Thoreau: "“The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it.”
I close my case here, I still have to work for a living!
Mouna, yes you can express what you feel and that is disgust. However I feel that you are rationalizing your righteous indignation in your last comment, sorry buddy.
Yes, I did personal attacks and might do that again in the future (if so these are certainly not planned) and that gives me a different perspective than yours since I am (occasionally) in the same boat of “angry personal attacks”.
I’d say rather to condemn these attackers you may want to investigate why you have that strong reaction to it? You are highly intelligent and I suppose you have heard of Carl Jung and his concept of a shadow? Well, your shadow is angry personal attacks and disrespect. Thus you project that shadow onto those who express that what you strongly repress, and that is expressed with “disgust”.
I do not want to patronize and evoke Bhagavan’s teaching of who is the one who is disgusted etc. etc. Because that would be the only lesson you can take from that rather to lecture others about their correct or incorrect behavior.
Salazar,
I couldn’t agree more with this last comment of yours.
And of course we react to situations that touch a nerve in us BECAUSE we have that same feature in us, we don’t need to be acquanted with Jung to know that, a little of inquiry into the dark spots brings that clearly to the surface.
At the same time, I like to speak in the same language of the one addressing me, but the difference is that my standards are different.
OK, I swear, this is my last comment on this topic.
Mouna uvach:[Just read a wonderful quote from Henry David Thoreau: "“The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it.”]
Thanks, Mouna. Enjoy the coffee-shop, sofa-set spiritual discussions. The world only contains people like you and it should only contain people like you.
How does assuming someone's life situation and concluding your case feel to your ego? Better? Then its very good.
You do not even want to take me up on my offer of dissecting Lohia's reflections,
let alone respond to the behaviour of your sangha whom you so vehemently defend?
Please return to your star-lit, moon-shine, cozy spirituality.
/-/
Sanjay Lohia:
I read many of your comments if not all of them. I do not personally take them to be patronizing because I am not an expert on Bhagavan's teachings and have not read all of his teachings. Your ardent love and devotion toward Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi is commendable.
jaihind,
"Please return to your star-lit, moon-shine, cozy spirituality."
I don't have to return to it, I'm there all the time!!
Hahaha! funny...
Ciao bella!
Mouna uvach: [I don't have to return to it, I'm there all the time!!
Hahaha! funny...]
Great. That seals off the nature of discussions that can be expected here. Should I write something so that you are compelled to break your promise again?
/-/
Mouna, so it happened to be that you (who?) are expressing yourself more moderately and politely, while others are not. And you explain that with your higher standard. Whose standard?
Needless to say that this is prarabdha and out of our control, we may desire or want to have this or that or higher standards, but that could only take fruition in a next life, that is the desires in this life. Agamya can only take fruition in a next life.
Is it not kind of insane to howl against the inevitable? If somebody trolls on this forum, that is God's will! There cannot be any doubt about that! So why expressing an opinion about God's will? Why prolonging samsara in favoring a dyad?
We do not want to be "good", we want to transcend "good" and "bad", as such wasting one's interest and attention on good behavior is not what Bhagavan had in mind. Maybe in the very beginning but soon that has to be dropped. Alas many do not grasp that including the main lecturer on this forum.
Chapet 20, verse 10
JaiHind uvacha:
"Should I write something so that you are compelled to break your promise again?"
Mouna: No, that'll be all. you can retire now...
Mouna uvach:[Chapet 20, verse 10... No, that'll be all. you can retire now...]
Is that about the devil? I am not familiar with Christianity.
I would be lucky if I get a death of a devil. I think you are overestimating my worth, and my necessities from spirituality and God. But as I said before, you belong to the cozy world where taking it to be real, you only have to deal with the desire of turning into the world, not deal with the situation of terminating it willfully.
Should I write anything else to break your promise?
/-/
I am expecting now at least 10 people who passionately exclaim that they read Sanjay Lohia's comments. LOL!
One down, nine more to go ................
It feels often like a kindergarten here :)
To whom it may concern,
But you are in kindergarten even now, you just don't know that. Keep dreaming big shot patronizer.
To whoever posted using JaiHind:
That's even better. You can now be even worse to me than I was to you.
Hidden egos of RM devotees are flaring up. Take a good look at your own selves.
Signed: [I am the JaiHind whom everybody hates.]
/-/
Salazar
"So why expressing an opinion about God's will?"
Salazar, you surprise me! my opinion about God's will is also God's will!
JaiHind, that was not a devotee of Bhagavan. It was a sad pretender.
A devotee of Bhagavan's, like Sanjay Lohia, would not succumb to that level of deception and malice.
Mouna uvach:[Salazar, you surprise me! my opinion about God's will is also God's will!]
Good, Mouna. That's how you remain in this world. And you reasoning shows that you do WANT to remain in this world.
/-/ [JaiHind whom everybody hates, not the imposter a few blocks above.]
Mouna, no no no, that is called advaita shuffle, because you cannot say that your own doing is God's will, you can only say that about others.
JaiHind,
"Signed: [I am the JaiHind whom everybody hates.]”
Bro (or Sis) Nobody hates you here.
We love you JaiHind!
Jai Jai Jaihind!!
OK the fun is over, the kindergarten-wonder-children like me need to make some money to feed the family.
I actually enjoyed the exchange.
But now, I'll REALLY go!
Don’t miss me please (I know you will) I am just around the corner of your attention as your own self…
(wow!… is Mouna god? of course He is!!)
By for now uvachian frères and soeurs
(wow, He also knows french!! Jai Jai Mouna also!!)
Your delicate cozy advaitic shuffler!
Salazar uvach: [JaiHind, that was not a devotee of Bhagavan. It was a sad pretender.
A devotee of Bhagavan's, like Sanjay Lohia, would not succumb to that level of deception and malice.]
Okay, I take it that this is is about Upasana/Anonymous, and even if it is not, your statements does apply to Upasana/Anonymous. Got it!
Mouna uvach: [Bro (or Sis) Nobody hates you here. We love you JaiHind!Jai Jai Jaihind!!]
I will accept that if it is sarcasm or verbal crap. If it is genuine, RM needs to find a more worthy receiver.
/-/
JaiHind, yes, it is Anonymous (one of them [the feces guy], there are other sane people who use that handle too here) and he uses other handles and is constantly changing them, i.e. he was "Arunachalasivabhakta" too and therefore his angry reply to me.
This guy (he signs off as ajnani too) is to be avoided like the plaque, God's will or not :)
Should have been plague and not plaque but I suppose you get my point :)
Mouna, we all know you lived in Paris and played the flute, come on now :)
Bhagavan and Guruji Salazar:
Readers should just listen to whatever BS you tell here and not to the real Ramana Maharshi contents from Sanjay Lohia and they all will get jnana and moksha overnight like you have done in your own stupid kindergarten classes. Hahahaha!!!!!
/-/
Sal, bro
”we all know you lived in Paris.... etc”
That’s what I like in you, you take humor seriously!!!
Jai Sal!!!
(BTW, JaiHind, yes, was all crappy verbal talk, may I continue to be a worthy receiver of Bhagavan’s grace? Pleeeease!)
Feces Salazar uvach: [Should have been plague and not plaque but I suppose you get my point :)]
It even tries to clean its own worthless feces. What a gignatic ego indeed.
Feces Salazar is the genuine devotee of Bhagavan here. You must all listen and prostrate to him with respect and without question. You may even get moksha today itself. Hahahaha.
/-/
Salazar, got them all, even my own moniker, since he uses it too.
Mouna: No, you may not continue to be a worthy receiver. That talk was not sarcastic enough - RM says that it did not even burn 0.5 ego-calories of my worth.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ~ Margaret Wolfe
This is another way of saying that beauty is subjective. We give value to things by our likes and dislikes. Likewise, ugliness is also in the eye of the beholder. We dislike or are repulsed by certain things based on our subjective judgement. We can confer chastity even on a prostitute and at the same bear ill-will towards a saint.
Who has all these opinions? Who says this is good and that is bad? Why does one relish vegan food, whereas the other can’t do without meat? It is our mind which makes such choices and judgements. All our likes and dislikes are embedded in our mind as our vasanas. We see this world as our vasanas want us to see it. In this context, let us read what Bhagavan has to teach us in paragraph 19 of Nan Yar?:
There are not two [classes of] minds, namely a good [class of] mind and a bad [class of] mind. The mind is only one. Only vāsanās [dispositions, propensities or impulses] are of two kinds, namely śubha [good or agreeable] and aśubha [bad or disagreeable]. When [a person’s] mind is under the sway of śubha-vāsanās [agreeable propensities] it is said to be a good mind, and when it is under the sway of aśubha-vāsanās [disagreeable propensities] a bad mind. However bad other people may appear to be, disliking them is not proper [or appropriate]. Likes and dislikes are both fit [for one] to dislike [or renounce].
Therefore, when we are under the sway of subha-vasanas we will see goodness and beauty outside, or at least we will not react much to things which we may consider to be ugly or unpleasant. And if we are under the sway of ashubha-vasanas we will see ugliness and discord outside. So it is all a play of vasanas.
In our dream we may experience a lot of unpleasant things – we may experience natural disasters, imminent dangers, and ugliness. How did all these things come into existence? These are projection of our vasanas. However, it is good if such vasanas come out because otherwise how can we get rid of them. Likewise, whatever natural disasters, imminent dangers, and ugliness we encounter outside are a projection of our vasanas.
So if we behave with others in an inappropriate way, it reflects on our own inner state of mind. In other words, we behave with others depending on the purity or impurity of our antahkaranas (inner organs), which are manas (mind), buddhi (intellect), chitta (will) and ahamkara (ego).
To conclude, in most of our actions our will plays an important part. So if we want we can modify our behaviour, at least to some extent. For example, if some horrible food is served to us, we seem to have a choice to shout at our wife for not being careful, or we may simply eat this food in a calm and composed matter. Of course, we will tell our wife about the bad quality of food but not make a scene out of it. So we seem to have the freedom to control or modify our reactions to things if we want to.
If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord on the strength of a resolution taken once and for all. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man's illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.
Albert Einstein
we know what happens to a dream when we wake up
Albert Einstein, My Credo, Sept 1932
....
Our situation on this earth seems strange. Every one of us appears here, involuntarily and uninvited, for a short stay, without knowing the why and the wherefore. In our daily lives we feel only that man is here for the sake of others, for those whom we love and for many other beings whose fate is connected with our own. I am often troubled by the thought that my life is based to such a large extent on the work of my fellow human beings, and I am aware of my great indebtedness to them.
I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer’s words: ‘Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,’ accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper.
Anonymous who posted at 19 August 2018 at 02:08,
You quote Einstein quoting Schopenhauer that "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills".
Is it your own experience that you can do what you want? Is it not patently obvious that we cannot do whatever we want, but are constrained in various ways in what we can do?
Further, is it your own experience that you are unable to exercise the elements of your will, such as desire, fear, hope, aversion, likes, dislikes? If it is not you as an ego who exercises such will, then who does? Does someone or something other than us will what we want?
In my experience as an ego, it is I who desires this, who dislikes that, who hopes for this, who anticipates that. Although I cannot materialise whatever I will, nothing prevents me from willing something. Therefore, it would be logically absurd of me to state that I am not willing what I will.
Therefore, what Schopenhauer may have once said is neither congruent with our own experience nor logically tenable, and thus is fit to be rejected.
When Einstein wrote that "[...] This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper", he apparently made an assumption that the actions of others perceived as being painful to him are the result of the absence of will on the part of those others. When we question this assumption, we realise that it may be that those others are exercising their will in trying to restrain their pain-causing actions, but since they are destined to act in such ways at those moments, they do so even despite simultaneously willing to the contrary.
Has it not been our experience that while commencing some action that at the moment we feel is inappropriate/undesirable/pernicious, we still end up doing it, as if against and despite our will? Further, is it not our experience that while commencing some action that at the moment we feel is appropriate/desirable/beneficial, we end up doing it, as if in accordance and due to our will? Such experiences demonstrate that while what we end up doing and experiencing in this dream is dictated by destiny, nevertheless we are simultaneously able to will to various degrees what we want.
Dear Aseem Srivastava, thanks for your comment. I think Maharishi Ramana went much deeper than Einstein. Per Devaraja Mudaliar, RM said the following:
“Whatever this body is to do and whatever experiences it is to pass through was already decided when it came into existence..."
Please note that both "doing" and "experiencing" are included. Will springs from desire, and you do something to obtain a result that you feel will satisfy your desire. You may obtain the result you aimed at and be satisfied momentarily, or find that the result gives you no satisfaction at all. But what seems to happen in most cases, including me, is that there is a bottom less well of desires welling (!) up ...
Maharishi Ramana, it seems to me, is saying in the above quote that ALL of this is predetermined - the deed AND the experience.
The only way out, then, is to remain a witness - summa iru - and let the body-mind do what is does..Of course, this is easier said than done.
A nice essay on desire
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hide-and-seek/201411/the-problem-desire
We wake up and project the sound of the alarm
A friend: Actually we [the mind] are aware in sleep; otherwise, how could we hear the alarm?
Michael: From one perspective, yes, the alarm wakes us up. However, according to Bhagavan’s teachings, we hear the alarm only after waking. That is, we wake up and project the sound of the alarm.
Edited extract from the video: 2017-07-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on the power of silence ~ (0:47 onwards)
Dear Aseem
Not wishing to reopen a much debated topic in this very post . . .
If you take Einstein's quote: "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills", and replace "wants" with "wills" you see the essence of what I'd suggest Einstein / Schopenhauer were getting at.
I.e. that we think we can do what we will, but our very will is not in our control. We think it is, but our will, our desires, our predilections, our character has arisen from the vast interplay of a wide variety of factors that were outside our control - our genetics, the country / family / wealth we were born into, the education we received, the friends we made, etc etc. All these influenced our desires and fears. It is this that makes up our ego and our will. And it is in this respect that I think the quote should be understood.
And I suppose it is in this sense that Einstein is saying to have compassion for those who do you injury, for they are just acting out their genetic / environmental programming.
Anonymous, I have to agree with you, Bhagavan clearly said that doing and experiencing is predetermined. The idea and belief that we actually could change our outwards actions is actually preventing realization since we simultaneously giving attention to the adjuncts. Any interest and intention in outwards action is preventing realization! It does need much to see the validity of this statement.
Bhagavan gave some suggestions for outward improvement to those who could not grasp that and therefore, in his compassion, gave them some aids (like "try to be good") which will eventually arrive (many life times down the road) to the the same conclusion. It would be naive to believe that all of his suggestions are applicable to anyone.
But it requires a certain sense of discrimination, alas that cannot be cultivated either and comes only though many trials and errors of countless incarnations.
Post a Comment