When Bhagavan says that we must look within, what does he mean by ‘within’?
Last month a friend wrote me an email in which he asked me to clarify certain aspects of Bhagavan’s teachings, including what he means by ‘within’ when he says that we must look within, and whether the source of the individual self can be within that same individual self, so this article is adapted from the reply I wrote to him.
Everything other than ourself (including not only our body and breath but also all our thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions, memories, beliefs, desires and so on) is external to ourself, so what is ‘inside’ or ‘within’ is only ourself. When we attend to anything other than ourself we are looking away from ourself, so we need to turn back 180 degrees, so to speak, to look at ourself alone. This is what Bhagavan means by turning within or looking inside.
There are not two selves, a real Self and an individual self, because we ourself are one. However, so long as we experience ourself as Kevin, Michael or any other person, we are not experiencing ourself as we actually are. What you refer as ‘the Self’ is ourself as we actually are, which is pure self-awareness, ‘I am’, uncontaminated by even the least awareness of anything else, but when we are aware of ourself as if we were a person, that mixed and contaminated self-awareness, ‘I am this person’, is what is called ego, which is what you refer to as the ‘individual me’ or ‘individual self’.
What you refer as ‘the Self’ is what Bhagavan generally refers to as ātma-svarūpa, which literally means the ‘own form’ or real natural of oneself, or just as svarūpa, meaning one’s own real nature. Our real nature is ourself as we actually are, whereas ego is ourself as we seem to be. These are not two different things, just as a rope and the snake it seems to be are not two different things.
The rope is not a snake, but the snake is nothing other than a rope. Likewise, our real nature is not ego, but ego is nothing other than our real nature.
If we see an illusory snake, how to see what it actually is? All we need do is to look at it very carefully, because if we look at it carefully enough we will see that it is just a rope. Likewise, if we look at ourself, this ego, carefully enough we will see that we are just pure self-awareness, uncontaminated by even the least awareness of anything else.
When we look at what seems to be a snake, what we are actually looking at is only a rope, even though it continues to look like a snake until we look at it carefully enough to see what it actually is. Likewise, when we look at ourself, who now seem to be this ego, what we are actually looking at is only our own real nature (ātma-svarūpa), even though we continue to seem to be ego until we look at ourself carefully enough to see what we actually are.
What is the source of the illusory snake? It is only the rope. And where is it? It is inside the snake, metaphorically speaking. Therefore if we look deep inside the snake, we will see its source, the rope.
Likewise, what is the source of ego? It is only our real nature. And where is it? It is inside ego, metaphorically speaking. Therefore if we look deep inside ego, we will see its source, our real nature.
Our real nature is pure self-awareness, which is what we always experience as ‘I am’. Ego is the adjunct-mixed self-awareness ‘I am this body’ or ‘I am this person’. Within this adjunct-mixed self-awareness, ‘I am this body’, is pure self-awareness, ‘I am’. All we need do is remove all adjuncts, because what will then remain is only this pure self-awareness, ‘I am’. It is so simple.
How can we remove all adjuncts? As ego we attach ourself to these adjuncts (everything that makes up whatever person we currently seem to be) by projecting them in our awareness (just as we do in a dream), so to remove them we must try to be aware of ourself alone. This is why Bhagavan said that attention is the key. By attending to anything other than ourself we rise as ego, and by attending to ourself alone this ego will dissolve and cease to exist, and what will then remain is only pure self-awareness, our real nature.
As Bhagavan says in verse 16 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
Since our fundamental self-awareness, ‘I am’, is what now seems to be ego, the false awareness that is aware not only of itself but also of other things, in order to attend to our own fundamental self-awareness all we need do is attend keenly to ego, because when we seem to be attending to ego, what we are actually attending to is only ourself.
When we mistake a rope to be a snake, what we are actually seeing is just a rope, but with the added belief ‘this is a snake’. This added belief is like the adjuncts that we as ego mistake to be ourself. This added believe can be removed only by our looking at the snake carefully enough to see that it is actually just a rope. Likewise, all the adjuncts that we as ego mistake to be ourself can be removed only by our looking at ourself, this ego, carefully enough to see that we are actually just pure self-awareness.
Our aim is to experience and just be the pure self-awareness that we actually are, but in order to do so we must investigate ego. Since we now experience ourself as ego, we cannot attend to ourself except as ego, just as when we see a rope as a snake we cannot look at it except as a snake. However, by looking at the snake, we see that it is actually just a rope, and thereafter we can never again mistake it to be a snake. Likewise, by keenly attending to ego, we see that we are actually just pure self-awareness, and thereafter we can never again mistake ourself to be ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that we should look within, what he means is that we should look only at ourself, this ego (the subject who perceives all objects, the one who is aware of everything else), because when we look at ourself keenly enough we will see that what we actually are is not the ego that we seemed to be but only pure self-awareness.
Everything other than ourself (including not only our body and breath but also all our thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions, memories, beliefs, desires and so on) is external to ourself, so what is ‘inside’ or ‘within’ is only ourself. When we attend to anything other than ourself we are looking away from ourself, so we need to turn back 180 degrees, so to speak, to look at ourself alone. This is what Bhagavan means by turning within or looking inside.
There are not two selves, a real Self and an individual self, because we ourself are one. However, so long as we experience ourself as Kevin, Michael or any other person, we are not experiencing ourself as we actually are. What you refer as ‘the Self’ is ourself as we actually are, which is pure self-awareness, ‘I am’, uncontaminated by even the least awareness of anything else, but when we are aware of ourself as if we were a person, that mixed and contaminated self-awareness, ‘I am this person’, is what is called ego, which is what you refer to as the ‘individual me’ or ‘individual self’.
What you refer as ‘the Self’ is what Bhagavan generally refers to as ātma-svarūpa, which literally means the ‘own form’ or real natural of oneself, or just as svarūpa, meaning one’s own real nature. Our real nature is ourself as we actually are, whereas ego is ourself as we seem to be. These are not two different things, just as a rope and the snake it seems to be are not two different things.
The rope is not a snake, but the snake is nothing other than a rope. Likewise, our real nature is not ego, but ego is nothing other than our real nature.
If we see an illusory snake, how to see what it actually is? All we need do is to look at it very carefully, because if we look at it carefully enough we will see that it is just a rope. Likewise, if we look at ourself, this ego, carefully enough we will see that we are just pure self-awareness, uncontaminated by even the least awareness of anything else.
When we look at what seems to be a snake, what we are actually looking at is only a rope, even though it continues to look like a snake until we look at it carefully enough to see what it actually is. Likewise, when we look at ourself, who now seem to be this ego, what we are actually looking at is only our own real nature (ātma-svarūpa), even though we continue to seem to be ego until we look at ourself carefully enough to see what we actually are.
What is the source of the illusory snake? It is only the rope. And where is it? It is inside the snake, metaphorically speaking. Therefore if we look deep inside the snake, we will see its source, the rope.
Likewise, what is the source of ego? It is only our real nature. And where is it? It is inside ego, metaphorically speaking. Therefore if we look deep inside ego, we will see its source, our real nature.
Our real nature is pure self-awareness, which is what we always experience as ‘I am’. Ego is the adjunct-mixed self-awareness ‘I am this body’ or ‘I am this person’. Within this adjunct-mixed self-awareness, ‘I am this body’, is pure self-awareness, ‘I am’. All we need do is remove all adjuncts, because what will then remain is only this pure self-awareness, ‘I am’. It is so simple.
How can we remove all adjuncts? As ego we attach ourself to these adjuncts (everything that makes up whatever person we currently seem to be) by projecting them in our awareness (just as we do in a dream), so to remove them we must try to be aware of ourself alone. This is why Bhagavan said that attention is the key. By attending to anything other than ourself we rise as ego, and by attending to ourself alone this ego will dissolve and cease to exist, and what will then remain is only pure self-awareness, our real nature.
As Bhagavan says in verse 16 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
வெளிவிட யங்களை விட்டு மனந்தன்‘வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு’ (veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu), ‘leaving aside external viṣayas [phenomena]’, means ceasing to attend to anything other than ourself, and ‘மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தல்’ (maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdal), ‘mind knowing [or investigating] its own form of light’, means mind attending only to its own fundamental self-awareness. Just giving up attending to external phenomena is not sufficient, because we do so whenever we fall asleep, so what is required is just that we attend only to ourself, that is, to our own fundamental self-awareness, because if we do so we will thereby give up attending to anything else.
னொளியுரு வோர்தலே யுந்தீபற
வுண்மை யுணர்ச்சியா முந்தீபற.
veḷiviḍa yaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉantaṉ
ṉoḷiyuru vōrdalē yundīpaṟa
vuṇmai yuṇarcciyā mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām.
அன்வயம்: மனம் வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): maṉam veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām.
English translation: Leaving aside external viṣayas [phenomena], the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness [true knowledge or knowledge of reality].
Since our fundamental self-awareness, ‘I am’, is what now seems to be ego, the false awareness that is aware not only of itself but also of other things, in order to attend to our own fundamental self-awareness all we need do is attend keenly to ego, because when we seem to be attending to ego, what we are actually attending to is only ourself.
When we mistake a rope to be a snake, what we are actually seeing is just a rope, but with the added belief ‘this is a snake’. This added belief is like the adjuncts that we as ego mistake to be ourself. This added believe can be removed only by our looking at the snake carefully enough to see that it is actually just a rope. Likewise, all the adjuncts that we as ego mistake to be ourself can be removed only by our looking at ourself, this ego, carefully enough to see that we are actually just pure self-awareness.
Our aim is to experience and just be the pure self-awareness that we actually are, but in order to do so we must investigate ego. Since we now experience ourself as ego, we cannot attend to ourself except as ego, just as when we see a rope as a snake we cannot look at it except as a snake. However, by looking at the snake, we see that it is actually just a rope, and thereafter we can never again mistake it to be a snake. Likewise, by keenly attending to ego, we see that we are actually just pure self-awareness, and thereafter we can never again mistake ourself to be ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that we should look within, what he means is that we should look only at ourself, this ego (the subject who perceives all objects, the one who is aware of everything else), because when we look at ourself keenly enough we will see that what we actually are is not the ego that we seemed to be but only pure self-awareness.
Posts
622 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 622 Newer› Newest»Unknown, you are so hilarious when you get angry :-D
Salazar I am not angry at all. I am simply stating the plain fact about your own giganic ego. You boast that you have no ego at all but then a brief comment of mine hurts you so much. If it is not your ego that gets hurt then what is it Mr.Know it all Salazar?
Seriously, Salazar why don't you start your own blog? You could teach a lot of ignorant egos which you yourself point out all the time are out here and there outside this blog.
Salazar if you start your own blog I will promise to read your posts just like I read Michael James's posts whenever time permits. Reading contents in your blog should be quite entertaining if not spiritually enlightening. After all you always claim to have understood everything while the rest of us have not.
Salazar,
you say: Only a delusional ego would be concerned with humility, it's another diversion from awareness.
The diversions are countless ....
Do you have anything but diversions from awareness?
Your posts here are diversions?
Listen now attentively to the buzzing sound of a humble-bee...hmmm
As already Salazar stated, the diversions are countless ...:-)
By the way, Salazar has in fact started his own blog here with his magnificent teachings - albeit the blog runs in Michael's name.
Salazar,what is it you are trying to prove and establish? That you are in fact a Sage like Sri Ramana Maharshi is and the rest of us here are mere ignorant jivas?
Josef,
You write, "However, experience shows that dropping all forms of effort and exertions, including thinking and giving up the false notions we have about ourselves, is just not actually managed effortlessly but only by keen and thorough attention."
But, you see, since you are already that, that is, the Self, and since all that is seemingly covering it up is the mind activity in the form of thoughts, all that you have to do is give up thinking, including so-called attending, and just remain still (summa iru).
As Bhagavan says in Talk 601: "He who instructs an ardent seeker to do this or that is not a true master. The seeker is already afflicted by his activities and wants Peace and Rest. In other words he wants cessation of his activities. Instead of that he is told to do something in addition to, or in place of, his other activities. Can that be a help to the seeker? Activity is creation; activity is the destruction of one’s inherent happiness. If activity be advocated the adviser is not a master but the killer. Either the Creator (Brahma) or Death (Yama) may be said to have come in the guise of such a master. He cannot liberate the aspirant but strengthens his fetters."
Glad you liked Papaji's video.
from http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.com/2008/06/yes-but-what-do-i-do.html
"Yes, but what do I do?" - Part 1 of 4
by David Godman
What I want to do today is elaborate a little on Papaji’s statement: ‘I don’t give people any do’s or don’ts.’
Many people go to the Guru with the idea that he should tell them to ‘do’ something in order to reach some goal or be relieved of some problem or other. We are all so addicted to ‘doing’, we believe that we have to ‘do something’ to attain whatever spiritual goal we are chasing.
When the Guru says, ‘You are the Self, you are Brahman,’ the disciple often responds by saying, ‘Yes, I understand, but what do I do to attain it? How do I discover this for myself?’
The asking of such a question means that the disciple thinks that Brahman is something he should become, through effort, rather than something that he already is. The assumption implicit in this world-view is the premise behind all sadhana.
With this in mind, read verse 271 of Guru Vachaka Kovai:
The Guru who instructs the disciple, who has taken complete refuge in him, by giving one more prescription for action, instead of directing him towards jnana, and who leads him into activities, saying ‘These should be done,’ is for the disciple [equivalent to] the coming of cruel Yama and Brahma. Only he who consummates them [the disciples], transforming them into those who have done all that needs to be done, enabling them to attain the true benefit of this birth, is the grace-bestowing, divine Guru.
Since Brahma is the god of birth and Yama the god of death, the verse is implying that gurus who get their disciples involved in unnecessary activities, physical or mental, instead of directing them towards jnana, will be responsible for them being reborn. Bhagavan gave similar advice to the following devotee when the latter came up with a ‘Yes I understand, but what do I do?’ query:
Question: Our grasp is only intellectual. If Sri Bhagavan be pleased to direct us with a few instructions we shall be highly benefited.
Bhagavan: He who instructs an ardent seeker to do this or that is not a true master. The seeker is already afflicted by his activities and wants peace and rest. In other words, he wants cessation of his activities. Instead of that he is told to do something in addition to, or in place of, his other activities. Can that be a help to the seeker?
Activity is creation; activity is the destruction of one’s inherent happiness. If activity be advocated the adviser is not a master but the killer. Either the Creator (Brahma) or Death (Yama) may be said to have come in the guise of such a master. He cannot liberate the aspirant but strengthens his fetters. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 601.)
The same idea appears in Day by Day with Bhagavan, 27th March 1946, afternoon, where Bhagavan tells a questioner: ‘the truth is, all karma of whatever kind will lead to fresh bondage. That is why it is said in Ozhivil Odukkam that the Guru who prescribes fresh karma or action of any sort, i.e., rituals or sacrifices to one who after trying various karmas comes to him for peace, is both Brahma and Yama to the disciple i.e., he only creates fresh births and deaths.'
"Yes, but what do I do?" - Part 2 of 4
Ozhivil Odukkam is a Tamil philosophical text composed by Kannudaiya Vallalaar several centuries ago. It was one of Bhagavan’s favourite advaita texts, so much so that he asked Muruganar to make a Tamil prose rendering of it in order to make the meaning clearer and more accessible. The original Tamil is extremely difficult to follow, and most people gain an understanding of the work through a commentary that has appeared in all editions of the text. Unfortunately, the commentator incorporated a few interpretations of his own that are not present in the text, which is why Bhagavan thought that a new and clearer rendering of the original was desirable. Muruganar never found time to execute this commission, so the true meaning of the original verses remains inaccessible to all but the most learned Tamil scholars.
The idea that Gurus who tell disciples to do things are Yama and Brahma in disguise comes from verse 123 of this work:
Having exhausted themselves by activities, aspirants come to the Guru seeking jnana. He alone is the true jnana-bestowing Guru who, possessing the wealth of bliss, produces the crop of bliss in them so that they wander without volition and without doing anything. But the Guru who occasions the least rising of their ego through his instructions is both Brahma, he who possesses the ability to create the world, and Yama too, the god of death.
‘Without volition and without doing anything’ refers to the ego-free state in which there are nosankalpas (decisions or choices made by the mind) and no sense of being the performer of the actions that the body is doing.
Most people will read a verse like this and decide that it refers to physical activities alone.
‘My Guru is OK.’ they will say, ‘He doesn’t tell me to run around doing things; he tells me to meditate instead.’
That is not an acceptable response to this verse because it is also implying that keeping the mind busy – even with meditation – is no different from keeping the body busy. Anyone who prescribes either course keeps his followers on the wheel of birth and death. It would seem that Bhagavan accepted this position because, in the two citations from Talks and Day by Day that I have already given, he is introducing the ideas from this verse and endorsing them.
I began with a quote from Papaji. I will reintroduce him here because one of his often-repeated maxims is highly relevant to what I am endeavouring to say: ‘Physical activities produce physical results; mental activities produce mental results; since the Self is neither physical nor mental, an awareness of it cannot be brought about by either physical or mental activity.’
That’s a hard conclusion to accept for most people because it undercuts and negates all their mental activities that are optimistically geared towards realising the Self. The solution, as both Bhagavan and Papaji pointed out on many occasions is ‘being still’ (summa iruttal). When Bhagavan gives out the instruction ‘Summa iru’ (be still), he is not telling us to practise being still – that would just be more ‘doing’ – he is telling us desist from all mental activity, even meditation. ‘Being still’ is not something you accomplish by effort; it is what remains when all effort ceases.
"Yes, but what do I do?" - Part 3 of 4
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!
To which I will add verse 647 of Guru Vachaka Kovai, followed by another quote from Thayumanavar that comes from the same poem:
If you remain still, without paying attention to this, without paying attention to that, and without paying attention to anything at all, you will, simply through your powerful attention to being, become the reality, the vast eye, the unbounded space of consciousness.
If we truly see-without-seeing the inner light,
not investigating, not thinking at all,
will not the flood of bliss come,
spreading in all the ten directions,
rising up in surging waves to overflow its banks?
(‘Udal Poyyuravu’, verse 58)
There is a section in Padamalai that gives a broad summary of Bhagavan’s views on ‘being still’. I will conclude today’s offering by reproducing it.
25
Supreme liberation will shine as Atma-swarupa if one remains still.
This verse is introduced by the word ‘amma’, which indicates that Bhagavan is expressing surprise in this statement, possibly at the thought that anyone could think otherwise.
26
Through his gentle smile, radiant Padam joyfully declares: ‘Why this distress? Be happy by just remaining still.’
Bhagavan: Your duty is to be, and not to be this or that. ‘I am that I am’ sums up the whole truth; the method is summarised in ‘Be still’.
And what does stillness mean? It means ‘Destroy yourself’; because, every name and form is the cause of trouble. ‘I-I’ is the Self. ‘I am this’ is the ego. When the ‘I’ is kept up as the ‘I’ only, it is the Self. When it flies off at a tangent and says ‘I am this or that, I am such and such’, it is the ego.
Question: Who then is God?
Bhagavan: The Self is God. ‘I am’ is God. If God be apart from the Self, He must be a selfless God, which is absurd.
All that is required to realise the Self is to be still. What can be easier than that? Hence Atma-vidya [Self-knowledge] is the easiest to attain. (Maharshi’s Gospel, pp. 31-2)
27
Since becoming established in the state of the Self is both the means and the goal to be attained, remain still.
Though it was Bhagavan’s highest and simplest upadesa, he conceded that for many people, it was an impossible command to execute:
Question: What should one do in order to remain free from thoughts as advised by you? Is it only the enquiry ‘Who am I?’
Bhagavan: Only to remain still. Do it and see.
Question: It is impossible.
Bhagavan: Exactly. For the same reason the enquiry ‘Who am I?’ is advised. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 322)
Bhagavan: All the age-long vasanas carry the mind outward and turn it to external objects. All such thoughts have to be given up and the mind turned inward. For that, effort is necessary for most people. Of course everybody, every book says, ‘Summa iru,’ i.e. ‘Be quiet or still’. But it is not easy. That is why all this effort is necessary. Even if we find one who has at once achieved the mauna or supreme state indicated by ‘Summa iru’ you may take it that the effort necessary has already been finished in a previous life. (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 11th January, 1946)
"Yes, but what do I do?" - Part 4 of 4
28
The wonderful meaning of the one supreme word [summa iru] is to know and rest in the Atma-swarupa through the enquiry ‘Who am I?’
29
Except by remaining still [summa iruttal] by what great tapas can the Atma-swarupa be attained in the Heart?
Bhagavan: People seem to think that by practising some elaborate sadhana the Self will one day descend upon them as something very big and with tremendous glory, giving them what is called sakshatkaram [direct experience]. The Self is sakshat [direct] all right, but there is nokaram or kritam about it. [That is, there is no one who performs actions, and no actions being performed.] The word ‘karam’ implies doing something. But the Self is realised not by doing something but by refraining from doing anything, by remaining still and being simply what one really is. (The Power of the Presence, part three, pp. 131-3)
30
It will be impossible to merge with the feet of Lord Sonachala [Arunachala], unless one remains still, with the mind consumed and annihilated.
Bhagavan: Stillness is total surrender without a vestige of individuality. Stillness will prevail and there will be no agitation of mind. Agitation of mind is the cause of desire, the sense of doership and personality. If that is stopped there is quiet. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 354)
31
By shining motionlessly, which is meditation on the Self, all manner of excellent benefits accrue.
32
To remain still, without thinking about that which is other than the Self, is to offer the mind to the Self.
33
Being still is the experience of swarupa jnana. Whatever is perceived by the senses is a false, illusory appearance.
34
To rest, remaining still as consciousness, is union [sayujya], the abundance of peace.
35
Knowing That is only abiding as That. Therefore, shine, remaining still without objectifying.
D Samarender Reddy,
thank you for giving that wonderful texts.
But,
refraining from doing anything,
remaining still and being simply what one really is,
getting the mind consumed and annihilated,
offering the mind to the Self,
remaining still without objectifying,
all that necessary effort must first be accomplished - at least for most people.
If we try reflecting on our adverse situations in the light of Bhagavan’s teachings, this will reduce our worries
Our adverse situations are a good time to reflect on Bhagavan’s teachings. If we try to see our unfavourable situations in the light of Bhagavan’s teachings, this will reduce our worries. Such reflections will obviously also deepen our understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings.
Some amount of money is due to me from somewhere, but for some reason, I am not able to receive this. I often think about this. However, why should I think about such issues? I may send them reminders to return this amount, but why should I worry? Why do I think about such matters? It is because I am attached to this amount. I think it belongs to me and therefore I have a right to receive it back.
However, this is all the play of maya. I am unnecessarily worrying about some pieces of paper or some figures in my bank account. If and when this amount comes to my account will I become happy? Yes, it is because my current agitation of mind, which exists because of this issue, will subside temporarily, and this will make me satisfied for some time. But again some new issue will crop up and I will again start worrying. We should understand that there is no real happiness in money or wealth. Happiness exists only within.
Moreover, whether this amount comes to me or not depends on my prarabdha. Since prarabdha is Bhagavan’s will, why should we doubt his will and intelligence? He loves us more than we love ourself, so we should gladly accept his will as our will. Whatever we experience will mature us spiritually. Bhagavan gives us many such opportunities to rectify our will. If this amount is not supposed to come to me, no amount of effort on my part will bring it back.
Also, if we think about such issues, we have not travelled far on our spiritual path. We should try and remember Bhagavan’s supreme vairagya. When he reached Tiruvannamalai, he threw away even the few coins he then had with him. He was sure that Arunachala will provide for all his needs. We should try to emulate his vairagya, to whatever extent possible.
Of course, in the end, we need to use Bhagavan’s brahmastra to dispel all our concerns. That is, we should try to find out ‘who is having these worries?’ Thus, we should try to turn within by ignoring everything else. This is the direct and most powerful way to dissolve all our problems then and there. If we stop attending to our thoughts or concerns, all our thoughts or concerns will subside.
So Bhagavan’s teachings and, more importantly, the practice of vichara is the most powerful antidote for all our concerns, worries and problems.
Sanjay ,
"When he reached Tiruvannamalai, ... He was sure that Arunachala will provide for all his needs. We should try to emulate his vairagya, to whatever extent possible."
What provided Arunachala actually for Ramana downstairs in Patala Lingam ?
We also should be able to accept readily all rigours of fate which correspond to all the attacks of the vermins in Patala Lingam which Ramana's young body had to endure there then in the year 1896.
Josef, yes, Bhagavan’s life is the greatest lesson on what true surrender is. He accepted everything that happened to him or around him as Arunachala’s will. His humility and forbearance were simply out of this world.
In fact, when he was in Patala Lingam, he was so absorbed in himself that he was not even aware of vermin eating away his thighs. This is a lesson for us – that is, when we try to practise self-investigation, we should be so deeply absorbed in ourself that we should not be even aware of vermin on our body. This may be not possible initially, but this is certainly possible as we practise more and more.
Bhagavan has also indicated that when we try to turn within, we should let our body become like a corpse. That is, we should try to lose all our connection with with our body. This is the only way to experience ourself as we really are. We should try to separate the 'I am' from our 'body'. This is granthi-bheda (severance of our knot of ignorance), and this is our ultimate goal.
Salazar,
as you say, the sentiment to not feel drawn to Arunachala is of course also entirely the ego's concern.
To understand the point you may read again your previous comment and then by comparison you would perhaps find...
Salazar,
I meant nothing cryptic; when you imply that feeling drawn to Arunachala is only the ego's irrelevant concern, one has to consider also the other side of the coin namely that also the opposite i.e. not feeling drawn to Arunachala is only the ego's (irrelevant) concern.
Nikola asked the following question in the comment section of Michael’s latest video:
Nikola Cvetkovic:
Question, maybe for future sessions:
When we recognize that we are not willing to surrender, what should be our relationship with this lack of willingness? Investigating who is not willing is here prevented by the lack of willingness itself. So is the point to go with life until the experiences makes us more willing, along with practicing self inquiry to the level we are able to surrender?
Or should we not cling to this present idea and just keep the practice "pretending" that this lack is not present and rely on the practice itself to remove it?
The question is about which approach is better, positive or negative, and what are pros and cons of both?
I answered him as follows:
Sanjay:
Nikola, if we are not willing to practise self-surrender and self-investigation, no one can force us to do so. However, when you ask these questions, it shows that Bhagavan has sown some love in your heart for Bhagavan and his teachings. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have listened to Michael’s video. So you just need to fan this interest.
This interest may not be great, but you can surely start by practising turning within a little here, a little there. In other words, you can cultivate the love and willingness to practice self-investigation. You may be able to do this only for a few minutes daily, or maybe even a few seconds daily, it doesn’t matter. All such efforts will add up. This is the way most of us start our practice.
Eventually, there will be a snow-balling effect. The more we practise, the more momentum our practice will gain, until it will become our second nature. There is no turning back at this stage. It will only be a matter of time before we reach our goal, which is the annihilation of ego.
Salazar,
my previous comment was written not to make you "worse" but primarily out of the idea to control the mind and intellect.
Sanjay,
I would answer to Nikola:"pretending" does in any case not serve the necessary mind-control/mind-restraint. Without withdrawing of the mind to its source one cannot abide in one's real nature. Therefore we should try to reject every kind of thought as and when it arises. Because...:the self is ever present and we have to realize it as such, as the pure being-consciousness, the source of thoughts.
In continuation of my conversation with Nikola Cvetkovic:
Nikola: Thank you for your time. My question wasn't about lack of willingness to practice, but about lack of willingness to surrender the ego.
Just like Michael explained, the only reason we need practice is because we dont want to fully surrender. If we wanted to truly do it, it would be easy just like falling asleep and actually then we wouldnt watch these videos because we would be realised just like Bhagavan, or same as Bhagavan.
Time is very relative factor to our practice. Just because you practice for long time doesnt mean you are closer to realisation then some random person on the street that doesnt practice at all.
Maybe this person will hear about the truth and has done it in pervious lives, ask himself once and thats it. And you and me might spend next 40 years practicing without any progress.
However Ramana did said that no effort to realise the Self is ever wasted. He also said that as long as a person has a mind, there is no way for that person to know how much of it is there left to surrender. Bhagavan is the only one who knows this.
Sanjay: Nikola, our willingness to practice and our willingness to surrender are directly proportionate to each other. That is, to the extent we practise to that extent we are willing to surrender. What does the practice of self-investigation entails? When we practice turning with, we are trying to surrender our likes and dislikes – trying to surrender our hold on everything other than ourself. So the practice of self-investigation is just another name for the practice of self-surrender. Our self-surrender can be initially practised without actually investigating ourself, but without self-investigation, we cannot complete our self-surrender.
Yes, as you imply, we cannot measure our spiritual progress or the progress of others, and there is no use in our trying to go so. The only thing that matters is our own perseverance at self-surrender and self-investigation. We are surely progressing if we are practising or even trying to practise these. We should rest assured that Bhagavan knows where we stand and he is doing everything to help our progress.
My two cents on the philosophy and practice of this teaching...
First of all there are a LOT of different spiritual paths, each with their own unique aims. We have to take this into account... There are various scriptures where the goal is attainment of some state and not at all merging in the mind’s source. Fair enough, but this path seems incredibly hard to me... From what I gather based on the practical philosophy and my meager practice, we have to dive deep within ourselves to find the source of the mind A trace from that incredible state is found right now within ourselves as “I”, the observer/knower/cognizer/subject etc... of all our thoughts and perceptions... (“To whom”, right?!.. we try to go back by following this thread, “I” or “I am”... )
So thinking more carefully my previous comment, this “I” or “I am” is just a reflected consciousness not at all the Self in its all glory, our only “scent” we need to track to dive within and go back to our source...
If this is so, then it does not make any sense that there will be any experience of time space etc..., no world will appear, this is so clear and intuitively I feel its correct...
Now, this seems an incredible feat to me... Let’s pray to Bhagavan for help... I am baffled, scared, and I actually can’t believe He wants us to achieve that... This is truly astonishing
To those who want to follow Bhagavan’s teachings, nothing about bodies, nadis, yogas and such things will have any appeal
What Bhagavan said about the heart being two digits to the right of the centre of the chest is not his real teaching. It has no deep spiritual significance. That was just said to satisfy the people who cannot think except in terms of the body. It is meaningful only at the level of yoga. All talk about nadis, chakras, kundalini and such concepts are for people who have a very gross mind. We need a subtle mind to grasp Bhagavan’s teachings.
What is Bhagavan’s basic teaching? It is that our root problem is ego, and ego is nothing but the false awareness ‘I am this body’. So in order to know ourself we need to eradicate ego, and in order to eradicate ego we need to distinguish the pure awareness ‘I am’ from the ‘body’. In other words, we have got to separate these two things. We have to isolate the pure awareness ‘I am’ and give up everything else.
So if that is Bhagavan’s real teaching, what does it matter where in the body the awareness ‘I’ seems to be centred? This will interest only those whose minds are looking outwards. If we want to follow Bhagavan’s teaching, nothing about bodies, nadis, yogas and such things will appeal to us.
If we want to follow Bhagavan’s teachings, we have to go much much deeper.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-10-28 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: discussion with Michael James on the nature of ego (1:32)
Reflections: Bhagavan explicitly explained to Suri Nagamma that when our body itself is an imagination, all talk about nadis, chakras, kundalin are also nothing more than imagination. The less we know about such matters, the better it is for us. Why fill up our minds with concepts which have no deep spiritual significance? Why learn about irrelevant things which will merely clog our minds.
Ramana Maharshi on the "I Am"
(from Talk 503)
Reality is only one and that is the self. All the rest are mere Phenomena in it, of it and by it. The seer, the objects and the sight, all are the self only. ... The only permanent thing is Reality; and that is the Self. You say “I am”, “I am going”, “I am speaking”, “I am working”, etc. Hyphenate “I am” in all of them. Thus I - AM. That is the abiding and fundamental Reality. This truth was taught by God to Moses: “I AM that I-AM”. “Be still and know that I-AM God.” so “I-AM” is God.
You know that you are. You cannot deny your existence at any moment of time. For you must be there in order to deny it. This (Pure Existence) is understood by stilling your mind. The mind is the outgoing faculty of the individual. If that is turned within, it becomes still in course of time and that “I-AM” alone prevails. “I-AM” is the whole Truth.
Salazar,
What EXACTLY is the practice?! Theorizing is a little value to me...
I’m interested in practical results...
Same question to everyone else...
How EXACTLY do you practice?!
Thank you
... also, what did you experience so far?! Please share your practicalities not empty theorizing...
I’ve been doing this for several years now. In my own words trying to describe the practice, I’m trying to hold on to the seer, what is aware of everything else, the so called “I” or “I-thought”. .. doing this tenaciously one seems to have opened a pandora’s box where all repressed stuff from this and previous lives comes up to get “cleaned” so to speak by vichara... this has been my experience so far... seems a never ending endeavor... what was your experience so far?
Thanks,
Dragos
Ramana Maharshi on the "I Am" – Part 1 of 4
Everyone knows ‘I am.’ There is the confusion that the ‘I’ is the body. Because the ‘I’ arises from the Absolute and gives rise to buddhi (Intellect). In buddhi the ‘I’ looks the size and shape of the body, na medhaya means that Brahman cannot be apprehended by buddhi.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 54)
The Master, while referring to the Bible for “Be still and know that I am God”, Psalm 46, found in the Ecclesiastes.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 77)
Consciousness is indeed always with us. Everyone knows ‘I am!’ No one can deny his own being. The man in deep slumber is not aware; while awake he seems to be aware. But it is the same person. There is no change in the one who slept and the one who is now awake. In deep sleep he was not aware of his body; there was no body-consciousness. In the wakeful state he is aware of his body; there is body-consciousness. Therefore the difference lies in the emergence of body-consciousness and not in any change in the Real Consciousness. The body and body-consciousness arise together and sink together. All this amounts to saying that there are no limitations in deep sleep, whereas there are limitations in the waking state. These limitations are the bondage; the feeling ‘The body is I’ is the error. This false sense of ‘I’ must go. The real ‘I’ is always there. It is here and now. It never appears anew and disappears again. That which is must also persist for ever. That which appears anew will also be lost. Compare deep sleep and waking. The body appears in one state but not in the other. Therefore the body will be lost. The consciousness was pre-existent and will survive the body. In fact, there is no one who does not say ‘I am’. The wrong knowledge of ‘I am the body’ is the cause of all the mischief. This wrong knowledge must go. That is Realisation. Realisation is not acquisition of anything new nor it is a new faculty. It is only removal of all camouflage.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 96)
The Self is known to everyone but not clearly. You always exist. The Be-ing is the Self. ‘I am’ is the name of God. Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement “I AM THAT I AM” in EXODUS (Chap. 3). There are other statements, such as Brahmaivaham, Aham Brahmasmi and Soham. But none is so direct as the name JEHOVAH = I AM. The Absolute Being is what is - It is the Self. It is God. Knowing the Self, God is known. In fact God is none other than the Self.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 106)
The Self is ever-present (nityasiddha). Each one wants to know the Self. What kind of help does one require to know oneself? People want to see the Self as something new. But it is eternal and remains the same all along. They desire to see it as a blazing light, etc. How can it be so? It is not light, not darkness (na tejo, na tamah). It is only as it is. It cannot be defined. The best definition is ‘I am that I AM.’ The Srutis speak of the Self as being the size of one’s thumb, the tip of the hair, an electric spark, vast, subtler than the subtlest, etc. They have no foundation in fact. It is only Being, but different from the real and the unreal; it is Knowledge, but different
from knowledge and ignorance. How can it be defined at all? It is simply Being.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 122)
“Be still and know that I am God.” To be still is not to think. Know, and not think, is the word.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 131)
The ‘I-thought’ is the ego and that is lost. The real ‘I’ is “I am That I Am.”
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 164)
The essence of mind is only awareness or consciousness. When the ego, however, dominates it, it functions as the reasoning, thinking or sensing faculty. The cosmic mind being not limited by the ego, has nothing separate from itself and is therefore only aware. This is what
the Bible means by “I am that I AM”.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 188)
Ramana Maharshi on the "I Am" – Part 2 of 4
The egoless ‘I am’ is not thought. It is realisation. The meaning or significance of ‘I’ is God. The experience of ‘I am’ is to Be Still.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 226)
One should not think ‘I am this - I am not that’. To say ‘this or that’ is wrong. They are also limitations. Only ‘I am’ is the truth. Silence is ‘I’. If one thinks ‘I am this’, another thinks ‘I am this’ and so on, there is a clash of thoughts and so many religions are the result. The truth remains as it is, not affected by any statements, conflicting or otherwise.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 248)
Everyone knows ‘I am’. Who is the ‘I’? It will be neither within nor without, neither on the right nor on the left. ‘I am’ - that is all.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 273)
You admit “I am”. You admit “I was” in sleep. The state of being is your self.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 280)
The Bible says, “Be still and know that I am God”. Stillness is the sole requisite for the realisation of the Self as God. … The whole Vedanta is contained in the two Biblical statements: “I am that I AM” and “Be still and know that I am God.”
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 338)
“I am that I am.” “I am” is God - not thinking, “I am God”. Realise “I am” and do not think I am. “Know I am God” - it is said, and not “Think I am God.”
It is said “I AM that I AM”. That means a person must abide as the ‘I’. He is always the ‘I’ alone. He is nothing else. Yet he asks “Who am I?” A victim of illusion would ask “Who am I?” and not a man fully aware of himself. The wrong identity of the Self with the non-self makes you ask, “Who am I?”
There are different routes to Tiruvannamalai, but Tiruvannamalai is the same by whichever route it is gained. Similarly the approach to the subject varies according to the personality. Yet
the Self is the same. But still, being in Tiruvannamalai, if one asks for the route it is ridiculous. So also, being the Self, if one asks how to realise the Self it looks absurd. You are the Self. Remain as the Self. That is all. The questions arise because of the present wrong identification of the Self with the body. That is ignorance. This must go. On its removal the Self alone is.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 354)
Your duty is to be: and not to be this or that. “I AM that I AM” sums up the whole truth. The method is summed up in “BE STILL”. What does “stillness” mean? It means “destroy yourself”. Because any form or shape is the cause of trouble. Give up the notion that “I am so and so”. Our sastras say: ahamiti sphurati (it shines as ‘I’).
(Aham, aham) ‘I-I’ is the Self; (Aham idam) “I am this” or “I and that” is the ego. Shining is there always. The ego is transitory; When the ‘I’ is kept up as ‘I’ alone it is the Self; when it flies at a tangent and says “this” it is the ego.
The Self is God. “I AM” is God. “I am the Self, O Gudakesa!” (Ahamatma Gudakesa).
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 363)
Vichara is the process and the goal also. ‘I AM’ is the goal and the final Reality. To hold to it with effort is vichara. When spontaneous and natural it is Realisation.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 390)
Nirvana is Perfection. In the Perfect State there is neither subject nor object; there is nothing to see, nothing to feel, nothing to know. Seeing and knowing are the functions of the mind. In nirvana there is nothing but the blissful pure consciousness “I am.”
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 406)
Dvaita and advaita are relative terms. They are based on the sense of duality. The Self is as it is. There is neither dvaita nor advaita. I AM THAT I AM. Simple Being is the Self.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 433)
In the Bible God says “I AM before Abraham.” He does not say “I was” but “I AM.”
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 436)
Ramana Maharshi on the "I Am" – Part 3 of 4
This Consciousness is the eternal Being and the only Being. The seer cannot see himself. Does he deny his existence because he cannot see himself with the eyes as pratyaksha (in vision)? No! So, pratyaksha does not mean seeing, but BE-ing. “To BE” is to realise - Hence I AM THAT I AM. I AM is Siva. Nothing else can be without Him. Everything has its being in Siva and because of Siva.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 450)
You say ‘I AM’. That is it. What else can say I AM? One’s own being is His Power. The trouble arises only when one says, “I am this or that, such and such.” Do not do it - Be yourself. That is all.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 478)
Be still and know that I AM GOD. “Stillness” here means “Being free from thoughts”.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 480)
Reality is only one and that is the self. All the rest are mere Phenomena in it, of it and by it. The seer, the objects and the sight, all are the self only. ... The only permanent thing is Reality; and that is the Self. You say “I am”, “I am going”, “I am speaking”, “I am working”, etc. Hyphenate “I am” in all of them. Thus I - AM. That is the abiding and fundamental Reality. This truth was taught by God to Moses: “I AM that I-AM”. “Be still and know that I-AM God.” so “I-AM” is God.
You know that you are. You cannot deny your existence at any moment of time. For you must be there in order to deny it. This (Pure Existence) is understood by stilling your mind. The mind is the outgoing faculty of the individual. If that is turned within, it becomes still in course of time and that “I-AM” alone prevails. “I-AM” is the whole Truth.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 503)
Everyone is aware, ‘I am’. Leaving aside that awareness one goes about in search of God.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 557)
You are neither That nor This. The truth is ‘I am’. “I AM that I AM” according to the Bible also. Mere Being is alone natural. To limit it to ‘being a man’ is uncalled for.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 601)
“Be still and know that I AM God”. So stillness is the aim of the seeker. Even a single effort to still at least a single thought even for a trice goes a long way to reach the state of quiescence. Effort is required and it is possible in the waking state only.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 609)
That which is, always is. If the ahankar dies, It, the Reality, exists as It has always existed. You may speak of It as having aham vritti or simply aham. It is all the same. That which exists is ‘I am’ or ‘aham’.
(Source: Day by Day with Bhagavan, 12-11-45 Morning)
‘I exist’ is the only permanent, self-evident experience of everyone. Nothing else is so self-evident (pratyaksha) as ‘I am’. What people call ‘self-evident’ viz., the experience they get through the senses, is far from selfevident. The Self alone is that. Pratyaksha is another name
for the Self. So, to do Self-analysis and be ‘I am’ is the only thing to do. ‘I am’ is reality. I am this or that is unreal. ‘I am’ is truth, another name for Self. ‘I am God’ is not true.
The Swami thereupon said, “The Upanishads themselves have said ‘I am Brahman’.” Bhagavan replied, “That is not how the text is to be understood. It simply means, “Brahman exists as ‘I’ and not ‘I am Brahman’. It is not to be supposed that a man is advised to contemplate ‘I am Brahman’, ‘I am Brahman’. Does a man keep on thinking ‘I am a man’ ‘I am a man’? He is that, and except when a doubt arises as to whether he is an animal or a tree, there is no need for him to assert, ‘I am a man.’ Similarly the Self is Self, Brahman exists as ‘I am’, in every thing and every being.”
(Source: Day by Day with Bhagavan, 22-3-46 Afternoon)
Ramana Maharshi on the "I Am" – Part 4 of 4
We do not know anything about Siva or the Paramatman. We know the jiva. Or, rather, we know we exist. ‘I am’ is the only thing that always abides, even when the body does not exist for us, as for instance, when we are asleep. Let us take hold of this, and see wherefrom the ‘I’ sense or ahamkara, as you put it, arises.
(Source: Day by Day with Bhagavan, 27-12-46)
When I say you are present at all times and at all places and you ask where is that ‘I’, it is something like asking, when you are in Tiruvannamalai, ‘Where is Tiruvannamalai?’ When you are everywhere, where are you to search? The real delusion is the feeling that you are the body. When you get rid of that delusion, what remains is your Self. You should search for a thing which is not with you but where is the need to search for a thing which is always with you? All sadhanas are for getting rid of the delusion that you are the body. The knowledge that ‘I am’ is always there: call it Atma, or Paramatma or whatever you like. One should get rid of the idea that ‘I am the body’. There is no need to search for that ‘I’ that is the self. That Self is all pervading.
(Source: Letters from Sri Ramanasramam, [73] The “I” is the Mind Itself)
Samadhi alone can reveal the Truth. Thoughts cast a veil over Reality, and so It is not realised as such in states other than samadhi. In samadhi there is only the feeling ‘I AM’ and no thoughts. The experience ‘I AM’ is being still.
(Source: Maharshi’s Gospel, VI. Self-Realisation)
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says ‘Aham’ is the first name of God. The first letter in Sanskrit is ‘A’ and the last letter ‘Ha’ and ‘Aha’ thus includes everything from the beginning to the end. The word Ayam means That which exists, self-shining and self-evident. Ayam, Atma, Aham all refer to the same thing. In the Bible also, ‘I AM’ is given as the first name of God.
(Source: Gems from Bhagavan, XIII. Miscellaneous)
Not even an iota of prarabdha exists for those who uninterruptedly attend to the space of consciousness, which always shines as `I am', which is not confined in the vast physical space, and which pervades everywhere without limitations.
(Source: Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi, Ch. 21 Karma, Destiny and Free Will)
Salazar,
no matter. I referred only to your sentence of 30 October 2018 at 23:15 "There is no need to make one or the other "better" or "worse"."
Seeing always both sides of the coin finally serves to control the mind and intellect.
It is surely Bhagavan's direct command for everyone who seeks to know the self that one has first to perfect himself in self-discipline, give up desires and attune the mind to the self.
D Samarender Reddy,
thanks for compiling your compilation of Ramana Maharshi's sayings on the 'I am'.
So by the constant grace of Arunachala and the unfailing protection of Lord Siva we may dedicate our life to the supreme omnipresent being. Only by complete surrender to the Lord who dwells as the self in the heart we can attain that supreme state.
Let us become free from the enslavement through desires and thus be well satisfied in the self and by the self.
Salazar, regarding bizarre assumptions creeping up on this blog and "dull-witted":
We clearly see that it must be our indispensable endeavour to primarily destroy the mind's evil tendencies.
Dragos Nicolae,
You asked on
31 October 2018 at 15:10 to 'everyone".
How EXACTLY do you practice?
Michael James has explained quite in detail how to practice in his several commentaries and comments in this blog. Is that not sufficient for you? Sri Ramana Maharshi has also explained how to practice. Who is better to explain than the two of them here?
Hi Salazar,
I received my copy of "Conscious Immortality" today which is supposed to be a record of Paul Brunton's conversations with Bhagavan. I believe you recommend it?
Although I have hardly looked at it... somethings are very interesting.
I appreciate the preface which frankly, intelligently and impartially describes the intrigue surrounding the work:
The original manuscript was lost and whatever text was removed is unknown.
Of the current work: 62% of the book corresponds to Munagala's "Talks" and of that 62%... fully 67% corresponds word for word with Talks.
And the preface which is from V.S. Ramanan president of Sri Ramanasramam says "There is a wealth of instruction in the notebook and the ashram feels devotees can gain immeasurably from this new edition".
Of course, at best words only point.
thanks again,
Hi Sam,
thanks for your excellent and inspiring posts.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 43
The projected picture of this world of triads is a play of chit-para-shakti [i.e., the power or reflected light of self-consciousness] on the screen of supreme consciousness.
Reflections: The seer, seen and the process of seeing or the knower, known and the process of knowing is all like a film appearing on the screen of awareness. What is the power which makes such a picture appear? It is chit-para-shakti – the reflected light of self-consciousness.
The books we like change in correspondence to and in relation with our need.
In alteration what Salazar said ("...actually all what is needed can be found in Padamalai or GVK.") I would say that all what is needed must be found finally in one's own practice.
Sanjay,
as we know, the reflected light of self-consciousness is not the direct light of self but only the light borrowed by the ego from self.
Hi Josef,
Regarding your comment: "all what is needed must be found finally in one's own practice"
The way (or "non-way") is self revealing. Instructive glimpses are provided.
Roger,
at least instructive glimpses are appreciated. Who might be the provider of them ?
Josef loves to make these innocent appearing questions while we know that [his] ego has already the answer and it just likes more food to argue once an answer was provided :)
Where could that come from? [Rhetorical question.]
Salazar,
why do you so easily see through my person ?:-)
You always see what it's really all about, that is certain.
who provides glimpses? Grace.
A glimpse maybe the result of extensive Atma Vicara practice or whatever else you do or being with a realized person.
For example after a period of extensive meditation, a lengthy retreat etc... Grace might reveal some highly personal clue on what to aspire to next... this may just be a clear example of profound stillness demonstrating not in concepts but actually in your experience what it is.
So in this regard: the way is self revealing. Study and contemplation is also good. But grace will actually show you.
PB talks extensively of glimpses: https://paulbrunton.org/notebooks/
Just enter "glimpse" into the search box.
There are many false matches but 700+ in total.
Roger,
if Paul Brunton had not written his book "A search in Secret India" perhaps I would not know anything about Arunachala-Ramana. Therefore I have to write posthumously a thank-you letter to him.:-)
Hi Josef,
I certainly allow anyone a devotional attraction to Arunachala.
But I feel none myself.
I do live with an extensive mountain range in my backyard with numerous 4000+ meter peaks.
So that will have to do for me even though it has no associated mythology it is not less in feeling.
Roger,
no matter, I feel myself no devotional attraction to the magnificent mountainous region of Sierra Nevada. In contrast to that majestic Californian mountain range Arunachala hill with its only about 800 meters height is only a dwarf. However, Arunachala is not an ordinary mountain...and more than a myth.
Salazar,
let me have my inferior devotion to the location Arunachala!
But you are right in saying: simply to be is the supreme devotion and the highest attainment is the realisation of one's identity with the Lord within through atmanishta,
the steadfast abidance in the oneness of self.
By the way, I only guessed that Roger meant Sierra Nevada. Sorry, I have never been in California.
The three vices of the mind are desire, fear and anger presuppose duality and duality is based on the mind.
It is said...once the mind is destroyed, the illusion of bondage is put to an end.
The only direct means of destroying the mind with its duality and consequent vices is unswerving abidance in the self, atmanishta. When atmanishta becomes sahaja or spontaneous, the sense of duality is destroyed for ever.
Arunachala is pure self-awareness; how then can it be considered as an object ?
IF one has the skill of devotion / Bhakti, then devotion to some object (ie mountain, saint, child, spouse or abstract god etc... whatever is personally moving) may lead in the direction of freedom. It is not the object that frees, it is the devotion.
It is the same with Karma Yoga. It is not the action that frees, it is the inward selflessness found in performance of ones duty.
Download the pdf of Talks and search on Bhakti: there are 62 hits. Bhagavan puts devotion at the same level as other methods including vicara. People have different temperaments. The thing is finding what works for you.
If Papaji dismissed devotion, then maybe it wasn't his temperament... or he skipped key lectures by Bhagavan. :-)
Salazar,
..."And secondly, the term Self is an object, as is Brahman, sat-chit-ananda, pure self-awareness etc. It can only be an object for the mind, it is imagined."
But... Arunachala is self and that is beyond the mind which itself does not even actually exist. Therefore imaginations of the non-existent mind are completely irrelevant. As pure consciousness Arunachala is always present as transcendental being within, beyond the three states of consciousness, eternal and immutable.
We should surrender unto the omnipresent Lord who dwells in the heart, not to any "ignore list".:-)
I see two trends on this blog, a parrot style repetition-regurgitation of what Michael has thought for himself, and neo-advaita guru wannabes who like to pretend they're better than anyone else... good luck!
Dragos,
make it better - good luck, best wishes and kind regards to Bucharest.
Why remain in the dark, finite hole when we can become one with the brilliant, infinite whole
Why not just keep quiet; why let ego see height,
Why rise as ego and give up happiness; why such incessant madness,
Why not bring ego under Bhagavan’s feet; why not remove all its heat,
Why remain in the dark, finite hole when we can become one with the brilliant, infinite whole.
Salazar,
You fit in nicely with Michael James. Both of you have strong held opinions on how everyone else should practice and that is your main vocation.
Salazar,
Can you explain what are Bhagavan's basic tenets of his practice/philosophy and what they entail? Then you will see the many logical errors you produce in what you write...
Thanks
Salazar likes to play down his often condescending style of commenting by the notion "I share my viewpoints on this blog."
For instance: "Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahha"
(1 November 2018 at 23:44)
Anyhow an interesting, strange and revealing viewpoint.:-)
Salazar,
I believe the path is to dive deep into oneself and get the Self metaphorically speaking... logical conclusions for me is that there will never be a world to be experienced. No time, no space, no thoughts, no seeing anything, pure self awareness, nothing else... that, for me, easily separates the wheat from the chaff, as far as many other spiritual teachers/writings are concerned... and keeps everything extremely simple... Bhagavan's metaphysics is an aid to this path, keeps the mind not so scattered on so may spiritual concepts...
Neo-advaita on the other hand tells people there's no ego, nothing to do... that's so wrong in my opinion and, most importantly, very capable aspirants are lead astray with this wishful thinking. Neo-advaita has nothing to do with Bhagavan's unique path and goal... We need to get to our source to destroy the ego (which manifests all we see) not merely accepting there's no ego... if it's so simple as neo-advaitins imply, why so many people don't realize it so quickly...?! It has nothing to do with theory/accepting something, it has all to do with our rising vasanas from countless lives/dreams... we are told how to destroy them... dive within to reach the source... so how's that compared to neo-advaita that you seem to preach here?! You are leading many people astray
A seeker of truth must learn not to lose his equanimity when he encounters a rude or insulting manner or aggressive attitude of someone.
Dragos Nicolae,
Reg:
31 October 2018 at 15:10 to 'everyone".
How EXACTLY do you practice?
Michael James said in this commentary.
Our aim is to experience and just be the pure self-awareness that we actually are, but in order to do so we must investigate ego. Since we now experience ourself as ego, we cannot attend to ourself except as ego, just as when we see a rope as a snake we cannot look at it except as a snake. However, by looking at the snake, we see that it is actually just a rope, and thereafter we can never again mistake it to be a snake. Likewise, by keenly attending to ego, we see that we are actually just pure self-awareness, and thereafter we can never again mistake ourself to be ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that we should look within, what he means is that we should look only at ourself, this ego (the subject who perceives all objects, the one who is aware of everything else), because when we look at ourself keenly enough we will see that what we actually are is not the ego that we seemed to be but only pure self-awareness.
Michael James has understood correctly what Bhagavan taught in his post of his. Now if it has not yet practically worked for the student (whomever it is) it is not the teacher's fault but the unreadiness of the student or seeker to give up identification with the ego.
We see that impure beings are overpowered by rajas and tamas.
They are caught and harnessed in the wheel of samsara. By a lucky chance they will get a free bed in a special clinic.:-)
Let us say enough is enough
To reach our goal we need to destroy ego; self-investigation is the only way to let it go.
Some do not like when we thus clarify; but why should we dilute the truth to satisfy?
With ego is command our life is miserable; why should pretend that it is tolerable?
Let us say enough is enough.
Correction:
With ego in command, our life is miserable; why should we pretend that it is tolerable?
Why do we get angry?
We may get angry when our expectations are not met or when our desires are thwarted. We may become angry when somebody or something we are attached to is taken away from us. We are likely to get angry when somebody or some incident causes harm to the things or people we love.
The intensity of our anger depends on the intensity of our desires and attachments. For example, if I am too attached to my car, I will become very angry if someone causes harm to my car. If I am only slightly attached, my anger may not be so much in such situations.
However, if we have no expectations, have no likes and dislikes, we will not become angry because of whatever seemingly bad or horrible situations we may encounter. So to give up our anger we need to tackle its root, namely our desires and attachments. And give up our desires and attachments we need to remove their root, namely ego. And to remove ego we need to turn our attention a full 180 degrees within and thereby experience ourself as we really are.
Sanjay,
yes, we have primarily to cut the ego-tree off its roots (or root it up).
Dragos,
I just consider that looking within is synonymous with letting go of the ego.
So I try to combine practically both aspects. I hope that will intensify and deepen my attempts of self-investigation. In this manner my investigation will become more careful and keen and the awareness of myself as if I were a person should gradually vanish.
There have been a number of revealing comments of late:
"very capable aspirants are lead astray with this wishful thinking"
"Michael James has understood correctly what Bhagavan taught in his post of his"
"Some do not like when we thus clarify; but why should we dilute the truth to satisfy?"
The implicit assumption by these 3 commentators is that they know what the truth is, how else can they make such comments? But one cannot know the truth until s/he is self-realised; prior to that it is a belief, a concept, a hypothesis held by the illusory mind, which we have been told is false and misleading. So in these statements, one has the roots of religious fundamentalism, not self-investigation.
Assumptions of the mind are yet so exiting; why painting things so black ?:-)
Why being concerned with the mind's assumptions ?
To whom do these assumptions appear ?
Find out and be at peace.:-)
Nice comments Venkat.
There is frequent talk here about the "ego".
For me, this always seems imprecise and not very useful even fantasy.
Often what MJ has said is repeated... but what does it mean? what is the ego?
MJ says that the ego is the world and body.
does this work? Can anyone actually go so far into "I" that the world and body disappear?
For me, very precisely, when my attention is focused inward using some kind of meditation, the "ego" is simply that takes attention off the subject going outward into thought or ambition. And to overcome the "ego" is simply recognizing that attention has been lost... and back to self. Then... the ego is something very specific that "I" can deal with practically: attention lost into ambition or thought or emotion (ego)?... then just bring attention back to inward focus.
does it make sense? The definition of "ego" here seems to broad to be useful.
(I'm not trying to pose as if I know or master the path... far from it)
Yes, Roger.. I have similar questions... and I believe this is what this comment section should be about... dissecting things that could help us in our own practice....
For me, there are some crucial things that need more clarification (which obviously get more clarified by practice but...) ..they are:
1. What is the ego?!
2. What exactly is the path?!
3. What does the state of realization we are trying to achieve entail?!
These are very very important questions. I'm trying to answer based on what Bhagavan says, and what my meager practice so far seems to tell me.... So please, everyone join the discussion, with what you experienced so far, and your manana ...
1. What is the ego?!
The ego, according to Bhagavan is basically what is aware of all other thoughts. You are aware of anger... what is aware of anger is the ego. Subject<--->object relationship.... what-is-aware-of-anger <---> anger .. I think this is clear to anyone, no question about it...
Bhagavan also says that this ego expands and creates everything so in a way everything we see right now is ego, or an expansion of it... just like in a dream...
So ego is what is aware of everything else, and also the world, the body etc..... Also ego is mind accord to Bhagavan, so all this world is mind (just like in a dream, including your body). So ego, mind, i, world are the same thing...
2. What exactly is the path?!
The path is to look at the ego, right?! See what it its... But what exactly that entails... it's simple to just say it.... So, to whom right... well i'm doing that... it's obviously nothing there, but when I really try to keenly look at it (very very brief moments of intensity of attention) it seems to me that the very act transitions to diving into yourself as Bhagavan rightly says in Ulladu Narpadhu verse 28: (http://www.happinessofbeing.com/Sri_Ramanopadesa_Noonmalai.pdf)
"
Just as one would dive (restraining one’s speech and breath) in order to find a thing which has fallen into the water, one should dive within (oneself) restraining speech and breath with a keen mind (that is, with a keen and penetrating attention fixed on the feeling ‘I’), and know (the real Self, which is) the rising-place (or source) of the ego, which rises first. Know thus.
"
So this would be the practice, it so seems to me....
3. What does the state of realization we are trying to achieve entail?!
Bhagavan repeateadly says that when the State we are after is achieved, body consciousness along with world consciousness will be gone forever... But many teachers say these two will come back and you (as pure consciousness) won't be affected by them...
So what do you think...
Thanks,
Dragos
So we greenhorns must penitently admit that only Salazar's concepts, imaginations, theories, expectations, truth's (as imagined and believed by the mind) will never veil Brahman/Self.:-)
Dragos,
may I generally recommend to carefully study Michael's numerous articles.
Regarding your first question 1. What is the ego?! you may watch also Michael's recent video: Sri Ramana Teachings:
2018-10-28 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: discussion with Michael James on the nature of ego
Your last question 3. What does the state of realization we are trying to achieve entail?! you will find answered after realization - if then still necessary.
You do not greatly profit from any speculation.
I'm asking for other people's own opinion/actual practice ... why is everyone just quoting/parroting Michael here?!
As regards, the state of realization, this is a very important question... if the state of realization does not entail perception of the world (it's people, object, time etc...) and basically we won't experience it anymore (just like you now you don't experience last night's dream) it means that all teachers who teach otherwise are not enlightened at all... (just assume for the sake of argument that this is the case, isn't this the logical conclusion?!)
Joseph, I know what the ego is... I'm asking you what it think it is... and what is your experience so far...
"what you" i meant
My opinion/practice so far is that you have to dive deep within yourself as Bhagavan says in verse 28, and that there won't be any perception of this world with it's time, people etc.... So basically anyone who says otherwise is not enlightened... Yes, I know... this sounds arrogant... so what do you think?! Seriously... isn't this what Bhagavan implies?!
So basically, Papaji, Mooji, Robert Adams, Nisargadatta and tens of other so called Jnanis are not Jnanis at all...
(now let the quote war begin :).... better state your own practice/conclusions, thanks...)
I will not reply to anyone who just mindlessly posts quotes here without also adding up his own thoughts / practice... I'm not trying to look arrogant, but please share what you think...
Salazar,
what do you do (or try to do) everyday? What exactly is your practice... just so we know how to tackle our conflicting ideas... so please share...
Same for everyone else... please share... so we can have a honest discussion
(sorry for the scattered posts, ideas came like that...) and sorry if it looks arrogant... that's not the idea... we're trying to help each other progress in understanding and sharpening the practice..
thanks,
Dragos
Dragos,
between you and me I think that none of the mentioned teachers did reach the same depth of wisdom as Bhagavan Sri Ramana. Not only I but many others are convinced that he is the greatest luminary in the firmament of spirituality in the recent past. I cannot judge if these mentioned teachers are considered with justification as jnanis.
So far as I am concerned I have to admit that I just began to overcome a sense of frustration about he fact that till now I was not able to bring the mind to stand still i.e. to eliminate all thoughts or at least to bring the mind gradually under control. Not to rise as ego/person and thus to remain in the self seems to be still far away. However, there is no alternative but to develop the required patience and perseverance.
Kind regards.
Dragos, sorry,
correction: it should be "the fact" not "he fact".
Thank you Joseph,
I’m in the same situation...
Dragos
1. The ego is a thought. One thought cannot see other thoughts; to posit such essentially furthers the entification of the ego. I don't think this is what Bhagavan was teaching. He was saying that once the I-thought, which identifies with body-mind arises, then all the further concepts about the world arise. So we don't see things as they are - non-different from us, as in the same gold in different ornaments - but through the lens of our I-thought which likes and dislikes, has greed and fear.
I have pointed out in previous comments, quotes from Muruganar and Shankara that clearly state that it is the Self / awareness that witnesses the jiva and the world.
2. For me, the path is to investigate the ego, first analytically / intellectually, and then through constant awareness of the I-thought, especially when it waxes - in desire, anger and fear. This constant inward awareness on its own, leads to a natural (rather than forced) subsidence of thoughts, such that you just be - summa iru.
3. Realisation does not necessarily mean the disappearance of the body and world. It simply entails the loss of subject-object division - ie one goes through life, without specifically identifying with this particular body-mind and its desires and fears. Again, there are quotes from Muruganar and Advaita more generally (including books that Bhagavan recommended such as Kaivalya Navaneeta, Ashtavakra Gita, and Bhagavad Gita).
This disappearance of the body world is a logical follow-on if one asserts that the world is projected and perceived by the ego. Therefore when the ego dies, the world must disappear. This is MJ's logic, but in my opinion is based on a misunderstanding of Bhagavan's teaching.
That of course is just my opinion, since I am not realised.. You need to investigate and come to your own view.
To all those pandits, scholars and pretentious sages who do not appreciate Michael James's commentaries and explanations on Bhagavan's teachings.
What are you doing here criticizing Michael James saying he has not realized the Self and such other nonsense. How do you know for sure Michael James is not a Jnani even of he says he is not? As is you people have realized the Self yourselves and are Jnanis?
Go and start your own blogs like Michael James has done if you have a better understanding than Micheal James instead of behaving like arrogant assholes and showing off your worthless mental concepts.
"Therefore when the world appears, svarūpa [our ‘own form’ or actual self] does not appear [as it really is]; when svarūpa appears (shines) [as it really is], the world does not appear" Nan Yar
No one can doubt this quote by Bhagavan.... How do you interpret it? ok, be it so... it's mysterious, mind can't comprehend it... etc... what do I know.. let's leave it here...
"You have already gone astray" lol.. I am already astray... trying to disentagle myself form this messy life-body... looking for what is unchanging in me... the path is clear, trying to understand certain things that might help me more profoundly does not make me "corrupted"... well... each with his own way... everyone is responsible for himself... I wish everyone success in this endeavour
Have a nice day,
Dragos :D
Have you got the experience to speak with authority?! If not, how do you know I'm not correct? On what you base your intrepretation?
I'm not saying I'm right... That's why I believe it's important we all have a honest discussion about this...
If, as you say, the grasping has stopped, how can you be aware of any world since what you perceive as the world are in themsevles things (mental impressions) that are grasped?! Don't you see your logical contradiction?!
Salazar,
having had an experience of self - our real nature - is nothing particular. Rather we all have it every night.:-)
Evidently your experience (of what ever it really was) was not manonasa but at best manolaya.
Dragos
I will again repeat GVK 1119:
"Though the mind that has been captivated and held under the sway of the shining of pure being may move away to sense objects that are seen, heard, eaten, smelt and touched, as in the past, its knot has definitely been severed through perfect, firm vichara."
Muruganar's comment on this verse:
"There is no rule that the mind whose knot has been cut should not operate among the sense objects. . . . it can operate among them wholly as the Self, but it will not in the least become bound by them."
As Salazar pointed out, no jnani has stated that the world disappears on realisation. It is therefore highly unlikely that Bhagavan intended this interpretation, and this is clearly evident in GVK 1119 and Muruganar's comment thereon. This idea of world disappearing on enlightenment is just another concept grasped by the ego to maintain itself . . . "I need to keep on practising until the world disappears!" What Bhagavan and all Jnanis tell you is that you already are free, and it is just your ignorance that binds you. Think what this means! Think about the story of the tenth man, and its meaning; no one disappears on the 10th man remembering to count himself - they were 10 before and they are 10 after.
Actually, even in Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham, Bhagavan makes it clear in his directly written teaching, that the world does not disappear on realisation.
v.26: O hero, having enquired into all the states which are of various kinds, play your role in the the world, always clinging firmly with the mind only to that one which is the supreme state devoid of unreality. O hero, since you have known that Self which exists in the heart as the Reality of all the various appearances; therefore without ever abandoning that outlook, play your role in the world as if you have desire.
v27: O hero, being one who has seeming mental excitement and joy, being one who has seeming mental anxiety and hatred, being one who has seeming effort or initiative, but being as one who is in truth devoid of all such defects, play your role in the world. O hero, being one who has been released from the many bonds called delusion, being one who is firmly equanimous in all conditions, yet outwardly doing actions appropriate to your disguise, play your role in the world.
Paragraph Three
சரவ் அறிவிற்கும் சரவ் மதோழிற்குங் கோரண மோகிய மன மடங்கினோல் ஜகதிருஷ் டி நீங்கும். கற்பித ஸரப்்ப ஞோனம் பபோனோ மலோழிய அதிஷ் டோன ரஜ்ஜு ஞோனம் உண் டோகோதது பபோல, கற்பிதமோன ஜகதிருஷ் டி நீங்கினோ மலோழிய அதிஷ் டோன மசோரூப தரச்ன முண் டோகோது.
If the mind, which is the cause of all [objective] knowledge and of all activity, subsides, jagad-dṛṣṭi [perception of the world] will cease. Just as knowledge of the rope, which is the base [that underlies and supports the imaginary appearance of a snake], will not arise unless knowledge of the imaginary snake ceases, svarūpa-darśana [true
experiential knowledge of our own actual nature or real self], which is the base [that underlies and supports the imaginary appearance of this world], will not arise unless perception of the world, which is an imagination [or fabrication], ceases
Indeed beliefs, being just thoughts, would sustain the mind. However, having desire to experiencing the Self and at the same time the world and trying to justify it with numerous examples of the so-called "enlightened" people is not better at all.
Hi Salazar, I concur with your comment to me.
Noob, the ashram publication of Who am I, contained in "Words of Grace" has this translation for your paragraph:
"If the mind which is the instrument of knowledge and is the basis of activity subsides, the perception of the world as an objective reality ceases. Unless the illusory perception of the serpent in the rope ceases, the rope on which the illusion is formed is not perceived as such. Similarly, unless the illusory nature of the perception of the world as an objective reality ceases, the vision of the true nature of the Self on which the illusion is formed is not obtained".
This gives a very different sense to the MJ translation that you have quoted. Michael's might be a sparse, word for word translation; but clearly the meaning inherent can be conveyed with very different nuances.
Consequently any thinking person needs to take into account MJ's interpretation, ALONGSIDE others such as Muruganar, Annamalai Swami, Shankara and the various books that Bhagavan recommended, even if you dispute other Jnanis.
Indeed you need to consider the significance of Bhagavan's verses in UN (such as 'the world is real for the ajnani and the jnani . . .', 'this body is I for the ajnani and jnani . . . ') and UNA (as I have quoted above); as well as his dialogues as recorded in Talks (whatever the shortcomings).
As I have stated previously MJ has done a great service for us in translating Bhagavan's works. To understand them is our responsibility. To simply rely on Michael's interpretation, without recourse to understanding how his interpretation contradicts that of others, just betrays an ego that wants comfort and security in a belief without having to think for itself.
Venkat, thank you for your input.
This is entirely my judgment about the meaning of such a deep masterpiece. However, if I have to take into account the fact that according to Bhagavan we must treat this world the same way as we treat our dreams, the statement that an "enlightened person" can see this world is the same as saying that I keep seeing dreams after waking up, which is equal to " I keep dreaming". Besides this is all happening in "my dream", so to speak.
We are just have to much attachment to this world.... Like when we see a dream but feel reluctant to wake up from it. And it keeps feeding us all the garbage about " see these enlightened persons" in your dream, you can be like one of them. And we fail to understand that there is only ONE, and he is not a person.
Funny stuff, sometimes when I have a philosophical argument with my friends and they ask a question why we do this or that, trying to find a logical answer, I answer them "I did this or that because I woke up in the morning"
Noob,
I think Salazar articulated it well - not to have any expectations of what realisation entails. The philosophical point we can all intellectually grasp and agree upon is that we are not separate from the world (the gold in ornaments), and that the ego is an illusion and the cause of our travails. Therefore just be aware of the ego in all its thoughts and actions, and Bhagavan says that watching / investigation will cause it to subside. What happens after that is not your (ego's) concern.
Noob,
For me the waking world has no more reality than a dream. We / our ego take it seriously, and believe we need to grab things for ourselves and achieve something for ourselves. That is what Bhagavan meant by dream. That is what Bhagavan meant by "just be". That is why he suggests a number of verses from the Bhagavad Gita describing a jnani, such as:
"Satisfied with what comes to him by chance, beyond the pairs of opposites, free from envy, equal in success and failure, he is not bound by his actions".
There is no hint of disappearance of the world in BG, but there are plenty of verses to say it is not real, it is illusory, like a mirage of water in the desert . . . so don't take it seriously, and be unaffected by it.
So my question for you Noob: How do you understand Bhagavan's UNA verses 26 and 27, which I quoted in an earlier comment, and which is the gist of the BG quote as well?
Indeed, having the ability to see the world after "realization" is one of those expectations.
Venkat, my understanding of those two verses is as follows:
Bhagavan uses "O Hero", speaking to a 2nd person. My personal take is that it is a sort of a reassurance to those on the path, in the same way as it is in Bhagavad Gita. Every body dies sooner or later, what awaits beyond is what we will find out in due time. When we are ready, we will just await THAT, playing our role without worries and fears.
Noob - the UNA and the BG verses are speaking of a jnani.
I wonder why Bhagavan, who always was very straight-forward in his teaching, would seek to confuse by saying at one point the world disappears with the ego, and then saying within the same composition, 'the world/body exists for the jnani and ajnani' and 'play your part in the world'. And why point to Shanakara, Bhagavad Gita, Kaivalya Navaneeta and Vivekachudamani, which do not promulgate this idea of the world disappearing.
One either concludes that Bhagavan was not consistent and confused in his teaching, or that our interpretation of it is confused.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have no particular desire to see the world. I am simply disagreeing with Michael's interpretation of Bhagavan's, based on the various sources I have quoted.
There seems to be a cult developing around Michael's translation and interpretation of three texts (UN, UU and Nan Yar), whilst discarding pointers from Talks, Day to Day, Muruganar's commentaries, Annamalai Swami, let alone other jnanis.
Venkat, for me this is very simple. I accept that my mind can create illusions with different degrees of sophistication. I also try to take the world and my dreams as just one great illusion. So what jnanis are we looking for in this dream world? I know with my experience that I cannot change what I see in my dreams when I am already dreaming, even though it looks like I have a will there as I am frequently travelling there, speaking in different languages, performing other actions that seem to be impossible to do without a will in this world. And I know that that is all an illusion in my dreams therefore it can also be an illusion in this world. So again what jnanis are we looking for?
They can all be just illusory jnanis.
"So again what jnanis are we looking for?"
So why quote Bhagavan's Nan Yar?, And why frequent this site?
Probably this is my role. I came across Bhagavan's teachings by accident, but I always wanted, since I was a kid, to find out about the world and consciousness. At first I could not even accept that this can be all an illusion, but with time, slowly, Bhagavan's interpretation won, cleared all doubts I had when I read Bhagavad Gita, the Bible, etc. And I keep asking that same question myself, why am I even coming to post here?
Probably I am not yet ready to give up on everything.....
We have created so many needs for ourselves and made our lives extremely complicated
The mind continues to multiply its needs. Actually, what we need for living is food, clothing and shelter – pretty basic. But we have made our lives very complicated by creating so many needs for ourselves nowadays. Can anyone of us live without a mobile phone or computer these days? All these things were not needed 30 to 40 years back. We have created all these perceived necessities now. This is the nature of maya.
Nowadays so many things are available, but even in a relatively primitive society desires were endless. This is the nature of mind because we think happiness comes from external things.
Edited extract from: 2018-06-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston - discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 17 (1:00)
Reflections: Yes, we have definitely created so many needs for ourselves, but can we undo them now? It may seem difficult but we can try doing so. A simpler life is conducive to more peace and contentment. We can try getting out of this rat race of owning more and more things.
Some of our friends are of the opinion that we should speak only from direct experience and not just repeat whatever Bhagavan or Michael have said or written. It was also stated that since Michael is not a jnani, we should not believe in everything he says or writes. My views on these points are as follows:
Should we speak from our direct experience and not just repeat what Bhagavan or Michael have said or written?
No one denies the need for direct experience, but this does not mean we should not repeat what Bhagavan has written in his own words. If we consider him to be our guru, why should we not repeat whatever he has written? This will help us to internalise the meaning of these words. Many devotees recite Bhagavan’s works and this is beneficial.
I do try to repeat whatever Michael has said or written (maybe in my words), but this is because I concur with his views. We tend to trust people whom we believe are more experienced than us. Others may have more trust in other 'teachers'. It is fine.
'Michael is not a jnani, so we should not believe in everything he says or writes,' believe some of our friends.
The one who says so, can you tell us whether or not you are a jnani? If you say, ‘I do not know’, then if you do not know even about yourself, how can you say whether or not Michael is a jnani? If you say, ‘I am not a jnani’, then how can an ajnani know whether or not someone else is a jnani? If you claim, ‘I am an jnani’, then there could be no one other than you, so how can you even see Michael? So the question ‘whether or not Michael is a jnani’ can never arise in you.
In fact, we can never know whether or not someone is a jnani. One may counter argue and say, ‘but Michael has himself said that he is not a jnani’. OK, so if I say tomorrow that ‘I am a jnani’, should everyone believe me? A jnani has no need to admit that he is a jnani. There is no one other than him to whom he can say so. This is not to say that I believe Michael is a jnani. He may or not be one. To me this question is irrelevant.
Even to say Bhagavan is a jnani is not correct as long as we point to his body while saying so. The jnani is not a body, so the real Bhagavan is only that which is shining in us as ‘I’.
Venkat, you say
1. The ego is a thought.
Have you experienced: with attention inward... a thought may arise... but the thought is seen while attention still does not waiver from the inward focus?
From this perspective, a single thought is not a challenge to awareness.
It is thinking, thought that digresses endless actually taking away awareness. Awareness becomes identified and invested with the thinking process, with thoughts of ambition, gain, avoiding loss etc.
The "ego" takes over awareness through digressive thinking and emotions, NOT necessarily by a single thought. Nisargadatta said somewhere that he still had thoughts arise... but he paid no attention to them.
And Venkat you say: I wonder why Bhagavan, who always was very straight-forward in his teaching, would seek to confuse by saying at one point the world disappears with the ego
The "world disappears with the ego" when meditating with eyes closed and going into the "no world no body state" (nirvikalpa samadhi). Bhagavan's statements perfectly describe this state. But then when eyes open... the world or some refined subtler aspect of it is there. So his statement "world disappears with ego" applies only to the eyes closed state.
This is elaborated in Godman "Be as you are" the chapter on Samadhi.
Addressing others:
There is speculation about what the ego is and what we are trying to "achieve".
The ego loves this as there is never any break from the philosophic speculation and argument.
The "cure" seems to me to be to stop this speculation:
Put attention within NOW, and if some thinking or emotion takes the attention outward and away... THIS is the ego. What do we have to achieve? Simply notice that the attention has been diverted outwards... and place the attention back inward.
Stories and fantasy about what the ego is and what we might achieve are pretty much useless because they are imaginations in the future.
Why should be "believe" anything? Belief is another digression in to imagination. Instead... simply put attention within NOW and when attention is diverted outwards you will know exactly what the "ego" is and what circumstances are a challenge for you personally right now.
Michael James with blogs such as "what we should believe..." is trying to start his own religion.
It's a big deal if indeed the state we're after is what we experience in deep sleep everynight... if it's not so, yeah, everyone can claim enlightenment, and ideed is not our business to judge who is who... Who cares anyway?! ... it's obviously a highly individual business... to whom?! right... let me see for myself...
All the best to all,
Dragos :)
on the other hand, I cannot but think of Andrew Cohen and all the people he seduced with his "enlightenment" . Lives can be ruined if we are not careful and just blindly believe every claim... perhaps having an idea of what the state entails, as much as words can express it, can save a lot of people from getting into the hands of such charlatans...
I still believe the State we're after is what we experience in deep sleep where no world as such appears, where peace reigns and only being is. Forever conscious in that state is enlightenment.. I believe Bhagavan meant that by his path...
There are quotes by Shankara to that regard (if I find it I will post it), also zen masters, Ibn Al Arabi in sufism/islam, Catholic mysticism where "union with God" is used to describe the experience and the world is "seen no more"... If I have time I will post here the quotes...
And by the way Salazar,
I believe Papaji is a charlatan, who started the whole neo-Advaita nonsense, producing deluded "teachers" like Andrew Cohen... Perhaps you're next....
Dragos,
A summarised sequence of your posts is as follows:
"I'm not saying I'm right... That's why I believe it's important we all have a honest discussion about this..."
"If, as you say, the grasping has stopped, how can you be aware of any world since what you perceive as the world are in themsevles things (mental impressions) that are grasped?! Don't you see your logical contradiction?!"
"I still believe the State we're after is what we experience in deep sleep where no world as such appears, where peace reigns and only being is."
"I believe Papaji is a charlatan, who started the whole neo-Advaita nonsense, producing deluded "teachers" like Andrew Cohen... Perhaps you're next...."
Interesting isn't it? You start by saying you want an honest conversation from everyone, and that you don't know; then from your comments it actually transpires that you do think you know, basically following what Michael has said; and you end with derogatory comments about another jnani, which actually had nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
So your ego tried to show a bit of faux humility, but just could not maintain it.
Hi Dragos,
You say:
I still believe the State we're after is what we experience in deep sleep where no world as such appears.
Bhagavan had an affinity for ajata (meaning he preferred to emphasize this state when teaching or in some documents). That is: awareness so pure that it could never even move to create the world. But this is only one state: eyes closed (or attention withdrawn from eyes totally), attention withdrawn from world and body.
Regarding Shankara, you may be thinking of the Mandukya Upanishad Karika with Shankara's commentary. There are copies with can be downloaded or read on line.
The "state we are after" is simply having attention within. And noting when attention is drawn outward being lost in digressive thought. Then bring attention back within. That is What else can be done?
Thoughts about "what state we are after" are likely more imaginative digressive thought. Place attention within and then actually see what is there. Anything else such as philosophic imagination is a distraction.
Bhagavan wrote or dictated some works which emphasized the "no world, no body" state of awareness. But he also taught people who were active in the world for example in Talks. Michael James has mistakenly taken these documents emphasizing "no world no body" to be the whole picture and made ridiculous conclusions like "the world does not appear to a jnani".
This kind of teaching invites more imaginative philosophic speculation and distracts from placing attention within.
Hi Roger
Ajata vada is the final truth, developing from eka jiva vada, which is a prakriya to urge the ego to disregard all else and focus on itself, the one jiva.
Ajata vada is simply saying that there is no birth, no death, no ego in the first place. It negates the whole idea of a jiva having any distinctive / separate reality. It is simply pointing out that the snake (ego) is just an illusory product of ignorance; it never really existed; therefore how can it be born or die.
Hi Venkat,
thanks for the ajata clarification.
IMO the only absolute truth has to be unchanging, it must be pure consciousness, realization, or "That" (from I am That all this is That).
All we know of ajata is that it is a philosophy, a conceptual projection.
MJ's teaching that the world no longer exists for a jnani is from Ajata (or from temporary or permanent Nirvikalpa). Thus it is only a concept.
So I am saying that the only useful thing to do is to have attention inward, on self, "I", "I AM" or whatever preliminary.
In this regard, philosophic imagination is a distraction from inward attention. Most all of the discussion here is a distraction, imagination.
When I say "preliminary", I find it useful to be able to place attention on the inward energy some times. For example when hiking with a heavy pack up a steep trail, "I" maybe difficult to locate but the precursor inward sensation or energy may be easier to locate.
Also, IMO the ajata philosophy although the final truth is not the whole truth. Because the temporal universal still exists (while it does). The temporal world is not absolute... but even for Bhagavan the appearance of the world must have continued to exist while his body was alive.
MJ seems to insist that only the absolute god exists, and he ignores that the relative god as world does have a temporal reality.
Roger
Ajata vada doesn't say the illusion doesn't appear. It clearly does. It just says that there is no reality to it, as separate from Brahman. It is as we were discussing on Aparokshanubuthi, where the clay is real and the pot is just a temporary effect of clay, and does not have any separate existence / reality apart from clay. And as the idea of a separate world is an illusion, a dream, therefore it cannot be said to have birth or death.
Shankara's commentary on Gaudapada's famous verse says:
"Birth or death can be predicated only of that which exists, and never of what does not exist, such as the horns of a hare . . . It has already been said that our dual experience is a mere illusion . . . Hence it is well said that the Ultimate Reality is the absence of destruction etc, on account of the non-existence of duality (which exists only in the imagination of the mind)."
By contrast, Shankara goes on to say: "For It (Brahman) is ever unimagined, because it is like the rope that is never the object of our imagination, and is real, even before the knowledge of the unreality of the snake. Further the existence of the subject (knower or witness) of imagination must be admitted to be antecedent to the imagination. Therefore it is unreasonable to say that such subject is non-existent".
[Note here that Shankara is saying that Brahman is the witness of the imagination, not the ego as Michael has asserted].
So, when ajata says "no birth, no death, none in bondage", it is saying both that an illusory dream ego ("horns of a hare") cannot be said to have birth or death (recall Nisargadatta used to ask - "do you remember your birth?"), and that the non-dual Brahman also cannot have birth or death. Ajata is simply reaffirming that there never really was a distinct, separate ego-entity; it was always just an imagined I-thought.
Once that is understood, temporal reality is irrelevant; it is just a film running its course on the screen; there is no identification with a particular character in the film. That is the point of nishkamya karma, or wei wu wei - actionless action, or desireless action - a jnani lives the remainder of his life without any particular desire or fear. It is the zen chop wood, carry water.
"One of Noob's comments implied that the people who warn about expecting the world to vanish would automatically have the desire to keep seeing the world. That is a typical but immature response. To have NO expectations includes ANY expectation as it was mentioned to Noob, so why was he assuming that there is an expectation (to want to see the world) after all?"
I am assuming this because many posts here quote different jnanies that say that the world is there to remain...
And that's after the same people say it is impossible to grasp the Self with the mind.
BTW, Salazar, you are right, probably I am typing on the illusory keyboard right now in the same way as I talked with illusory people when I saw a dream last time. I can only know that when the dream has run its way. Why am I doing it?
Why was I talking with all those illusory people when I was dreaming? Probably because I dreamed?
So there is the divine grace, the pure mind, the Self and the world.... quite interesting.
Salazar
I think you may be referring to Isa Upanishad
v.6: He who sees all beings in the Self itself, and the Self in all beings, feels no hatred by virtue of that realisation.
Sankara:
Just as I, the soul of the body, am the witness of all perceptions, and as such I am the source of its consciousness, and am pure and attributeless, similarly in that very aspect of mine am I the soul of all, beginning with the Unmanifested and ending with the immobile; he who realises the unconditioned Self in all beings thus, by virtue of that vision, does not hate.
Salazar claims to shamelessly boast and brag to have had experience of this or that SELF at various times. But it still does not change his status as the one and only "premier fucking asshole" of this blog.
Salazar, keep posting your worthless mental concepts from the loony-bin you have been consigned to until you kick your goddamn bucket. That is all you are good for. You will never realize the Self or get liberated the way Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi did, you fucking asshole.
Salazar, if you are such a "great spiritual Jnani as you claim and boast to be without any shame, why don't you have your own blog and your own goddamn followers? Why do you want to misuse and abuse Michael James's blog to dispose off your worthless shit? You are not just an "ajnani" but you are also the only hypocrite in this blog.
Happy Deepawali
A friend: Happy Deepawali! Could you take a couple of minutes to explain the significance of deepawali?
Michael: ‘Deepa’ means ‘light’ and ‘awali’ means ‘a series’. So deepawali means 'a series of lights'. Oil lamps are lighted during this festival and, ever since gunpowder was invented by the Chinese and came to India, deepawali includes fireworks.
But the significance of the festival is connected with a story of Vishnu, narayana, killing the daemon Narakasura. This festival is a celebration of the conquest of this evil daemon. There is a puranic story (mythological story) behind this.
Bhagavan explained the significance of this mythological story. Naraka is often used as a term for hell. So narakasura is a daemon who rules over hell. Bhagavan explained that naraka is the body and the asura (daemon) who rules over the body is ego. Vishnu killed narakasura with his discus.
How do we kill ego? It is by experiencing self-knowledge, by experiencing pure self-awareness. When ego is killed, the light that shines forth, which is the light of pure self-awareness, that is deepawali.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-11-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 22 (1:39)
Reflections: Deepawali is a Hindu festival. The friend who asked this question is a Hindu from India, and Michael is supposedly a Christian from the UK. Imagine a Hindu asking a Christian to explain the significance of their own Hindu festival. I am also a Hindu from India, but I have no shame in admitting that Michael knows more about the Hindu culture and Hindu way of life than I know about it.
Michael is more Indian, more Hindu, than most of the Hindus. He has totally soaked himself in the Hindu culture. We are fortunate to have him amongst us. He is explaining to us that which we should have already known but unfortunately, do not know or do not know enough.
The world may expect anything from us but if we have no desires, the expectations of the world would mean nothing to us
A friend: The world expects many things from us. How do we tackle this issue?
Michael: The world may expect anything from us but if we have no desires, the expectations of the world would mean nothing to us. Let anyone expect anything from us, but we wouldn’t have the desire to satisfy their expectations. We desire appreciation, and therefore we desire to cater to others’ desires. If we are indifferent even to that appreciation, we would be indifferent to their expectations.
The cause of our troubles is within us as our ego, why blame anyone else for our troubles? If we have no desires nothing will trouble us.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-11-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 22 (1:29)
Reflections: Yes, others’ expectations seem to be a problem, but as Michael has explained, the real problem lies within us as our ego and its desires. My niece is getting married this December, and its celebrations will continue for a few days. One is expected to wear something new every day. However, why should I try to fulfil the expectations of others? I would try striking a balance. I may repeat some dress, if not all.
Regular ritualistic worship in Hindu homes
In most of the Hindu households, some place in their home is earmarked as a place of puja or worship. It may be a small space in a corner or some homes may even have a mandir (temple) in a separate room. In most of the traditional homes, regular worship is performed by their occupants. In some houses, even pujaris (priests) are employed to perform regular pujas. They come every day to perform pujas. The question is how useful or efficacious are such pujas in the house?
Pujas done with love purifies the mind and makes one spiritually mature, so to this extent all pujas are beneficial. However, if only the pujaris perform these pujas it will not benefit the family members. All the benefit of such pujas will go only to the pujaris (if they worship with love). However, the occupants may also be benefitted if they participate in pujas along with pujaris. However, mere actions of pujas are of little if they are not done with love.
However, it is always good to have a place of puja in the house even if no regular worship is done there. As and when the situation arises, say in the times of difficulties, some may need to pray to God for help. At such times such places may prove useful. We may not need such places of worship but it may be useful to our other family members. Bhagavan teaches us in Nan Ar? that if we are practising atma-vichara, we need no other spiritual practice.
Thank you for your posts Mr Lohia. You bring much needed maturity to the comments section.
.
Salazar, ātma-vichār is beyond your capacity.
.
If we want to become fearless, we should become desireless
If we have no desires, we will have no fears. I desire regular meals, enough clothing and shelter and I fear that I may not have these forever. If we had no desire, we will be indifferent to everything. Whether or not we have food, whether or not we are in pain, if we are indifferent to these things, we will have no desire for anything. And without desire, we can have no fear.
Even the richest man on this earth has fear. He may fear that the stock markets may crash or his business may run into losses or whatever. He is attached to his billions and therefore he fears that he may lose it. So desire and fear are two sides of the same coin. A truly fearless person is a person without desires, and only a desireless and fearless can be truly happy.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-11-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 22 (1:27)
Sanjay Lohia,
to become desireless one must be egoless. And how to become egoless we are taught to practise intense atma-vichara. And how to become able to carry out intense self-investigation ? By carrying out self-investigation without interruption.
Have I forgot anything ?
Josef, yes, we cannot become completely desireless without destroying ego. However, our desires can be reduced by other means to some extent. These can be reduced by niskamya bhakti. It can be reduced by recollecting that if Bhagavan is taking perfect care of all our needs, why should we desire anything?
I have a desire to eat sweets, but I may try to resist indulging is such a desire by impressing upon my mind that sweets are bad for me. It will increase my weight. This is the Deepavali season where there will be a lot of sweets around me, so it is important to reflect on these lines!
So we can reduce our desires and attachments to some extent even without practising self-investigation. But such means can only take us so far. As you say, eventually we have to practise atma-vichara in order to destroy ego, the root of all our desires.
Such great souls who are enabled to know by own experience that all is in the self and that no object in this world or universe is apart from the self are very rare indeed.
A jnani does not find anything different or separate from the self. All are in the self. It is wrong to imagine that there is the world, that there is a body in it and you dwell in the body. If the truth is known, the universe and what is beyond it will be found to be only in the self.
There is no being who is not conscious and therefore who is not Siva. Not only is the jnani Siva but also else of which he is aware or not aware. ...Siva is seen as the universe.
Hi Venkat,
Thanks for the ajata & Gaudapada comments, always interesting. Some issues:
You say "once that is understood (ajata etc), temporal reality is irrelevant...."
"Understood" is mere conceptual mental activity and falls far short of realization.
Temporal activity (ie the world) is hardly "irrelevant".
With realization the ego's obsession with gain and loss, the claims of ownership and doership, the identification and attachment are gone.
But the temporal world still maintains a relevance, only without ego attachment.
The world may only be a temporal phantom "Idea" without concrete form but it has relevance at that level.
Calling the world irrelevant is hypocrisy when we consume food, use shelter, use basic medical services and transportation etc. even after realization.
Krishna's comments seem useful: "do your duty" which indicates some relevance.
If "I am That and all this is That"... as the so-called "world" is "That"... it has relevance?
Would we call the actions of Nisargadatta, Ramana, Krishna "irrelevant"?
If action and the world are irrelevant... why would realized beings do any action at all? Yes there is no "doer" but this is not the same as abstaining from the appearance of activity.
The biggest issue with the idea that "temporal reality is irrelevant" is that un-realized beings adopt an attitude that action is unnecessary and then they dream of escape from the world. Krishna's comments about "do your allotted duty" should be Incorporated.
ajata and Gaudapada's & Sankara are describing an aspect of the higher state of consciousness (which has to be totally beyond description).
They are NOT describing how to act or think before realization nor are descriptions of the higher state sufficient for realization.
Thoughts about escape from the world or that the world is irrelevant are just more ego activity taking a position, asserting a viewpoint and wishing for some result in an imagined future.
So many wise jnani's in this forum....
Roger,
I have a lot of sympathy for your comment. And I agree that nishkamya karma is a key teaching of Bhagavad Gita.
But the world and our actions in it are irrelevant in the sense that there is nothing to achieve or do.
Most jnanis advise seekers to discard the world and not be involved in it to the extent possible; and focus instead on self-investigation. Sankara advocates that renunciation is an important (though not a prerequisite) factor for realisation. And after realisation, as you note, there is nothing more to do.
Noob,
...that is because consciousness is the reality.:-)
Consciousness means to be aware that 'I exist'.
This awareness of our existence is consciousness.
I do not know, maybe the concept is too difficult to grasp but:
1) My whole perception of the world is through my 5 senses (hearing, seeing, touching, smelling and tasting).
2) These 5 senses are enabled by the mind, which controls the organs which in their turn provide the input (or are responsible for the creation) of the world.
3) My consciousness is aware of the mind and, as a result of it, is aware of the world.
4) if my mind is no more, how to be aware of the world?
Whether there after realization is anything more to do we will see only after realization.
However, it is said that once the seeker became himself the self there remains nothing further to be achieved.
Post a Comment