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 வுள்ளபொருWhat I replied to my friend is as follows:
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 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.
Posts
778 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 778 Newer› Newest»Rhetorical impact of some of the verses by Bhagavan (part two)
The friend: I got the point: ego is ourself. That is why I don’t like the term ‘ego’. It seems it is something other than ourself.
Michael: But Bhagavan has clearly defined what this ego is. Ego is the false awareness ‘I am this body’, but in that false awareness, the real awareness is there. The real awareness is ‘I am’. In our practice of self-investigation, we have to focus on the chit aspect of ego. However, we need to remember that there are no two things there. That is, what seems to be ego is what we actually are. Bhagavan expresses things in a very clear and precise manner. Ego is not something other than ourself. In verse 24 of Upadesa Undiyar, Bhagavan refers to ego as jiva and he refers to our real nature as God. He says:
By their existing nature, God and souls are only one substance. Only their awareness of adjuncts is different.
So the difference between ego and our real nature is not a difference in substance. It's a difference in appearance. When we talk about ego, we have to remember that ego is a false awareness, but that false awareness doesn’t exist apart from our true awareness. Bhagavan describes this beautifully in verse 13 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Oneself, who is jñāna [knowledge or awareness], alone is real. Awareness that is manifold [namely the mind, whose root, ego, is the awareness that sees the one as many] is ajñāna [ignorance]. Even [that] ignorance, which is unreal, does not exist except as [besides, apart from or as other than] oneself, who is [real] awareness. All the many ornaments are unreal; say, do they exist except as gold, which is real? [In other words, though ego or mind, which is the false awareness that sees itself as numerous phenomena, is ignorance and unreal, the real substance that appears as it is only oneself, who is true knowledge or pure awareness, so what actually exists is not ego or mind but only oneself.]
So the reality of ego is only that pure awareness. So if we look within, what is shining as ego is nothing but pure awareness. Just as what is shining as a snake, if we look at it carefully, we will find it is just a rope. So, there are no two things there – only one thing. So that’s why I emphasised in that sentence: ‘mind or ego is present in sleep, but only as pure awareness, not as mind or ego’.
It is true that the mind or ego is not present in any forms in sleep: that is, the mind or ego is not present in either of its gross, subtle or causal aspects in sleep. But mind or ego is present in sleep as pure awareness, which is its reality.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~+~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (9:00)
Rhetorical impact of some of the verses by Bhagavan (part three)
Michael: I can point out two examples where Bhagavan said very similar to this – verses 17 and 18 of Ulladu Narpadu:
For those who do not know themself [their real nature] and for those who have known themself, the body is actually ‘I’ [or only ‘I’]. For those who do not know themself, ‘I’ is [limited to] only the extent of the body, [whereas] for those who have known themself within the body, oneself [called] ‘I’ shines without limit [boundary or extent] [as the one infinite whole, which alone exists and which is therefore the sole substance that appears as the body and everything else]. Consider that the difference between them is only this.
For those who do not have knowledge [of their real nature] and for those who have, the world is real. For those who do not know [their real nature], reality is [limited to] the extent of [the forms that constitute] the world, [whereas] for those who have known [their real nature], reality pervades devoid of form as the ādhāra [support, foundation or container] for [the appearance of the forms that constitute] the world. This is the difference between them. Consider.
Bhagavan’s fundamental teaching is ‘I am not this body’ and ‘this world is not real’, but he begins verse 17 by saying, ‘For those who do not know themself [their real nature] and for those who have known themself, the body is actually ‘I’ [or only ‘I’]. Likewise, he begins verse 18 by saying, ‘For those who do not have knowledge [of their real nature] and for those who have, the world is real’. Why does he speak in these terms? He speaks in such terms to make us think.
What he says in verse 17 is that for the jnani the ‘I’ shines without limits. If it shines without limits, that means it has no external limits and no internal limits – internal limits means division. So for the jnani ‘I’ is undivided. So Bhagavan is not saying here that the jnani is aware of the body and world. What he is implying is that what we see as the body, he sees as himself: himself means just pure anadi, ananta, akhanda sat-chit-ananda.
Many people take these verses to mean that the jnani is aware of the body and he is aware of the world. That is not what Bhagavan means. He says ‘oneself [called] ‘I’ shines without limit [boundary or extent] [as the one infinite whole, which alone exists and which is therefore the sole substance that appears as the body and everything else]’. So it means there is no body, there is no world.
In verse 18 he says even more clearly, ‘reality pervades devoid of form as the ādhāra [support, foundation or container] for [the appearance of the forms that constitute] the world’. So if the reality shines devoid of forms, there is no world, there is no body. What we mistake to be body and world, the jnani sees as pure awareness.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~+~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (9:00)
When one tells us "This blog gets more comical every day ....." he overlooks evidently himself acting as the stage director in this comic theatre performance. :-)
Rhetorical impact of some of the verses by Bhagavan (part four)
Michael: That is like saying that both the jnani and the ajnani the snake is real. But for the ajnani, the snake is real as the snake but for the jnani, the snake is real as rope. The jnani doesn’t see the snake. He sees only the rope. But what we see as a snake, he sees it as a rope. So what we see there is real but not as a snake but only as a rope.
So that is what Bhagavan is implying in these two verses of Ulladu Narpadu. He is not implying that the jnani is actually aware of the body or actually aware of the world. What we mistake to be a body or a world is what he sees as himself, as ‘I’, as what is real.
So what I said there, ‘mind or ego is present in sleep, but only as pure awareness, not as mind or ego’, if you think carefully, Bhagavan is saying the same thing in these verses.
Bhagavan is saying there the world is real but not as the name and form but as the adharam (the base or substratum or container). Only that adharam is real. That adharam is pure awareness, our real nature. So the world is real as brahman. The world is not real as the world.
~+~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (9:00)
Sanjay,
"So the world is real as brahman. The world is not real as the world."
Because we see the world wrongly as the world we have first to examine our pair of glasses. In order to get the right view only the best optician in town will be able to repair our glasses. :-)
Sanjay,
many thanks for your recent video-transcription.
"What we mistake to be body and world, the jnani sees as pure awareness."
Is there anyone who not wants to be the jnani or at least to have the view of such one ?
Sanjay,
"...ego is a false awareness, but that false awareness doesn’t exist apart from our true awareness."
It's a mystery to me why I/we cannot immediately convert that advantage.
Sanjay,
"So the reality of ego is only that pure awareness. So if we look within, what is shining as ego is nothing but pure awareness. Just as what is shining as a snake, if we look at it carefully, we will find it is just a rope. So, there are no two things there – only one thing.
...‘mind or ego is present in sleep, but only as pure awareness, not as mind or ego’."
So if I examine the world-appearance or ego under the microscope of my attention ...
my real nature must remain. However, that did not happen at all ...
Perhaps my microscope is heavily soiled. Where is my cleaning cloth ?
Anadi-ananta, you say, ‘Because we see the world wrongly as the world we have first to examine our pair of glasses. In order to get the right view, only the best optician in town will be able to repair our glasses’. Who is this ‘best optician in town’? The best optician in town is also the best optician in the entire world. He is none other than our Bhagavan.
Bhagavan says since we are seeing this world through the glasses of ego, we see this world as world. If we remove this ego-glasses, this same world will appear as brahman. What is brahman? It is anadi-ananta-akhanda sat-chit-ananda.
How to remove this ego-glass? We can do so only by turning within and looking at ourself very very keenly. This best optician in town has given us such a simple and direct method of freeing ourself of this ego. Namo Ramana!
Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation and self-surrender will cure all the diseases of our body, mind and emotion
A friend: How to get over traumatic experiences which are deeply embedded in our psyche since our childhood? These traumatic experiences may manifest in us as strong likes and dislikes, strong desires.
Michael: Traumatic experiences as a child can have a lasting effect on us as a person. But ultimately, all desires, all attachments, all passions, they may be of different degrees and they seem to have different causes, but they all present essentially the same problem. That is, any desire, attachments or strong passion is drawing our attention away from ourself towards other things. So the way to deal with all types of desires, attachments, traumas, everything is the same practice of self-investigation and self-surrender.
That is, traumas from our childhood can leave scars until long after the trauma is over, but the more we turn our attention back towards ourself and surrender all our likes and dislikes, the more the scars from the past will heal. The root of any problem is ourself as ego. Who has a traumatic experience? It is ourself as ego. So if we want to completely heal the trauma, we can do so only by eradicating ego.
So Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation and self-surrender will solve the root of all diseases. If we get rid of ego, we get rid of all our problems along with ego. So self-investigation is the only medicine that will cure all the diseases of our body, mind and emotion – everything will be completely healed.
~*~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (02:00)
Sanjay,
"If we get rid of ego,then...".
If---------------------------then...
Without if there will be no then.
Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiffffffffffffffffff is the keyword.
It is very iffy whether I will be ever able to fulfil that condition - to practise sufficiently keen self-investigation.
Anadi-ananta, someone came to Bhagavan and said something to the effect, ‘Bhagavan is there any hope for me? I have not done any spiritual practice, so I am asking this question’. Bhagavan kept quiet and then looked at this person with eyes full of love and just said, ‘Yes, there is hope, there is hope’, and he went out for his walk.
So we also hope to practise sufficiently keen self-investigation one day and merge in Bhagavan. This will surely happen if not today then tomorrow. We start with self-investigation, then this self-investigation becomes keen, then it becomes sufficiently keen.
So whatever stage of practice we may be in, we just have to unfailing walk at our own speed. Bhagavan has assured us we will reach our destination by his grace. If we are moving in the right direction, how can we not reach our destination? It is impossible not to merge in Bhagavan.
Pure love is not a problem; the problem is impure love or selfish love in the form of strong attachments and strong expectations
It is natural that we love our children, but if we have a strong attachment to them, it can be harmful. We see parents who are strongly attached to their children and they have a strong expectation of their children. They want their children to be as they want them to be, and if their children turn out against their expectations, they are not happy. They may want their children to follow the same profession or follow a career path or whatever it is.
So it is natural to love our children, but our love should be as selfless as possible. Our children may not want to live a sort of life we want them to live. We need to respect their choice. They have their own life, so we shouldn’t have a high expectation of them. As parents, we give so much to our children – not only material things but we give them our time, we give our attention. But if have the expectation that our children should return our love, they should be as we want them to be, then our love is not pure love.
Many many parents are disappointed by their children - may be the children live a life that the parents are not happy with, or maybe when the children grow up, they lose interest in their parents. So it is naturally very disappointing for a parent after giving so much love to their child. But if our love is selfless, we will not expect anything from them. If they want to keep up friendly relation with us, well and good, and if want to ignore us, we have to accept that also.
So even the love and attachment we have for our children can be more or less selfish. The more selfless our love is, the less expectation we have of getting anything in return, and therefore our love is purer. Pure love is not a problem. The problem is impure love or selfish love – which is love in the form of strong attachments and strong expectations.
~*~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (01:51)
Yes, Salazar, as you say, 'it is impossible to not merge with Bhagavan'. We all will eventually merge in Bhagavan. Bhagavan illustrates this through two analogies in verse 8 of Sri Arunachala Ashtakam:
The water showered by the clouds, which rose from the ocean, will not stop even if obstructed until it reaches its abode, the ocean. Similarly, the embodied soul (the soul which rises as 'I am this body') rises from you and will not stop, though it wanders on the many paths which it encounters, until it reaches or unites with you. Likewise, the bird though it wanders about the vast sky, in that sky, there is not any abode or place of rest for it. The place for the bird to rest is not other than the earth; therefore, what it is bound to do is to go back the way it came. O Aruna hill, when the soul goes back the way it came, it will unite with you, the ocean of bliss.
Salazar,
it is surely more accurate that Bhagavan said "whatever is destined to happen will happen"...
Sanjay,
thanks for your reply. Hope springs eternal in the human breast.:-)
Karen,
what Salazar recommended:
Sri Ramana Maharshi Ashramas in the USA & Canada
Home/Books/Records and Dialogues/Maharshi’s Gospel
Maharshi’s Gospel: A collection of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s answers to questions that cover a vast range of spiritual topics, arranged and edited by subject into thirteen chapters. This forms a brief but comprehensive record of his oral teachings. p. 78
Salazar,
you say "you may want to get over your dislike of me resulting into all of these confused comments by you addressed to me."
My dislike was always directed not to you personally but to your evident behaviour never reflecting upon your own behavioural patterns and even disturbances.
However, as we all know, to critisize oneself needs a lot of courage. :-)
If we sincerely practise self-investigation, a subtle inner process will go on internally – a slow breaking down of our attachments and identification (part one)
So long as we are living in this world, we need to do certain actions. But it is not the actions that we do that matters, but the passion with which we do them that matters. We may have to take certain disciplinary actions against some persons in certain cases. Taking that appropriate action is not a problem, but we shouldn’t get angry and upset while taking that action. That is, if the actions we do disturbs our peace of mind and we feel agitated by it, then we are succumbing to our vishaya-vasanas.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do what is necessary, but we have to do it with inward detachment. We shouldn’t allow ourself to get angry. Sometimes we may have to show anger but inwardly we shouldn’t feel anger.
As we follow this path of self-investigation and self-surrender, slowly, slowly we are reducing the importance we attach to outward things. The more we try to wean our mind away from its concerns for these outward things, the more we are weakening our likes and dislikes – weakening their strength. So actually the outward actions that need to be done, we will do it better because we will be doing it without being swayed by our individual likes and dislikes. To the extent our likes and dislikes are reduced, we will be able to act in a more appropriate way.
What I am now saying is just generalisations, but if we follow this path, we will find that all these things will automatically take place.
Yes, as long as we act in this world, we should try to behave in an appropriate manner. Sometimes it becomes clear that we need at times to do things that we ourself are not naturally inclined to do. But sometimes being soft-natured is not appropriate, so at times we may have to take a firm stand. But we can take the firm stand in outward things without it being detrimental to our inward practice.
(I will continue this 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 (00:52)
Dear Sanjay
Can you clerify to the viewers about the "we" in the explanation whether it is pure awareness or the ego
Pure awareness doesn't have any anger, stress or worries (emotions). Ego only got all these. Do the real nature or "I"concern about the ego?
So only way to destroy the troublesome ego by using it to distroy itself.
If we sincerely practise self-investigation, a subtle inner process will go on internally – a slow breaking down of our attachments and identification (part two)
Who is acting? It is the body and mind that are doing the actions, and each of us has a certain role. We may be a parent, and we may have parents of our own. So, as children, we have certain duties to our parents, and, as parents, we have certain duties to our children. We may have a job, so we may have certain duties to our employers, certain duties to our clients, certain responsibilities to our colleagues and so on. So all these are outward roles, and we have to act in these roles in an appropriate manner.
But though we have a certain role as a child, as a parent, as a teacher, as an office worker or whatever, that is not what we actually are. So, in the spiritual path, we are trying to separate ourself from the person we seem to be. The person that we seem to be has to act outwardly in an appropriate manner, but we have to inwardly separate ourself from that person.
So all this is a subtle inner process that is going on - the slow breaking down of our attachments and identifications. If we follow sincerely what Bhagavan has taught us, all these things will happen automatically. If we follow self-investigation and self-surrender to the best of our ability, everything else will fall into place. That is, we will be able to allow the person that we seem to be, continue acting in an appropriate way, but inwardly we are separating ourself from that person.
This will all happen naturally and automatically the more we follow the path. So we don’t have to concern ourselves with these matters. The only thing we need to be concerned about is turning our attention within, and thereby surrendering our likes and dislikes. If we surrender our likes and dislikes, or rather to the extent we surrender our likes and dislikes, to that extent the actions of our body and mind will be according to the will of Bhagavan.
So our job is just to surrender our will to him. Everything else he will take care.
~*~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (00:52)
Saravanapavan, Michael said, ‘So long as we are living in this world, we need to do certain actions. But it is not the actions that we do that matters, but the passion with which we do them that matters. We may have to take certain disciplinary actions against some persons in certain cases’.
Whenever Michael says ‘we’ here, he is talking about ego. Why? It is because only ego seems to be living in this world. Only ego needs to do certain actions and so on. Yes, only ego has anger, stress, worries and emotions.
You ask, ‘Do the real nature or "I" concern about the ego?’ I would say the answer is both ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Firstly, why ‘no’? It is because our real nature is not even aware of the ego, so how can it be concerned about ego. Why ‘yes’? It is because ego in its real nature is one with our real nature. Since our real nature has infinite love for itself, it loves ego as itself. So in this sense, our real nature has infinite concern for ego. So our real nature wants ego to subside back within because it wants ego to be happy because happiness is only in our real nature.
Yes, we need to use ego to destroy ego, and this where the difficulty lies. Though ego may have understood that happiness lies only in its real nature, but it is still not willing to kill itself. It has become extremely fond of its separate existence, and it has become attached to so many other things. So it is finding it extremely difficult to abandon all these attachments. So though it is trying to turn back within, it is still holding on to many of its attachments.
Ego has to give up holding to itself and all these things if it wants to experience itself as it really is. Every time it turns towards itself, it is giving up its desires and attachments to some extent. This is a very subtle process which is taking place, but ego is slowly but surely moving towards its own destruction.
Bhagavan expressing his unworthiness in his heartfelt prayers to Arunachala
The following is an extract of my email to Sri Michael James:
In your latest video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence, you say something to the following effect from around 00:29:
As we progress along the path, the mind becomes purer and purer, but at the same time, we become more clearly aware of the strength of our desires and attachments. If we read what Bhagavan has written in some of the verses of Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, Bhagavan is lamenting so much in these verses. He says he is so unworthy, and he is talking about what low state his mind is in. Like that, so many great poet-saints have sung songs deploring their unworthiness.
In Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, Bhagavan is reflecting the state of mind of a very advanced spiritual aspirant. When one is very advanced, one will be very painfully aware of their unworthiness. That we can see clearly expressed by Bhagavan in many of the verses of Stuti Panchakam. Bhagavan is expressing that with so much feeling there.
[End of the extract from the video]
I scanned through the verses of Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam and found the following verses where Bhagavan is seen lamenting about his unworthiness. Bhagavan sings such verses quite freely in Aksharamanamalai and Padigam, but I found one such verse in Navamanimalai also.
Aksharamanamalai: In verse 18 Bhagavan prays to Arunachala to destroy his lowness (his impure nature). In verse 19 and 38 he prays to destroy his defects. In verse 42 he called himself a blemishfull wretch (a contemptible person). In verse 58 he calls himself an ignorant person lacking spiritual knowledge. In verse 78 he calls himself a person of little intelligence. In verse 81 he calls himself a noseless (ugly) person. In verse 84 Bhagavan prays to Arunachala to remove his dense delusion.
Navamanimalai: In verse 5 Bhagavan prays to Arunachala and asks for forgiveness for all the great wrongs he, the insignificant person, has done.
Padigam: In verse 1 he prays to Arunachala to remove his darkness (ignorance or mental delusion). In verses 3 and 4 he again calls himself a wretch. In verse 8 he calls himself worthless because Arunachala has destroyed his intelligence to know the way of making a living in the world. In verse 9 Bhagavan calls himself the foremost among those who do not possess the supreme wisdom to cling to Arunachala’s feet without having other attachments.
Sanjay,
regarding Bhagavan's lamenting so much in some verses of Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, and deploring his spiritual unworthiness we safely could comfort him: "there is hope, there is hope". :-)
Asun,
many thanks for your recent video-transcription (2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence).
Because it is not clear to me, could you please explain the meaning of the last clause "..., confidence doesn´t enter the matter." (35:02)?
Asun, I had written by hand whatever Michael had said in his talk 2020-07-19 (23:54), but before I could type it and post it, you have already posted it. So thank you. But after Michael said, ‘so the more our desires and attachments are weakened, the purer and clearer our mind will become and the purer and clearer it becomes, the more clearly we will be aware of the strength of our desires and attachments’, Michael had given an analogy to explain this. You have not mentioned this analogy in your transcript. So what he said after this was as something to the following effect:
To give an example, if you got a white cloth that is entirely stained with mud. Because it is stained with mud, it all looks just one big stain. Only when you begin to clean it can you begin to see more deeply rooted stains. Against a very dirty background, the deeply rooted stains were not visible. But the more you clean the cloth and more the superficial dirt is removed, the deeply rooted stains will then become clearly visible.
[End of the extract]
I think it is a very apt analogy.
Sri V. S. Ramanan, the former President of Sri Ramanasramam, was absorbed in Bhagavan at 9:21 am today (IST).
Asun, ah, that is meant, thanks.
What are we yielding ourself to? To infinite love, infinite happiness and infinite peace
A friend: I felt unworthy of Bhagavan’s love and this path, so I tried abandoning the path. I turned away from this path to lead a normal life, but the path has come back to me. This seems to be happening over and over again. Please help me with this situation and pinpoint my mistakes.
Michael: Firstly, we can try leaving Bhagavan, but Bhagavan will never leave us. Bhagavan has said we are the prey in the jaws of the tiger – so we cannot now escape. We can delay things, we can struggle, and so long as we are struggling the tiger will not swallow us. The tiger will swallow us only when we surrender ourself. But however much we struggle, the tiger will not leave us because the tiger is the embodiment of love.
You said how unworthy we are of Bhagavan’s love. No one is worthy of Bhagavan’s love, but Bhagavan’s love is infinite, all-embracing. However unworthy we may be, Bhagavan loves us because Bhagavan doesn’t see us as this unworthy ego or the person we seem to be. Bhagavan sees us as himself and therefore loves us as himself. Bhagavan’s very nature is infinite love, so how can he ever not love? Sadhu Om often in his songs refers to Bhagavan’s love as ‘love (or grace) without any cause’ or ‘causeless compassion (or love)’. So Bhagavan doesn’t need any cause to love us because he is love.
Once we have come to Bhagavan’s path, the nature of ego is to struggle, to try to resist. But by slowly, slowly practising Bhagavan’s path, we are slowly but surely learning how to give up resisting his grace. His grace is always abundantly available because his grace is his love. So that love is always there, but we are resisting it by rising as ego and desiring so many things that seem to be other than ourself. So we are turning our back on his love so to speak.
But however much we ignore his love, his love is ever-shining in our heart as ‘I am’. So if we want to surrender ourself to his love, we need to cling firmly to ourself, to ‘I am’. The more we cling to ‘I am’ and thereby surrender ourself, the more he will swallow us, until finally there will be no one left to surrender anything.
So now we have started on Bhagavan's path of self-investigation and self-surrender, we cannot turn back. We may delay things by our struggling, but we are on our death row. Our death is assured. So all we have to do is to yield ourself to Bhagavan because what are we yielding ourself to? To infinite love, infinite happiness and infinite peace.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence - (01:02)
Sanjay,
thanks for your information regarding V.S.Ramanan, absorbed in Arunachala.
Sanjay,
"No one is worthy of Bhagavan’s love,...".
Do I read correctly ?
Yes, Anadi-ananta, you read correctly.
Sanjay,
is it not said that in our real nature we are just Bhagavan ?
Who has created this world?
A friend: My doubt is who has created this world? Bhagavan says ego has created it, but according to my view, God has created this world. How can this ego create this vast, unfathomable world? Seems impossible!
Michael: Who says there is creation? Creation is in whose view? Creation seems to exist only in the view of ourself as this ego, so why should we blame God for this creation? Every time we dream, we are creating a whole world and when we dream not only do we create a world, we seem to create ourself which seems to be part of the world we have created. That is, we as ego have created the world and we project ourself as if we are a person in that dream world. Then we lament, who has created this world which is giving me so much trouble?
Bhagavan says our present state is also just a dream. When people asked Bhagavan about creation, he said, ‘first investigate and find out what you actually are. If you still find the world or creation, then you can come to me and we can talk about it’. The dream world is a problem only as long as we're dreaming. When you wake up from the dream, where is the dream world?
Likewise, if we wake up from the present dream by knowing what we actually are, no creation will remain. Creation exists only in our mind, just like the dream exists only in our mind. This whole universe exists only in our mind. It seems to exist only because we see it. That is why Bhagavan taught us, ‘investigate to whom does this world appears?’ It appears only to us, ourself as this ego.
If we investigate this ego keenly enough, then we will see ourself as we actually are. Consequently, we will wake up from the sleep of self-ignorance in which this dream seems to exist. Then we will see that what exists is only pure awareness. Ego never existed, and therefore creation never happened. In other words, our current state is just another dream. We can wake up from this dream only by knowing ourself as we actually are.
So let us not worry about the creation. Let us worry about ‘who is aware of this creation?’ Who am I?
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence - (01:26)
How to experience the one without a second?
A friend: Bhagavan and Advaita say the reality is one without a second. How do you experience this one reality which is without a second?
Michael: If we attend to anything other than ourself, we are perpetuating duality. When we attend to anything other than ego, we ego are there as the subject or the perceiver, and whatever we are attending to is there as the object or the thing perceived. So we have the basic duality of the subject and the object, but when we attend only to ourself, to our ego, the subject is attending to itself. So, only one thing exists there, not two things.
So if we want to bring an end to all duality, the only way to do so is to attend to ourself. Duality cannot come to an end so long as we are attending to anything other than ourself. The ultimate reality is described as eka eva adviditya, which means ‘one only without a second’. But by attending to anything other than ourself, we are perpetuating the illusion of duality. If we attend only to ourself, we are putting an end to that illusion. If we truly attend to ourself alone, there is absolutely no duality.
But the problem is we are not yet willing to let go of other things entirely. So even when we attend to ourself, we are still clinging to a greater or lesser extent to the awareness of other things. So long as we are aware of anything other than ourself even to the slightest extent duality remains because there is ourself and whatever we are aware of. Only in that state in which we are aware of nothing other than ourself is there no duality at all.
In sleep, we not experience duality because we are not aware of anything other than ourself. In waking and dream, we experience duality because we have risen as ego and are consequently aware of other things. The very nature of ego is to look at other things. So if we want to destroy ego, we have to train ourself to look at ourself. The more we look at ourself, the more the ego subsides, and the more the ego subsides, the more al duality subsides along with it because duality exists only in the view of ego.
So the means to bring an end to duality is to attend to ourself alone. This is Advaita in practice.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence - (01:17)
Why does God allow so much evil in this world?
A friend: We see so much of evil in this world – so much violence. If everything is happening according to God’s will, how can God allow all this to happen?
Michael: Firstly, what is God’s will? God is infinite love, so what will God want? He will want us to be happy, so God’s will is that we should be happy.
What is called evil is what obstructs what God wants us to experience. The root cause of our seeming lack of happiness is our rising as ego. So if we want to say something is evil, the root cause of all evil is ego. In sleep, we don’t rise as ego, and we are perfectly happy. We have no complaints in sleep, but when we rise as ego is waking and dream, we experience pleasure and pain. We have so many problems. We are dissatisfied. So the root of all problems is our rising as ego.
So if we want to put an end to all evil, the only way is to cease rising as ego. The nature of ego is such that we rise as ego by attending to things other than ourself. If we attend to ourself, ego will subside.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence - (01:15)
Sanjay,
thank you for your video-transcription of 21 July 2020 at 15:19;
incidentally it should be:...‘investigate to whom does this world appear'.
(because that instruction is no question put with an interrogative clause, therefore no question mark stands at the end).:-)
Salazar said: One can Bhagavan's pointer use in many forms,[...]If you still find love, then you can come to me and we can talk about it".
Can one really adapt (t)his instruction "first investigate and find out what you actually are" for any (old) experience ?
Salazar,
"Once we've found who we actually are, we won't be "finding" or experiencing...
Yes, then, only then, not before. To one's/our great dismay.:-)
That ego does not want to die is quite natural. The thought of its total annihilation strikes fear into it. Who or what could dispel its severe misgivings/doubts about the sage's assurance that in the moment of its eradication then it will be embraced and absorbed by heaven ?
Salazar,
I mean absorption in the sense of total annihilation or getting swallowed up, eradication/vanishing without trace, burning without remains/ash - as it is metaphorically symbolized in India by the burning of camphor.
Which other viewpoint do you seem to prefer ?
Asun
Nice explanation. I always understood self enquiry to be : purify the mind and with the mind turn inwards. The only instrument we have is the mind . But at the end, this instrument itself will be found to be non existent, as it keeps getting purified. The more purer mind becomes, more it becomes insignificant.
How to respond to trolls and ad hominem comments?
If Michael prefers keeping this blog to be a free platform for everyone to express their views, and if some of the people commenting here still continue to post ad hominem comments, what is the way out? According to me, the best is not to respond to such comments. Trolls usually enjoy the attention they receive, but if we deprive them of our attention and response, how long can they keep trolling us?
We should not be put off by their personal attacks but should continue discussing Bhagavan’s teachings with as much freedom as we can. In other words, we should not stop commenting on the blog just because we are being personally criticised for our comments. If we stop commenting, this is again playing into the hand of our abusers. Bhagavan says that our desires and attachments thrive the more attention we pay to them. If we ignore our desires and attachments, they will lose their strength and eventually die. Why not use the same principle here? Why engage in tit for tat with the trolls?
Do you agree?
Asun, I am glad you agree with my views. At times, Bhagavan gives us a good opportunity to practice self-restraint. Why not use such opportunities and gain inner strength?
Asun,
thanks for giving this really appropriate comments of 21 July 2020 at 23:56 and 22 July 2020 at 00:00.
As the river never knows its ultimate fate of merging in an unknown basin/pool/sea/ocean the formerly separated individual does not know its fate.
Declaring all its experiences as to be a waste of time or all for nothing makes the individuality feel rather uneasy, because the jiva anyway loses his/her most valuable treasure namely its own consciousness never to be seen again.
[If I would figuratively compare my life with the waters of the river for instance of the second-longest river of the Iberian peninsula, Ebro, pouring more than 900 kilometers from its source in the Cantabrian Mountains/Cordillera Cantabrica till its fusing/merger at its mouth in the Mediterranean/Balearic Sea in Cataluña/Costa Daurada/provincia Tarragona/Comarca Montsià/Parque natural del Delta del Ebro), how can I be now really happy about losing my form and now considering my life as all for nothing or even as never happened.:-)]
At least in the moment of my melting into the sea of pure awareness I must trust the assurance of the sages that I now and herewith have achieved my destination which is my own death in favour of remaining in my real nature. We must, can and do safely have confidence that real sages, particularly our Bhagavan Sri Ramana of Arunachala, are definitely never wrong.
As you beautifully write (or quote), "When with the pure mind, which alone can turn selfwards, the real 'I' is clearly known, the false 'I' will disappear, merging in that real 'I' like a shadow disappearing in the light.
Our only duty is to keep a careful eye on the rabbit hole, to make sure the rabbit doesn’t pop out (part one)
Rahul: I am a singing teacher. Bhagavan says we shouldn’t worry about the things which we feel we need to do. I agree at some level but I get confused. It seems to me that I need to make decisions and I need to do certain things. It’s hard for me to let go of that control. So to what extent do I have to intervene in worldly matters?
Michael: Control is an illusion. We have no control over the outward events in our life. The only thing we have control over is our rising as ego and our likes, dislikes, desires and attachments. That is, Bhagavan has made it very clear that whatever is destined to happen will happen, however much we choose to avoid it. Whatever is not destined to happen will not happen, however much we choose to achieve it. So we can leave all outward things to take their own course.
That doesn’t mean that the body and mind have to become inactive because in order for certain things to happen, certain actions of our body, speech and mind are required. So we will be made to do those actions which are necessary for us to experience our prarabdha. For example, in order to become a singing teacher, you must have studied, practised and developed your skill in that field. Without all that qualification, you wouldn’t be qualified to teach singing. So because it was your destiny to become a singing teacher, you had to do all those preparations which were necessary to become a teacher.
Likewise, in order to become a successful singing teacher, you have to continue doing certain actions. You may sometimes have to discipline your students and expect high standards of them because you want to get the best out of them for their own sake. So if you destined to be a successful music teacher, you will naturally do whatever is necessary to help your students to be the very best they can. All these actions of body, speech and mind are driven by destiny.
But we have a problem. The problem is we rise as ego, and as ego, we have endless likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, hopes, fears, aspirations and so on. So though everything is happening according to destiny, with our desires and attachments we are trying to achieve things which are not destined to happen and to avoid things which are destined to happen. In other words, the problems lie within us.
Those actions which you are destined to do, you will be made to do. So you should not be concerned about such actions. All you need to be concerned about is not rising as ego and your likes and dislikes. That is what needs to be given up, and the means to give it up is the path of self-investigation and self-surrender that Bhagavan taught us. Bhagavan says we can deal with ego and its desires only by turning within.
So let the outward life take its own course because anyway it’s going to take its own course, whether we interfere in it or not. Our work lies within.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
~ Edited and paragraphed extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence (00:41)
Asun, I believe we should simply ignore all comments which are not relevant to Bhagavan’s teachings. We should take it that they are not meant for us.
Our only duty is to keep a careful eye on the rabbit hole, to make sure the rabbit doesn’t pop out (part two)
Michael: We can curb our desires and attachments to a certain extent by following the path of outward devotion to an outward God, but that is only a partial solution. It doesn’t solve the root of the problem. However much you try to surrender your will to God, so long as you remain separate from God, you will have likes, dislikes, desires, attachments and so on to a greater or lesser extent. So even these likes, dislikes, desires, attachments and so on are your secondary problems.
The primary problem is you, but you are the problem and you are also the solution to the problem. That is, our rising as ego is the problem, and the way to deal with this problem is to investigate this ego: who am I? So we can curb this ego only by investigating it.
I will give you an example to illustrate the nature of ego. Supposing you see a rabbit hole, and in that rabbit hole, there is a rabbit living. If no one is watching the rabbit hole, the rabbit will come out and play. But the rabbit is very shy, so it will only come out to play when no one is watching its hole. So if you don’t want the rabbit to come out of its hole, all you need to do is to keep a careful watch on this rabbit hole. The rabbit is this ego, and the rabbit hole is ‘I am’. If we constantly keep our attention on ‘I am’, this ego won’t pop out. As soon as you allow your attention to be distracted here and there, this ego pops out as ‘I am Rahul’. So you are the problem, and you are also the solution.
You don’t have to worry about the outward actions or the work you do. That work is not done by you but by the body, speech and mind, and that body, speech and mind will do whatever they are destined to do. The only thing you need to be concerned about is yourself: the rabbit that keeps popping out. Keep a watchful eye on yourself and the rabbit-ego will not pop out. This is the path of self-investigation and self-surrender taught by Bhagavan. This is also so unique about Bhagavan’s teachings.
I don’t think anyone before Bhagavan has explained the nature of ego. That is, as soon as we allow our attention to go away from ourself, ego rises and flourishes. That is, the nature of ego is to rise when we don’t watch it, but if we keep a careful eye on this ego, it won’t come out of its rabbit hole. This is the unique clue that Bhagavan has given us. If we understand this secret, this is the only secret we need to know. This is the key to the whole spiritual path.
So let the body, speech and mind continue to do whatever they are destined to do. Your only duty is to keep a careful eye on the rabbit hole and make sure that the rabbit doesn’t pop out and starts playing mischief.
~ Edited and paragraphed extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence (00:41)
Sanjay,
as you say ego must keep a watchful eye on itself. So let us be a fierce watchdog with sharp claws and teeth.:-)
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.
Anonymous, As if you are so clean, transparent and pure. Get off your high horse.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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-...".
Yes, Anadi-ananta, I wanted to type, ‘God, of course, is nothing but our real nature’. Thank you.
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
.
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)
verse 7 of Aruṇācala Padigam, sorry.
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.
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)
@ 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'
🙏🏼
It's quite obvious I am not welcome here. I never went anywhere uninvited.
Bye my friends.
Sanjay,
you mean ...sense of "doership".
It seems everyone is ostracising Salazar. Is this necessary? I do not see ill will in his commentsl. Being challenged is useful.
Sanjay,
Meister Eckhart ("The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me".) evidently escaped maya and ignorance.
correction: escaped from ...
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.:-)
Asun, please, give the endless judgement a rest for your own sake.
Take care
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.
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.
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)
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.
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."
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...".
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."
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...
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.
Anonymous, yes - you have understood me correctly.
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 ?
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.
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.
Karen,
thanks for your reply. May you melt in peace and silence.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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?
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!
Unknown,
what suspicious circumstance lets you cast suspicion on Karen Taylor to be Salazar ?
Possibly you self are Salazar ! :-)
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".
Well put Karen, and I concur - Michael deserves our utmost respect.
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.
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.
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)
Nice post Sanjay, and yes - that is Bhagavan's teaching as paraphrased by Michael. Good to see you posting again.
This one is good Sanjay. Was thinking about you yesterday :)
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)
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)
Good one Sanjay!!!
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)
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.
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.
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’,
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)
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)
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)
Good one Wigbert..
Anonymous, FYI - these are quotes by Mooji. You can google the entire quote and then find that this is copied and pasted from Mooji.
Thanks :) i thought wigbert wrote it ..
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)
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.
Post a Comment