Monday, 22 June 2020

Why did Bhagavan sometimes say the heart is on the right side of the chest?

A friend sent me a WhatsApp message yesterday saying that while explaining the first verse of Saddarśanam someone had said, ‘Many ask why Ramana Maharshi stated that heart is on your right. It is because you think that it is on the left. Heart actually is where one experiences the existence as consciousness’. I understood this to mean that that person had implied that the right side of the chest is where one experiences existence as consciousness, so I replied accordingly, but later my friend clarified that what that person was trying to convey was that ‘ullam or heart is not on right or left or nothing to do with the position in the body, but where or what one experiences as consciousness — not the body or mental consciousness which many associate this word with’.

Saddarśanam is a Sanskrit translation (albeit a very inadequate and in many places seriously distorted translation) by Kavyakantha Ganapati Sastri of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, so the first verse of Saddarśanam is his translation of the first maṅgalam verse of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, in which Bhagavan said:

உள்ளதல துள்ளவுணர் வுள்ளதோ வுள்ளபொரு
ளுள்ளலற வுள்ளத்தே யுள்ளதா — லுள்ளமெனு
முள்ளபொரு ளுள்ளலெவ னுள்ளத்தே யுள்ளபடி
யுள்ளதே யுள்ள லுணர்.

uḷḷadala duḷḷavuṇar vuḷḷadō vuḷḷaporu
ḷuḷḷalaṟa vuḷḷattē yuḷḷadā — luḷḷameṉu
muḷḷaporu ḷuḷḷaleva ṉuḷḷattē yuḷḷapaḍi
yuḷḷadē yuḷḷa luṇar
.

பதச்சேதம்: உள்ளது அலது உள்ள உணர்வு உள்ளதோ? உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல் அற உள்ளத்தே உள்ளதால், உள்ளம் எனும் உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல் எவன்? உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே உள்ளல். உணர்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): uḷḷadu aladu uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu uḷḷadō? uḷḷa-poruḷ uḷḷal-aṟa uḷḷattē uḷḷadāl, uḷḷam eṉum uḷḷa-poruḷ uḷḷal evaṉ? uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē uḷḷal. uṇar.

அன்வயம்: உள்ளது அலது உள்ள உணர்வு உள்ளதோ? உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல் அற உள்ளத்தே உள்ளதால், உள்ளம் எனும் உள்ள பொருள் எவன் உள்ளல்? உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே உள்ளல்; உணர்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): uḷḷadu aladu uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu uḷḷadō? uḷḷa-poruḷ uḷḷal-aṟa uḷḷattē uḷḷadāl, uḷḷam eṉum uḷḷa-poruḷ evaṉ uḷḷal? uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē uḷḷal; uṇar.

English translation: If what exists were not, would existing awareness exist? Since the existing substance exists in the heart without thought, how to think of the existing substance, which is called ‘heart’? Being in the heart as it is alone is thinking. Know.

Explanatory paraphrase: If uḷḷadu [what is or what exists] were not, would uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu [existing awareness, actual awareness or awareness of what is] exist? [Or: (1) Except as uḷḷadu, does uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu exist? (2) Other than uḷḷadu, is there awareness to think [of it, meditate on it or investigate it]?] Since uḷḷa-poruḷ [the existing substance or reality] exists in the heart without thought, how to [or who can] think of [meditate on or investigate] uḷḷa-poruḷ, which is called uḷḷam [the heart]? Being in the heart as it is [that is, as pure thought-free self-awareness] alone is thinking [of it, meditating on it, contemplating it, investigating it or revering it]. Know [or be aware] [of it as it is].
What I replied to my friend is as follows:

What Bhagavan says about heart in the first maṅgalam verse of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu has nothing to do with the body or the right side of the chest. He says it is ‘உள்ளல் அற’ (uḷḷal-aṟa), ‘without thought’, whereas the body, like everything else in the world, is just a thought.

This verse is extremely subtle and deep in meaning and implication, whereas what he said about the heart on the right is relatively gross and superficial, so we should not trivialise the deep meaning of this verse by associating it with the heart on the right.

The heart on the right is true relative only to the dēhātma-buddhi. When we mistake ourself to be a body, the dēhātma-buddhi (the false awareness ‘I am this body’) is experienced by us as centred on the right side of the chest, which is why we point there when referring to the body as ourself, and why when we experience any shock or strong emotion we feel a sensation there. We also sometimes experience a similar sensation there when we try to turn our attention back towards ourself, but that is because of our attachment to this body, the survival of which is threatened by keen self-attentiveness.

Therefore the right side of the chest is not where one experiences existence as consciousness (sat as cit), but where one experiences one’s dēhātma-buddhi centred.

The heart on the right has nothing to do with the core teachings of Bhagavan. He referred to the heart being on the right side of the chest only to satisfy those who were unwilling to give up thinking in terms of the body and who therefore asked him where in the body the heart is located and whether it is the same as the anāhata cakra.

However, in most cases where Bhagavan used the term heart, such as in the first maṅgalam verse of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, he was not referring to the right side of the chest but only to our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is sat-cit, our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, because that alone is the real heart, core or centre of ourself, and hence of all other things also. Therefore when he says in the first maṅgalam verse, ‘உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே உள்ளல்’ (uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē uḷḷal), ‘Being in the heart as it is alone is thinking [or meditating on it]’, he does not mean we should be in the right side of the chest, but only that we should be in and as உள்ள பொருள் (uḷḷa-poruḷ), the existing substance, which is our real nature, pure awareness.

679 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 600 of 679   Newer›   Newest»
Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Josef Bruckner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Josef Bruckner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Asun , Sanjay,Bob and maybe Anadi- ananta,

I wouldn’t trust unknown too. The way he flatters few and triggering them to go against others- really I see some maliciousness there. The world is becoming dirtier day by day. Just my observation.

Salazar being so stubborn on his views and trying to distract everyone from core teachings- I don’t trust him anymore. I don’t see any evidence of him practicing self enquiry.

I guess to stay sane, one should keep reading all teachings attested by Bhagavan repeatedly.

Josef Bruckner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Josef Bruckner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Josef Bruckner said...

Anonymous, As if you are so clean, transparent and pure. Get off your high horse.

Josef Bruckner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

In a way you are right. I am not pure, so how can I judge others? But for some reason, if someone says I cannot be trusted, it doesn’t affect me at all, not because I don’t give importance to that person. It’s actually because I am so confident about my trustworthiness.

Josef Bruckner said...

Anonymous, you just judged others in your earlier comment and then are now denying that you did. So you are a lair and a hypocrite also besides being extremely untrustworthy, conceited, arrogant, dirty and malicious. You are the last woman one can trust about the teachings of Sri Ramana. Don't act as if you are spiritually superior to anybody here because you are not. Get off your high pedestal in order to judge others.

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob P said...

I get you Bob, it's ok to let it out, no need to apologise. You're only saying what many of us who don't post regularly are probably thinking.

Ramana will take care of everything.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan is our own self – our innermost reality, so by attracting us to himself, Bhagavan is attracting us to turn within (part one)

A friend: Our sat-vasana is our liking just to be – to remain without rising as ‘I am XYZ’. However, does this sat-vasana belong to ego or our real self?

Michael: Good question! Both in a sense. That is, it is we as ego that like to turn our attention within, so in that sense, even the sat-vasana is ego’s vasana.

But from where does that liking to turn within arise? Like all our likes and dislikes, it arises from our fundamental liking to be happy. That liking to be happy – that love for happiness – is our real nature. Happiness is our real nature, and it is the nature of ourself to have love for ourself. So our real nature has perfect love for itself. That love that our real nature has for itself is called grace.

Let’s call our real nature Bhagavan because that’s what Bhagavan actually is. Bhagavan is what we actually are. So Bhagavan doesn’t see us as separate from ourself. He sees us as himself, and because he has infinite love for himself, he loves us as himself. That love that he has for us as himself is what draws us to him.

The outward form of Bhagavan has attracted all of us. His teachings have attracted us. But what Bhagavan actually is, is not that person out there. He is our own self – our innermost reality. So by attracting us to himself, Bhagavan is attracting us to turn within. So the love that he has for us is what draws us to him. So the love he has for us is what manifests in us as sat-vasana. Sat-vasana is just the love to be as we actually are – the love just to be Bhagavan.

So we cannot separate our love for him from his love for us. Our love for him grows out of his love for us. In the Middle Ages, there was a German mystic called Meister Eckhart. He said a very nice thing:

The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me.

Here 'eye' means awareness. Since awareness and love is the same thing, we can say the same thing in another way. The love that Bhagavan has for us is the same love that we have for Bhagavan. That love for Bhagavan is what we experience as sat-vasana.

(To be continued in my next comment)

~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (01:09)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan is our own self – our innermost reality, so by attracting us to himself, Bhagavan is attracting us to turn within (part two)

Michael: So though this sat-vasana is ego’s liking, it is nothing other than the infinite love that Bhagavan has for us. Aksharamanamalai has 108 beautiful beautiful verses – very very rich and deep in meaning and full of love. One of my favourite verses is verse 101, where Bhagavan sings:

Like ice in water, melt me as love in you, the form of love.

So Bhagavan or Arunachala is the form of love. He is the infinite ocean of love. Our hard and unloving hearts are like icebergs in that ocean. This iceberg will slowly slowly melt and ultimately dissolve and become one with the ocean. The more we love Bhagavan, the more we attend to ourself, the more we will melt and eventually fully dissolve back into Bhagavan. So in this verse, Bhagavan is taking our standpoint and praying to Arunachala: ‘Like ice in water, melt me as love in you, the form of love’.

That is, ice is nothing but water, but it seems to be separate because it has taken a solid form. Likewise, we are nothing but Bhagavan, but we seem to be separate from him because we have attached ourself to this form of a body. We take ourself to be ‘I am this person’. So to become one with him, he has to melt us in himself – melt us as love in him, the form of love.

So the liking we have to melt in him – that liking is nothing but his love for us. So we are nothing, and he is everything. All he asks us to do is to surrender ourself to love, which is his real nature.

The friend: Thank you very much, Michael, thank you very much. Bhagavan’s love manifests through you, and we are very grateful!

Michael: It’s all his love. You and I are nothing. Bhagavan alone exists.

~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (01:09)

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sanjay Lohia said...

How do we distinguish true love from ego’s love? (part one)

A friend: How do I know if my love for someone else is pure?

Michael: In true love, we don’t want or expect anything from the person we love. We want to give to that person. So love is pure to the extent it is selfless. It is natural for people to love other people, but often we love someone because of what we can get from that person – ‘If you are kind to me, I will love you because I like your being kind to me’. This is ego’s love. If I love you because I want to give myself to you, expecting nothing in return, that is true love. That is the love of our real nature.

So in the path of bhakti or love, in the beginning when we start praying to God, we ask this or that from God. So our love then is for the things we can get from God. But when our love becomes purer and purer, we do not ask anything from God. We just ask him to enable us to give ourself to him. That is why the pinnacle of the path of devotion is self-surrender. So, all the different forms of bhakti ultimately lead to self-surrender.

This is how we can distinguish true love from ego’s love. Ego always wants something from love, but true love is when we want to give and surrender.

We progress from a love that is totally selfish, where we love only that which is beneficial to us, towards the love which is totally selfless, where we want to give ourself. We experience a whole range of spectrum between these extremes. So, on a spiritual path, we are moving away from the selfish love to the selfless love. We are moving away from the love that makes us seek things for ourself towards love for God’s sake alone.

(To be continued in my next comment)

~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (01:23)

Sanjay Lohia said...

How do we distinguish true love from ego’s love? (part two)

Michael: So most of us experience love in so many different forms, but it’s a mixture generally of selfishness and selflessness. That is, we love someone because that person is kind to us. That is the selfish side of it. But because the person is kind, we also want to give in return. So the selfishness and selflessness are mixed together. That is true of most of our worldly love. We want to give ourself but at the same time, we have certain expectations. So if our love is not returned, then our love begins to diminish.

But as we progress on the spiritual path, our love becomes more and more selfless, and love becomes perfect only when we give ourself entirely to God. God, of course, is nothing that our real nature – what we actually are. So when we give ourself to ourself, when we give ego to our real nature - that is perfect love. That is when we melt in Arunachala, the form of love.

The friend: When I love someone and if that love gives me peace, is it selfish or selfless love?

Michael: To the extent our love is selfless, to that extent it will give up peace and happiness. If our love is wholly selfish, it will never satisfy us. We will always want more and more. But to the extent our love becomes selfless - to that extent it is truly satisfying. To that extent the love makes us truly peaceful.

But any peace that we as ego may experience is limited peace. If we want to experience infinite peace, infinite happiness, we have to give ourself entirely. We have to melt as love in the ocean of love.

~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (01:23)

anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay,
thank you for your recent video-transcription.
"So when we give ourself to ourself, when we give ego to our real nature - that is perfect love. That is when we melt in Arunachala, the form of love."
However, I assume that Arunachala in its entirety/as the whole reality is not in need of any growth. :-)

By the way, I think you wanted to write: "God, of course, is nothing but our real nature-...".

Sanjay Lohia said...

Yes, Anadi-ananta, I wanted to type, ‘God, of course, is nothing but our real nature’. Thank you.

Sanjay Lohia said...

We as this ego project everything, but why do not experience ourself as the projector of this creation?

My reflection: It is because though the projection is the work of our vasanas, which is our will in its subtlest form, but we don't identify with these vasanas. We identify with some vasanas but not with others. That is, we as ego project and create this world, and this world is nothing but a collection of our thoughts, according to Bhagavan. And these thoughts originate from our vasanas. However, what vasana is projected from moment to moment is decided by Bhagavan, so we have no control over what we create even though we project this world.

We may identify with some of our vasanas but all. I may have a vasana to create a restaurant, and I think a lot about it and do all that it is necessary to set us this restaurant. This restaurant finally comes into existence. So I think it my vasanas and my efforts which have made this possible. However, though I may identify with this creation, it all happened according to my prarabdha. So this restaurant would have been created even if I had no desire to create it. So this vasana which resulted in this creation was actually projected according to Bhagavan’s will. My will just happened to coincide with his will.

We can answer this question in another way. Though this ego has created this world, I do not experience myself as the creator of this projection but a creature within this creation. So we have forgotten, so to speak, our own powers of projection and creation because we now take ourself to be a little person in this creation. So as this little person, we are oblivious of our powers of creation. So though we (this ego) have projected this Covid-19, we cannot will away this coronavirus, because as a person we are powerless to remove it from our projection.

~ Disclaimer: My above reflection is based on Michael’s ideas – what I have heard him say or read in his articles. However, all this is based on my understanding and memory. So I do not claim that I have reproduced Michael’s ideas in its purity.

anadi-ananta said...

Strange event again : On this article till now 528 comments were left. 125 of them were published by Salazar and recently deleted by him. On their former place we find the note "This comment has been removed by the author". Perhaps one had to reckon with that action which seems to be a kind of paying off old scores.

anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay,
you put a good question. However, the technically detailed sequence of the perception/creation or projection of the "world" is obviously inconceivable by our mind.:-)
That we will know not before we melt in Arunachala, the ocean of love.

Aham Asmi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aham Asmi said...

.


Mr James began moderating comments in Dec 2018 because of Salazar. Since he has stopped moderating (in May 2020?) the quality of the comments has once again degenerated.

....I rarely come to this blog anymore, and doubt I will visit much in the future.


.

Sanjay Lohia said...

The more we follow the path of self-investigation and self-surrender, the more we will find that actions are not a dilemma (part one)

A friend: We are at times in a dilemma about certain actions. It is difficult to decide whether we should act or refrain from acting. So what should be our attitude at such times?

Michael: All actions are done by our body, speech and mind, but the problem arises when we identify this body, speech and mind as ‘I’ and feel ‘I have to do this’ or ‘I am doing this’. In each of our lifetime, Bhagavan decides what actions we have to do to experience our destiny. So our body, speech and mind will automatically act as and when they need to act if such actions are needed to bring our destiny to fruition. Bhagavan wrote in his note to his mother:

He who is for that being there-there will cause to dance [that is, according to the destiny (prārabdha) of each person, he who is for that (namely God or guru, who ordains their destiny) being in the heart of each of them will make them act].

So Bhagavan will make us do certain actions. The problem is because we identify ourself with our body, speech and mind, we feel we are doing these actions. However, our will, which is the collection of all our desires and attachments, also prompts us to act using the same body, speech and mind. But these actions will not bear fruit in this lifetime. So we need to detach ourself from actions. That means, we need to detach ourself from this body, speech and mind, and the means to do so is turning within.

However, at present, we are not able to turn fully within because of our strong desires and attachments, so we are not able to fully surrender ourself now. The more we turn our attention away from all phenomena back towards ourself, the more our desires and attachments are losing their strength. So every time we turn within we are coming closer and closer to our goal, which is complete and irrevocable self-surrender.

So the more we follow this path, the more we will find that actions are not a dilemma. The more our likes, dislikes, desires, and attachments are losing their strength, the less they are driving us to act. So whatever actions are going on will be according to destiny. So by reducing the strength of our desires and attachments, we are reducing the strength of the actions we do by our will. As a consequence, we are also making it easier for ourself to yield ourself to what is anyway going to happen according to destiny. That is yielding ourself to the will of God, as it is sometimes said.

So let us not be concerned with actions. Bhagavan says in paragraph 13 of Nan Ar?:

Even though one places whatever amount of burden upon God, that entire amount he will bear. Since one paramēśvara śakti [supreme ruling power or power of God] is driving all kāryas [whatever needs or ought to be done or to happen], instead of we also yielding to it, why to be perpetually thinking, ‘it is necessary to do like this; it is necessary to do like that’? Though we know that the train is going bearing all the burdens, why should we who go travelling in it, instead of remaining happily leaving our small luggage placed on it [the train], suffer bearing it [our luggage] on our head?

(To be continued in my next comment)

• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-06-13 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses the practice of self-investigation (02:10)

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
. said...

verse 7 of Aruṇācala Padigam, sorry.

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sanjay Lohia said...

Asun, I thank you for your reply. All our discussion about Bhagavan’s teachings should motivate us to practice turning within more and more. If it is not motivating us to do so, then perhaps we are not discussing his teachings in the right spirit.

Sanjay Lohia said...

The more we follow the path of self-investigation and self-surrender, the more we will find that actions are not a dilemma (part two)

Michael: So the more we subside, the more we yield ourself, the more we surrender, the less concern we will have about actions. Anyway, those actions that our body, speech and mind are destined to do, they will be made to do. So we shouldn’t be overly concerned about actions.

So long as we have a sense of doesrship, we should act in a moral and ethical way. We should avoid causing harm to others and everything. Those are the basic principles but apart from that, we shouldn’t be concerned about actions. What we should be concerned about is surrendering our likes, dislikes and desires and ultimately surrendering ego which has those likes, dislikes and desires.

So we have nothing to worry about. Our only concern should be to surrender ourself. The only responsibility Bhagavan has given us is to surrender ourself – not to carry the luggage on our head but to put it aside and travel happily.

• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-06-13 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses the practice of self-investigation (02:10)

Rob P said...

@ Asun, I agree with your sentiments. Although last time i was speaking up for Godman, he's not really a friend though.

@ all - as for the troll and lack of moderation it's quite simple, as Sanjay said 'don't feed him'

🙏🏼

anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay,
you mean ...sense of "doership".

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Col said...

It seems everyone is ostracising Salazar. Is this necessary? I do not see ill will in his commentsl. Being challenged is useful.

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay,
Meister Eckhart ("The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me".) evidently escaped maya and ignorance.

anadi-ananta said...

correction: escaped from ...

Anonymous said...

Salazar,

I did enjoy responding to your comments in the past. I didn’t read all of your comments in this blog post, but I did realize that you have not understood Bhagavan’s teachings nor I. Bhagavan’s teachings has infinite layers. As one evolves more and more, some of the treasures in his teachings will keep getting revealed. The very fact that someone wants to post something in this blog means that he/she has still lot of ego left. If a person really practices self enquiry he/she will not find a need to convince others about anything nor will feel a need to express anything. Regardless, I don’t have any ill feelings against you.

Anonymous said...

No offence to anyone. If this Unknown guy is southern indian, he could be a Christian fanatic too. I am from south too.. I am hearing lot of stories nowadays on that side of the world. Just his way of writing is sooo creepy.

Josef Bruckner said...

Anonymous, you are a clueless idiot as well besides being an abject spiritual moron. Keep guessing and imagining stuff. That is your pastime anyways. You are full of shit.

Josef Bruckner said...

Salazar, you never left this blog and never will. You are full of shit as well besides being a shameless charlatan, a total mental case, an evil person, a fraud, a pathological and habitual liar, a lousy actor, pretentious jerk, and much, much more. You know nothing of Sri Ramana's teachings as do Michael, Sanjay and Asun do. Go to hell.

Josef Bruckner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Josef Bruckner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Josef Bruckner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Josef Bruckner said...

Salazar, you are a vicious fu**ing troll. You deleted most of the comments in this thread. You seriously belong in a mental asylum for the criminally insane. Take that arrogant, malicious South Indian "Anonymous" Christian fanatical woman along with you to keep you company. You both worthless trolls are made for each other.

Josef Bruckner said...

Salazar, you are a low life cyber criminal.You will continue to post in this blog under a different moniker also for a while (like you did as Rafael) just as you post your comments as Salazar and then delete them all like you did in this thread. You are not fooling anyone here, not in the least anadi-ananta or Asun or AHAM. You are a shameless crook and you can fool no one here with your total misunderstanding and distortion of Bhagavan's authentic teachings.

Josef Bruckner said...

Salazar, the reason you delete your all of your comments is because you yourself know that they are all junk, trash, lies and worthless crap like you yourself are and they all deserve to be deleted anyway. Good riddance.

Josef Bruckner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Josef Bruckner said...

Salazar, since you are so addicted to this blog you will continue to post here using the same moniker or a different one or you may hijack someone else's moniker as you have done in the past. If you do that then people here will know that it is you who is posting as someone else whose moniker has been hijacked by you. People now know what kind of a person you really are and they will not be fooled by your devious and fraudulent activities. Of course you will delete those posts also to cover your tracks, like anadi-ananta said earlier.

anadi-ananta said...

Sri Arunachala Pancharatnam, verse 3:

"Having scrutinized with that pure mind which is facing Self-wards (ahamukham) “where does this 'I' rise ?” and having (thereby) clearly known the form(or real nature) of 'I', one ceases to exist (by merging) in You like a river (which merges and loses its form) in the ocean. Know thus."

I would see a difference between a river and a person, namely that a river has no own free will and being supported by the gradient/drop of the scenic riverbed must unavoidably and inevitabely merge in the ocean whereas a person may wander/stroll/roam around for aeons without much understanding the wrongfulness of his acts and ideas.
The waters of a river do naturally never flow upstream.

Josef Bruckner said...

I am reposting some comments of Salazar which he has not deleted yet.

Salazar said...
It's quite obvious I am not welcome here. I never went anywhere uninvited.

Bye my friends.

24 July 2020 at 16:41

Salazar said...
Col, it's plain likes and dislikes, that's it. In the past I bruised the egos of Rob P, Aham, anadi-ananta, Asun, and a few others. That is what causes their reaction re. "Salazar".

If they would be truly fair then they must acknowledge that Asun has at least as much trolled as me in the last few days and before. That they look away of Asun's smug hypocrisy and violations of blog rules shows their own bias and hypocrisy. And yet they call themselves 'devotees of Bhagavan'.

Also their "threat" to not come to this blog anymore. If somebody would really care if they come or not. Anyway, just some drama unfolding, and as you said, people want to be (secretly) flattered and not criticized. Look at Asun's smug rationalizations and how she misapplies Bhagavan's teaching to discredit your comment. What a bitch.

24 July 2020 at 19:15



Salazar said...
Anonymous, I have no ill feelings to you either. You have your own specific view of things and I respect you for that. You also correctly identified "Unknowns" deceptive flattery, like his praise of Asun's mediocre 'poem' and how he emphasizes her "sincerity". By the way, he is the same guy (he is a southern Indian by the way) who called Michael and Sanjay Jnanis and other flattering adjectives. He is the one who posted under several monikers personal attacks at me (consecutive at the same thread so to create the illusion several different people are attacking me) until Michael changed the way so that only one moniker can show at the same time.

It's interesting to see how his crude flattery has an effect on people like Asun who gobbled it up like ice-cream and returned the flattery of Unknowns "sincerity". That Asun is giving in that easily to flattery shows where she comes from and that some people here consider her as worthwhile to talk to shows their poor judgment.
There is nothing sincere with Asun nor Unknown. It's so obvious I am amazed nobody else is seeing that.

I am on my way out, there is no benefit in endlessly regurgitating Bhagavan's teachings and arguing with the members about the "right" interpretation.

I'll still read Michael's articles and some of Sanjay's transcriptions, the rest is just white noise of some self-important egos.


24 July 2020 at 23:05









Josef Bruckner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
anadi-ananta said...

To add my 2 cents to the excitement built up:
We generally should not react over-sensitively to verbal attacks of aggressive contemporaries - it is not worthwhile. The waters of the river flow constantly in direction of their mouth into the sea.:-)

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wigbert said...

Asun, please, give the endless judgement a rest for your own sake.

Take care

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
anadi-ananta said...

Asun,
as you imply, the resoluteness of Michael's tone of voice in his response of 14 July 2020 at 11:38 (comment-no.314)we don't see everyday. But I easily understand the determined manner when surrender is the subject of discussion.

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
anadi-ananta said...

Asun,
sorry, I never studied the New Testament let alone the Epistle/Letter to the Romans of Paul the Apostle, written in the Greek city of Corinth,(though I have been there some years ago).:-)
As your quotation implies, justice comes alone from God - though we all have the sense and love of justice.

Mouna said...

Hello all,

By lack of time, I don’t really visit the blog anymore, except to read Michael’s writings when he post them.
But two days ago I thought I was going to visit the blog and read what was going on with the comments. What I encountered wasn’t a pretty picture but rather a very desolate emtional landscape. Insults galore, both of a very explicit nature and other of a subtle but not less harmful one. Sad state of affairs.
In the past I always had a positive emotional connection with this blog, since I really gained in understanding not only from Michael’s comments but from fruitful exchanges with many that are almost all gone.

I know is human nature in many cases just to let the steam off and have heated discussions, but there is a line that when crossed (insulting and demeaning others) is not even about being right or wrong, it feels like it’s about trying to “hurt the other” in a very raw manner.

I am not sure if my pledge to come back to a certain level of common decency in the exchanges will have any incidence, specially when I don’t plan to attend the comments in the future, part because of lack of time, and in part because of the degradation ocurring at the moment. But still is yet my intention to ask many of you to reflect what can we gain from such exchanges in relation to the destruction of our own vasanas. Golden rule, do not do unto others what you wouldn’t like others do unto you. Who would like to be bullied and call names?

Yes, we may always ask, inquiring: “Who" is being nasty? and then go about our day as if nothing happened, insulting here and there everyone who doesn’t agree with our viewpoints, but let’s be honest, is that an honest practice of atma-vichara or just a passing thought without any significance?

Anyway, all these food for thought but mostly directed to the heart of us all.

Bye friends, wishing you all well.
Carlos (aka Mouna of past times)

anadi-ananta said...

Hello Mouna, Carlos greetings, old soldier,
yes, of course it is not a glorious picture which was left in the last week.
And thanks for appealing to our conscience.
Because this blog has always overcome critical phases at the comment box, I hope we survive also the present turbulence. :-)
Bye my friend, wishing you well too.

col said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
anadi-ananta said...

Karen,
your ability "to see Bhagavan dwelling in this phantom "Salazar" is in some way quite astoundingly. At present I do not have easy access to that view.
Nevertheless, we are well-advised to follow the quoted invitation of Bhagavan "Are there any others? Know the real Self."

anadi-ananta said...

Karen,
thank you for your honest reply and reminding me to study again paragraph 19 of Nāṉ Yār? The meaning of paragraph nineteen is discussed in chapter 10 of Happiness and the Art of Being (1st edition pp. 588-609; 2nd edition pp. 448-63).
" ... Therefore in the last two paragraphs of Nāṉ Yār? Sri Ramana gives us some valuable tips regarding the inward attitude with which we should interact with other people and conduct ourself in this world. In the nineteenth paragraph he says: There are not two [classes of] minds, namely a good [class of] mind and a bad [class of] mind. The mind is only one. Only vāsanās[impulsions or latent desires] are of two kinds, namely śubha [good or agreeable] and aśubha [bad or disagreeable]. When [a person’s] mind is under the sway of śubha vāsanās [agreeable impulsions] it is said to be a good mind, and when it is under the sway of aśubha vāsanās[disagreeable impulsions] a bad mind. However bad other people may appear to be, disliking them is not proper [or appropriate]. Likes and dislikes are both fit [for us] to dislike [or to renounce]. It is not proper [for us] to let [our] mind [dwell] much on worldly matters. It is not proper [for us] to enter in the affairs of other people [an idiomatic way of saying that we should mind our own business and not interfere in other people’s affairs]. All that one gives to others one is giving only to oneself. If [everyone] knew this truth, who indeed would refrain from giving? The only thing that we should truly dislike is our own likes and dislikes, because they agitate our mind and disturb our natural peace and equanimity. We dislike certain people because we feel they are the cause of the irritation and annoyance that we feel when we interact with them or think of them, but in fact the real cause of our irritation and annoyance is only our own likes and dislikes. If we were completely free of likes and dislikes, no other person could make us feel any aversion or other negative emotion. What truly disturbs us when we interact with a person we dislike is not actually that person’s aśubha vāsanās or disagreeable impulsions, but is only our own aśubha vāsanās, because our aśubha vāsanās are what manifest as our likes and dislikes. Our likes and dislikes are both forms of
desire, and like all forms of desire they drive our mind outwards, away from the infinite peace and happiness that exists in the core of our being. Therefore if we truly wish to turn our mind inwards and thereby dissolve it in our perfectly clear consciousness of being, we must reject all our likes and dislikes, and develop instead a love only for being. All our selfish attitudes, feelings, emotions, reactions and behaviours, such as our possessiveness, greed, lust, anger, jealousy, pride and egoism, are rooted in our likes and dislikes. Therefore to the extent to which we are able to free ourself from our likes and dislikes, we will accordingly free ourself from all forms of selfishness and from all the disagreeable feelings and emotions that they arouse in us. Since our interactions with other people tend to bring to the surface of our mind all our deep-rooted likes and dislikes, they are God-given opportunities for us not only to identify our likes and dislikes but also to curb them. By practising the art of self-attentive being, we cultivate the skill to restrain not only our likes and dislikes but also their root, which is our mind. Hence our practice of self-attentiveness will make it easier for us to recognise and curb the likes and dislikes that arise in our mind when we interact with other people. Conversely, by curbing our likes and dislikes when we interact with other people, we are cultivating our vairāgya or freedom from desires, and this will in turn help us in our practice of self-attentive being...".

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
anadi-ananta said...

Karen,
who of us can claim to have no likes and dislikes ?
As you imply we have no other option than to keenly inquire "into the source of all these things".
I just read in the Mountain Path (April-June 2020) in the article of Kays "The Maharshi and Mantra" Bhagavan saying:
"In the interior of the Heart-cave Brahman alone shines in the form of Atman with direct immediacy as 'I-I'." *) Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham, v.9.
('I-I' means 'I am I').
[...]
"As 'I-I' dances in the Hearts of all - both sinners and saints - as the ultimative embodiment of love, Vallalar calls this 'the Dance of Altruistic Love' or 'the Dance of Charity'. Bhagavan hails it with the delectable phrase, 'achala natanam' - 'the dance of stillness of the radiant ocean of limitless Grace - the Self'.*) Arunachala Ashtakam, v.7.
It is the vibration of the experience of svarupa that is immovable by virtue of its Perfect Wholeness. It is pure experience without any distinction between the experience and the experiencer. It is Pure Awareness, the form of Grace that keeps blessing all."

anadi-ananta said...

As I just read the Mountain Path (April-June 2020) in Michael's recording of Sadhu Om's The Paramount Importance of Self Attention (Part Thirty Three), 6th December 1978:

"...firstly because what we now take to be waking is actually just a dream, and secondly because we who experience all dreams are one and the same ego. This one ego is the dreamer of all dreams, and dreaming entails both projecting and perceiving a dream....we, the dreamer, are not whatever person we dream ourself to be. The person we seem to be in a dream is a part of our dream, so it is not the dreamer but something dreamt by us.
This is what Bhagavan implies in verse 160 of Guru Vacaka Kovai:
The spurious being who roams about as 'I' is just something that occurs as one among the shadows [images or pictures].
[...] ego is the formless seer whereas the person it mistakes to be 'I' is an object seen by it, so Bhagavan says here that this person is 'one among the shadows', thereby comparing it to one among the shadow pictures on a cinema screen.
It is necessary for several reasons to clearly understand this distinction between ourself, the dreamer, and whatever person we dream ourself to be. Firstly, it explains why, though we are the creator of all that we see, we seem to have no control over what we are creating, because as soon as we begin to dream any dream, we mistake ourself to be a person in our dream, and thus we seem to be just a small part of our creation. In other words, instead of experiencing ourself as the creator, we now experience ourself as a creature, and as such we have no control over our own creation.
Secondly and most importantly, we need to distinguish ourself, the seer, from everything we see, including the person we seem to be, because unless we do so, we will not be able to effectively investigate what we actually are. In order to investigate ourself, we need to focus our entire attention on ourself, thereby withdrawing it from everything else, so to do so we need to understand clearly that we are just the seer and not anything seen by us.
By attending to anything that is seen, we are nourishing and sustaining ego, whereas if we attend to ourself, the seer, ego will subside and dissolve back into its source. Then we will see that we are not even the seer, but only the pure awareness from which the seer and everything seen by it appear and into which they disappear."

This above teaching seems to arrive now slowly in my poor understanding. Now I gradually seem to begin to understand why till now I could not really deep and keen investigate what I really am...

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Yes.. very beautiful. In the past few days, I realized something too.. I have started understanding what Salazar is trying to convey. If one thinks that mind should be purified by getting rid of desires, that implies one is still nourishing the ego. My realization lately has been ‘who am I(not enquiry, but a humble thought questioning my arrogance ) to take effort to get rid of desires or attachment. Taking any effort itself is an act and effect of egotistical nature. It is because of ‘him’ , a person is seeing all the actions of the world. Even the projection is ‘his’ play. Even the assumption that one is the person in the movie as ‘I’ is ‘his’ play.

All I ‘can do’ (not ‘have to do’ ) is ‘to be’. Everything is already happening according to how ‘he’ has ordained.
We absolutely cannot change anything nor we can delude ourselves by taking any effort. If I think I am doing something, I am fooling myself. Firstly, activities just appear to be happening (not really happening) . Secondly activities take place just as how it should be happening, not because ‘I’ am doing it.
Salazar,

Hope you are reading this . Unfortunately I have to agree with you, if I have understood you correctly. You are indeed practicing self enquiry in the right way.

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

Anonymous, yes - you have understood me correctly.

anadi-ananta said...

Asun,
as you quoted Sadhu Om saying "...Such courage and faith are necessary...".
I can only strongly recommend you to take it to your heart.
Regarding your complaint "that the whole thing is a farce" I have sometimes the impression that you are generally easily offended.
When Michael told you that in reply to you he will write a very long article on the subject sleep, he will certainly do it - when he will have sufficient time for it.
Take it as a test of your patience.:-)
In order not to have to look back in the comments, can you repeat what exactly did you find regarding sleep ?
Though many German foxes may sniff around, I am not one among them.
Oh, what is that lovely and refreshing smell in your kitchen, hmmmm ?

Josef Bruckner said...

I just noticed today when I visited this blog today that the mentally retarded a**hole Salazar has hijacked my moniker again and posted two comments as "Unknown", one addressed to Asun on 25 July 2020 at 18:10 and the other one on 28 July 2020 at 00:35 which he has since deleted. Fuc* you a*hole Salazar and like I said earlier you are full of crap and know absolutely nothing about the teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana.

Asun, I will not it be mentioning you anymore in my future comments and if any post from any "Unknown" mentions you, you can rest assured it is from the same fu**ing a**hole Salazar who is posing and posting as "Unknown" trying to make you believe it is from me.

Josef Bruckner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
anadi-ananta said...

Unknown,
the comment of 28 July 2020 at 00:35 was not posted under "Unknown" but under "Anonymous". As you say, this comment is now seen as deleted with the remark "...has been removed by the author".
Hijacking of Google accounts is presumably only possible with the help of Google.

anadi-ananta said...

Karen,
thanks for your reply. May you melt in peace and silence.

Josef Bruckner said...

Asun,

To make things clear this comment which I reproduce below was not from me.

Unknown said...
Asun, please, give the endless judgement a rest for your own sake.

Take care
25 July 2020 at 18:10

End quote

The above post was posted by the a**hole Salazar having been hijacked my moniker to make it look as though posted by me.

Josef Bruckner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Josef Bruckner said...

anadi-ananta, do not rule out Salazar posting comments under the HIJACKED monikers of anadi-ananta, Asun, Anonymous and the regular monikers of others who post daily here.

anadi-ananta said...

Unknown, what you write I cannot confirm.
Where is that mentioned comment shown as deleted from "Unknown" ?
Yes, comment - no. 575 of 28 July 2020 at 00:35 is deleted but on its former place
I can see only the text: "This comment has been removed by the author".

Josef Bruckner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Josef Bruckner said...

Karen Taylor, It is now getting to be obvious you are Salazar himself posing and posting as Salazar under the moniker of Karen Taylor and praising Salazar all the time, meaning praising yourself whoever you are. Such is your humongous ego.

Josef Bruckner said...

Karen Taylor a k a Salazar you can only fool yourself with your ever changing stupid monikers. Any one here disagree with me that impostor Karen Taylor is not the same impostor Salazar?

Josef Bruckner said...

A**hole Salazar, under what other monikers are you going to start posting your nonsensical B S crap next since all your stupid monikers point towards you? LOL!

anadi-ananta said...

Unknown,
what suspicious circumstance lets you cast suspicion on Karen Taylor to be Salazar ?
Possibly you self are Salazar ! :-)

anadi-ananta said...

Unknown,
regarding your comment of 2 August 2020 at 01:52,
On the original, regular or main thread there is no indication to the moniker of "Unknown".

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

Well put Karen, and I concur - Michael deserves our utmost respect.

Wigbert said...

Realise that you are the formless one,
that pure and imageless awareness.
Know this with your entirety
and let the life force and consciousness dance
in the presence of that unmoving vastness.
Intuitively you will know
there is neither limit nor end
to that which you are.

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Asun,

Thanks. My point is: when we truly try ‘to be’, we will automatically not do anything that is manipulative nor say anything we want nor we will do anything to hurt others. Evil people who were born evil can never practice self enquiry, unless everything breaks apart for them. Now if a personality type is such that he/she talks bluntly, I think that should be ok. If someone’s writing shows evilness or hatred, still, if I am practicing ‘to be’, I would ideally not take it to heart. I don’t get affected by Mr. Unknown’s posts. it is just written material. If someone is physically going to attack me, I would definitely take it to heart:) . Hope I understood what you were trying to convey.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan is not interested in what we do but in what we are

The friend:: Bhagavan says that karma doesn’t give us the fruits of its actions but God gives us the fruits of our actions. But how does this information help us in our spiritual journey?

Bhagavan: The law of karma is not central to Bhagavan’s teachings because Bhagavan is not interested in what we do but in what we are. We need to discover what we actually are. Action is of peripheral interest. But why Bhagavan taught us the law of karma. He taught us for a practical purpose. If we understand the law of karma, it will help us in the path of self-investigation – particularly it will help us in the path of self-surrender.

Our prarabdha is the will of Bhagavan. So firstly, we cannot change our destiny and therefore it is futile trying or wanting to do so, Secondly, whatever is ordained by Bhagavan is for our spiritual benefit. Bhagavan selects only those fruits that will be conducive for our spiritual good. So we shouldn’t try to add to it or subtract from it. We should just accept it as it is.

We may not understand why we should be suffering in this way. We wouldn’t even ask why we should be suffering because we have a firm conviction that everything that is everything is by the will of God for our good. We won’t need to question or need an explanation of anything. Everything is happening in our life due to Bhagavan’s abundant grace, his abundant love for us.

If we understand this, this will make life so much easier for us. We will accept both the good and bad things of life so much more easily. So we will be ever at peace and happy. The more we turn towards ourself, the more ego subsides, the more ego subsides, the happier and peaceful we will be – the more satisfied we will be.

So the teaching that the fruits of actions are according to the will of Bhagavan is not complete teaching in itself, but it is a very key part of the law of karma taught to us by Bhagavan.

~ Edited and paraphrased extract: 2020-06-06 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 1 to 3 (00:54 & 01:10)

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

Nice post Sanjay, and yes - that is Bhagavan's teaching as paraphrased by Michael. Good to see you posting again.

Anonymous said...

This one is good Sanjay. Was thinking about you yesterday :)

Sanjay Lohia said...

The desire to be appreciated may take different forms, but it is a very strong desire of ego (Part one)

The desire to be appreciated may take different forms, but it is a very strong desire for ego. It is potentially one of the most dangerous desires. It is for this reason that Bhagavan warned us in verse 37 of Uladdu Narpadu Anubandham:

Even though all the worlds are (renounced as mere) straw and even though all the scriptures are in hand (that is, have been thoroughly mastered), for those who have come under the sway of the vicious harlot which is praise, ah; to escape from slavery to her is indeed very difficult!

Sadhu Om: Among the three desires, namely the desires for relationships, possessions and praise, it is the desire for praise that is most difficult to renounce. Even though one has renounced the desire for relationships and the desire for possessions, regarding them as mere straw, if one falls prey to the desire for being praised or appreciated by others, it is very difficult to renounce it. Therefore, of all the evils which threaten to befall people of vast learning, it is the desire for praise and fame which is the most dangerous.

‘Praise’ covers everything – praise, appreciation, fame – to be liked or appreciated or highly regarded by others. If one falls prey to such praise, if one comes under the sway of the wicked prostitute, it becomes extremely difficult to keep oneself away from slavery to her.

So even if we are able to renounce everything, even if we are learned and have renounced all pleasures of the world, so long as we still have that liking to be liked, to be appreciated, to be famous, to be highly regarded, that’s a very strong desire of ego. Why Bhagavan wrote that verse? It is because so many people who come to the spiritual path and seemed to have renounced the worldly pleasures, there would be lots of people who would be ready to appreciate you, to worship you, to put you on a pedestal. This happens more frequently particularly if you are learned and you are able to explain spiritual texts, or even if you are able to explain Bhagavan’s texts like I am doing now.

(To be continued in my next comment)


• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-01 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 8 to 10 (01:34)

Sanjay Lohia said...

The desire to be appreciated may take different forms, but it is a very strong desire of ego (Part two)

Michael: Sometimes people put me on a pedestal, and it’s a very dangerous place to be in. If we believe that there is something special in us and that is why people appreciate us, that’s going to be our downfall. So we have to be very very careful not to fall prey to the desire of that type of appreciation. We cannot prevent people from appreciating us or putting us on the pedestal, but we shouldn’t be fooled by it.

We have to look within and see, yes, I have got so many desires. My mind is still so very imperfect. So why people are able to see something special in me, God only knows. So long as we take ourself to be a person, we are imperfect. If we are following Bhagavan’s path, we should be indifferent to both praise and blame. We should also refrain from praising or blaming other people because no person is worthy of praise.

We are a person as long as we rise as ego, and as long as we rise as ego, that’s the fundamental defect. So we need to recognise our total unworthiness. That’s the only safeguard to falling prey to this wicked courtesan called flattery.

Sadhu Om used to say 'Humility is divinity'. In GVK, Bhagavan says how God has attained that position where he became worthy of being worshipped by the whole universe? It is because he sees himself as the lower than the lowest. Bhagavan said something to that effect. In other words, God is supreme because of his supreme humility. So we should be always very very careful never to think of ourself as better than anyone else.

• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-01 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 8 to 10 (01:34)

Anonymous said...

Good one Sanjay!!!

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sanjay Lohia said...

Eventually, all we need to know is ourself – we don’t need to know anything else because we are the only thing that actually exists

A friend: What is your advice to the younger generation? Should I tell my ten-year-old son about Bhagavan’s teachings?

Michael: We should follow Bhagavan’s advice on this: Bhagavan didn’t give any advice of its own accord. When people asked him questions, he answered, otherwise, he was happy to sit quietly. If our children show interest in this subject, we can answer their doubts. If they are not interested, it’s not our business to interfere in their internal matter. Every jiva who is born in this world is born with a certain purpose, and whatever they go through in life is all part of the process of gradually preparing for this. But we shouldn’t impose these teachings on people who are not interested in this.

Ultimately, we should be concerned only about ourself. We shouldn’t be concerned about others. OK, as a father we have certain responsibilities, but those are worldly responsibilities. In the spiritual path, if we save ourself, that is sufficient. According to Bhagavan, there is only one ego. Who is that one ego? We are that. The one who is seeing all this, the one who perceives this world – that is the one ego. The one who is dreaming this dream is the one ego, so if that one ego wakes up, that is sufficient.

In the dream, we don’t have to worry about waking up other people in the dream. If we wake up that is sufficient. We can save all the people in the dream just by waking up ourself.

The friend: What is our aim in life? We see so many things going around in the world in the name of spirituality.

Michael: We have to decide our aim in life. So having come to Bhagavan, having read Bhagavan, we have to decide what Bhagavan is pointing to us. Then we have to decide whether we want that or not. Do we want to surrender ourself? Do we want to lose ourself entirely in pure awareness? Obviously, we do not want to lose ourself entirely. But those of us who are attracted to this path, we want to surrender ourself. So that is what we have to decide.

So we shouldn’t think that people who are following other spiritual paths will be drawn to Bhagavan’s path because Bhagavan’s path is extremely deep and radical. It wouldn’t appeal to all people. Even people who read his teachings, interpret his teachings according to their preconceptions.

So we have to decide for ourself what is our goal? If our goal is to surrender ourself completely, we should follow this path. We shouldn’t worry about others who have so many other ideas about what spirituality is. They are following what they feel is appropriate at their level of spiritual development. Eventually, all we need to know is ourself. We don’t need to know anything else because we are the only thing that actually exists.

• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-06-27 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses self-realisation and karma (01:17)

Anonymous said...

I agree to some extent Asun, if I understood your post. The problem is: I am tamilian and I have read Bhagavan’s teachings in tamil. I never understood anything. Even Guru Vachaka Kovai in tamil is so difficult to understand. According to me , Tamil is the most difficult language. Sadhu Om and Michael James have done great work in being that channel and simplify his teachings. Are they aiming to be a Guru? I really don’t care. Reading the posts in this blog helps me a lot. So thats all that matters to me.

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

After so many years, only now I understand the depth of these teachings. Forget the terminologies.. if a person is very comfortable with the mere existence of himself/herself and always be with that existence, nothing else outside of that existence will matter anymore. I am slowly experiencing it myself. I am neither superior to anyone else nor inferior to anyone else no matter where I am placed in the society. If someone has a different opinion or if someone contradicts his/her own teaching, all that wouldn’t matter to me. Because, I am content with myself. If one really follows this, then one will start understanding what surrender means, what ‘not taking the burden’ means, what ‘not getting affected by abusive people’ means. Hope you still remain active in this blog and not leave.

Wigbert said...

Love does not need an intention or object to love.
It is the highest expression of the being
in recognition of itself.
It is the unity of being.
Just as the fragrance and the flower are one,
your being radiates this love—effortlessly.
You are the Self.
Silence, wisdom and joy are your perfume.
It is here when you leave your luggage aside.
Luggage means identity, desire, memory, projections
who you think you are and who you want to be.
This beauty awakens in you
when there is space for the beautiful One.
Surrender.
Be entirely empty of ‘you’,

Sanjay Lohia said...

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: The idea of entering within yourself and discovering the divine presence in your own heart – this indeed is fundamental (part one)

Michael James: Can you tell us about the orthodox view of the deep heart, and how can one enter the deep heart? This is closely related to the spiritual path I am following, which is the path of Advaita as taught by Bhagavan Ramana.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: Yes, indeed. The concept of ‘heart’ is of great importance. In the Old Testament and the New Testament, the heart is seen as a symbol of unification of the human being. The heart in Biblical and mystical understanding is not just emotions, feelings and affections. The heart means the deep self. The heart is the point of unity within the human person – which consists of the body, soul and spirit. The heart provides contact between the created human being and the uncreated energies of God.

So the heart is to be seen as the living centre of the human personhood. When we talk about the prayer of the heart, we mean the prayer of the total person. We often talk of entering the place of the heart. This would mean achieving full personal integration.

Michael James: In the teachings of Bhagavan Ramana, he talks about the deep heart, which is the absolute centre – the meeting point between us and God - the point where God is always available to us, where God is always present within us. So the heart is at the same time the absolute centre. It is also that in which everything else is contained. So the heart is God itself. So, ultimately, God is not just in the heart, God is heart – the heart in each and every one of us.

So if we are to unite with him in any sense, we can do so only by turning within and searching for him within ourself. As Christ said, ‘Behold, the kingdom of God is within you’. From my perspective, the keyword here is ‘behold’. He is asking us to look within. So that is what we are doing in the path of Bhagavan Ramana. We are looking within to see the reality within us - that which is within us – God, brahman or atma – whatever we choose to call it.

(To be continued in my next comment)

• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-05 Theosis and Jñāna: discussion between Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and Michael James (20:00)


Sanjay Lohia said...

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: The idea of entering within yourself and discovering the divine presence in your own heart – this indeed is fundamental (part two)

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: Here, I do notice a difference in approach or traditions. We would not say that the heart is God. We would say that the heart is in the centre of the created human person, so when we say ‘heart’, we see this as a part of our created human person - the point of union between the body, soul and spirit. We enter into communion with God through the heart, but cannot, therefore, say that the heart has become God. We would say that that the heart is where we meet God.

Michael James: I think you have written at one place you more or less enter the heart through silence. Be still and know that I am God. This is more or less what you were saying.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: The whole tradition in the Orthodox Church is known as hasychasm, which comes from the Greek word which means stillness, inner silence. Here it is good to ask ‘what do you mean by silence?’ Silence doesn’t mean an absence of speech or a mere pause between words. By silence, we mean more than that. Silence is not negative but positive. It is not emptiness but fullness.

Michael James: Yes, absolutely.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: Silence, therefore, is the way through which we enter into communion with God. Silence is the same as the attitude of waiting upon God – listening to him.

Michael James: Yes, I would agree with that absolutely. Though we may view it in different ways, silence is the very centre of the teachings of Bhagavan Ramana and to the path he has taught. As we enter deeper within ourself, we come to the deeper levels of silence. And as you say, within silence we find fullness. Silence is not emptiness; silence is fullness.

(To be continued in my next comment)

• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-05 Theosis and Jñāna: discussion between Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and Michael James (20:00)


Sanjay Lohia said...

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: The idea of entering within yourself and discovering the divine presence in your own heart – this indeed is fundamental (part three)

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: Here I might say how the Orthodox Christians enter into silence and that is through the invocation of the holy name or through what is known as the Jesus prayer. These are short invocations addressed to the second person of the trinity, most commonly known as Lord Jesus Christ – ‘Jesus Christ, son of God have mercy on me’. We can say. ‘have mercy on me, the sinner’. Or we may say ‘have mercy on us’. So we can have variations of this invocatory prayer.

This short form of prayer is given to us in the Hesychast tradition for frequent repetition and it is for many orthodox Christians the way into silence. It’s not helpful to say to people ‘stop thinking’. What we can do is to give our overactive mind a very simple task, which is the repetition of the Jesus prayer. Sometimes people call Jesus prayer a mantra, but I am not sure if that is entirely appropriate.

Michael James: There are different types of mantras that are used for different purposes. But the most basic mantra is the name of God or short prayers to God. Such prayers are very prevalent in Hindu tradition. So, I can understand clearly the appeal such a prayer has.

In my tradition, the efficacy of such prayers is acknowledged. The central practice as taught by Bhagavan Ramana is what is called atma-vichara (self-investigation), which basically means looking deep within oneself. This is now the mind is silenced. As you say, ‘you just can’t stop thinking' because the very effort to stop thinking is counterproductive. But if you look within yourself, the mind will automatically stop. It is because the mind is going outwards, it is thinking about outside things. When we turn our attention within to look deep within the heart, the mind is thereby silenced.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: Yes, we too would attach importance to the idea of entering into ourselves. One of our saints said, ‘Enter eagerly the treasure house that is within you, for that is also the treasure house of God'. This is something which all our masters would affirm. So the idea of entering within yourself and discovering the divine presence in you – that is indeed fundamental.

Michael James: Yes, yes.

• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-05 Theosis and Jñāna: discussion between Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and Michael James (20:00)


Anonymous said...

Good one Wigbert..

Anonymous said...

Thanks :) i thought wigbert wrote it ..

Sanjay Lohia said...

When we go very deep in the practice of self-investigation, the breathing and the activities of the body will reduce to a considerable extent (part one)

A friend: I just read in your book HAB that the activities of our body, speech and mind come to a standstill when we are fully self-attentive. Could you please elaborate?

Michael: The context in which this subject arises is that of yoga. In yoga, they aim to restrain the mind by restraining the breath. Bhagavan says that the breath and the mind arise from the same source, so if one is restrained, the other is automatically restrained. Suppose, if you hear any shocking news, you say, ‘It took my breath away’ because at that moment your mind is so stunned, it doesn’t go anywhere else. So, if your mind is stunned, your breath also stops.

So the activity of the breath and mind are very closely related. If a person is in a very agitated or emotional state, they will be breathing rapidly, whereas if a person is in a calm state of mind, their breathing will be calm. So, yoga tries to take advantage of this and tries to calm the mind by restraining the breath. But Bhagavan doesn’t recommend the practice of breath-restrain because according to his teaching, if we turn our attention within, towards ‘I’, the mind will calm down automatically. The activity of the mind is outward-going, but when we turn our attention within, it automatically calms down, and to the extent the mind calms down, the breath also calms down.

When we go very deep in the practice of self-investigation, the breathing and the activities of the body will reduce to a considerable extent. When young Venkataraman had that death experience, he turned his mind within so keenly that for about 20 minutes his body lay there lifeless. It is written in many books that Venkataraman enacted death – that is he lay down like a corpse and enacted death. It wasn’t enactment.

When the fear of death came, Venkataraman wanted to know with the death of the body, will he also die. So he wanted to know whether ‘I’ will die along with the body. So he left his body as if it were a corpse and he turned his attention within so keenly that he thereby experienced himself as he really was, and he merged forever in his source. The ego that took that body Venkataraman to be ‘I’ merged forever in its source and what remained was Bhagavan.

(To be continued in my next comment)

~^~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (00:42)

cmgoodchild said...

I can truthfully and honestly tell you that once in I merged with with a memory. I was me at 43 and I had this memory come up that had always been with me. The recall of this memory happened only when a certain song played. I would remember the memory but just discard it.
This memory appeared out of nowhere and upon examination I found my self IN the memory. The feeling of “aliveness” the state of no-mind, no subject, no object.

The perceived and the perceiver are the same.

It was incredible. Here’s what I can tell you:
I heard music but it wasn’t separate from the background.
I had depth of field although there was no one to know that.
There was no differentiation between anything.
I cannot say there was any difference between “object” and “subject” because there was no recognition of there even being a body with which to “compare”.
There was color and it appeared 3D without the ability to even know any difference.
There was a sound which sounded distant (like someone doing the dishes) and the sound was heard as “further away” so that there was built in recognition of this sound being further away.
It was night.
The windows in the living room were open. Several table lamps. The atmosphere was warm (the lighting or hue of the bulbs) no recognition of comfort or no comfort.
Now I’ve saved the best for last: While merged with this memory I felt what it was like in that “body”looking through those eyes!!!
It was an energy that surged like a nuclear fire! It burned with beingness and that beingness was pure love. Incredible!


When ‘I’ became both the memory of “that”. I was also this ‘mind’! I can confirm true nature is that! And yet, the recognition of the “blank nothing” is also there. The instantaneous nothing/something was not reacted upon. Because the apparent manifestation was unable to be realized as something different than non manifestation.
It just wasn’t there.
Then it appeared.
Then it disappeared.
Only in this current ‘state’ can the mind give words or concepts to a ‘happening’. That is to say, this merging of what is seemingly two separate entities had to be felt as dualism in order for there to be recognition of “THAT”. Or any ability to even know there was that! So being completely ‘that’; it is not possible to know existence!!
How WILD!!

I do not know what to do about this it just happened. I wasn't meditating. Although I had been trying to figure out why this memory kept occurring. Now its just a shell of the memory. Insight gave way to words and all thats left is the resonance.
When I have posted this other places. I said I was meditating because it seemed to only avenue with which to not sound completely insane.
Im posting this here because I'm looking for insight. If I could get that from a disciple of Ramana that would be valid for me.
I understand this 'I' is a dream. So I know I am that which had been sought.
How could this happen?
please help me to understand.

Sanjay Lohia said...

When we go very deep in the practice of self-investigation, the breathing and the activities of the body will reduce to a considerable extent (part two)

Michael: Bhagavan sometimes spoke from the onlooker’s point of view. From onlooker’s point of view, his body was lying lifeless for about 20 minutes. But because that body had the destiny to play the role of a vehicle through which the guru would function, so after about 20 minutes suddenly there was a shock and the body came back to life. But what now shone through that body was only Bhagavan, our own real nature, the eternal guru.

That happened when Bhagavan was 16-years-old. During the next 16 years, such episodes happened occasionally because Bhagavan was so inward drawn that his body would become lifeless. But it was witnessed only on one occasion by someone else - that is in 1912 when Bhagavan was 32 years old (this was 16 years after Bhagavan’s first death experience). In most books, it is recorded that that was Bhagavan’s second death experience, but in later years Bhagavan clarified that was his last death experience. His last death experience happened on the rock called Aamai paarai or tortoise rock. But what happened in Madurai was the final – the end of the story, but what happened to his body later several times was a similar thing.

Such intense bodiless experiences can be experienced by us if we are able to turn our attention within very very deeply. Obviously, this won’t happen if we are driving a car or walking to work or waiting to catch a bus or something. But when we set aside time and we try to go deep within, and if we keep our attention fixed steadily on ourself, the breathing will subside and come almost to a standstill. But if we notice our breathing, it will start again because if we have noticed our breathing, our attention has gone away from ourself towards the body. So we won’t notice the lifelessness of our body if our attention is firmly fixed only on ourself.

(To be continued in my next comment)

~^~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (00:42)

Sanjay Lohia said...

When we go very deep in the practice of self-investigation, the breathing and the activities of the body will reduce to a considerable extent (part three)

Michael: So it is not something which is very significant, but it just something that happens. Just as if you restrain the breath, you will restrain the mind, if you restrain the mind, you will restrain the breath. By turning our attention back towards ourself, we are thereby restraining the mind, the outgoing activity of the mind. So if we turn our attention within so keenly, it may seem to the onlookers that our breathing has stopped – it may or may not, it doesn’t matter. But from our perspective, we will be lost forever in pure awareness. We will merge forever in pure awareness.

So for us, there will be no world or body or anything. What will remain is best described by Bhagavan in verse 28 of Upadesa Undiyar:

If one knows what the nature of oneself is, then [what will remain existing and shining is only] anādi [beginningless], ananta [endless, limitless or infinite] and akhaṇḍa [unbroken, undivided or unfragmented] sat-cit-ānanda [existence-awareness-happiness].

So eventually we will be aware of only anadi-ananta-akhanda sat-chit-ananda and nothing else. The body and the mind of the jnani exist only in the view of the ajnani. So when we say Bhagavan’s body lay there lifeless for about 20 minutes - that is only from our perspective, not in the view of the jnani.


~^~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (00:42)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Have the ancient texts described the correct meaning of the term ‘atma-vichara’? (part one)

Sanjay: Bhagavan teaches us in paragraph 16 of Nan Ar?:

Atma-vichara means keeping the mind in (or on) self.

I was wondering if other ancient Vedantic texts or Adi Shankara or others other sages have ever described atma-vichara is such clear terms. I believe Sri Adi Sankara says in verse 11 of Vivekachuḍamaṇi:

Karma [action] [is only] for cittasya ṣuddhi [purification of mind] but not for vastu-upalabdhi [acquisition or knowledge of the reality]. Vastu-siddhi [attainment of the reality] [is only] by vichāra [and] not in the least by karma-koṭi [tens of millions of actions].

Adi Shankara says, ‘Vastu-siddhi [attainment of the reality] [is only] by vichāra [and] not in the least by karma-koṭi [tens of millions of actions]’. Though this is in perfect accord with Bhagavan’s teachings, did Shankara describe what vichara is? One may easily take vichara to mean studying and thinking deeply about all the Vedantic texts and their commentaries and so on.

Michael: OK, it is true. Many scholars of advaita, which include many sannyasis and heads of mutts and so on, take vichara to mean studying Vedantic texts and commentaries on them. They think that these are the means to experience the direct experience of reality. Bhagavan has clearly repudiated this idea in the same 16th paragraph of Nan Ar?:

Since in every text [of advaita] it is said that for attaining mukti [liberation] it is necessary to make the mind cease, after knowing that manōnigraha [restraint, subjugation or destruction of the mind] alone is the ultimate intention [aim or purpose] of [such] texts, there is no benefit [to be gained] by studying texts without limit. For making the mind cease it is necessary to investigate oneself [to see] who [one actually is], [but] instead [of doing so] how [can one see oneself by] investigating in texts? It is necessary to know oneself only by one’s own eye of jñāna [knowledge or awareness]. Does [a person called] Raman need a mirror to know himself as Raman? ‘Oneself’ is within the pañca-kōśas [the ‘five sheaths’ that seem to cover and obscure what one actually is, namely the physical body, life, mind, intellect and will]; whereas texts are outside them. Therefore, investigating in texts [in order to know] oneself, whom it is necessary to investigate [by turning one’s attention within and thereby] setting aside [excluding, removing, giving up or separating from] all the pañca-kōśas, is useless.

So Bhagavan says very clearly here that it is ‘useless’. So the textural enquiry or investigation – the study of texts – that is taught as a means by many scholars and heads of advaitic mutts, according to Bhagavan, is ‘useless’.

(To be continued in my next comment)

-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:27)


Sanjay Lohia said...

Have the ancient texts described the correct meaning of the term ‘atma-vichara’? (part two)

Michael: In the next sentence of the 16th paragraph of Nan Ar, Bhagavan says:

[By] investigating who is oneself who is in bondage, knowing one’s yathārtha svarūpa [actual own nature] alone is mukti [liberation]. The name ‘ātma-vicāra’ [refers] only to [the practice of] always keeping the mind in [or on] ātmā [oneself]; whereas dhyāna [meditation] is imagining oneself to be sat-cit-ānanda brahman [the absolute reality, which is being-consciousness-bliss].

That is a lot of people who think they can get jnana by studying texts. They think they have to read these texts and think very deeply ‘I am brahman’ or ‘I am pure awareness’ or ‘I am not this; I am that’. They think such thinking will take them to their goal.

An analogy is often given. A prince grows up among the peasants and when he grows up to a certain age, he is then told that ‘You are a prince, so you are the rightful owner of the kingdom’. But he will not become the king by merely repeating ‘I am the king’, ‘I am the king’. He has to go and assert his rights to the throne. So, likewise, we have to turn within and investigate ourself. Merely thinking ‘I am brahman’ or ‘I am pure awareness’ doesn’t enable ourself to experience ourself as such. We can experience ourself as such only by turning our attention within and by fixing our mind only on ourself.

So the question is whether this is clearly described in the ancient texts? I have limited knowledge about the ancient texts, so I am not qualified to answer this. But I would say if it had been clearly explained that vichara means turning the mind within and fixing it on ourself, then all the scholars of advaita who teach that vichara means to investigate and study the texts would not interpret it that way. Their own texts would tell them, ‘no, that is not vichara’. So I suspect it hasn’t been explained so clearly elsewhere.

However, though it is not referred to as ‘vichara’, the practice that Bhagavan taught us has very clearly been expressed by Sri Krishna in the two verses of Bhagavad Gita (chapter 6, verses 25 and 26). Bhagavan included these verses in his Bhagavad Gita Saram, which is a collection of 42 verses from the Bhagavad Gita.

Bhagavad Gita verse 6.25 (verse 27 of Bhagavad Gita Saram):

By [an] intellect [a power of discrimination or discernment] imbued with firmness [steadfastness, resolution, persistence or courage] one should gently and gradually withdraw [one’s mind] from [all] activity. Having made [one’s] mind stand firm in atman, one should not think even a little of anything else.

Bhagavad Gita verse 6.26 (verse 28 of Bhagavad Gita Saram):

Wherever the ever-wavering and unsteady mind goes, restraining [or withdrawing] it from there one should subdue it [by always keeping it firmly fixed] only in atman.

So slowly-slowly we have got to wean our mind off its habit of going outwards and turn it within and achieve motionlessness. How to achieve motionlessness? We can do so by making the mind or attention fixed in ourself. So fixing our attention on ourself – that is the practice that Bhagavan has taught us, and that is what Krishna teaches us here.

(To be continued in my next comment)

-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:27)


Sanjay Lohia said...

Have the ancient texts described the correct meaning of the term ‘atma-vichara’? (part three)

Michael: Sri Krishna says, ‘one should not think even a little of anything else’. So we have to fix our attention only on ourself and withdraw it from everything else. But this is not something which we can achieve overnight. We need a slow and steady practice. So however many times our attention wanders away towards other things, we have to withdraw it from those things and fix it on ourself. That is how we make the mind achieve motionlessness.

So the practice of atma-vichara is very clearly described in these verses of Bhagavad Gita. So it is there in the ancient texts, but many of the scholars don’t understand that this is what is meant by the term ‘vichara’.

But there is a clue in verse 11 of Vivekachudamani that you refer to. Krishna says that vastu-siddhi or attainment of reality is only by vichara and not in the least by any crores of karmas. From this, we have to understand that vichara is not a karma or action. Here ‘action’ can be interpreted in two ways. One way is to interpret it as a ritualistic action, but that’s rather a limited way. Karma or action actually means all types of actions. So action of any kind whatsoever will not enable us to achieve vastu-siddhi. What does it imply? It implies that vichara is not an action.

So studying texts, listening to lectures, these are actions. As long as our attention goes away from ourself, that’s an action. Vichara is turning our attention back towards ourself. That’s not an action. That’s the cessation of all actions. Actions are done by ego. So first, ego must rise and then act. When we turn our attention back towards ourself, ego begins to subside. So vichara is the cessation of action and not an action.

That’s why vichara is the key to liberation – the key to attaining vastu-siddhi.

-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:27)

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

Sanjay, from your last comments, "But if we notice our breathing, it will start again because if we have noticed our breathing, our attention has gone away from ourself towards the body. So we won’t notice the lifelessness of our body if our attention is firmly fixed only on ourself."


Yes, that is a very significant point and one of the core elements of Bhagavan's teaching. There are many spiritual practices where the attention is supposed to go to a variety of things but self. How can one realize self when the attention goes elsewhere [but self]? If that is the breath, a visualization, or simply "watching phenomena" as a witness. These practices cannot work, they can only be a preliminary technique until one switches to atma-vichara.

The depth of Bhagavan's teaching is incredible, simple and simultaneously extremely deep and all-encompassing.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Salazar, I fully agree, 'The depth of Bhagavan's teaching is incredible, simple and simultaneously extremely deep and all-encompassing'.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Human birth is special, so we shouldn’t waste the opportunity we have now (part one)

Sanjay: As I had informed you, Bhagavan’s grace is enabling me to discuss Bhagavan’s teachings with a friend called Saravanapavan who is based in New Zealand. He also attends your Zoom meetings and watches your videos.

Today, he explained that it is said in the scriptures we need three things to know God, and these are a human birth, an intense desire for liberation and a competent guru to guide us on this journey. He said we are fortunate to have all three. I told him that such things are written in the scriptures, but Bhagavan didn’t consider human birth to be anything special. Obviously, the other two criteria are important. That is, we do need an intense desire for freedom and a real sadguru to guide us back home. I gave him the example of cow Lakshmi. She attained liberation being in the cow body, so our human body is not a must for liberation.

I told him that the human body is different from any other types of animal bodies only because we have a superior intellect. But such an evolved intellect is a two-way sword. It can help us by showing us the correct path to liberation, but it can also lead us astray if it acts like brahma flying high and high in search of the peak of the Annamalai. So the intellect more often than not becomes a hindrance.

My friend was not fully satisfied with my answer. If you consider fit, could you please give your views on our discussion and give your opinion on this matter?

Michael: I don’t think it would be correct to say that Bhagavan didn’t consider human birth to be anything special. Generally, it is said that human birth is something special. That doesn’t mean that it is absolutely essential for liberation. However, cow Lakshmi was a rare exception. We may hear other examples like that, but generally, it is said that human birth is most favourable for liberation.

Lakshmi probably had a human birth prior to her birth as Lakshmi. She was born as a cow because of her love for Bhagavan. Bhagavan never confirmed but whenever he talked about Lakshmi, he would also talk about Keerai Patti. Keerai Patti was an old lady who would wander over the hill and collect keerai – keerai means spinach and other edible greens. She used to cook those greens for Bhagavan and serve Bhagavan. She had a great love for Bhagavan. Shortly after she passed away, Lakshmi was born. Because when Bhagavan talked about Lakshmi, he also talked about Keerai Patti, many believed that Lakshmi was Keerai Patti returned as a cow to continue her devotion to Bhagavan.

The love between Bhagavan and Lakshmi was extraordinary. Bhagavan’s love was totally impartial – he had equal love for all. But somehow Bhagavan’s bond with Lakshmi was something special. Some remarkable things happened. For example, every year for several years in a row, the day Bhagavan’s jayanthi was celebrated Lakshmi gave birth to a calf. Some people may take that to be miraculous and some people may take that to be a coincidence, but it’s significant because it shows the strong and close connection between Lakshmi and Bhagavan. So Lakshmi is a very very exception.

(To be continued in my next comment)

-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:40)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Correction:

So Lakshmi is a very very rare exception.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Human birth is special, so we shouldn’t waste the opportunity we have now (part two)

Michael: Generally, it is said that human birth is very favourable for attaining liberation, and we have different explanations for this. One of the explanations is that in human birth, we can clearly distinguish between our three states of waking, dream, and sleep, whereas animals cannot distinguish waking and dream. For them, when they wake up from a dream into this present waking state, it seems to be a continuation of the same state. But we are able to distinguish – ‘Oh, that was a different state and this is a different state’. Though according to Bhagavan, this is also a dream, we are able to distinguish ‘that was a different dream, and this is a different dream’. So that’s about animals.

About the devas, the higher beings who dwell in heavens or wherever, it is said that they never experience sleep. So they are in a state of perpetual waking. Since waking means dreaming, so they are perpetually dreaming. So because they don’t experience sleep, they are not able to distinguish as we can that we exist and are aware of our existence even when we are not aware of this body and world. So that is why human birth is said to be superior.

But we don’t have to be concerned about all these things. Obviously, it is necessary to have an intense desire for liberation, and for the vast majority of us, having a guru in human form is also necessary. In the case of Bhagavan, his guru was Arunachala, so he never had a guru in a human form. This was because Bhagavan was able to understand the silent teachings of Arunachala, so even before coming to Arunachala, Arunachala worked within his mind and turned his attention within at the time of his fear of death.

So Arunachala did its work even before Bhagavan had seen the physical form of Arunachala. But that again is an exception. For most of us, we need a guru in a human form. That is because since our attention is turned outwards, the guru has to appear outside in a human form to tell us, ‘Turn within. What you are seeking doesn’t exist outside. It exists in you as you. You are that’. So guru in human form is necessary for most of us.

Regarding human birth, one of the reasons why it is stressed about the importance of human birth is that we shouldn't waste this opportunity we have now. Whether human birth is superior to birth in an animal body or not, let us not be concerned about that. Now we have a human birth, so every moment we have is a precious opportunity to turn within. That is most important.

Regarding what you say about the intellect, yes, if we allow our intellects to go outwards, to do anantma-vichara or to investigate the world (loka-vichara) or to investigate anything other than ourself - that is a misuse of our intellect. Intellect means the power of discrimination and judgement. In the clear power of discrimination or judgement, we will know the correct use of our intellect. We should use it to investigate ourself alone and not to investigate things other than ourself.

-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:40)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan’s death-experience

Sanjay: While explaining Bhagavan’s death experience, you often say that when young Venkataraman had that intense fear of death, he feared to lose his own existence and did not fear to lose anything else. That is, as a boy of 16 when he had that intense fear of death, he clung to himself with so much intensity only because he was only concerned about losing his existence. All his other desires and attachments were like a thin veil, and therefore these vasanas were not a hindrance to his clinging to himself.

My question is what you mean by ‘he feared to lose his existence’? Since he experienced himself as Venkataraman at that moment, did he fear to lose his existence as Venkataraman or did he fear to lose his pure existence ‘I am’? I would be grateful if you could clarify this.

Michael: Well, we don’t know what exactly Bhagavan said, but what has been recorded about what he said about his death is as follows. He clarified that when the fear of death came to him it didn’t happen in thoughts, but it all happened in a flash. But he described it in terms of his thought – ‘Now this body is dead. With the death of the body, will I also die?’ So what he wanted to know was ‘When this body dies, will I also die?’

So he clearly understood the distinction between his body and himself. He had clearly decided that his body is dead, so Venkataraman is dead, but with the death of the body, will ‘I’ also die? So when I said Venkataraman feared to lose his existence, his existence as Venkataraman was not his real existence. That was only a seeming existence. His real existence and the real existence of all of us is the pure awareness ‘I am’. So that is what Venkataraman feared to lose.

The context in which I sometimes explain this is normally when people get the fear of death, they begin to think about what is most dear to them. So they may begin to think about their family, their job, their status in society and such things. Those things are important to them, so they cling to those things. Whereas, in the case of Bhagavan, he wasn’t attached to anything external to himself, so when the fear of death came, he turned his attention within and clung to himself alone.

So Venkataraman clearly knew the distinction between ‘I’ and Venkataraman. So when this body dies, what happens to this ‘I’? That is what he sought to find out and that is what he found out. That what is shining in each and every one of us is the eternal reality. That alone is what is always real, ever unchanging. Bhagavan gave us the definition of reality as follows. What is real has to be eternal, unchanging and self-shining.

So what is eternal is only ‘I’. What is unchanging is only ‘I’. All other things change. ‘I’ alone remains unchanging, so that is what he clung to.

-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:01)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan’s blessing

A friend: Michael, more than a question, I seek your blessings because the ultimate answer to every question is ‘who is asking this question?’ I really need your blessing, so that I can follow this path.

Michael: The only one who can bless you is Bhagavan. I am in the same boat as you are. I am just an ordinary spiritual aspirant, so I am unqualified to bless you.

Bhagavan is always blessing us, but we derive the benefits of his blessings to the extent we turn within and subside. However difficult it may seem to be, we just have to continue trying. So long as we are trying to the best of our ability, he would take care of everything else. So Bhagavan’s grace and blessing are never lacking. They are always there. He is always providing us with all the help that we require.

He has given us a small responsibility – 'try to follow what he taught us, try to surrender ourself to him'. He will take care of everything else. Even if we don’t turn our attention within and don’t surrender ourself, he is still taking care of everything. But the more we yield ourself to him by turning our attention within, the less we are obstructing the work of his grace.

The friend: Thank you very much, Michael.

Michael: So if you want blessings, ask Bhagavan. Bhagavan is always blessing you, but the benefit of asking his blessing is that to that extent you are willing to yield yourself to his blessings. So we are asking Bhagavan not because he does not know that we need his blessings, he knows what we need better than we know it. But by praying to him we are giving our consent. We are accepting how dependent we are on his grace.

The friend: Thank you.

Michael: And prayer definitely has its place. Bhagavan has sung so many beautiful prayers in Arunachala Stuti Panchakam. If we want to know how to pray properly, Bhagavan has clearly taught us how to pray properly. Bhagavan has clearly taught us in ASP, what we should pray for and how we should pray for.

-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:47)

Sanjay Lohia said...

The basis of all experiences is consciousness

Michael James: A lot of scientists believe nowadays that everything is physical or material. They believe even consciousness is the product of the brain and if consciousness is the product of the brain, so is love and compassion and everything else. But if we understand Bhagavan’s teachings, we will understand the absurdity of that type of view.

What do we experience first? The basis of all experiences is consciousness. So to say that consciousness is a product of physical evolution is obviously absurd. We are aware of the appearance of the physical world only because we are conscious. So we cannot doubt consciousness. This material world could be doubted because it could be no more than just a dream. Bhagavan has given us sufficient reasons to understand that our real nature is consciousness and not anything physical.

What we actually are is just the fundamental nature of our own existence ‘I am’. That is what is real. That is what we actually are. That is what remains in sleep when we have severed all our connections with our body and mind. So love and compassion are our real nature, they are not a product of evolution. The scientific theory of evolution applies to the evolution of physical matter, but if all this is just a dream, all our ideas about evolution is not correct.

Science is fine within a certain sphere. So long as this world seems to be real, science seems to be real, but if all this is just a dream, which Bhagavan says it is, then all science is just meaningless. Science can tell us about the world-appearance. It cannot tell us about the reality that lies behind this world-appearance. The reality is pure awareness or consciousness, which is infinite happiness and infinite love. Science has no clue about this reality.

-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-25 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:57)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Are onions, garlic, tea, coffee and pungent foods sattvic or non-sattvic? (part one)

Michael James: What is meant by sattvika food is interpreted differently by different people, but I believe the most important criteria is ahimsa (non-harming of other living beings). Whatever food we consume should have been produced without causing harm to other living beings. So, obviously, meat, eggs and other such foods are out. Bhagavan said that eating meat, eggs and such foods is definitely non-sattvic and against all spiritual paths. Causing harm to others because we relish eating such foods is totally unjustified.

Some people, particularly in yoga, do far more research on these things. They believe onions, garlic, radish and other similar vegetables are not sattvic. Bhagavan didn’t attach importance to that. He used to cook onions and garlic in the ashram. Though orthodox brahmins consider onion and garlic to be very wrong, Bhagavan by his example showed us that he didn’t attach too much importance to such things.

As I said, my own interpretation is that what is most important in ahimsa. It’s the ethical criterion that is most important. If we are eating food which is being produced by causing harm to other sentient beings, that cannot be sattvic. About onions and garlic, if they don’t agree with you, by all means give them up. We should not have hard-and-fast rules here. Obviously, we each have to find out for ourselves which types of food are conducive to our sattvic state of mind. To some onions and garlic disturb them but to many of us, it doesn’t really make any difference.

I think yogis attach a lot of importance to these things because their path is different. They are trying to forcibly control their mind; whereas, the path of self-investigation is the true path of love and surrender. So in this path, we are not trying to control the mind by force. We are trying to turn our attention within by love. So by the example Bhagavan set, we should not be concerned about onion and garlic.

(To be continued in my next comment)

-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-25 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:46)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Are onions, garlic, tea, coffee and pungent foods sattvic or non-sattvic? (part two)

Michael James: You say that when you eat meat you feel less proud spiritually and less holier-than-thou. The way to feel less proud spiritually and less holier-than-thou is not by avoiding eating meat. For this, we need to keep our ego in check by trying to turn it within as frequently and as much as possible. If we are truly following the path of self-investigation and self-surrender, we will give no room for the feeling of pride or holier-than-thou.

Yes, we don’t eat meat, but other people eat meat. That doesn’t make us better than them. We have been given the clarity to understand that eating meat is causing harm to other people. To some people, this just doesn’t strike, so we shouldn’t feel holier-than-thou. Grace has enabled us to understand that eating meat under any circumstances is bad.

Regarding the plant-based foods, not all plant-based foods are sattvic. Cocaine is a drug which comes from plants, but it’s obviously not sattvic. So just because your food is a plant-based food doesn’t make it sattvic. However, generally, most of the plants that we consume as foods rather than as drugs are more or less sattvic.

A lot of people take tea and coffee. Very strict yogis would say that is not sattvic. I personally don’t take tea and coffee because it doesn’t appeal to me. However, Bhagavan drank tea or coffee in the ashram. So I don’t think these are seriously non-sattvic foods. Another thing people say is about pungent foods. Some people advice not to take food with a lot of chillies or salt or such things. That is where mita (moderation) comes in. Taking chillies and such things in moderate quantity may be OK, but it may not be good for the body and mind if consumed in excess.

So all Bhagavan said is mita sattvika ahara-niyama is the best among all aids. We have to interpret this according to our own understanding. All teachings are open to interpretation. We understand them according to our own level of understanding.

-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-25 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:46)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Salazar, I think our (human being’s) natural food is fruits, vegetables and nuts in its natural form. Of course, we cook food because of our addiction to cooked food. I believe we can adapt ourself to consuming a fully uncooked or sun-cooked diet. It is a matter of will power and habit. However, as spiritual aspirants, we cannot be fussy about this. We should accept whatever grace provides to us. However, if given a choice we should tend towards choosing unprocessed food in its raw form.

Our human bodies are best suited to digest fruits in their natural form. Moreover, fruits are the most sattvic fruits because nature provides us with fruits for our consumption. We have a symbiotic relationship with fruits. When we consume fruits, we get the best possible nourishment, but we also help the fruits in the distribution of its seeds. So our natural food is fruits in its natural form. Not everyone may agree with this.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan’s body was a temple in which he lived for fifty-four years

A friend: If we 'realised' one leaves his body, we build a samadhi on his tomb and do rituals on it. What is the significance of building a temple on his samadhi and worshipping it? We know Bhagavan was not that body, so why worship that remains body?

Michael James: Yes, Bhagavan is not his body, but that body was the temple in which he lived for fifty-four years giving us his teachings. So according to Tirumular, one of the ancient Tamil siddhas, the body of the jnani should be considered the temple of God, and hence it’s not appropriate to cremate it. In India, Hindu custom is generally cremation, but for the jnani, they don’t cremate the body. They at least follow this custom in South India, especially those who follow Tirumular. They bury the body of the jnani and build a temple over it. They consider the body of the jnani to be a temple – a temple on which God walked on earth, so to speak.

So it’s appropriate to worship the tomb or the samadhi of the jnani. That’s why the body of Bhagavan and some of his close devotees have been buried and are duly worshipped. That is appropriate, but again if we worship Bhagavan’s shrine and we are doing it out of love, we need not consider that to be a ritual. It’s just a simple expression of our love. Ritual worship also goes on there, and that is also appropriate for those who do it. However, we need not give much importance to the rituals if we are following Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation and self-surrender.

If we are fortunate to go to Tiruvannamalai, we can go to Bhagavan’s shrine. We can prostrate before it. We can walk around it or sit quietly in front of it. We can worship it whatever way appeals to us. However, we need not consider all these to be rituals. We are just expressing our love for Bhagavan. Just as if we had been there in his bodily lifetime, we would have liked to spend some time in his company. We would have liked to sit at his feet, look at him or whatever because of our love for him. So it’s natural that it continues even now.

~•~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:56)

Sanjay Lohia said...

When the fruit is ripe, it drops from the tree

A friend: Bhagavan had the immense fear of death at the point of his manonasa. I am concerned that if we reach that point, we will turn back and not go through with it and end it all. How can we make sure that fear doesn’t hold us back at that stage?

Michael James: So long as there is desire, there will be fear. So fear and desire are inseparable. If you desire life, you will fear death. If you desire to be very rich, you will fear to lose all your money. So fear is inseparable from desire. So long as we have desires and attachments, we will not be willing to surrender ourself. Only when our desires and attachments are reduced considerably and only when our love to be as we actually are overwhelms those desires and attachments, will we be finally willing to surrender completely.

So even now it is fear that is holding us back. We could experience our real nature here and now if we are willing to let go of everything else. It is only because we have desires for everything else that we fear to lose everything else. So call it fear or call it desire, it amounts to the same thing. That is what is holding us back. By practising self-
investigation and self-surrender, by repeatedly trying to turn our attention within, we are slowly weakening our desires and attachments and strengthening our love to know ourself.

So, eventually, if we follow this path with perseverance and diligence, we will certainly reach a point where we will be willing to surrender ourself. So we shouldn’t be concerned about ‘will fear hold me back?’ When we are ready, the fear won’t hold us back. When the fruit is ripe, it drops from the tree.

The friend: Yes, Michael, but I have a whole lot of fear that I don’t want to come back again. I want this to be my final life.

Michael James: If we are wise, we would fear to continue existing as ego even now. Why think about the problems which may experience in the future if we come back again? Being here and now as this ego is a problem, and we should tackle this problem here and now. It is because as long as like to exist as ego, we would also like to come back as ego again and again and again. So surrender cannot be in the future. Surrender has to be here and now.

So we can do sadhana only in the present moment. We shouldn’t be thinking about ‘Do I have to take rebirth? or ‘How many rebirths will I have to take?’ Such thoughts are anatma-vichara. That’s turning our attention away from ourself. We need to turn our attention back towards ourself – ‘Who am I now?’ We should not think ‘Who will I be in the future? or ‘Who was I in the past?’ Who am I here and now? So only at the present moment we can experience what we actually are.

The friend: That’s true! But even the fear not to be born again and again is a very strong desire to get it done this time.

Michael James: That’s good. If that motives you, that’s very good, but don’t think about the future. Think about the present. That’s the solution.

# Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:05)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan is the guru of all gurus

Michael James: Some teachers of Advaita, who consider themselves traditional Vedantins, think that Bhagavan is not a proper guru because he never studied Upanishads and the commentaries on them. They do not consider Bhagavan to be guru because, according to them, he never had a guru. But actually, Bhagavan is the guru of all gurus. Bhagavan is Arunachala himself, and Arunachala is Dakshinamurti, the adi-guru. So if anyone feels that Bhagavan’s path is in any way inadequate, they are just expressing their ignorance. So we need not be concerned about them.

Yes, eventually, according to Bhagavan, we will all return to our source, but how quickly we will return to our source depends on the degree to which we have surrendered.

Some of us have got a strong ego and feel that ‘I am following a superior path’. But we are not really on a superior path as long as we such an attitude. So long as we have such an ego, we are delaying our progress. We progress on the spiritual path to the extent our ego subsides. So we are in no better position than anyone else. Only when we understand that, are we beginning to follow the spiritual path.

~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:59)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Thanks, Karen. As you say, 'All praise to Arunachala Siva!'. We are nothing. What is real is only Arunachala Siva.

Sanjay Lohia said...

The greatest good we can do for this world is to turn our attention within and thereby subside back into our source

Michael James: Actions are not love. Actions may be expressions of love. If we want to do good in this world, we have to be good. In the last paragraph of Nan Ar, Bhagavan says:

To whatever extent sinking low [subsiding or being humble] we proceed [or conduct ourself], to that extent there is goodness [benefit or virtue].

So if we want to do good in this world, the greatest good we can do is to turn our attention within and thereby subside back into our source. Instead of that if we rise as ego and think that ‘I am going to do good in this world’ or ‘I am going to help this person’ or ‘I am going to help that person’, we will face all sorts of difficulties. The greatest good we can do is to surrender ourself completely. If we surrender ourself completely, then we can leave it to Bhagavan to take care of the world.

He knows how to take care of the world better than we do, so we shouldn’t be concerned about the world. In the 19th paragraph of Nan Ar Bhagavan says:

It is not appropriate to let [one’s] mind [dwell] excessively on worldly matters. To the extent possible, it is not appropriate to intrude in other’s affairs.

So the work that has been given to us by Bhagavan is to turn within and thereby surrender ourself completely. Of course, when we rise as ego we interact with the world and there are problems. In the ordinary course, we try to help other people when our help is needed. Even if we want to help others, we can’t help those who are not willing to be helped.

What we think is good for others, but they may not think it is good for them. So helping others and trying to do good to others is a minefield. We are walking through a minefield. So it is best to follow the path that Bhagavan has taught us, which is devoting our attention to turning within and trying to know ourself thereby surrender ourself completely.

This is not being irresponsible. This is leaving the entire burden to Bhagavan, who knows how to solve the problems of the world better than we do. What the problems of the world? Problems come and go. Every problem has its own solution within it. What was a problem last year is no longer a problem this year. What is a problem now, we would have forgotten about it in a year’s time. So the world is ever-changing. The one thing which is constant and real in this unreal world is ‘I am’. That is what we should cling to. That is what we should be concerned about.

~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:54)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Help to others

A friend: Please comment on helping others or charity work – doing punya. These will bring good karma to us, but we have to be born again to experience such karma.

Michael James: We shouldn’t go out seeking to help others, but when the occasion arises, when someone comes for our help, we help in a normal way. But that is not our aim. If it is our destiny to help others, we will help them. If it is their destiny to be helped by us, they will be helped by us. We need not be concerned about such things. Our only concern should be to surrender ourself.

Bhagavan says when one parameshvara Shakti is driving all karyas, why should we instead of surrendering ourself to that be constantly be thinking ‘it is necessary to do this; it is necessary to do that’? What is to be done he will make us do. Let us leave to him all concerns about actions. Our only concern should be to turn our attention within and surrender ourself to him.

~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:51)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Shraddha ceremony

A friend: Will our shraddha ceremony which we are asked to do for our ancestors liberate them or benefit them in any way. What benefit will it bring to us? What will be the consequences of not doing it?

Michael James: Hindus do certain rituals when their elders pass away - first 10 days and then yearly ritual ceremonies. These are called shraddha or sraddha ceremony. When someone asked Bhagavan whether it is good to do such things, Bhagavan replied, ‘yes, it is good for those who do it’. That is these rituals are good for the doers of these rituals. They are doing it someone else, so the action which we do for others is good for us. Bhagavan says in the final sentence of the 19th paragraph of Nan Ar?:

All that one gives to others, one is giving only to ourself. If everyone knew this truth, who indeed would refrain from giving?

So we are in effect doing these shraddha rituals only for ourself, so it will benefit only ourself. For example, if we are born in a brahmin family, all these things may be expected of us. But these rituals are no longer important if we come to the true spiritual path. Once we come to the path of surrender, all such rituals become superfluous. If we continue doing them due to the expectation of our family, there is no harm in doing them, but these are no longer needed or important.

If we are on the path of surrender, we have gone beyond the need of all rituals. But there is no harm in the rituals continuing if that is appropriate to the circumstances in which we find ourself in.

~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:53)

Sanjay Lohia said...

What is for you, won’t go by you (part one)

Michael James: Sue referred to Sanjay’s question regarding a dispute in the property with his cousins and whether Sanjay should fight for his rights. She says ‘listening to the gentleman who has this dispute with his family over land, I think bullies seem to always benefit. It may be a challenge when this happens, especially to forget injustice’.

The world is full of injustices, and most of us see injustice even in our own family. Some people get more than their fair share. This is just the way of the world. If we are following the spiritual path, we shouldn’t attach importance to material things. What we are destined to get we will get, and what we are not destined to get we will not get. So nobody can get what they are not destined to get.

As I mentioned to Sanjay while answering his question, a proverb is often repeated in Scotland: ‘What is for you, won’t go by you’. That is what you are destined to get, you can’t fail to get. It will definitely come to you.

So if we understand that everything is happening according to prarabdha, and prarabdha is Bhagavan’s sweet will, we don’t have to be concerned about these things. Ultimately, how does it matter if someone gets more than their fair share? How long will they be able to keep that? People spend their whole life trying to accumulate wealth and property or whatever, but one day we have to leave all these things. So why should we struggle so much for these things? Why should we have so much concern for these things?

If we want to live a peaceful and happy life, we need to surrender ourself completely – surrender all concerns about things other than ourself. Generally speaking, Bhagavan provides for all of us what we need. So long as we have got food, clothing and shelter, what more do we need? So long as the basic needs of our life are provided, we shouldn’t bother about other things. And if the basic needs of our life are not provided, that is also our destiny. So we should take that also to be Bhagavan’s sweet will.

(I will continue this in my next comment)

~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:25)

Sanjay Lohia said...

What is for you, won’t go by you (part two)

Michael James: The world is full of injustice. Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, has a net worth of 193 billion USD. He is wealthier than many countries, but what is the use of all that wealth? He is still greedy. He is still exploiting people who work in his warehouses. However much wealth people may have, they are never satisfied. So why should we hanker for wealth and all these things? These are all trivial, insubstantial things.

Sue: It was not so much about wealth. It was more about personal attitude.

Michael James: Yes, I understand, but we just have to accept people as they are. If we are not as greedy as our siblings or cousins, we have to take to be a blessing. By Bhagavan’s grace, we are freed of that greediness. We should take it that way and feel sorry for our cousins for their greediness (if such is the case). In every family, we find people who are more avaricious. The avaricious people are not the happy ones. To the extent we are free of avariciousness, to that extent we are happy. So we should feel pity for our cousins.

As Bhagavan said, however bad other people may seem to be, it is not proper to dislike them. Likes and dislikes are both fit to be disliked. That’s what Bhagavan says in the 19th paragraph of Nan Ar. So we should learn to love people in spite of all their shortcomings.

We are all to a greater or lesser extent selfish. That’s human nature. So long as we rise as ego, the seeds of selfishness are there in us. By Bhagavan’s grace, we may be a little bit less selfish than others, but the seeds of selfishness are still within us. So let us focus on getting rid of our ego. We cannot solve other people’s problems. We can only solve our own problem by investigating ourself and thereby surrendering this ego.

~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:25)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Who knows God?

The principle way taught by Bhagavan Ramana is atma-vichara, which means self-attentiveness or looking deep within ourself. Vichara means an investigation. So we learn the way as we go within. The deeper we go, the clearer the way becomes. So it is not possible to adequately express it in words.

But if we enter the heart seriously, it seems to be difficult. Our mind seems to be drawing us out towards other things. So the other side of the coin of self-investigation is self-surrender. We cannot truly practise self-investigation without self-surrender. The deeper we go within, the more we are letting go of our desires, attachments, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears and so on. Not only that, but the deeper we go within we are also letting go off the ‘I’ who has these desires, attachments, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears and so on.

In this process, we approach the point of total self-surrender, where according to traditional Advaita as taught by Bhagavan Ramana, we merge like ice in the water. We melt back into the source from which we have come and cease to be anything other than that. It is not that we know God. We give ourself wholly to God, and God alone remains. And who knows God? Only God knows God, and we partake of that by losing ourself in God, by merging in God.

• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-05 Theosis and Jñāna: discussion between Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and Michael James (49:00)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Spiritual significance of Arunachla (part one)

A friend: What is the spiritual significance of Arunachala? I guess Bhagavan says it is Shiva itself, but what does that mean?

Michael: So long as we experience ourself as a form, we cannot experience God as formless. If we want to experience God as formless, we need to experience our real nature, which is formless. Then we will find that God is nothing other than ourself. So because we have limited ourself to the form of a body, it is appropriate to worship God in form because we can’t know God as formless until we know ourself as form. So it is appropriate to worship God and guru also as a form.

Just like Bhagavan is the human form of God and guru for us, Arunachala is seen as God and guru in the form of the mountain. Bhagavan very explicitly in some of his five hymns to Arunachala addresses Arunachala as his guru. In one verse he sings: ‘Arunachala, shine as my guru destroying all my defects and giving me all the good qualities’. Here ‘defects’ means rising as ego and ‘good qualities’ means being just as we actually are. So for Bhagavan, Arunachala was his guru.

In another verse, Bhagavan reveals what Arunachala taught to him, He says, ‘Turning within, daily (or constantly) see yourself with the inner eye; it will be known. Thus you taught my Arunachala’. But obviously, Bhagavan didn’t teach that in words. Arunachala teaches through silence, so Bhagavan was able to understand the silent teachings of Arunachala, and what Arunachala taught through silence, Bhagavan taught through words. So Arunachala is God and guru.

So when Bhagavan said Arunachala is Shiva himself, it means Arunachala is God himself. Just like Bhagavan appears to us in a human form, but he is not that form. He is the formless reality, but so long as we take ourself to be a body, that body is what seems to us to be Bhagavan. So Arunachala and Bhagavan are one and the same. Our own self has appeared outwardly in the form of Bhagavan and the form of Arunachala to act as the guru to turn our attention back within.

Why does Arunachala appear in the form of a hill? It is in order to turn our attention back within. Bhagavan revealed that the form of Arunachala has an extraordinary power to turn the mind back within. So that’s the importance of Arunachala. In verse 11 of Padigam, Bhagavan sings:

I have seen a wonder, this magnetic hill which forcibly attracts the soul! Having suppressed the mischievous activities of the soul who has thought of it even once, having drawn that soul to face towards Itself, the one, and having made it motionless (achala) like itself, it feeds upon that sweet (pure and ripened) soul. What a wonder this is! O souls, be saved by thinking of this great Arunagiri, the destroyer of the soul (the ego) who shines in the heart!

(To be continued in my next comment)

• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:20)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Spiritual significance of Arunachla (part two)

Michael: So we can see in Arunachala Stuti Panchakam that Bhagavan is constantly mixing the seeming devotion for an outward form with the seeming devotion for turning within. Though in verse 10 of Padigam, he refers to Arunachala as the great Aruna hill, he says it shines in the heart. So he is referring both to the outward form of Arunachla and the reality of Arunachala what is shining in us as ‘I’. He refers to Arunachala as a killer of the soul.

In Hinduism, there are many Gods and each form has its own speciality. So if you want wealth, you go and worship Venkateshwara in Tirupati, and if there are obstacles in your life, you worship Ganesha, and he will remove the obstacles. So every name and form has some speciality. The speciality of Arunachala is the destruction of ego. In the very first verse of Arunachala Aksharamanamalai, Bhagavan sings, ‘O, Arunachala you root out the egos of those who think of you in the heart (or those who think Arunachala is ‘I’). So the sole purpose of Arunachala is to destroy ego.

The friend: OK, so was Arunachala more special than other hills around? If it is all a dream and if it is all a projection, why is one hill better than another?

Michael: It’s all a dream. It’s all a projection, but don’t you think Bhagavan is in some way special?

The friend: Yes!

Michael: Just like Bhagavan is special for us, Arunachala is special for Bhagavan. So since Arunachla is special for Bhagavan, Arunachala is special for us. One of the holiest mountains is said to be Mount Kailash in the Himalayas. But Bhagavan used to say that whereas Mount Kailash is the abode of Shiva, Arunachala is Shiva himself. As far as I know, there is no other mountain that is worshipped as a form of God – not just as an abode of God but as God in the form of a hill.

We easily relate to Gods in human forms. For most people, it is easy to relate to the forms of Rama, Krishna, Jesus and so on. But Arunachala is a very abstract form. To worship a mountain as God is a very abstract form to attribute to God. But a mountain is something which is motionless and is silent. So it is an outward symbol of our real nature, which is motionless pure awareness.

(To be continued in my next comment)

• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:20)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Spiritual significance of Arunachla (part three)

Michael: So we cannot adequately answer in words ‘What is the spiritual significance of Arunachala?’ We can only explain by our mind, but Arunachala is something beyond the mind. Arunachala is special, but we cannot adequately explain it in rational terms.

But we should remember the great love that Bhagavan had for Arunachala, so if we want to understand what is special about Arunachala, it is only by love that we can find it out. Many of us would not have been attracted to Arunachala if it were not for Bhagavan. So the more our love for Bhagavan deepens, the more we will come to understand his love for Arunachala.

According to Bhagavan, Arunachala is pure love. He says in one verse of Aksharamanamalai, ‘Like ice in water, melt me as love in you, the form of love’. So Arunachala is nothing but our real nature, So only when we know ourself as we really are, will we really know BHagavan, will we really know Arunachala.

• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:20)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Correction:

So Arunachala is nothing but our real nature. So only when we know ourself as we really are, will we really know Bhagavan, will we really know Arunachala.

anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay,
thank you for your recent three extracts of video-transcriptions (2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang).
Regarding the headings of the three comments you mean of course "Spiritual significance of Arunachala".

anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay, regarding your today's comment of 14 August 2020 at 12:43
you mean:
"So he is referring both to the outward form of Arunachala...".
"So since Arunachala is special for Bhagavan,...".

anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay,
re. your comment of today's comment of 14 August 2020 at 12:09,
presumably it should be more correctly:
"In another verse, Bhagavan reveals what Arunachala taught to him,He says, ‘Turning within, daily (or constantly) see yourself with the inner eye; it will be known. Thus you taught me Arunachala’." (not 'my' Arunachala).

anadi-ananta said...

Sorry,
it should be "re. your today's comment of 14 August 2020 at 12:09".

Sanjay Lohia said...

Anadi-ananta, since I am not even careful to spell Arunachala correctly, this shows how shallow my devotion to Bhagavan is. I cannot even honour our guru’s guru in a proper way, so to speak. Anyway, thank you for pointing out my typos.

Sanjay Lohia said...

We are only discussing with ourself

Ted: If our life is nothing but a dream, then whose dream is it? When two or more people are discussing the subject of non-duality, who is discussing with whom?

Michael: We could be having this discussion in our dream. Actually, if our mind is on the subject in our waking state, then it is very probable that we would be talking these sorts of things in our dream also. In our dream, we may be talking about Bhagavan's teachings - we may be discussing with a friend. Sometimes our friend may say something and we may feel ‘O that is a new way of looking at this thing'. It may seem to us that we are learning from a friend, but when we wake up, who were we discussing with? We were only discussing with ourself. Likewise, even in this so-called waking state, we are discussing only with ourself.

When we look outwards, there are so many people, but in whose view these people exist. In the dream, we see many people, and those people seem to be real so long as we are dreaming. Even the person we seem to be so long as we are dreaming, but when we wake us we realise that all the people, including the person we seem to be, were our own mental projection.

Ted: How would you view this discussion?

Michael: In a dream, people would respond in their waking state. Suppose if you ask me this question in your dream, I would say, ‘O I feel just as you feel’ or ‘I see things just as you see things’, but when you wake up how much importance would you attach to my statements? You will know that Michael to whom you were talking to was just your mental projection. Not only the Michael in your dream was your mental projection, but even the Ted in your dream was also your mental projection. You have nothing to do with either Michael or Ted.

It seems to you that you experience yourself as ‘I am Ted’, but actually Ted is also an object perceived by you. Ted is the object and you are the subject.

~*~ Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:52)

anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay,
"...but actually Ted is also an object perceived by you. Ted is the object and you are the subject."
Who is the subject ? If the subject is ego, to whom appears this ego-subject ?
Who am I ?

Sanjay Lohia said...

Anadi-ananta, the subject is only ego, this first thought ‘I am this body’. This ego-subject appears only to the ego-subject. Our real self, which is pure and infinite awareness, is not aware of this ego-subject.

anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay,
my question "to whom appears this ego-subject ?" is evidently complete nonsense because any appearance can never be more than an object appearing to an ego-subject.
The awareness of the ego-subject seems to include both elements of pure self-awareness (chit-aspect) which is aware only of itself and on the other hand of a consciously object-perceiving subject (insentient jada-aspect).
As you correctly imply real pure self-awareness is never aware of the object-perceiving ego-subject which (the latter) is not real awareness but only seeming or borrowed awareness (jada). Though it is said that ego could not even appear to be without being supported by real awareness (atma-svarupa).

Sanjay Lohia said...

Why Bhagavan is fit to be the guru for all of us?

A friend: Does it matter if your teacher is supposedly enlightened but displays the behaviour of a negative ego?

Michael James: Many people believe that an enlightened person can behave in any way because they are enlightened and we can’t judge them. We cannot know who is enlightened but we can have a pretty good idea of the people who are not enlightened. If anyone who behaves in an egotistical manner or behaves in an unethical manner, there is still an ego there.

So whatever they claim about enlightenment, whatever experiences they may have had, we should be sceptical about them. Some people genuinely believe they are enlightened because they have had certain experiences, but that is not enlightenment. The real enlightenment is only the annihilation of ego, which is the goal that Bhagavan has taught us. So though we cannot say definitely who is egoless, there are a lot of people who behave in such an egoistical manner that it’s fairly safe to assume that they are not egoless.

Many people claim that they are enlightened, and we don’t have to disrespect them. But it is always good to have a healthy degree of scepticism. We should not just believe someone because they claim to be enlightened or because others claim them to be enlightened. If a person is behaving in an inappropriate manner, then even if one is ‘enlightened’, it's better if we avoid them.

If we see Bhagavan, what a perfect life he lived. Egoless was evident in many of his actions. That’s why Bhagavan is worthy to be a guru for all of us. I can only say for myself, to me, there couldn’t be any guru other than Bhagavan. I have never seen anyone as perfect as Bhagavan. I am not saying there are no others who are enlightened, but Bhagavan is something very-very special.

The friend: There are degrees, I suppose.

Michael James: Well, not degrees of enlightenment. Bhagavan obviously came with a divine mission. He had a role to play as the guru, so he lived such an exemplary life.

It’s not really a person who is enlightenment. If a person is egoless let’s say, you will see that in their behaviour. You will see a certain quality in their behaviour. You won’t see them behaving negatively or egoistically. You won’t see greed or jealousy in them. Basically, you won’t see bad qualities in the ‘person’ who is genuinely egoless.

-•- Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (02:10)

Anonymous said...

Yes.. Bhagavan is only Guru who was perfect in every aspect. All events that took place in his life is a teaching for us. Life of devotees that he attracted is also a teaching to us. I happened to read about a devadasi who was a sincere devotee of Bhagavan. Him taking birth on earth is such a great blessing for all of us.

But in talks, Bhagavan has narrated a story where a jnani has relationship with multiple women. That confused me little bit.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Personal growth and healing of trauma

A therapist: I would love to hear about what you have to say about personal growth and healing of trauma wounds? I am a therapist.

Michael James: Does personal growth matter? Yes and no. On this path, our aim is to know ourself as we actually are. In order to know ourself as we really are, we need to distinguish ourself from the person that we seem to be. So on this path of self-investigation and self-surrender, we are slowly detaching ourself from the person that we seem to be. So we shouldn’t be seeking personal growth. We shouldn’t be concerned about this person.

However, if we are sincerely following this path, personal growth will take place. That is, since we are turning our attention within, we are slowly-slowly weakening our desires and attachments. We are weakening our vishaya-vasanas, and the more our vishaya-vasanas are weakened, the more we will grow as a person so to speak.

So we should not go out to heal our trauma or mental wounds. It should not be our aim to heal our trauma and our mental-scars. But as we are following this path, we will find that as we go along this path, our traumas will naturally be healed without our being even concerned about them. That is, the more we detach ourself from this person, the more this person will be a well-rounded and a well-developed person.

The therapist: Trauma mostly creates avoidance or even addiction or desires.

Michael James: Trauma therapies may be beneficial at a certain level, but Bhagavan’s path is a very-very deep path. As I said, the fundamental thing is, now we experience ourself as a person, but this person is not we actually are. So to the extent we separate ourself from this person, the traumas of this person will be naturally healed.

What feeds the traumas or what identifies with these traumas? It is ego or ‘I’ that identifies itself with the person and with this person’s experiences. It is ego or ‘I’ that identifies with this person’s likes, dislikes, fears, hopes and so on and whatever this person has been through. The more detach ourself from this person, the more this healing process will happen automatically.

The therapist: Thank you, Michael.

-•- Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (02:05)

Col said...

Is telling lies a part of my prarabdha? Should we always attempt to be more honest with others?

Sanjay Lohia said...

Anonymous, you write, ‘But in talks, Bhagavan has narrated a story where a jnani has relationship with multiple women. That confused me little bit’. Can a jnani ever have such a relationship with multiple women? The jnani doesn't have any relationship even with his body, so how can he have any relationship with several bodies? If a supposed 'jnani' is having sexual relations with several women, we can be almost sure that he is not a jnani. The jnani will always behave in an ethical and exemplary manner.

It is said that Sri Krishna had a relationship with several women, but it is also said that he was a brahmachari (one remaining without any sexual relationship with women). How to reconcile this? Sri Krishna loved everyone as himself, and in his divine play, it was seen that many women were attracted to him and likewise, he was attracted to them. However, these are allegorical stories. This is depicting the love between God and his devotees.

So the jnani is above all inappropriate behaviour, as Michael said in one of his recent videos.

anadi-ananta said...

In his comment of 16 August 2020 at 12:35 presumably Anonymous wanted to express "multiple relationship(s) with women" (instead of "relationship with multiple women").

To whom? To me. Who am I? said...

The Paramount Importance of Self Attention part 5:
"We are told that we project the world, but this does not mean that the seer is the projector. We, the seer (the mind or ego), are part of the projection, as Bhagavan says in verse 160 of Guru Vachaka Kovai:
The false person [or soul] who behaves as ‘I’ occurs as one among the shadow pictures [in this world picture, which is like a cinema show].
Who is this ‘I’ we say is the projector? By our investigating ‘who am I?’ the non-existence of both the projector and its projection will be exposed."

But isn't the ego not part of the dream, but only the person is part of the dream? Ego takes itself to be the person and therefore part of the dream, but actually it isn't part of the dream?

anadi-ananta said...

To whom? To me. Who am I?,
the person is only an imagined/projected (bodily) adjunct of ego which is the [actually non-existent] dreamer of all dreams.

Anonymous said...

This is the story Sanjay
THONDARADIPODI (Bhaktanghrirenu) ALWAR: One who
delights in the dust of the feet of devotees. A devotee (of this name)
was keeping a plot of land in which he grew tulasi, the sacred basil,
made garlands of it, and supplied the same to the God in the temple.
He remained a bachelor and was respected for his life and conduct.
One day two sisters, who lived by prostitution, walked near the garden
and sat under a tree. One of them said, “How disgusting is my life that
I soil my body and mind every day. This man’s life is most desirable.”
The other replied, “How do you know his mind? Maybe he is not
as good as he appears to be. The bodily functions may be forcibly
controlled and the mind may be revelling in riotous thoughts. One
cannot control one’s vasanas as easily as the physical frame.”
The former said, “The actions are only the indices of the mind. His
life shows his mind to be pure.”
The other said, “Not necessarily. His mind has not been proved as yet.”
The first challenged her to prove his mind. She accepted. The second
desired to be left alone with only a shred of garment in which to clothe
herself. The first sister returned home, leaving the other alone with
flimsy clothing. As the latter continued to remain under the tree, she
appeared penitent and humble. The saint noticed her and approached
her after some time. He asked what had happened to her that she

looked so lowly. She pleaded penitence for her past life, desired to lead
a purer and nobler life and finished with a prayer to him to accept her
humble services in the garden or attendance on himself. He advised
her to return home and lead a normal life. But she protested. So he
detained her for watering the tulasi plants. She accepted the function
with delight and began to work in the garden.
One rainy night this woman was found standing under the eaves of
the thatched shed in which the saint was. Her clothes were dripping
and she was shivering with cold. The master asked why she was in
such a pitiable state. She said that her place was exposed to the rains
and so she sought shelter under the eaves and that she would retire as
soon as the rain ceased. He asked her to move into the hut and later
told her to change her wet clothes. She did not have dry cloth to put
on. So he offered her one of his own clothes. She wore it, still later
she begged permission to massage his feet. He consented. Eventually
they embraced.
The next day she returned home, had good food and wore fine clothes.
She still continued to work in the garden.
Sometimes she used to remain long in her home. Then this man
began to visit her there until he finally lived with her. Nevertheless
he did not neglect the garden nor the daily garlands for God. There
was public scandal regarding his change of life. God then resolved to
restore him to his old ways and so assumed the shape of the saintly
devotee himself. He appeared to the dasi and secretly offered her a
rich present, an anklet of God.
She was very pleased with it and hid it under her pillow. He then
disappeared. All these were secretly observed by a maid servant in
the house.
The ornament was found missing in the temple. The worshipper
reported the loss to the proper authorities. They offered a tempting
reward for anyone who would give the clue for the recovery of the lost
property. The maid servant afforded the clue and claimed the reward.
The police recovered the ornament and arrested the dasi who said
that the devotee gave her the same. He was then roughly handled. A
supernatural voice said. “I did it. Leave him alone.”

The king and all others were surprised. They fell prostrate at the man’s
feet and set him free. He then led a better and nobler life.

To whom? To me. Who am I? said...

anadi-ananta yes ego is said to be the dreamer. But is ego part of its dream?

The ego and its dream are both unreal according to Bhagavan. I think the dream is more unreal than the ego because dream is only a projection of the ego, and moreover the ego has an element of reality which is its chit aspect.

Perhaps my asking whether ego is part of its dream or apart from the dream is not of much use because in any case We have to investigate it.

Anonymous said...

Sanjay,

Having relationship with prostitute.. Isn’t that an act ego?

anadi-ananta said...

Col,
regarding your questions:
a.) telling lies is not part of prarabdha but using your free will.
b.) We should always attempt to be honest with others because actually - seen from the viewpoint of truth - there are no others but you, because only pure unlimited and infinite self-awareness does really exist. :-)

Anonymous said...

:) right..

anadi-ananta said...

To whom? To me. Who am I?
re. your question: "But is ego part of its dream?"

Is not ego as the dreamer always fully involved in the midst of its dream ? How can it be apart from its own dream when it is the only perceiver of that dream and sometimes even the main actor or principal character in it ?

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

Re. lying: I do not believe that this is that easy. Lying is a vasana and past habit and as such can be prarabdha, a liar in a previous life will lie in the next. Can a jiva prevent to lie? No, if that is his prarabdha he will lie no matter what.

He can only use his "free will" to realize that he's lying and "will" to not lie anymore. That will gradually change the habit to lie.

To presume one has the power to always say the truth is a fallacy since it focuses on a doer and the jiva. So it is much better to look for the entity who is lying (or telling the truth) than to "improve the personality". When it is realized that there is no liar or "doer" then automatically no more lies will unfold ....

So for a devotee of Bhagavan one should not be overly concerned about virtues and sins but about "who" is the one who has virtue or sins? Let's go the direct path and do not make unnecessary detours.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Col, you ask ‘Is telling lies a part of my prarabdha?’ It could be but in most cases, we tell lies because we want to tell lies, so our will is prompting us to tell lies in most of the cases. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of our telling lies as part of our prarabdha. Our mind, speech and body are driven to act as propelled both by our will and destiny. So we cannot clearly make out which force is making us to utter lies.

Suppose, if someone is caught stealing and he is produced in court. When the judge asks whether he admits to stealing, the person replies ‘no, I was not present there’. However, if it is later proved that he indeed is the culprit, he will obviously face the necessary punishment. Since he had lied to the court, his punishment will be more than if he had admitted to his crime. Since his jail term is according to his prarabdha, we can say that his lying in court was also according to his destiny. So we may lie according to our destiny.

However, in most cases, I believe, our will – our desires, attachments, fears, hopes and so on – prompts us to lie and do other unethical things.

Should we always attempt to be more honest with others? The answer is an obvious ‘yes’.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Anonymous, all acts are only the acts of ego, so having a relationship with a prostitute is also an act of ego. This act may be driven by our destiny, but we may also like to be in such a relationship. So our will may also it's part in such acts.

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

It is advised to be not too much concerned about virtues and sins, these are attributes of a jiva. Are we truly a jiva? No. Then why being concerned about lies etc.?

Of course that doesn't mean to think it is okay to lie. However ethics etc. are for beginners of a spiritual path, for those who have not grasped Bhagavan's teaching. Because with Bhagavan's teaching the actions of a jiva are of very little concern.

The question if a lie is prarabdha or new karma is a waste of time. We cannot know, then why giving it any attention?

A Jnani can kill a person and that would not create any karma. Would a Jnani kill a person? Actually that question and many others relating to topics like that are irrelevant. So rather to keep imagining concepts like that, why not look for the "doer". Is there a doer? Only that matters, nothing else.

col said...

Thank you for your replies regards the matter of lying. Knowing that I can put down concerns regarding virtue and sin is helpful. Virtue and sin can cause us both pleasure and pain and in turn increases our concerns for it. Knowing that a Jnani could commit harmful acts/could be part of prarabdha is helpful if only to clarify that that is a possibility and satisfies the concerns I had that went with it. Focusing on the ego investigation is the only concern worth investing time on.

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

Col, as far as I understand it a Jnani does not have any prarabdha. Prarabdha rises simultaneously with the mind. If there is no mind (like with a Jnani) then there is no prarabdha or any other karma.

Then what moves the body and who talks? Is is often said it is God or self or the movements of the body after self-realization is like when one switches of the power to a ventilator and the blades still keep spinning after the off switch. When the blade stops then the body "dies".

However this is all the unreal imagination of a jiva. There are no bodies but by the projection of the mind. From the absolute viewpoint there are no and never were bodies and nobody ever has done any action. Phenomena and bodies and "people" only exist simultaneously with the mind. Bhagavan described that in several texts like Nan Yar.

Also regarding sin, it is enough to know and believe that it is a good idea to avoid sin. However to *try* to avoid sin is a detour, it is much better to look for the "sinner". Also, only the ego revels in condemnation and praise. To feel guilty (I sinned) or to feel proud (I did not sin) are qualities of the ego. They deserve to be ignored.

Anonymous said...

The alwar in the story was a Jnani Sanjay.. there isno ego left in him.. so how can one justify his actions?

Sanjay Lohia said...

Anonymous, you ask, ‘The alwar in the story was a Jnani Sanjay.. there isno ego left in him.. so how can one justify his actions?’ How do you know Alwar was a jnani? Why should we believe this just because it is said in books that he was a jnani? Of course, we cannot know the inner state of the jnani by his actions, but we can be sure that a true jnani will not act any inappropriate way. His actions may baffle us at times because he is beyond our grasp.

A jnani is nothing but pure jnana, so he or she is without any desires and attachments. Since it is only our desires and attachments which prompt us to act in an unethical or inappropriate manner, the jnani’s conduct will always be full of love and concern for others. So the jnani is perfection itself in which no defect can ever exist.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Everything is perfect (part one)

A friend: Please talk about the concept that everything is perfect and that we have not erred.

Michael: Everything is perfect because there is only one thing. What actually exists is just pure awareness, and pure awareness is always perfect. However, now we have risen as ego, and rising as ego itself is the first error. Our rising as ego is not real. If we investigate ourself, we will find that we have never risen as ego, so we have never erred. But now it seems to us that we have risen as ego and we are experiencing this body and mind as ‘I’. So this is a great error, so we have erred and everything seems to be imperfect. When we look outwards, everything seems to be imperfect.

However, all imperfections, including our rising as ego, are just an appearance. So the reality that lies behind all this imperfection is perfection. But to experience that we need to turn our attention within and experience ourself as we actually are.

The friend: Thank you, Michael. That makes sense. When I heard these things previously, in context it always sounded that they were really talking about our perception of the world.

Michael: Well, look at the world. Is the world perfect? When we look at the world, we see so many imperfections. We see egoism. We see birth, death, disease, so nothing is perfect about the manifestation. If we want to find perfection we have to look within ourself, and when we look within ourself and find the perfection within ourself, we find everything is perfect. But we first have to find that perfection within ourself.

But there is another context in which it is said that everything is perfect. Bhagavan’s path is not only the path of self-investigation, but it is also the path of self-surrender. We experience so many pleasures and pains, so many good things and bad things. We have to accept everything as the will of God or guru. Whatever we experience in our life is the fruit of action that we have done in the past.

We have done so many actions in the past and accumulated vast store of fruits that we have not yet experienced. God or guru selects for each lifetime which fruit we are to experience in each lifetime. It is the fruits of our past actions selected by Bhagavan for our true spiritual benefit. So whatever happens in our life, whether seemingly good or seemingly bad, is actually all for our good. So in that sense, everything is perfect.

Nothing that happens in this world – all the suffering and difficulties we undergo – it’s all perfect in the sense that it’s all ordained by Bhagavan. So God always puts us in the most favourable circumstances for our spiritual development. So that’s another perspective through which we can explain that everything is perfect.

(To be continued in my next comment)

# Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:35)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Everything is perfect (part two)

The friend: So I understand you to say that guru, God or atman ordains the experiences which we experience so that we learn to annihilate ego.

Michael: Exactly. In other words, everything is conducive to surrender. What is called the annihilation of ego can also be called self-surrender – complete giving up of ego. So the sole purpose of life and the sole purpose of everything we experience in life is leading us towards or preparing us to be willing to surrender ourself completely.

The friend: Thank you. Perfect!

Another friend: So all happenings in our life seems like a catalyst which is asking us to look within or practise self-investigation. What do you say?

Michael: Everything that happens to us, we should accept as the will of Bhagavan for our own good. We have to be a little bit careful about one thing. Some people misapply this and they justify wrong actions saying that ‘O it is all the will of God’ or whatever. That is wrong because we are responsible for our actions. We need to act in an appropriate manner. When we are engaged in actions, basic morality and ethics, particularly the principle of ahimsa (non-harming of others), are very important.

So we shouldn’t justify wrong actions by saying ‘everything is perfect’ or ‘everything is the will of God’. That is just giving the license to ego to act in whatever way it wants. Though everything we experience is according to destiny, not every action we do is according to destiny.

So it is very important to understand that the action of the body, speech and mind is to some extent driven by destiny. That is, we are made to do certain actions that are necessary for us to experience our destiny. If it is our destiny to have an accident, we will make an error in judgment. We will cross the road at the wrong time, and we will be hit by a car or something.

(To be continued in my next comment)

# Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:35)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Everything is perfect (part three)

Michael: So certain actions are driven by destiny, but our will is also interfering all the time. So long as we rise as ego, we have likes and dislikes, so we cannot distinguish which actions are driven by destiny and which are driven by will. Many actions are driven by both. So we cannot say to what extent they are driven by destiny and to what extent they are driven by our will.

So we need to keep a curb on our desires, our likes and dislikes. If we are keeping a curb on our desires, the actions we do will be to a large extent according to destiny and not according to our likes and dislikes. To the extent we curb our likes and dislikes, to that extent our actions will not be driven by those likes and dislikes.

So in the path of surrender, we are trying to surrender our will to the will of God. Of course, ultimately, we want to surrender ourself to God, but in order to surrender ourself, we need to begin by surrendering our will to God. However, we cannot wholly surrender our will to God without surrendering ourself to Bhagavan, but we need to begin by surrendering our will. That is, we need to keep a curb on our likes and dislikes, our desires and attachments. We need to prevent these likes and dislikes, desires and attachments influencing our actions. To the extent we curb these likes and dislikes, the actions will go according to destiny.

The friend: Isn’t karma, including destiny, all maya?

Michael: Yes, it is, but what is maya? Maya is nothing but our mind. So all this is our own mind. It’s all the creation of our own mind. So when we experience the laws of physics, it’s maya. But if you jump from the top of a tall building, you will die. So within maya, there seem to be certain laws. We cannot go against these physical laws.

Just like we cannot go physical laws, we cannot go against the spiritual laws. That is, we can call the law of karma a spiritual law in a sense. So though the law of karma is operating within maya, we cannot change how this law of karma works.

The friend: Thank you. I really appreciate your answer.

# Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:35)

anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay, re. your comment of 17 August 2020 at 13:21,
you wanted to write obviously: "Just like we cannot go against physical laws,...".

To whom? To me. Who am I? said...

anadi-ananta, thank you for your comment of 16 August 2020 at 15:02.
It is clearer now. Indeed the ego must be part of this dream because it is fully involved in the dream and is the only perceiver of the dream as you say. I was reminded of the cinema screen analogy. The screen may not be a part of the movie in the same way as the actors in the movie are, but still it is always there in the background and we only have to turn our attention towards it.

Anonymous said...

Sanjay,

I think the story has different hidden messages. Since Alwar was a sincere devotee, God stepped in and protected him from evil force. Another perspective is: if he was jnani, the prabadha made him fall for the pleasure, but since he didn’t sway away from being the true self, he didn’t end up bearing the fruits of his karma. God saved him ..

Sanjay Lohia said...

Anadi-ananta, yes, it should be, ‘Just like we cannot go against physical laws, we cannot go against the spiritual laws’. As always, thank you for pointing out my carelessness.

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

A Jnani does not have prarabdha, impossible.

anadi-ananta said...

Col,
regarding your conclusion ("...Jnani could commit harmful acts/could be part of prarabdha"), I am thinking also of the story of one of the greatest Tibetan yogis, the famous Milarepa, who had to do penance or atone for his acts of revenge (murder of his greedy relatives). However it is said in his biography that he committed these murders before becoming the disciple of his guru Marpa.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Anonymous, Bhagavan says that what exists is only atma-svarupa, so actually no evil force exists in reality. However, in our context, the evil force is our vishaya-vasanas because these drag our mind away from ourself. These vasanas take us away from the state of pure and unalloyed happiness, so they are indeed evil.

The question is does God steps in to protect us from this evil force, our vishaya-vasanas? The answer is yes and no. ‘Yes’ because grace or God is unceasingly drawing us towards itself. So grace is automatically making us fight against our outward going vasanas. ‘No’ because grace or God cannot destroy all our vasanas without our support and cooperation. In other words, we need to be willing to curb and eventually destroy all our vishaya-vasanas by repeatedly trying to turn within to face ourself alone.

You say, ‘Another perspective is: if he was jnani, the prabadha made him fall for the pleasure, but since he didn’t sway away from being the true self, he didn’t end up bearing the fruits of his karma. God saved him’. Does jnani have any prarabdha? No, in his view he has no prarabdha. Bhagavan has made this clear in verse 38 of Ulladu Narpadu:

If we are the doer of action, we will experience the resulting fruit. [However] when one knows oneself [as one actually is] by investigating who is the doer of action, [ego, which is what seemed to do actions and to experience their fruit, will thereby be eradicated, and along with it its] kartṛtva [doership] [and its bhōktṛtva, experiencership] will depart and [hence] all [its] three karmas [its āgāmya (actions that it does by its own free will), sañcita (the heap of the fruits of such actions that it is yet to experience) and prārabdha (destiny or fate, which is the fruits that have been allotted for it to experience in its current life)] will slip off. [This is] the state of mukti [liberation], which is eternal [being what actually exists even when we seem to be this ego].

Since the jnani is egoless, he has no prarabdha. However, the jnani’s body may seem to have prarabdha or a life story, but that is only in our view. He has no body or life, so he has no destiny or life story.


Sanjay Lohia said...

Salazar, Bhagavan has clearly stated in verse 31 of Ulladu Narpadu that we cannot understand the state of the jnani. He says in this verse:

For those who are [blissfully immersed in and as] tanmayānanda [happiness composed of that, namely brahman, one’s real nature], which rose [as ‘I am I’] destroying themself [ego], what one [action] exists for doing? They do not know [or are not aware of] anything other than themself; [so] who can [or how to] conceive their state as ‘[it is] like this’?

Anonymous said...

If that is the case, post by Sanjay -16 August 2020 at 12:20 is also incorrect.

anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay,
regarding verse 31 of Ulladu Narpadu,

"...tanmayānanda [happiness composed of that, namely brahman, one’s real nature], which rose [as 'I am I'] destroying themself [ego],...".

I find the word "rose" here a bit irritating. That our real nature is described as something which rose implies subliminally that it could/would not be there before and perhaps could set again.
Are we not taught that brahman is the ever existing or remaining pure self-awareness ? How could the ever present rise at all ?
So I consider that wording as rather metaphorical.

anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay, re. your comment of 17 August 2020 at 16:17,
it should be: "...does God step in...".

Sanjay Lohia said...

Anadi-ananta, Bhagavan wrote in verse 31 of Ulladu Narpadu:

"...tanmayānanda [happiness composed of that, namely brahman, one’s real nature], which rose [as 'I am I'] destroying themself [ego],...".

You wrote, ‘I find the word "rose" here a bit irritating’. Yes, tanmayananda does not literally rise, so, as you say, Bhagavan is talking about metaphorically here. Tanmayananda alone exists – it is eternal and immutable, so it cannot rise and set. However, when the ego is destroyed, tanmayananda seems to rise. But that is just saying that if ego is destroyed, tanmayananda alone shines with all its splendour and brightness.

We are not experiencing pure awareness or tanmayananda because it is obscured by ego. So it will seem to arise when ego is destroyed.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Salazar, who wrote GVK? Technically it was written by Muruganar, but according to Michael, we should take Bhagavan to be the co-author of GVK. It should be considered a joint-work of Bhagavan and Muruganar because most of the verses of GVK were written after due discussion between Bhagavan and Muruganar. I believe, Bhagavan even corrected the proof of this work.

You say, ‘I have to say that I am appreciating Ulladu Narpadu more and more’. To me, Nan Ar and Ulladu Narpadu are pure gems. These two works along with Upadesa Undiyar and Arunachala Stuti Panchakam contain everything we need to know on the spiritual path.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Anadi-ananta, I wrote, ‘The question is does God steps in to protect us from this evil force, our vishaya-vasanas? You wrote, ‘it should be: "...does God step in..."’. You were correct. I verified this with a friend. She wrote:

Does God step in? When it is in question form. Yes God steps in. That is affirmative. English is a strange language.

To whom? To me. Who am I? said...

Today early morning, I was very disturbed by anxiety about things and not able to sleep. I had the idea to read Nan Yar. In those 20 paragraphs Bhagavan has given us such a treasure. He has covered everything it seems to me.
He teaches us this world is a dream. But he doesn't dismiss our problems just saying that this world is a dream, he also gives us the assurance that whatever burden we surrender over to him, he will take care of it and that we can travel in the train happily and peacefully. He teaches us the importance and practice of both self-surrender and self-investigation in those 20 paragraphs in such a simple manner.

anadi-ananta said...

To whom? To me. Who am I?,
it seems you had not only the good idea to read/study Nan Yar?(Who am I?) but you actually read it.:-)

anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay,
you write "Tanmayananda alone exists – it is eternal and immutable, so it cannot rise and set. However, when the ego is destroyed, tanmayananda seems to rise."
We should clearly see: when ego is destroyed i.e. melt in tanmayananda or brahman there is or will be then no other subject to which/whom tanmayananda could seem to rise.
One cannot seriously assume that tanmayananda would seem to rise to tanmayananda. :-)

By the way, because the title Nan Ar is literally a question it should be written with a question mark: Nāṉ Yār? (Who am I?): Even in both the Tamil texts நான் யார்?(Nāṉ Yār?) and நானார்?(Nāṉ Ār?) there each time are set a question mark.

anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay, sorry correction,
it should be: when ego is destroyed i.e. melted in tanmayananda...

Sanjay Lohia said...

Thanks, Anadi-ananta, for your corrections and suggestions.

Sanjay Lohia said...

We are standing on the solid ground

Michael James: Bhagavan said that we are like a person standing on the ground and holding the branch above our head. We are afraid to let go of this branch thinking that if we let go of the branch, we will fall down. But if we let go of the branch, we will not fall down because we are already standing on the solid ground. That branch is like the world, and all our desires, attachments, likes, dislikes, anxieties, everything – all these are like holding the branch.

Because we identify ourself with the person we seem to be, we are not willing to let go of the branch. It seems to us that if we let go, what will happen to us. However, if we turn within and let go of all these things, we will find that we are not only standing on the solid ground, but we are that solid ground. That solid ground is our real nature, which is pure awareness - that which is always shining in us as ‘I’.

So we are nothing other than that solid ground. All that is required is our willingness to let go. The world is not binding us; we are binding ourself to the world. The mind is not binding us; we are binding ourself to the mind. Why? It is because we are not yet willing to let go. How to become willing to let go? By patiently and persistently trying to follow the path that Bhagavan has taught us.

That is, the more we try to turn within, the more we will be willing to let go of other things. So all we have to do is to persevere in the practice. Our progress may seem to be slow, but that doesn’t matter so long as we are progressing, and we are progressing so long as we are trying.

So slowly slowly by following this practice, all our fears and anxieties about the world will drop off. But it requires patient and persistent practice. For how long? For as long as it takes. We shouldn’t be concerned about whether it is going to happen sooner or later. Our only concern should be that we are following the path. When the fears and anxieties arise in us, we should recognize that it is all part of the path we are following.

If these fears and anxieties do not arise in us, we cannot let go of them. So even the obstacles and difficulties we seem to face are all part of the part that we are following.

~#~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:36)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Correction: So even the obstacles and difficulties we seem to face are all part of the path that we are following.

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 600 of 679   Newer› Newest»