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 601 – 778 of 778When we go very deep in the practice of self-investigation, the breathing and the activities of the body will reduce to a considerable extent (part two)
Michael: Bhagavan sometimes spoke from the onlooker’s point of view. From onlooker’s point of view, his body was lying lifeless for about 20 minutes. But because that body had the destiny to play the role of a vehicle through which the guru would function, so after about 20 minutes suddenly there was a shock and the body came back to life. But what now shone through that body was only Bhagavan, our own real nature, the eternal guru.
That happened when Bhagavan was 16-years-old. During the next 16 years, such episodes happened occasionally because Bhagavan was so inward drawn that his body would become lifeless. But it was witnessed only on one occasion by someone else - that is in 1912 when Bhagavan was 32 years old (this was 16 years after Bhagavan’s first death experience). In most books, it is recorded that that was Bhagavan’s second death experience, but in later years Bhagavan clarified that was his last death experience. His last death experience happened on the rock called Aamai paarai or tortoise rock. But what happened in Madurai was the final – the end of the story, but what happened to his body later several times was a similar thing.
Such intense bodiless experiences can be experienced by us if we are able to turn our attention within very very deeply. Obviously, this won’t happen if we are driving a car or walking to work or waiting to catch a bus or something. But when we set aside time and we try to go deep within, and if we keep our attention fixed steadily on ourself, the breathing will subside and come almost to a standstill. But if we notice our breathing, it will start again because if we have noticed our breathing, our attention has gone away from ourself towards the body. So we won’t notice the lifelessness of our body if our attention is firmly fixed only on ourself.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~^~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (00:42)
When we go very deep in the practice of self-investigation, the breathing and the activities of the body will reduce to a considerable extent (part three)
Michael: So it is not something which is very significant, but it just something that happens. Just as if you restrain the breath, you will restrain the mind, if you restrain the mind, you will restrain the breath. By turning our attention back towards ourself, we are thereby restraining the mind, the outgoing activity of the mind. So if we turn our attention within so keenly, it may seem to the onlookers that our breathing has stopped – it may or may not, it doesn’t matter. But from our perspective, we will be lost forever in pure awareness. We will merge forever in pure awareness.
So for us, there will be no world or body or anything. What will remain is best described by Bhagavan in verse 28 of Upadesa Undiyar:
If one knows what the nature of oneself is, then [what will remain existing and shining is only] anādi [beginningless], ananta [endless, limitless or infinite] and akhaṇḍa [unbroken, undivided or unfragmented] sat-cit-ānanda [existence-awareness-happiness].
So eventually we will be aware of only anadi-ananta-akhanda sat-chit-ananda and nothing else. The body and the mind of the jnani exist only in the view of the ajnani. So when we say Bhagavan’s body lay there lifeless for about 20 minutes - that is only from our perspective, not in the view of the jnani.
~^~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (00:42)
Have the ancient texts described the correct meaning of the term ‘atma-vichara’? (part one)
Sanjay: Bhagavan teaches us in paragraph 16 of Nan Ar?:
Atma-vichara means keeping the mind in (or on) self.
I was wondering if other ancient Vedantic texts or Adi Shankara or others other sages have ever described atma-vichara is such clear terms. I believe Sri Adi Sankara says in verse 11 of Vivekachuḍamaṇi:
Karma [action] [is only] for cittasya ṣuddhi [purification of mind] but not for vastu-upalabdhi [acquisition or knowledge of the reality]. Vastu-siddhi [attainment of the reality] [is only] by vichāra [and] not in the least by karma-koṭi [tens of millions of actions].
Adi Shankara says, ‘Vastu-siddhi [attainment of the reality] [is only] by vichāra [and] not in the least by karma-koṭi [tens of millions of actions]’. Though this is in perfect accord with Bhagavan’s teachings, did Shankara describe what vichara is? One may easily take vichara to mean studying and thinking deeply about all the Vedantic texts and their commentaries and so on.
Michael: OK, it is true. Many scholars of advaita, which include many sannyasis and heads of mutts and so on, take vichara to mean studying Vedantic texts and commentaries on them. They think that these are the means to experience the direct experience of reality. Bhagavan has clearly repudiated this idea in the same 16th paragraph of Nan Ar?:
Since in every text [of advaita] it is said that for attaining mukti [liberation] it is necessary to make the mind cease, after knowing that manōnigraha [restraint, subjugation or destruction of the mind] alone is the ultimate intention [aim or purpose] of [such] texts, there is no benefit [to be gained] by studying texts without limit. For making the mind cease it is necessary to investigate oneself [to see] who [one actually is], [but] instead [of doing so] how [can one see oneself by] investigating in texts? It is necessary to know oneself only by one’s own eye of jñāna [knowledge or awareness]. Does [a person called] Raman need a mirror to know himself as Raman? ‘Oneself’ is within the pañca-kōśas [the ‘five sheaths’ that seem to cover and obscure what one actually is, namely the physical body, life, mind, intellect and will]; whereas texts are outside them. Therefore, investigating in texts [in order to know] oneself, whom it is necessary to investigate [by turning one’s attention within and thereby] setting aside [excluding, removing, giving up or separating from] all the pañca-kōśas, is useless.
So Bhagavan says very clearly here that it is ‘useless’. So the textural enquiry or investigation – the study of texts – that is taught as a means by many scholars and heads of advaitic mutts, according to Bhagavan, is ‘useless’.
(To be continued in my next comment)
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:27)
Have the ancient texts described the correct meaning of the term ‘atma-vichara’? (part two)
Michael: In the next sentence of the 16th paragraph of Nan Ar, Bhagavan says:
[By] investigating who is oneself who is in bondage, knowing one’s yathārtha svarūpa [actual own nature] alone is mukti [liberation]. The name ‘ātma-vicāra’ [refers] only to [the practice of] always keeping the mind in [or on] ātmā [oneself]; whereas dhyāna [meditation] is imagining oneself to be sat-cit-ānanda brahman [the absolute reality, which is being-consciousness-bliss].
That is a lot of people who think they can get jnana by studying texts. They think they have to read these texts and think very deeply ‘I am brahman’ or ‘I am pure awareness’ or ‘I am not this; I am that’. They think such thinking will take them to their goal.
An analogy is often given. A prince grows up among the peasants and when he grows up to a certain age, he is then told that ‘You are a prince, so you are the rightful owner of the kingdom’. But he will not become the king by merely repeating ‘I am the king’, ‘I am the king’. He has to go and assert his rights to the throne. So, likewise, we have to turn within and investigate ourself. Merely thinking ‘I am brahman’ or ‘I am pure awareness’ doesn’t enable ourself to experience ourself as such. We can experience ourself as such only by turning our attention within and by fixing our mind only on ourself.
So the question is whether this is clearly described in the ancient texts? I have limited knowledge about the ancient texts, so I am not qualified to answer this. But I would say if it had been clearly explained that vichara means turning the mind within and fixing it on ourself, then all the scholars of advaita who teach that vichara means to investigate and study the texts would not interpret it that way. Their own texts would tell them, ‘no, that is not vichara’. So I suspect it hasn’t been explained so clearly elsewhere.
However, though it is not referred to as ‘vichara’, the practice that Bhagavan taught us has very clearly been expressed by Sri Krishna in the two verses of Bhagavad Gita (chapter 6, verses 25 and 26). Bhagavan included these verses in his Bhagavad Gita Saram, which is a collection of 42 verses from the Bhagavad Gita.
Bhagavad Gita verse 6.25 (verse 27 of Bhagavad Gita Saram):
By [an] intellect [a power of discrimination or discernment] imbued with firmness [steadfastness, resolution, persistence or courage] one should gently and gradually withdraw [one’s mind] from [all] activity. Having made [one’s] mind stand firm in atman, one should not think even a little of anything else.
Bhagavad Gita verse 6.26 (verse 28 of Bhagavad Gita Saram):
Wherever the ever-wavering and unsteady mind goes, restraining [or withdrawing] it from there one should subdue it [by always keeping it firmly fixed] only in atman.
So slowly-slowly we have got to wean our mind off its habit of going outwards and turn it within and achieve motionlessness. How to achieve motionlessness? We can do so by making the mind or attention fixed in ourself. So fixing our attention on ourself – that is the practice that Bhagavan has taught us, and that is what Krishna teaches us here.
(To be continued in my next comment)
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:27)
Have the ancient texts described the correct meaning of the term ‘atma-vichara’? (part three)
Michael: Sri Krishna says, ‘one should not think even a little of anything else’. So we have to fix our attention only on ourself and withdraw it from everything else. But this is not something which we can achieve overnight. We need a slow and steady practice. So however many times our attention wanders away towards other things, we have to withdraw it from those things and fix it on ourself. That is how we make the mind achieve motionlessness.
So the practice of atma-vichara is very clearly described in these verses of Bhagavad Gita. So it is there in the ancient texts, but many of the scholars don’t understand that this is what is meant by the term ‘vichara’.
But there is a clue in verse 11 of Vivekachudamani that you refer to. Krishna says that vastu-siddhi or attainment of reality is only by vichara and not in the least by any crores of karmas. From this, we have to understand that vichara is not a karma or action. Here ‘action’ can be interpreted in two ways. One way is to interpret it as a ritualistic action, but that’s rather a limited way. Karma or action actually means all types of actions. So action of any kind whatsoever will not enable us to achieve vastu-siddhi. What does it imply? It implies that vichara is not an action.
So studying texts, listening to lectures, these are actions. As long as our attention goes away from ourself, that’s an action. Vichara is turning our attention back towards ourself. That’s not an action. That’s the cessation of all actions. Actions are done by ego. So first, ego must rise and then act. When we turn our attention back towards ourself, ego begins to subside. So vichara is the cessation of action and not an action.
That’s why vichara is the key to liberation – the key to attaining vastu-siddhi.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:27)
Sanjay, from your last comments, "But if we notice our breathing, it will start again because if we have noticed our breathing, our attention has gone away from ourself towards the body. So we won’t notice the lifelessness of our body if our attention is firmly fixed only on ourself."
Yes, that is a very significant point and one of the core elements of Bhagavan's teaching. There are many spiritual practices where the attention is supposed to go to a variety of things but self. How can one realize self when the attention goes elsewhere [but self]? If that is the breath, a visualization, or simply "watching phenomena" as a witness. These practices cannot work, they can only be a preliminary technique until one switches to atma-vichara.
The depth of Bhagavan's teaching is incredible, simple and simultaneously extremely deep and all-encompassing.
Salazar, I fully agree, 'The depth of Bhagavan's teaching is incredible, simple and simultaneously extremely deep and all-encompassing'.
Human birth is special, so we shouldn’t waste the opportunity we have now (part one)
Sanjay: As I had informed you, Bhagavan’s grace is enabling me to discuss Bhagavan’s teachings with a friend called Saravanapavan who is based in New Zealand. He also attends your Zoom meetings and watches your videos.
Today, he explained that it is said in the scriptures we need three things to know God, and these are a human birth, an intense desire for liberation and a competent guru to guide us on this journey. He said we are fortunate to have all three. I told him that such things are written in the scriptures, but Bhagavan didn’t consider human birth to be anything special. Obviously, the other two criteria are important. That is, we do need an intense desire for freedom and a real sadguru to guide us back home. I gave him the example of cow Lakshmi. She attained liberation being in the cow body, so our human body is not a must for liberation.
I told him that the human body is different from any other types of animal bodies only because we have a superior intellect. But such an evolved intellect is a two-way sword. It can help us by showing us the correct path to liberation, but it can also lead us astray if it acts like brahma flying high and high in search of the peak of the Annamalai. So the intellect more often than not becomes a hindrance.
My friend was not fully satisfied with my answer. If you consider fit, could you please give your views on our discussion and give your opinion on this matter?
Michael: I don’t think it would be correct to say that Bhagavan didn’t consider human birth to be anything special. Generally, it is said that human birth is something special. That doesn’t mean that it is absolutely essential for liberation. However, cow Lakshmi was a rare exception. We may hear other examples like that, but generally, it is said that human birth is most favourable for liberation.
Lakshmi probably had a human birth prior to her birth as Lakshmi. She was born as a cow because of her love for Bhagavan. Bhagavan never confirmed but whenever he talked about Lakshmi, he would also talk about Keerai Patti. Keerai Patti was an old lady who would wander over the hill and collect keerai – keerai means spinach and other edible greens. She used to cook those greens for Bhagavan and serve Bhagavan. She had a great love for Bhagavan. Shortly after she passed away, Lakshmi was born. Because when Bhagavan talked about Lakshmi, he also talked about Keerai Patti, many believed that Lakshmi was Keerai Patti returned as a cow to continue her devotion to Bhagavan.
The love between Bhagavan and Lakshmi was extraordinary. Bhagavan’s love was totally impartial – he had equal love for all. But somehow Bhagavan’s bond with Lakshmi was something special. Some remarkable things happened. For example, every year for several years in a row, the day Bhagavan’s jayanthi was celebrated Lakshmi gave birth to a calf. Some people may take that to be miraculous and some people may take that to be a coincidence, but it’s significant because it shows the strong and close connection between Lakshmi and Bhagavan. So Lakshmi is a very very exception.
(To be continued in my next comment)
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:40)
Correction:
So Lakshmi is a very very rare exception.
Human birth is special, so we shouldn’t waste the opportunity we have now (part two)
Michael: Generally, it is said that human birth is very favourable for attaining liberation, and we have different explanations for this. One of the explanations is that in human birth, we can clearly distinguish between our three states of waking, dream, and sleep, whereas animals cannot distinguish waking and dream. For them, when they wake up from a dream into this present waking state, it seems to be a continuation of the same state. But we are able to distinguish – ‘Oh, that was a different state and this is a different state’. Though according to Bhagavan, this is also a dream, we are able to distinguish ‘that was a different dream, and this is a different dream’. So that’s about animals.
About the devas, the higher beings who dwell in heavens or wherever, it is said that they never experience sleep. So they are in a state of perpetual waking. Since waking means dreaming, so they are perpetually dreaming. So because they don’t experience sleep, they are not able to distinguish as we can that we exist and are aware of our existence even when we are not aware of this body and world. So that is why human birth is said to be superior.
But we don’t have to be concerned about all these things. Obviously, it is necessary to have an intense desire for liberation, and for the vast majority of us, having a guru in human form is also necessary. In the case of Bhagavan, his guru was Arunachala, so he never had a guru in a human form. This was because Bhagavan was able to understand the silent teachings of Arunachala, so even before coming to Arunachala, Arunachala worked within his mind and turned his attention within at the time of his fear of death.
So Arunachala did its work even before Bhagavan had seen the physical form of Arunachala. But that again is an exception. For most of us, we need a guru in a human form. That is because since our attention is turned outwards, the guru has to appear outside in a human form to tell us, ‘Turn within. What you are seeking doesn’t exist outside. It exists in you as you. You are that’. So guru in human form is necessary for most of us.
Regarding human birth, one of the reasons why it is stressed about the importance of human birth is that we shouldn't waste this opportunity we have now. Whether human birth is superior to birth in an animal body or not, let us not be concerned about that. Now we have a human birth, so every moment we have is a precious opportunity to turn within. That is most important.
Regarding what you say about the intellect, yes, if we allow our intellects to go outwards, to do anantma-vichara or to investigate the world (loka-vichara) or to investigate anything other than ourself - that is a misuse of our intellect. Intellect means the power of discrimination and judgement. In the clear power of discrimination or judgement, we will know the correct use of our intellect. We should use it to investigate ourself alone and not to investigate things other than ourself.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:40)
Bhagavan’s death-experience
Sanjay: While explaining Bhagavan’s death experience, you often say that when young Venkataraman had that intense fear of death, he feared to lose his own existence and did not fear to lose anything else. That is, as a boy of 16 when he had that intense fear of death, he clung to himself with so much intensity only because he was only concerned about losing his existence. All his other desires and attachments were like a thin veil, and therefore these vasanas were not a hindrance to his clinging to himself.
My question is what you mean by ‘he feared to lose his existence’? Since he experienced himself as Venkataraman at that moment, did he fear to lose his existence as Venkataraman or did he fear to lose his pure existence ‘I am’? I would be grateful if you could clarify this.
Michael: Well, we don’t know what exactly Bhagavan said, but what has been recorded about what he said about his death is as follows. He clarified that when the fear of death came to him it didn’t happen in thoughts, but it all happened in a flash. But he described it in terms of his thought – ‘Now this body is dead. With the death of the body, will I also die?’ So what he wanted to know was ‘When this body dies, will I also die?’
So he clearly understood the distinction between his body and himself. He had clearly decided that his body is dead, so Venkataraman is dead, but with the death of the body, will ‘I’ also die? So when I said Venkataraman feared to lose his existence, his existence as Venkataraman was not his real existence. That was only a seeming existence. His real existence and the real existence of all of us is the pure awareness ‘I am’. So that is what Venkataraman feared to lose.
The context in which I sometimes explain this is normally when people get the fear of death, they begin to think about what is most dear to them. So they may begin to think about their family, their job, their status in society and such things. Those things are important to them, so they cling to those things. Whereas, in the case of Bhagavan, he wasn’t attached to anything external to himself, so when the fear of death came, he turned his attention within and clung to himself alone.
So Venkataraman clearly knew the distinction between ‘I’ and Venkataraman. So when this body dies, what happens to this ‘I’? That is what he sought to find out and that is what he found out. That what is shining in each and every one of us is the eternal reality. That alone is what is always real, ever unchanging. Bhagavan gave us the definition of reality as follows. What is real has to be eternal, unchanging and self-shining.
So what is eternal is only ‘I’. What is unchanging is only ‘I’. All other things change. ‘I’ alone remains unchanging, so that is what he clung to.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:01)
Bhagavan’s blessing
A friend: Michael, more than a question, I seek your blessings because the ultimate answer to every question is ‘who is asking this question?’ I really need your blessing, so that I can follow this path.
Michael: The only one who can bless you is Bhagavan. I am in the same boat as you are. I am just an ordinary spiritual aspirant, so I am unqualified to bless you.
Bhagavan is always blessing us, but we derive the benefits of his blessings to the extent we turn within and subside. However difficult it may seem to be, we just have to continue trying. So long as we are trying to the best of our ability, he would take care of everything else. So Bhagavan’s grace and blessing are never lacking. They are always there. He is always providing us with all the help that we require.
He has given us a small responsibility – 'try to follow what he taught us, try to surrender ourself to him'. He will take care of everything else. Even if we don’t turn our attention within and don’t surrender ourself, he is still taking care of everything. But the more we yield ourself to him by turning our attention within, the less we are obstructing the work of his grace.
The friend: Thank you very much, Michael.
Michael: So if you want blessings, ask Bhagavan. Bhagavan is always blessing you, but the benefit of asking his blessing is that to that extent you are willing to yield yourself to his blessings. So we are asking Bhagavan not because he does not know that we need his blessings, he knows what we need better than we know it. But by praying to him we are giving our consent. We are accepting how dependent we are on his grace.
The friend: Thank you.
Michael: And prayer definitely has its place. Bhagavan has sung so many beautiful prayers in Arunachala Stuti Panchakam. If we want to know how to pray properly, Bhagavan has clearly taught us how to pray properly. Bhagavan has clearly taught us in ASP, what we should pray for and how we should pray for.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:47)
The basis of all experiences is consciousness
Michael James: A lot of scientists believe nowadays that everything is physical or material. They believe even consciousness is the product of the brain and if consciousness is the product of the brain, so is love and compassion and everything else. But if we understand Bhagavan’s teachings, we will understand the absurdity of that type of view.
What do we experience first? The basis of all experiences is consciousness. So to say that consciousness is a product of physical evolution is obviously absurd. We are aware of the appearance of the physical world only because we are conscious. So we cannot doubt consciousness. This material world could be doubted because it could be no more than just a dream. Bhagavan has given us sufficient reasons to understand that our real nature is consciousness and not anything physical.
What we actually are is just the fundamental nature of our own existence ‘I am’. That is what is real. That is what we actually are. That is what remains in sleep when we have severed all our connections with our body and mind. So love and compassion are our real nature, they are not a product of evolution. The scientific theory of evolution applies to the evolution of physical matter, but if all this is just a dream, all our ideas about evolution is not correct.
Science is fine within a certain sphere. So long as this world seems to be real, science seems to be real, but if all this is just a dream, which Bhagavan says it is, then all science is just meaningless. Science can tell us about the world-appearance. It cannot tell us about the reality that lies behind this world-appearance. The reality is pure awareness or consciousness, which is infinite happiness and infinite love. Science has no clue about this reality.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-25 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:57)
Are onions, garlic, tea, coffee and pungent foods sattvic or non-sattvic? (part one)
Michael James: What is meant by sattvika food is interpreted differently by different people, but I believe the most important criteria is ahimsa (non-harming of other living beings). Whatever food we consume should have been produced without causing harm to other living beings. So, obviously, meat, eggs and other such foods are out. Bhagavan said that eating meat, eggs and such foods is definitely non-sattvic and against all spiritual paths. Causing harm to others because we relish eating such foods is totally unjustified.
Some people, particularly in yoga, do far more research on these things. They believe onions, garlic, radish and other similar vegetables are not sattvic. Bhagavan didn’t attach importance to that. He used to cook onions and garlic in the ashram. Though orthodox brahmins consider onion and garlic to be very wrong, Bhagavan by his example showed us that he didn’t attach too much importance to such things.
As I said, my own interpretation is that what is most important in ahimsa. It’s the ethical criterion that is most important. If we are eating food which is being produced by causing harm to other sentient beings, that cannot be sattvic. About onions and garlic, if they don’t agree with you, by all means give them up. We should not have hard-and-fast rules here. Obviously, we each have to find out for ourselves which types of food are conducive to our sattvic state of mind. To some onions and garlic disturb them but to many of us, it doesn’t really make any difference.
I think yogis attach a lot of importance to these things because their path is different. They are trying to forcibly control their mind; whereas, the path of self-investigation is the true path of love and surrender. So in this path, we are not trying to control the mind by force. We are trying to turn our attention within by love. So by the example Bhagavan set, we should not be concerned about onion and garlic.
(To be continued in my next comment)
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-25 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:46)
Are onions, garlic, tea, coffee and pungent foods sattvic or non-sattvic? (part two)
Michael James: You say that when you eat meat you feel less proud spiritually and less holier-than-thou. The way to feel less proud spiritually and less holier-than-thou is not by avoiding eating meat. For this, we need to keep our ego in check by trying to turn it within as frequently and as much as possible. If we are truly following the path of self-investigation and self-surrender, we will give no room for the feeling of pride or holier-than-thou.
Yes, we don’t eat meat, but other people eat meat. That doesn’t make us better than them. We have been given the clarity to understand that eating meat is causing harm to other people. To some people, this just doesn’t strike, so we shouldn’t feel holier-than-thou. Grace has enabled us to understand that eating meat under any circumstances is bad.
Regarding the plant-based foods, not all plant-based foods are sattvic. Cocaine is a drug which comes from plants, but it’s obviously not sattvic. So just because your food is a plant-based food doesn’t make it sattvic. However, generally, most of the plants that we consume as foods rather than as drugs are more or less sattvic.
A lot of people take tea and coffee. Very strict yogis would say that is not sattvic. I personally don’t take tea and coffee because it doesn’t appeal to me. However, Bhagavan drank tea or coffee in the ashram. So I don’t think these are seriously non-sattvic foods. Another thing people say is about pungent foods. Some people advice not to take food with a lot of chillies or salt or such things. That is where mita (moderation) comes in. Taking chillies and such things in moderate quantity may be OK, but it may not be good for the body and mind if consumed in excess.
So all Bhagavan said is mita sattvika ahara-niyama is the best among all aids. We have to interpret this according to our own understanding. All teachings are open to interpretation. We understand them according to our own level of understanding.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-25 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:46)
Sanjay, re. diet I have come to the conclusion that it is highly individual and no specific diet will fit for everyone. I.e. in my case when I eat water melon (I suppose a 'sattvic' food) I get nauseous and brain fogged. Because of the effect it has on me water melon cannot be sattvic [for me] since it impairs my physical well-being and as such makes it more difficult to do atma-vichara.
Instead to follow some set guide-lines it is more advised to observe how the body and mind reacts to certain foods and then use or discard these foods. That's it. I cannot imagine preparing sauteed veggies without any onions and garlic. I also drink tea like Darjeeling, Oolong, or Green tea which have a very mild stimulating effect on me. I consider them as 'sattvic' contrary to ayurvedic doctrine.
I consider most nuts and seeds as tamasic contrary to ayurveda since they contain lectins which are harmful for the body and so on.
IMO there cannot be a general guide-line when it comes down to diet short of common sense like to avoid drugs, stale or spoiled food, alcohol, refined sugar and other extremes. Ahimsa is a good guide-line too, however it is more important in actions and thought than as a dietary rule.
Salazar, I think our (human being’s) natural food is fruits, vegetables and nuts in its natural form. Of course, we cook food because of our addiction to cooked food. I believe we can adapt ourself to consuming a fully uncooked or sun-cooked diet. It is a matter of will power and habit. However, as spiritual aspirants, we cannot be fussy about this. We should accept whatever grace provides to us. However, if given a choice we should tend towards choosing unprocessed food in its raw form.
Our human bodies are best suited to digest fruits in their natural form. Moreover, fruits are the most sattvic fruits because nature provides us with fruits for our consumption. We have a symbiotic relationship with fruits. When we consume fruits, we get the best possible nourishment, but we also help the fruits in the distribution of its seeds. So our natural food is fruits in its natural form. Not everyone may agree with this.
Bhagavan’s body was a temple in which he lived for fifty-four years
A friend: If we 'realised' one leaves his body, we build a samadhi on his tomb and do rituals on it. What is the significance of building a temple on his samadhi and worshipping it? We know Bhagavan was not that body, so why worship that remains body?
Michael James: Yes, Bhagavan is not his body, but that body was the temple in which he lived for fifty-four years giving us his teachings. So according to Tirumular, one of the ancient Tamil siddhas, the body of the jnani should be considered the temple of God, and hence it’s not appropriate to cremate it. In India, Hindu custom is generally cremation, but for the jnani, they don’t cremate the body. They at least follow this custom in South India, especially those who follow Tirumular. They bury the body of the jnani and build a temple over it. They consider the body of the jnani to be a temple – a temple on which God walked on earth, so to speak.
So it’s appropriate to worship the tomb or the samadhi of the jnani. That’s why the body of Bhagavan and some of his close devotees have been buried and are duly worshipped. That is appropriate, but again if we worship Bhagavan’s shrine and we are doing it out of love, we need not consider that to be a ritual. It’s just a simple expression of our love. Ritual worship also goes on there, and that is also appropriate for those who do it. However, we need not give much importance to the rituals if we are following Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation and self-surrender.
If we are fortunate to go to Tiruvannamalai, we can go to Bhagavan’s shrine. We can prostrate before it. We can walk around it or sit quietly in front of it. We can worship it whatever way appeals to us. However, we need not consider all these to be rituals. We are just expressing our love for Bhagavan. Just as if we had been there in his bodily lifetime, we would have liked to spend some time in his company. We would have liked to sit at his feet, look at him or whatever because of our love for him. So it’s natural that it continues even now.
~•~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:56)
When the fruit is ripe, it drops from the tree
A friend: Bhagavan had the immense fear of death at the point of his manonasa. I am concerned that if we reach that point, we will turn back and not go through with it and end it all. How can we make sure that fear doesn’t hold us back at that stage?
Michael James: So long as there is desire, there will be fear. So fear and desire are inseparable. If you desire life, you will fear death. If you desire to be very rich, you will fear to lose all your money. So fear is inseparable from desire. So long as we have desires and attachments, we will not be willing to surrender ourself. Only when our desires and attachments are reduced considerably and only when our love to be as we actually are overwhelms those desires and attachments, will we be finally willing to surrender completely.
So even now it is fear that is holding us back. We could experience our real nature here and now if we are willing to let go of everything else. It is only because we have desires for everything else that we fear to lose everything else. So call it fear or call it desire, it amounts to the same thing. That is what is holding us back. By practising self-
investigation and self-surrender, by repeatedly trying to turn our attention within, we are slowly weakening our desires and attachments and strengthening our love to know ourself.
So, eventually, if we follow this path with perseverance and diligence, we will certainly reach a point where we will be willing to surrender ourself. So we shouldn’t be concerned about ‘will fear hold me back?’ When we are ready, the fear won’t hold us back. When the fruit is ripe, it drops from the tree.
The friend: Yes, Michael, but I have a whole lot of fear that I don’t want to come back again. I want this to be my final life.
Michael James: If we are wise, we would fear to continue existing as ego even now. Why think about the problems which may experience in the future if we come back again? Being here and now as this ego is a problem, and we should tackle this problem here and now. It is because as long as like to exist as ego, we would also like to come back as ego again and again and again. So surrender cannot be in the future. Surrender has to be here and now.
So we can do sadhana only in the present moment. We shouldn’t be thinking about ‘Do I have to take rebirth? or ‘How many rebirths will I have to take?’ Such thoughts are anatma-vichara. That’s turning our attention away from ourself. We need to turn our attention back towards ourself – ‘Who am I now?’ We should not think ‘Who will I be in the future? or ‘Who was I in the past?’ Who am I here and now? So only at the present moment we can experience what we actually are.
The friend: That’s true! But even the fear not to be born again and again is a very strong desire to get it done this time.
Michael James: That’s good. If that motives you, that’s very good, but don’t think about the future. Think about the present. That’s the solution.
# Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:05)
Bhagavan is the guru of all gurus
Michael James: Some teachers of Advaita, who consider themselves traditional Vedantins, think that Bhagavan is not a proper guru because he never studied Upanishads and the commentaries on them. They do not consider Bhagavan to be guru because, according to them, he never had a guru. But actually, Bhagavan is the guru of all gurus. Bhagavan is Arunachala himself, and Arunachala is Dakshinamurti, the adi-guru. So if anyone feels that Bhagavan’s path is in any way inadequate, they are just expressing their ignorance. So we need not be concerned about them.
Yes, eventually, according to Bhagavan, we will all return to our source, but how quickly we will return to our source depends on the degree to which we have surrendered.
Some of us have got a strong ego and feel that ‘I am following a superior path’. But we are not really on a superior path as long as we such an attitude. So long as we have such an ego, we are delaying our progress. We progress on the spiritual path to the extent our ego subsides. So we are in no better position than anyone else. Only when we understand that, are we beginning to follow the spiritual path.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:59)
Thanks, Karen. As you say, 'All praise to Arunachala Siva!'. We are nothing. What is real is only Arunachala Siva.
The greatest good we can do for this world is to turn our attention within and thereby subside back into our source
Michael James: Actions are not love. Actions may be expressions of love. If we want to do good in this world, we have to be good. In the last paragraph of Nan Ar, Bhagavan says:
To whatever extent sinking low [subsiding or being humble] we proceed [or conduct ourself], to that extent there is goodness [benefit or virtue].
So if we want to do good in this world, the greatest good we can do is to turn our attention within and thereby subside back into our source. Instead of that if we rise as ego and think that ‘I am going to do good in this world’ or ‘I am going to help this person’ or ‘I am going to help that person’, we will face all sorts of difficulties. The greatest good we can do is to surrender ourself completely. If we surrender ourself completely, then we can leave it to Bhagavan to take care of the world.
He knows how to take care of the world better than we do, so we shouldn’t be concerned about the world. In the 19th paragraph of Nan Ar Bhagavan says:
It is not appropriate to let [one’s] mind [dwell] excessively on worldly matters. To the extent possible, it is not appropriate to intrude in other’s affairs.
So the work that has been given to us by Bhagavan is to turn within and thereby surrender ourself completely. Of course, when we rise as ego we interact with the world and there are problems. In the ordinary course, we try to help other people when our help is needed. Even if we want to help others, we can’t help those who are not willing to be helped.
What we think is good for others, but they may not think it is good for them. So helping others and trying to do good to others is a minefield. We are walking through a minefield. So it is best to follow the path that Bhagavan has taught us, which is devoting our attention to turning within and trying to know ourself thereby surrender ourself completely.
This is not being irresponsible. This is leaving the entire burden to Bhagavan, who knows how to solve the problems of the world better than we do. What the problems of the world? Problems come and go. Every problem has its own solution within it. What was a problem last year is no longer a problem this year. What is a problem now, we would have forgotten about it in a year’s time. So the world is ever-changing. The one thing which is constant and real in this unreal world is ‘I am’. That is what we should cling to. That is what we should be concerned about.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (00:54)
Help to others
A friend: Please comment on helping others or charity work – doing punya. These will bring good karma to us, but we have to be born again to experience such karma.
Michael James: We shouldn’t go out seeking to help others, but when the occasion arises, when someone comes for our help, we help in a normal way. But that is not our aim. If it is our destiny to help others, we will help them. If it is their destiny to be helped by us, they will be helped by us. We need not be concerned about such things. Our only concern should be to surrender ourself.
Bhagavan says when one parameshvara Shakti is driving all karyas, why should we instead of surrendering ourself to that be constantly be thinking ‘it is necessary to do this; it is necessary to do that’? What is to be done he will make us do. Let us leave to him all concerns about actions. Our only concern should be to turn our attention within and surrender ourself to him.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:51)
Shraddha ceremony
A friend: Will our shraddha ceremony which we are asked to do for our ancestors liberate them or benefit them in any way. What benefit will it bring to us? What will be the consequences of not doing it?
Michael James: Hindus do certain rituals when their elders pass away - first 10 days and then yearly ritual ceremonies. These are called shraddha or sraddha ceremony. When someone asked Bhagavan whether it is good to do such things, Bhagavan replied, ‘yes, it is good for those who do it’. That is these rituals are good for the doers of these rituals. They are doing it someone else, so the action which we do for others is good for us. Bhagavan says in the final sentence of the 19th paragraph of Nan Ar?:
All that one gives to others, one is giving only to ourself. If everyone knew this truth, who indeed would refrain from giving?
So we are in effect doing these shraddha rituals only for ourself, so it will benefit only ourself. For example, if we are born in a brahmin family, all these things may be expected of us. But these rituals are no longer important if we come to the true spiritual path. Once we come to the path of surrender, all such rituals become superfluous. If we continue doing them due to the expectation of our family, there is no harm in doing them, but these are no longer needed or important.
If we are on the path of surrender, we have gone beyond the need of all rituals. But there is no harm in the rituals continuing if that is appropriate to the circumstances in which we find ourself in.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:53)
What is for you, won’t go by you (part one)
Michael James: Sue referred to Sanjay’s question regarding a dispute in the property with his cousins and whether Sanjay should fight for his rights. She says ‘listening to the gentleman who has this dispute with his family over land, I think bullies seem to always benefit. It may be a challenge when this happens, especially to forget injustice’.
The world is full of injustices, and most of us see injustice even in our own family. Some people get more than their fair share. This is just the way of the world. If we are following the spiritual path, we shouldn’t attach importance to material things. What we are destined to get we will get, and what we are not destined to get we will not get. So nobody can get what they are not destined to get.
As I mentioned to Sanjay while answering his question, a proverb is often repeated in Scotland: ‘What is for you, won’t go by you’. That is what you are destined to get, you can’t fail to get. It will definitely come to you.
So if we understand that everything is happening according to prarabdha, and prarabdha is Bhagavan’s sweet will, we don’t have to be concerned about these things. Ultimately, how does it matter if someone gets more than their fair share? How long will they be able to keep that? People spend their whole life trying to accumulate wealth and property or whatever, but one day we have to leave all these things. So why should we struggle so much for these things? Why should we have so much concern for these things?
If we want to live a peaceful and happy life, we need to surrender ourself completely – surrender all concerns about things other than ourself. Generally speaking, Bhagavan provides for all of us what we need. So long as we have got food, clothing and shelter, what more do we need? So long as the basic needs of our life are provided, we shouldn’t bother about other things. And if the basic needs of our life are not provided, that is also our destiny. So we should take that also to be Bhagavan’s sweet will.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:25)
What is for you, won’t go by you (part two)
Michael James: The world is full of injustice. Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, has a net worth of 193 billion USD. He is wealthier than many countries, but what is the use of all that wealth? He is still greedy. He is still exploiting people who work in his warehouses. However much wealth people may have, they are never satisfied. So why should we hanker for wealth and all these things? These are all trivial, insubstantial things.
Sue: It was not so much about wealth. It was more about personal attitude.
Michael James: Yes, I understand, but we just have to accept people as they are. If we are not as greedy as our siblings or cousins, we have to take to be a blessing. By Bhagavan’s grace, we are freed of that greediness. We should take it that way and feel sorry for our cousins for their greediness (if such is the case). In every family, we find people who are more avaricious. The avaricious people are not the happy ones. To the extent we are free of avariciousness, to that extent we are happy. So we should feel pity for our cousins.
As Bhagavan said, however bad other people may seem to be, it is not proper to dislike them. Likes and dislikes are both fit to be disliked. That’s what Bhagavan says in the 19th paragraph of Nan Ar. So we should learn to love people in spite of all their shortcomings.
We are all to a greater or lesser extent selfish. That’s human nature. So long as we rise as ego, the seeds of selfishness are there in us. By Bhagavan’s grace, we may be a little bit less selfish than others, but the seeds of selfishness are still within us. So let us focus on getting rid of our ego. We cannot solve other people’s problems. We can only solve our own problem by investigating ourself and thereby surrendering this ego.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:25)
Sanjay, re. Parameshashakti I have come across an interesting statement, not sure by whom maybe Shankara, and that is "that what is never experienced at any time by anybody is unreal."
I suppose that is in alignment with Bhagavan's teaching because only self is real and only self is experienced at any time by anybody ....., anything else is not. Now of course the ego may object to that but since it is unreal itself it is quite hilarious when the ego objects to not experiencing reality at any time :-) How could it ever?
Surrender is extremely difficult, at least that is my experience. My ego still believes that it must strive and act to gain a desired result in the phenomenal world. There are more clearer phases but when it goes down to the core elements of food and shelter it clings at the seeming security of "I have to do it" instead to surrender the 'doing' to Bhagavan ....
The notion of, "And if the basic needs of our life are not provided, that is also our destiny. So we should take that also to be Bhagavan’s sweet will." is greeted with a strong dislike and fear of loss of security.
Who knows God?
The principle way taught by Bhagavan Ramana is atma-vichara, which means self-attentiveness or looking deep within ourself. Vichara means an investigation. So we learn the way as we go within. The deeper we go, the clearer the way becomes. So it is not possible to adequately express it in words.
But if we enter the heart seriously, it seems to be difficult. Our mind seems to be drawing us out towards other things. So the other side of the coin of self-investigation is self-surrender. We cannot truly practise self-investigation without self-surrender. The deeper we go within, the more we are letting go of our desires, attachments, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears and so on. Not only that, but the deeper we go within we are also letting go off the ‘I’ who has these desires, attachments, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears and so on.
In this process, we approach the point of total self-surrender, where according to traditional Advaita as taught by Bhagavan Ramana, we merge like ice in the water. We melt back into the source from which we have come and cease to be anything other than that. It is not that we know God. We give ourself wholly to God, and God alone remains. And who knows God? Only God knows God, and we partake of that by losing ourself in God, by merging in God.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-05 Theosis and Jñāna: discussion between Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and Michael James (49:00)
Spiritual significance of Arunachla (part one)
A friend: What is the spiritual significance of Arunachala? I guess Bhagavan says it is Shiva itself, but what does that mean?
Michael: So long as we experience ourself as a form, we cannot experience God as formless. If we want to experience God as formless, we need to experience our real nature, which is formless. Then we will find that God is nothing other than ourself. So because we have limited ourself to the form of a body, it is appropriate to worship God in form because we can’t know God as formless until we know ourself as form. So it is appropriate to worship God and guru also as a form.
Just like Bhagavan is the human form of God and guru for us, Arunachala is seen as God and guru in the form of the mountain. Bhagavan very explicitly in some of his five hymns to Arunachala addresses Arunachala as his guru. In one verse he sings: ‘Arunachala, shine as my guru destroying all my defects and giving me all the good qualities’. Here ‘defects’ means rising as ego and ‘good qualities’ means being just as we actually are. So for Bhagavan, Arunachala was his guru.
In another verse, Bhagavan reveals what Arunachala taught to him, He says, ‘Turning within, daily (or constantly) see yourself with the inner eye; it will be known. Thus you taught my Arunachala’. But obviously, Bhagavan didn’t teach that in words. Arunachala teaches through silence, so Bhagavan was able to understand the silent teachings of Arunachala, and what Arunachala taught through silence, Bhagavan taught through words. So Arunachala is God and guru.
So when Bhagavan said Arunachala is Shiva himself, it means Arunachala is God himself. Just like Bhagavan appears to us in a human form, but he is not that form. He is the formless reality, but so long as we take ourself to be a body, that body is what seems to us to be Bhagavan. So Arunachala and Bhagavan are one and the same. Our own self has appeared outwardly in the form of Bhagavan and the form of Arunachala to act as the guru to turn our attention back within.
Why does Arunachala appear in the form of a hill? It is in order to turn our attention back within. Bhagavan revealed that the form of Arunachala has an extraordinary power to turn the mind back within. So that’s the importance of Arunachala. In verse 11 of Padigam, Bhagavan sings:
I have seen a wonder, this magnetic hill which forcibly attracts the soul! Having suppressed the mischievous activities of the soul who has thought of it even once, having drawn that soul to face towards Itself, the one, and having made it motionless (achala) like itself, it feeds upon that sweet (pure and ripened) soul. What a wonder this is! O souls, be saved by thinking of this great Arunagiri, the destroyer of the soul (the ego) who shines in the heart!
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:20)
Spiritual significance of Arunachla (part two)
Michael: So we can see in Arunachala Stuti Panchakam that Bhagavan is constantly mixing the seeming devotion for an outward form with the seeming devotion for turning within. Though in verse 10 of Padigam, he refers to Arunachala as the great Aruna hill, he says it shines in the heart. So he is referring both to the outward form of Arunachla and the reality of Arunachala what is shining in us as ‘I’. He refers to Arunachala as a killer of the soul.
In Hinduism, there are many Gods and each form has its own speciality. So if you want wealth, you go and worship Venkateshwara in Tirupati, and if there are obstacles in your life, you worship Ganesha, and he will remove the obstacles. So every name and form has some speciality. The speciality of Arunachala is the destruction of ego. In the very first verse of Arunachala Aksharamanamalai, Bhagavan sings, ‘O, Arunachala you root out the egos of those who think of you in the heart (or those who think Arunachala is ‘I’). So the sole purpose of Arunachala is to destroy ego.
The friend: OK, so was Arunachala more special than other hills around? If it is all a dream and if it is all a projection, why is one hill better than another?
Michael: It’s all a dream. It’s all a projection, but don’t you think Bhagavan is in some way special?
The friend: Yes!
Michael: Just like Bhagavan is special for us, Arunachala is special for Bhagavan. So since Arunachla is special for Bhagavan, Arunachala is special for us. One of the holiest mountains is said to be Mount Kailash in the Himalayas. But Bhagavan used to say that whereas Mount Kailash is the abode of Shiva, Arunachala is Shiva himself. As far as I know, there is no other mountain that is worshipped as a form of God – not just as an abode of God but as God in the form of a hill.
We easily relate to Gods in human forms. For most people, it is easy to relate to the forms of Rama, Krishna, Jesus and so on. But Arunachala is a very abstract form. To worship a mountain as God is a very abstract form to attribute to God. But a mountain is something which is motionless and is silent. So it is an outward symbol of our real nature, which is motionless pure awareness.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:20)
Spiritual significance of Arunachla (part three)
Michael: So we cannot adequately answer in words ‘What is the spiritual significance of Arunachala?’ We can only explain by our mind, but Arunachala is something beyond the mind. Arunachala is special, but we cannot adequately explain it in rational terms.
But we should remember the great love that Bhagavan had for Arunachala, so if we want to understand what is special about Arunachala, it is only by love that we can find it out. Many of us would not have been attracted to Arunachala if it were not for Bhagavan. So the more our love for Bhagavan deepens, the more we will come to understand his love for Arunachala.
According to Bhagavan, Arunachala is pure love. He says in one verse of Aksharamanamalai, ‘Like ice in water, melt me as love in you, the form of love’. So Arunachala is nothing but our real nature, So only when we know ourself as we really are, will we really know BHagavan, will we really know Arunachala.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:20)
Correction:
So Arunachala is nothing but our real nature. So only when we know ourself as we really are, will we really know Bhagavan, will we really know Arunachala.
Sanjay,
thank you for your recent three extracts of video-transcriptions (2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang).
Regarding the headings of the three comments you mean of course "Spiritual significance of Arunachala".
Sanjay, regarding your today's comment of 14 August 2020 at 12:43
you mean:
"So he is referring both to the outward form of Arunachala...".
"So since Arunachala is special for Bhagavan,...".
Sanjay,
re. your comment of today's comment of 14 August 2020 at 12:09,
presumably it should be more correctly:
"In another verse, Bhagavan reveals what Arunachala taught to him,He says, ‘Turning within, daily (or constantly) see yourself with the inner eye; it will be known. Thus you taught me Arunachala’." (not 'my' Arunachala).
Sorry,
it should be "re. your today's comment of 14 August 2020 at 12:09".
Anadi-ananta, since I am not even careful to spell Arunachala correctly, this shows how shallow my devotion to Bhagavan is. I cannot even honour our guru’s guru in a proper way, so to speak. Anyway, thank you for pointing out my typos.
We are only discussing with ourself
Ted: If our life is nothing but a dream, then whose dream is it? When two or more people are discussing the subject of non-duality, who is discussing with whom?
Michael: We could be having this discussion in our dream. Actually, if our mind is on the subject in our waking state, then it is very probable that we would be talking these sorts of things in our dream also. In our dream, we may be talking about Bhagavan's teachings - we may be discussing with a friend. Sometimes our friend may say something and we may feel ‘O that is a new way of looking at this thing'. It may seem to us that we are learning from a friend, but when we wake up, who were we discussing with? We were only discussing with ourself. Likewise, even in this so-called waking state, we are discussing only with ourself.
When we look outwards, there are so many people, but in whose view these people exist. In the dream, we see many people, and those people seem to be real so long as we are dreaming. Even the person we seem to be so long as we are dreaming, but when we wake us we realise that all the people, including the person we seem to be, were our own mental projection.
Ted: How would you view this discussion?
Michael: In a dream, people would respond in their waking state. Suppose if you ask me this question in your dream, I would say, ‘O I feel just as you feel’ or ‘I see things just as you see things’, but when you wake up how much importance would you attach to my statements? You will know that Michael to whom you were talking to was just your mental projection. Not only the Michael in your dream was your mental projection, but even the Ted in your dream was also your mental projection. You have nothing to do with either Michael or Ted.
It seems to you that you experience yourself as ‘I am Ted’, but actually Ted is also an object perceived by you. Ted is the object and you are the subject.
~*~ Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:52)
Sanjay,
"...but actually Ted is also an object perceived by you. Ted is the object and you are the subject."
Who is the subject ? If the subject is ego, to whom appears this ego-subject ?
Who am I ?
Anadi-ananta, the subject is only ego, this first thought ‘I am this body’. This ego-subject appears only to the ego-subject. Our real self, which is pure and infinite awareness, is not aware of this ego-subject.
Sanjay,
my question "to whom appears this ego-subject ?" is evidently complete nonsense because any appearance can never be more than an object appearing to an ego-subject.
The awareness of the ego-subject seems to include both elements of pure self-awareness (chit-aspect) which is aware only of itself and on the other hand of a consciously object-perceiving subject (insentient jada-aspect).
As you correctly imply real pure self-awareness is never aware of the object-perceiving ego-subject which (the latter) is not real awareness but only seeming or borrowed awareness (jada). Though it is said that ego could not even appear to be without being supported by real awareness (atma-svarupa).
Why Bhagavan is fit to be the guru for all of us?
A friend: Does it matter if your teacher is supposedly enlightened but displays the behaviour of a negative ego?
Michael James: Many people believe that an enlightened person can behave in any way because they are enlightened and we can’t judge them. We cannot know who is enlightened but we can have a pretty good idea of the people who are not enlightened. If anyone who behaves in an egotistical manner or behaves in an unethical manner, there is still an ego there.
So whatever they claim about enlightenment, whatever experiences they may have had, we should be sceptical about them. Some people genuinely believe they are enlightened because they have had certain experiences, but that is not enlightenment. The real enlightenment is only the annihilation of ego, which is the goal that Bhagavan has taught us. So though we cannot say definitely who is egoless, there are a lot of people who behave in such an egoistical manner that it’s fairly safe to assume that they are not egoless.
Many people claim that they are enlightened, and we don’t have to disrespect them. But it is always good to have a healthy degree of scepticism. We should not just believe someone because they claim to be enlightened or because others claim them to be enlightened. If a person is behaving in an inappropriate manner, then even if one is ‘enlightened’, it's better if we avoid them.
If we see Bhagavan, what a perfect life he lived. Egoless was evident in many of his actions. That’s why Bhagavan is worthy to be a guru for all of us. I can only say for myself, to me, there couldn’t be any guru other than Bhagavan. I have never seen anyone as perfect as Bhagavan. I am not saying there are no others who are enlightened, but Bhagavan is something very-very special.
The friend: There are degrees, I suppose.
Michael James: Well, not degrees of enlightenment. Bhagavan obviously came with a divine mission. He had a role to play as the guru, so he lived such an exemplary life.
It’s not really a person who is enlightenment. If a person is egoless let’s say, you will see that in their behaviour. You will see a certain quality in their behaviour. You won’t see them behaving negatively or egoistically. You won’t see greed or jealousy in them. Basically, you won’t see bad qualities in the ‘person’ who is genuinely egoless.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (02:10)
Yes.. Bhagavan is only Guru who was perfect in every aspect. All events that took place in his life is a teaching for us. Life of devotees that he attracted is also a teaching to us. I happened to read about a devadasi who was a sincere devotee of Bhagavan. Him taking birth on earth is such a great blessing for all of us.
But in talks, Bhagavan has narrated a story where a jnani has relationship with multiple women. That confused me little bit.
Personal growth and healing of trauma
A therapist: I would love to hear about what you have to say about personal growth and healing of trauma wounds? I am a therapist.
Michael James: Does personal growth matter? Yes and no. On this path, our aim is to know ourself as we actually are. In order to know ourself as we really are, we need to distinguish ourself from the person that we seem to be. So on this path of self-investigation and self-surrender, we are slowly detaching ourself from the person that we seem to be. So we shouldn’t be seeking personal growth. We shouldn’t be concerned about this person.
However, if we are sincerely following this path, personal growth will take place. That is, since we are turning our attention within, we are slowly-slowly weakening our desires and attachments. We are weakening our vishaya-vasanas, and the more our vishaya-vasanas are weakened, the more we will grow as a person so to speak.
So we should not go out to heal our trauma or mental wounds. It should not be our aim to heal our trauma and our mental-scars. But as we are following this path, we will find that as we go along this path, our traumas will naturally be healed without our being even concerned about them. That is, the more we detach ourself from this person, the more this person will be a well-rounded and a well-developed person.
The therapist: Trauma mostly creates avoidance or even addiction or desires.
Michael James: Trauma therapies may be beneficial at a certain level, but Bhagavan’s path is a very-very deep path. As I said, the fundamental thing is, now we experience ourself as a person, but this person is not we actually are. So to the extent we separate ourself from this person, the traumas of this person will be naturally healed.
What feeds the traumas or what identifies with these traumas? It is ego or ‘I’ that identifies itself with the person and with this person’s experiences. It is ego or ‘I’ that identifies with this person’s likes, dislikes, fears, hopes and so on and whatever this person has been through. The more detach ourself from this person, the more this healing process will happen automatically.
The therapist: Thank you, Michael.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (02:05)
Is telling lies a part of my prarabdha? Should we always attempt to be more honest with others?
Anonymous, you write, ‘But in talks, Bhagavan has narrated a story where a jnani has relationship with multiple women. That confused me little bit’. Can a jnani ever have such a relationship with multiple women? The jnani doesn't have any relationship even with his body, so how can he have any relationship with several bodies? If a supposed 'jnani' is having sexual relations with several women, we can be almost sure that he is not a jnani. The jnani will always behave in an ethical and exemplary manner.
It is said that Sri Krishna had a relationship with several women, but it is also said that he was a brahmachari (one remaining without any sexual relationship with women). How to reconcile this? Sri Krishna loved everyone as himself, and in his divine play, it was seen that many women were attracted to him and likewise, he was attracted to them. However, these are allegorical stories. This is depicting the love between God and his devotees.
So the jnani is above all inappropriate behaviour, as Michael said in one of his recent videos.
In his comment of 16 August 2020 at 12:35 presumably Anonymous wanted to express "multiple relationship(s) with women" (instead of "relationship with multiple women").
The Paramount Importance of Self Attention part 5:
"We are told that we project the world, but this does not mean that the seer is the projector. We, the seer (the mind or ego), are part of the projection, as Bhagavan says in verse 160 of Guru Vachaka Kovai:
The false person [or soul] who behaves as ‘I’ occurs as one among the shadow pictures [in this world picture, which is like a cinema show].
Who is this ‘I’ we say is the projector? By our investigating ‘who am I?’ the non-existence of both the projector and its projection will be exposed."
But isn't the ego not part of the dream, but only the person is part of the dream? Ego takes itself to be the person and therefore part of the dream, but actually it isn't part of the dream?
To whom? To me. Who am I?,
the person is only an imagined/projected (bodily) adjunct of ego which is the [actually non-existent] dreamer of all dreams.
This is the story Sanjay
THONDARADIPODI (Bhaktanghrirenu) ALWAR: One who
delights in the dust of the feet of devotees. A devotee (of this name)
was keeping a plot of land in which he grew tulasi, the sacred basil,
made garlands of it, and supplied the same to the God in the temple.
He remained a bachelor and was respected for his life and conduct.
One day two sisters, who lived by prostitution, walked near the garden
and sat under a tree. One of them said, “How disgusting is my life that
I soil my body and mind every day. This man’s life is most desirable.”
The other replied, “How do you know his mind? Maybe he is not
as good as he appears to be. The bodily functions may be forcibly
controlled and the mind may be revelling in riotous thoughts. One
cannot control one’s vasanas as easily as the physical frame.”
The former said, “The actions are only the indices of the mind. His
life shows his mind to be pure.”
The other said, “Not necessarily. His mind has not been proved as yet.”
The first challenged her to prove his mind. She accepted. The second
desired to be left alone with only a shred of garment in which to clothe
herself. The first sister returned home, leaving the other alone with
flimsy clothing. As the latter continued to remain under the tree, she
appeared penitent and humble. The saint noticed her and approached
her after some time. He asked what had happened to her that she
looked so lowly. She pleaded penitence for her past life, desired to lead
a purer and nobler life and finished with a prayer to him to accept her
humble services in the garden or attendance on himself. He advised
her to return home and lead a normal life. But she protested. So he
detained her for watering the tulasi plants. She accepted the function
with delight and began to work in the garden.
One rainy night this woman was found standing under the eaves of
the thatched shed in which the saint was. Her clothes were dripping
and she was shivering with cold. The master asked why she was in
such a pitiable state. She said that her place was exposed to the rains
and so she sought shelter under the eaves and that she would retire as
soon as the rain ceased. He asked her to move into the hut and later
told her to change her wet clothes. She did not have dry cloth to put
on. So he offered her one of his own clothes. She wore it, still later
she begged permission to massage his feet. He consented. Eventually
they embraced.
The next day she returned home, had good food and wore fine clothes.
She still continued to work in the garden.
Sometimes she used to remain long in her home. Then this man
began to visit her there until he finally lived with her. Nevertheless
he did not neglect the garden nor the daily garlands for God. There
was public scandal regarding his change of life. God then resolved to
restore him to his old ways and so assumed the shape of the saintly
devotee himself. He appeared to the dasi and secretly offered her a
rich present, an anklet of God.
She was very pleased with it and hid it under her pillow. He then
disappeared. All these were secretly observed by a maid servant in
the house.
The ornament was found missing in the temple. The worshipper
reported the loss to the proper authorities. They offered a tempting
reward for anyone who would give the clue for the recovery of the lost
property. The maid servant afforded the clue and claimed the reward.
The police recovered the ornament and arrested the dasi who said
that the devotee gave her the same. He was then roughly handled. A
supernatural voice said. “I did it. Leave him alone.”
The king and all others were surprised. They fell prostrate at the man’s
feet and set him free. He then led a better and nobler life.
anadi-ananta yes ego is said to be the dreamer. But is ego part of its dream?
The ego and its dream are both unreal according to Bhagavan. I think the dream is more unreal than the ego because dream is only a projection of the ego, and moreover the ego has an element of reality which is its chit aspect.
Perhaps my asking whether ego is part of its dream or apart from the dream is not of much use because in any case We have to investigate it.
Sanjay,
Having relationship with prostitute.. Isn’t that an act ego?
Col,
regarding your questions:
a.) telling lies is not part of prarabdha but using your free will.
b.) We should always attempt to be honest with others because actually - seen from the viewpoint of truth - there are no others but you, because only pure unlimited and infinite self-awareness does really exist. :-)
:) right..
To whom? To me. Who am I?
re. your question: "But is ego part of its dream?"
Is not ego as the dreamer always fully involved in the midst of its dream ? How can it be apart from its own dream when it is the only perceiver of that dream and sometimes even the main actor or principal character in it ?
Re. lying: I do not believe that this is that easy. Lying is a vasana and past habit and as such can be prarabdha, a liar in a previous life will lie in the next. Can a jiva prevent to lie? No, if that is his prarabdha he will lie no matter what.
He can only use his "free will" to realize that he's lying and "will" to not lie anymore. That will gradually change the habit to lie.
To presume one has the power to always say the truth is a fallacy since it focuses on a doer and the jiva. So it is much better to look for the entity who is lying (or telling the truth) than to "improve the personality". When it is realized that there is no liar or "doer" then automatically no more lies will unfold ....
So for a devotee of Bhagavan one should not be overly concerned about virtues and sins but about "who" is the one who has virtue or sins? Let's go the direct path and do not make unnecessary detours.
Col, you ask ‘Is telling lies a part of my prarabdha?’ It could be but in most cases, we tell lies because we want to tell lies, so our will is prompting us to tell lies in most of the cases. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of our telling lies as part of our prarabdha. Our mind, speech and body are driven to act as propelled both by our will and destiny. So we cannot clearly make out which force is making us to utter lies.
Suppose, if someone is caught stealing and he is produced in court. When the judge asks whether he admits to stealing, the person replies ‘no, I was not present there’. However, if it is later proved that he indeed is the culprit, he will obviously face the necessary punishment. Since he had lied to the court, his punishment will be more than if he had admitted to his crime. Since his jail term is according to his prarabdha, we can say that his lying in court was also according to his destiny. So we may lie according to our destiny.
However, in most cases, I believe, our will – our desires, attachments, fears, hopes and so on – prompts us to lie and do other unethical things.
Should we always attempt to be more honest with others? The answer is an obvious ‘yes’.
Anonymous, all acts are only the acts of ego, so having a relationship with a prostitute is also an act of ego. This act may be driven by our destiny, but we may also like to be in such a relationship. So our will may also it's part in such acts.
It is advised to be not too much concerned about virtues and sins, these are attributes of a jiva. Are we truly a jiva? No. Then why being concerned about lies etc.?
Of course that doesn't mean to think it is okay to lie. However ethics etc. are for beginners of a spiritual path, for those who have not grasped Bhagavan's teaching. Because with Bhagavan's teaching the actions of a jiva are of very little concern.
The question if a lie is prarabdha or new karma is a waste of time. We cannot know, then why giving it any attention?
A Jnani can kill a person and that would not create any karma. Would a Jnani kill a person? Actually that question and many others relating to topics like that are irrelevant. So rather to keep imagining concepts like that, why not look for the "doer". Is there a doer? Only that matters, nothing else.
Thank you for your replies regards the matter of lying. Knowing that I can put down concerns regarding virtue and sin is helpful. Virtue and sin can cause us both pleasure and pain and in turn increases our concerns for it. Knowing that a Jnani could commit harmful acts/could be part of prarabdha is helpful if only to clarify that that is a possibility and satisfies the concerns I had that went with it. Focusing on the ego investigation is the only concern worth investing time on.
Col, as far as I understand it a Jnani does not have any prarabdha. Prarabdha rises simultaneously with the mind. If there is no mind (like with a Jnani) then there is no prarabdha or any other karma.
Then what moves the body and who talks? Is is often said it is God or self or the movements of the body after self-realization is like when one switches of the power to a ventilator and the blades still keep spinning after the off switch. When the blade stops then the body "dies".
However this is all the unreal imagination of a jiva. There are no bodies but by the projection of the mind. From the absolute viewpoint there are no and never were bodies and nobody ever has done any action. Phenomena and bodies and "people" only exist simultaneously with the mind. Bhagavan described that in several texts like Nan Yar.
Also regarding sin, it is enough to know and believe that it is a good idea to avoid sin. However to *try* to avoid sin is a detour, it is much better to look for the "sinner". Also, only the ego revels in condemnation and praise. To feel guilty (I sinned) or to feel proud (I did not sin) are qualities of the ego. They deserve to be ignored.
The alwar in the story was a Jnani Sanjay.. there isno ego left in him.. so how can one justify his actions?
Anonymous, you ask, ‘The alwar in the story was a Jnani Sanjay.. there isno ego left in him.. so how can one justify his actions?’ How do you know Alwar was a jnani? Why should we believe this just because it is said in books that he was a jnani? Of course, we cannot know the inner state of the jnani by his actions, but we can be sure that a true jnani will not act any inappropriate way. His actions may baffle us at times because he is beyond our grasp.
A jnani is nothing but pure jnana, so he or she is without any desires and attachments. Since it is only our desires and attachments which prompt us to act in an unethical or inappropriate manner, the jnani’s conduct will always be full of love and concern for others. So the jnani is perfection itself in which no defect can ever exist.
Everything is perfect (part one)
A friend: Please talk about the concept that everything is perfect and that we have not erred.
Michael: Everything is perfect because there is only one thing. What actually exists is just pure awareness, and pure awareness is always perfect. However, now we have risen as ego, and rising as ego itself is the first error. Our rising as ego is not real. If we investigate ourself, we will find that we have never risen as ego, so we have never erred. But now it seems to us that we have risen as ego and we are experiencing this body and mind as ‘I’. So this is a great error, so we have erred and everything seems to be imperfect. When we look outwards, everything seems to be imperfect.
However, all imperfections, including our rising as ego, are just an appearance. So the reality that lies behind all this imperfection is perfection. But to experience that we need to turn our attention within and experience ourself as we actually are.
The friend: Thank you, Michael. That makes sense. When I heard these things previously, in context it always sounded that they were really talking about our perception of the world.
Michael: Well, look at the world. Is the world perfect? When we look at the world, we see so many imperfections. We see egoism. We see birth, death, disease, so nothing is perfect about the manifestation. If we want to find perfection we have to look within ourself, and when we look within ourself and find the perfection within ourself, we find everything is perfect. But we first have to find that perfection within ourself.
But there is another context in which it is said that everything is perfect. Bhagavan’s path is not only the path of self-investigation, but it is also the path of self-surrender. We experience so many pleasures and pains, so many good things and bad things. We have to accept everything as the will of God or guru. Whatever we experience in our life is the fruit of action that we have done in the past.
We have done so many actions in the past and accumulated vast store of fruits that we have not yet experienced. God or guru selects for each lifetime which fruit we are to experience in each lifetime. It is the fruits of our past actions selected by Bhagavan for our true spiritual benefit. So whatever happens in our life, whether seemingly good or seemingly bad, is actually all for our good. So in that sense, everything is perfect.
Nothing that happens in this world – all the suffering and difficulties we undergo – it’s all perfect in the sense that it’s all ordained by Bhagavan. So God always puts us in the most favourable circumstances for our spiritual development. So that’s another perspective through which we can explain that everything is perfect.
(To be continued in my next comment)
# Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:35)
Everything is perfect (part two)
The friend: So I understand you to say that guru, God or atman ordains the experiences which we experience so that we learn to annihilate ego.
Michael: Exactly. In other words, everything is conducive to surrender. What is called the annihilation of ego can also be called self-surrender – complete giving up of ego. So the sole purpose of life and the sole purpose of everything we experience in life is leading us towards or preparing us to be willing to surrender ourself completely.
The friend: Thank you. Perfect!
Another friend: So all happenings in our life seems like a catalyst which is asking us to look within or practise self-investigation. What do you say?
Michael: Everything that happens to us, we should accept as the will of Bhagavan for our own good. We have to be a little bit careful about one thing. Some people misapply this and they justify wrong actions saying that ‘O it is all the will of God’ or whatever. That is wrong because we are responsible for our actions. We need to act in an appropriate manner. When we are engaged in actions, basic morality and ethics, particularly the principle of ahimsa (non-harming of others), are very important.
So we shouldn’t justify wrong actions by saying ‘everything is perfect’ or ‘everything is the will of God’. That is just giving the license to ego to act in whatever way it wants. Though everything we experience is according to destiny, not every action we do is according to destiny.
So it is very important to understand that the action of the body, speech and mind is to some extent driven by destiny. That is, we are made to do certain actions that are necessary for us to experience our destiny. If it is our destiny to have an accident, we will make an error in judgment. We will cross the road at the wrong time, and we will be hit by a car or something.
(To be continued in my next comment)
# Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:35)
Everything is perfect (part three)
Michael: So certain actions are driven by destiny, but our will is also interfering all the time. So long as we rise as ego, we have likes and dislikes, so we cannot distinguish which actions are driven by destiny and which are driven by will. Many actions are driven by both. So we cannot say to what extent they are driven by destiny and to what extent they are driven by our will.
So we need to keep a curb on our desires, our likes and dislikes. If we are keeping a curb on our desires, the actions we do will be to a large extent according to destiny and not according to our likes and dislikes. To the extent we curb our likes and dislikes, to that extent our actions will not be driven by those likes and dislikes.
So in the path of surrender, we are trying to surrender our will to the will of God. Of course, ultimately, we want to surrender ourself to God, but in order to surrender ourself, we need to begin by surrendering our will to God. However, we cannot wholly surrender our will to God without surrendering ourself to Bhagavan, but we need to begin by surrendering our will. That is, we need to keep a curb on our likes and dislikes, our desires and attachments. We need to prevent these likes and dislikes, desires and attachments influencing our actions. To the extent we curb these likes and dislikes, the actions will go according to destiny.
The friend: Isn’t karma, including destiny, all maya?
Michael: Yes, it is, but what is maya? Maya is nothing but our mind. So all this is our own mind. It’s all the creation of our own mind. So when we experience the laws of physics, it’s maya. But if you jump from the top of a tall building, you will die. So within maya, there seem to be certain laws. We cannot go against these physical laws.
Just like we cannot go physical laws, we cannot go against the spiritual laws. That is, we can call the law of karma a spiritual law in a sense. So though the law of karma is operating within maya, we cannot change how this law of karma works.
The friend: Thank you. I really appreciate your answer.
# Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:35)
Sanjay, re. your comment of 17 August 2020 at 13:21,
you wanted to write obviously: "Just like we cannot go against physical laws,...".
anadi-ananta, thank you for your comment of 16 August 2020 at 15:02.
It is clearer now. Indeed the ego must be part of this dream because it is fully involved in the dream and is the only perceiver of the dream as you say. I was reminded of the cinema screen analogy. The screen may not be a part of the movie in the same way as the actors in the movie are, but still it is always there in the background and we only have to turn our attention towards it.
Sanjay,
I think the story has different hidden messages. Since Alwar was a sincere devotee, God stepped in and protected him from evil force. Another perspective is: if he was jnani, the prabadha made him fall for the pleasure, but since he didn’t sway away from being the true self, he didn’t end up bearing the fruits of his karma. God saved him ..
Anadi-ananta, yes, it should be, ‘Just like we cannot go against physical laws, we cannot go against the spiritual laws’. As always, thank you for pointing out my carelessness.
A Jnani does not have prarabdha, impossible.
Col,
regarding your conclusion ("...Jnani could commit harmful acts/could be part of prarabdha"), I am thinking also of the story of one of the greatest Tibetan yogis, the famous Milarepa, who had to do penance or atone for his acts of revenge (murder of his greedy relatives). However it is said in his biography that he committed these murders before becoming the disciple of his guru Marpa.
Anonymous, Bhagavan says that what exists is only atma-svarupa, so actually no evil force exists in reality. However, in our context, the evil force is our vishaya-vasanas because these drag our mind away from ourself. These vasanas take us away from the state of pure and unalloyed happiness, so they are indeed evil.
The question is does God steps in to protect us from this evil force, our vishaya-vasanas? The answer is yes and no. ‘Yes’ because grace or God is unceasingly drawing us towards itself. So grace is automatically making us fight against our outward going vasanas. ‘No’ because grace or God cannot destroy all our vasanas without our support and cooperation. In other words, we need to be willing to curb and eventually destroy all our vishaya-vasanas by repeatedly trying to turn within to face ourself alone.
You say, ‘Another perspective is: if he was jnani, the prabadha made him fall for the pleasure, but since he didn’t sway away from being the true self, he didn’t end up bearing the fruits of his karma. God saved him’. Does jnani have any prarabdha? No, in his view he has no prarabdha. Bhagavan has made this clear in verse 38 of Ulladu Narpadu:
If we are the doer of action, we will experience the resulting fruit. [However] when one knows oneself [as one actually is] by investigating who is the doer of action, [ego, which is what seemed to do actions and to experience their fruit, will thereby be eradicated, and along with it its] kartṛtva [doership] [and its bhōktṛtva, experiencership] will depart and [hence] all [its] three karmas [its āgāmya (actions that it does by its own free will), sañcita (the heap of the fruits of such actions that it is yet to experience) and prārabdha (destiny or fate, which is the fruits that have been allotted for it to experience in its current life)] will slip off. [This is] the state of mukti [liberation], which is eternal [being what actually exists even when we seem to be this ego].
Since the jnani is egoless, he has no prarabdha. However, the jnani’s body may seem to have prarabdha or a life story, but that is only in our view. He has no body or life, so he has no destiny or life story.
Thanks Sanjay for the more detailed explanation about the prarabdha of a Jnani.
For a jiva the state of a Jnani is unfathomable. Whatever the jiva imagines it cannot be entirely correct.
Salazar, Bhagavan has clearly stated in verse 31 of Ulladu Narpadu that we cannot understand the state of the jnani. He says in this verse:
For those who are [blissfully immersed in and as] tanmayānanda [happiness composed of that, namely brahman, one’s real nature], which rose [as ‘I am I’] destroying themself [ego], what one [action] exists for doing? They do not know [or are not aware of] anything other than themself; [so] who can [or how to] conceive their state as ‘[it is] like this’?
Sanjay, yes indeed, this is a beautiful verse. I have to say that I am appreciating Ulladu Narpadu more and more. I cherish it as much as GVK and some other texts by Bhagavan. (Technically GVK is not by Bhagavan but it is Bhagavan even when it was not written by his hand).
If that is the case, post by Sanjay -16 August 2020 at 12:20 is also incorrect.
Sanjay,
regarding verse 31 of Ulladu Narpadu,
"...tanmayānanda [happiness composed of that, namely brahman, one’s real nature], which rose [as 'I am I'] destroying themself [ego],...".
I find the word "rose" here a bit irritating. That our real nature is described as something which rose implies subliminally that it could/would not be there before and perhaps could set again.
Are we not taught that brahman is the ever existing or remaining pure self-awareness ? How could the ever present rise at all ?
So I consider that wording as rather metaphorical.
Sanjay, re. your comment of 17 August 2020 at 16:17,
it should be: "...does God step in...".
Anadi-ananta, Bhagavan wrote in verse 31 of Ulladu Narpadu:
"...tanmayānanda [happiness composed of that, namely brahman, one’s real nature], which rose [as 'I am I'] destroying themself [ego],...".
You wrote, ‘I find the word "rose" here a bit irritating’. Yes, tanmayananda does not literally rise, so, as you say, Bhagavan is talking about metaphorically here. Tanmayananda alone exists – it is eternal and immutable, so it cannot rise and set. However, when the ego is destroyed, tanmayananda seems to rise. But that is just saying that if ego is destroyed, tanmayananda alone shines with all its splendour and brightness.
We are not experiencing pure awareness or tanmayananda because it is obscured by ego. So it will seem to arise when ego is destroyed.
Salazar, who wrote GVK? Technically it was written by Muruganar, but according to Michael, we should take Bhagavan to be the co-author of GVK. It should be considered a joint-work of Bhagavan and Muruganar because most of the verses of GVK were written after due discussion between Bhagavan and Muruganar. I believe, Bhagavan even corrected the proof of this work.
You say, ‘I have to say that I am appreciating Ulladu Narpadu more and more’. To me, Nan Ar and Ulladu Narpadu are pure gems. These two works along with Upadesa Undiyar and Arunachala Stuti Panchakam contain everything we need to know on the spiritual path.
Anadi-ananta, I wrote, ‘The question is does God steps in to protect us from this evil force, our vishaya-vasanas? You wrote, ‘it should be: "...does God step in..."’. You were correct. I verified this with a friend. She wrote:
Does God step in? When it is in question form. Yes God steps in. That is affirmative. English is a strange language.
Today early morning, I was very disturbed by anxiety about things and not able to sleep. I had the idea to read Nan Yar. In those 20 paragraphs Bhagavan has given us such a treasure. He has covered everything it seems to me.
He teaches us this world is a dream. But he doesn't dismiss our problems just saying that this world is a dream, he also gives us the assurance that whatever burden we surrender over to him, he will take care of it and that we can travel in the train happily and peacefully. He teaches us the importance and practice of both self-surrender and self-investigation in those 20 paragraphs in such a simple manner.
To whom? To me. Who am I?,
it seems you had not only the good idea to read/study Nan Yar?(Who am I?) but you actually read it.:-)
Sanjay,
you write "Tanmayananda alone exists – it is eternal and immutable, so it cannot rise and set. However, when the ego is destroyed, tanmayananda seems to rise."
We should clearly see: when ego is destroyed i.e. melt in tanmayananda or brahman there is or will be then no other subject to which/whom tanmayananda could seem to rise.
One cannot seriously assume that tanmayananda would seem to rise to tanmayananda. :-)
By the way, because the title Nan Ar is literally a question it should be written with a question mark: Nāṉ Yār? (Who am I?): Even in both the Tamil texts நான் யார்?(Nāṉ Yār?) and நானார்?(Nāṉ Ār?) there each time are set a question mark.
Sanjay, sorry correction,
it should be: when ego is destroyed i.e. melted in tanmayananda...
Thanks, Anadi-ananta, for your corrections and suggestions.
We are standing on the solid ground
Michael James: Bhagavan said that we are like a person standing on the ground and holding the branch above our head. We are afraid to let go of this branch thinking that if we let go of the branch, we will fall down. But if we let go of the branch, we will not fall down because we are already standing on the solid ground. That branch is like the world, and all our desires, attachments, likes, dislikes, anxieties, everything – all these are like holding the branch.
Because we identify ourself with the person we seem to be, we are not willing to let go of the branch. It seems to us that if we let go, what will happen to us. However, if we turn within and let go of all these things, we will find that we are not only standing on the solid ground, but we are that solid ground. That solid ground is our real nature, which is pure awareness - that which is always shining in us as ‘I’.
So we are nothing other than that solid ground. All that is required is our willingness to let go. The world is not binding us; we are binding ourself to the world. The mind is not binding us; we are binding ourself to the mind. Why? It is because we are not yet willing to let go. How to become willing to let go? By patiently and persistently trying to follow the path that Bhagavan has taught us.
That is, the more we try to turn within, the more we will be willing to let go of other things. So all we have to do is to persevere in the practice. Our progress may seem to be slow, but that doesn’t matter so long as we are progressing, and we are progressing so long as we are trying.
So slowly slowly by following this practice, all our fears and anxieties about the world will drop off. But it requires patient and persistent practice. For how long? For as long as it takes. We shouldn’t be concerned about whether it is going to happen sooner or later. Our only concern should be that we are following the path. When the fears and anxieties arise in us, we should recognize that it is all part of the path we are following.
If these fears and anxieties do not arise in us, we cannot let go of them. So even the obstacles and difficulties we seem to face are all part of the part that we are following.
~#~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:36)
Correction: So even the obstacles and difficulties we seem to face are all part of the path that we are following.
Perseverance (as such) is already progress on the path.
Anadi-ananta, yes, the more we persevere on this path of self-investigation and self-surrender, the more we progress, and the more we progress, the more we automatically persevere.
So, as Michael says, it is a snow-balling effect. The momentum of the snowball rolling down the hill will carry it to the bottom of the mountain. So we are sure to reach our destination once we have commenced our journey, and we have indeed commenced our journey. So we will reach our destination - 100%.
Sanjay,
as you seem to be convinced, a healthy optimistic view is somehow always beneficial.
And yet, speaking from my own experience sometimes a boulder or a towering tree may stop the snowballeffect.:-)
Who actually is the doer?
A friend: Please speak about the concept that I am not the doer?
Michael James: When we rise as ego, we always experience ourself as the body and mind, and whatever actions as done by the body and mind, we experience as the actions done by us. ‘I am sitting’, ‘I am listening’, ‘I am speaking’, ‘I am thinking’ – all actions of the mind, speech and body are experienced by us as actions done by ourself because the body, speech and mind are experienced as ourself.
But this body, speech and mind is not what we actually are. What we actually are is just pure awareness in view of which there is no body, speech and mind at all. So as pure awareness we are not the doer, but as ego we are the doer. Actually, as ego we seem to be the doer because ego identifies itself with the instruments of actions. Actually, all actions are done only by our body, speech and mind, but because of our identification with them, we seem to be the doer of action. So we cannot give up the sense of doership so long as experience ourself as this body and mind.
So it is only by investigating ourself and thereby by experiencing ourself as we actually are that we can give up the sense of doership, and doership is always accompanied by experiencership. So long as we experience ourself as the doer of actions, we will experience ourself as the experiencer of the fruits of actions. So whatever happens to us, whatever we experiencer in this lifetime is the fruits of actions that we have done in the previous lifetime.
So in order to give up the doership and experiencership, we need to investigate ourself and know what we actually are.
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:33)
We should see what Bhagavan’s words are pointing at
A friend: Why do so many speakers on non-duality speak in dualistic language?
Michael James: All language is dualistic because the language has been developed to communicate with each other. If there was no other person, there would have been no need for any language. So language is developed for the purpose of communicating. And what do we communicate about? We communicate about phenomena.
Bhagavan wrote a small verse saying questions and answers are possible only in the state of duality. In non-duality, there is no question and answers. So inevitably all language is dualistic. However, a real guru like Bhagavan is talking about that which is beyond duality, but when he is talking in words, he can only use dualistic language. So, often Bhagavan talks metaphorically.
So we shouldn’t take the surface meaning of Bhagavan’s words. We need to understand what the words are referring to, or what the words are pointing at. Bhagavan’s words are very important, but we have to see that what Bhagavan’s words are pointing to is beyond words. So we shouldn’t just be caught up in the words. We should see what they are pointing at.
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:41)
Sanjay,
it should be: "So whatever happens to us, whatever we experience in this lifetime is the fruits of actions ...".
How do we balance creativity with surrender?
A friend: In other teachings, I have heard that God wants to create and express his creativity. I also want to create and balance my creativity with surrender. We have a natural impulse to create things, but how to reconcile surrender and our urge to create?
Michael James: In the Bible, it is said that God created us in his image. People interpret this in many ways, but the simplest interpretation is that God is ‘I am’, and what we essentially are is also ‘I am’. So we are nothing other than God. In that sense, we are God’s image. Someone once said, ‘God created us in his image, and we have been returning his compliments ever since’. That is, we create God in our image.
Because we like to create this world, we say that God likes to create this world. But why should we put the blame of creation on God? We are the ones who have created it. I understand the context in which you say that God wants to create or experiment or whatever. People whose minds are outward-going will dream of all sorts of wealth and prosperity and all the good things of the world. So their minds are still outward-going.
In Advaita, it is said that there are two paths that a person can follow: pravritti marga and nivritti marga. Pravritti marga is the path of going outwards – that’s a worldly path. Nivritti means returning within. In other words, pravritti is creation and projection. Nivritti is subsidence of everything. We have to decide what is our aim of life – whether we want to go outwards or we want to go inwards? If we want to go inwards, to that extent we will not have big ambitions or dreams in this world.
However, the person we seem to be has a certain prarabdha. We may be a person with certain creative abilities, so as such a person we may have a prarabdha to follow some creative path. We may be an artist or an entrepreneur or whatever. But that is all outward and our outward life is determined by prarabdha. We need not be concerned about that.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (01:32)
How do we balance creativity with surrender? (part two)
Michael James: If we are following the nivritti marga, the path of going within, we have to allow the external life to go on according to prarabdha because our intention is to turn within. Generally, people whose inclination is to turn within will not be given a prarabdha that is a lot of outward-going. But that does not mean that they are completely incompatible. All sorts of prarabdha are possible. Whatever type of prarabdha is most suited to us at our present stage of spiritual development will be given to us by Bhagavan.
So we cannot change whatever is to happen. Whatever is to happen will happen. That’s talking about all the outward events of life. All external events are already predetermined. So if it is our prarabdha to be an entrepreneur, that will happen whether we want it or not. The body, speech and mind will be driven to do that. But what is not predetermined is our will. So if we want to turn inwards, we turn inwards. If we want to turn outwards, then all the vasansas come into play, and we will be doing actions not only according to prarabdha but also according to our will.
But if we are drawn to this path that Bhagavan has taught us, we will be slowly-slowly trying to turn within and thereby detach ourself from the person we seem to be and its prarabdha. So we have to decide what we want. Do we want worldly achievements which are all going to be fleeting? Even if we very successful in a material sense, whatever wealth we may earn, or whatever prestige in society we may earn, or whatever power we gain in this world, it’s all going to pass very quickly.
Human life is very short. Even if we live for a hundred years or so, it still goes pass by very quickly. So if we are wise, we will not attach importance to worldly success. We will be more interested in turning within and surrendering ourself.
If we are trying to follow Bhagavan’s path, our external life will anyway go on according to prarabdha, but we will be less concerned about material success or failure. So long as we have a body and we live in this world, in most cases, it is necessary for us to earn a living in one way or another. So we will do some sort of work, and even if have sufficient money and we don’t have to work to earn a living, still some type of activity will be going on in our life.
Let all these things go on according to prarabdha. They need not concern us. If we are wise, our only concern should be to turn within and surrender ourself. If we do so, anyway our life will go on according to prarabdha. So it will make no difference what happens outwardly.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (01:32)
Sanjay,
as you quote Michael saying,
the fundamental choice we have is between pravṛtti (going outwards) and nivṛtti (withdrawing back within).
Yes, Anandi-ananta, the fundamental choice we have is between pravṛtti (going outwards) and nivṛtti (withdrawing back within). But we are 99% of the time foolishly choosing pravrtti over nivrtti. This is certainly true for me. So we should try to inculcate the habit of choosing more and more of nivrtti because Bhagavan teaches us only nivrtti – that is, turning or withdrawing back within more and more.
Ego is our enemy (part one)
A friend: Can we turn our ego from a dysfunctional ego to a functional ego?
Michael James: It is true ego is our enemy – in other words, we are our own enemy. But when we have an enemy, what is the best way to fight with our enemy? The more we fight with our enemy, the more problems we will create for ourself. The wise thing is to make friends with our enemy and to make the enemy work for us. So long as we allow ego and its attention to go outwards, it is creating problems for us, and therefore it is our enemy. But the same ego which is our enemy when it is going outwards becomes our friend when it turns back within.
The ego is not something other than ourself. We ourself are ego. When we are looking outwards, we are creating problems for ourself. When we are looking within, we are separating ourself from all those problems. The same ego, ourself, who has the potential to be our enemy, also has the potential to be our best friend. It's up to us. If we are turning within, ego is our friend, and if we are turning outwards, ego is our enemy. So we need to turn within more and more.
Regarding what you said about good egos and bad egos, functional egos and dysfunctional egos, Bhagavan has already answered that in paragraph 19 of Nan Ar?:
There are not two minds, namely a good mind and a bad mind. Mind is only one. Only vāsanās [inclinations, propensities, impulses or desires] are of two kinds, namely śubha [agreeable, virtuous or good] and aśubha [disagreeable, wicked, harmful or bad]. When mind is under the sway of śubha vāsanās it is said to be a good mind, and when it is under the sway of aśubha vāsanās a bad mind.
When we look out into the world, we see some seeming god people and some seeming bad people, but most people are a mixture of good and bad. Actually, the mind of all people is only one mind. What makes it seem good in some people and bad in some people is only the types of vasanas they seem to exhibit. We all have a mixture of good and bad vasanas, and both these terms ‘subha’ and ‘asubha’ are just relative terms.
So, a vasana which from one perspective may seem to be a good vasana, from another perspective may not be good. For example, suppose if we have a vasana to always be helping people, from one perspective, it is a good vasana, but from a spiritual perspective, even that is a bad vasana. Why? Because it is driving our attention outwards. So ultimately the only good vasana is what is sometimes called sat-vasana (the liking just to be).
(I will continue this in my next comment)
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:54)
Ego is our enemy (part two)
Michael James: We all have some good qualities and some bad qualities. It all depends upon our vasanas which are driving our minds – whether we appear to be a good person or a bad person.
So, on the spiritual path, the vasanas which we are most concerned about is what Bhagavan calls vishaya-vasanas. Vishaya-vasanas mean any liking or inclination to attend to or to be aware of or experience any vishayas. Vishayas means phenomena – anything other than ourself. So any inclination to turn our attention away from ourself is a vishaya-vasana.
The more we try to turn our attention within and surrender ourself, the weaker our vishaya-vasana will become, and this will have an effect on the type of person we currently seem to be. That is if we have very strong vishaya-vasanas - that means very strong desires and attachments, likes and dislikes - outwardly we will appear to be a very avaricious, greedy, egotistical, greedy person. It’s because selfishness is created by strong vishaya-vasanas. So the more we follow the spiritual path and reduce the strength of our vishaya-vasanas, the less we will tend to be selfish, greedy, unkind etc.
When our vishaya-vasanas are less strong, we will have more sympathy and compassion for other people. We will feel that the difference between ourself and others is less strong. It will be a less pronounced difference. So all the good qualities will come to the extent our vishaya-vasanas are reduced and our sat-vasana strengthened.
That doesn’t mean that our aim on the spiritual path is to become a good person. Our real aim is to separate ourself from the person we seem to be, by experiencing ourself as we actually are. But the more we detach ourself from the person we seem to be, the less that person will be an ego-driven person, and therefore the better that person will seem to be – that is, more virtuous etc.
We cannot do anything to change other people, but we can change ourself by turning within and surrendering ourself. The more we change internally, that means the more we give up the strength of our vishaya-vasanas, the more the person we seem to be will appear to be a good person.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:54)
Asun, you say, ‘This is where truly lies the extreme simplicity and clarity that MJ always ascribes to Ramana´s teachings, not in Ramana´s teachings’. This is not fully clear, so could you please explain more clearly? It is clear when you say, ‘This is where truly lies the extreme simplicity and clarity that MJ always ascribes to Ramana´s teachings’. But what do you mean when you add ‘not in Ramana’s teachings’?
Ego is our enemy (part three)
Michael James: It is the weakening of vishaya-vasanas which is generally called the purification of mind. The purer the mind becomes – that is the less strong its vishaya-vasanas become – the more the mind will come under the sway of subha-vasanas and cease to be under the sway of asubha-vasanas.
There are many bogus ideas going around nowadays in the name of spirituality. A collective name for all these bogus ideas is neo-advaita. One of the ideas is that there is no connection between spiritual attainment and how we behave as a person. Some people use this licence to behave in any way they want – ‘I am a spiritual person. I am enlightened, so it doesn’t matter how I behave’. This is a complete misunderstanding of what spirituality is all about. Any genuine spiritual path will be beneficial only to the extent it helps to purify the mind.
Of all types of spiritual practice, the path that is most helpful in purifying the mind is the practice of self-investigation and self-surrender taught by Bhagavan. So if we are following this path sincerely and correctly, our mind will be purified. That is our vishaya-vasanas will be gradually weakened. So even the person we seem to be will seem to be a better person than that person would otherwise have been.
So to pretend that there is no connection between spirituality and outward behaviour is a complete misinterpretation. In fact, the neo-advaitins don’t talk about the purification of mind at all. They will say, ‘Of course, you are already that – you are already brahman. All you have to do is to see that you are brahman. You don’t have to worry about the purity of mind because there is no mind. There is no ego’.
It is true there is no ego, but you don’t rid of the mind or ego by saying ‘there is no ego or mind’. In order to actually see that there is no ego or mind, we need to turn within and see what we actually are, and in order to turn within, we need to purify the mind. So long as our mind is impure – that is, so long as are under the sway of vishaya-vasanas – we will not be willing to turn within and surrender ourself.
So if you hear anyone saying that purification of mind is not necessary or that outward behaviour has no relevance to spirituality, you can be pretty sure that they are snake oil salesman. That is, they are selling false ideas – ideas that have nothing to do with genuine spirituality.
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:54)
Note: A ‘snake oil salesman’ is somebody that sells an item that claims to have some miraculous powers. This product is usually accompanied by a tremendous amount of hype. In an attempt to help push their products, the snake oil salesman will usually utilize planted accomplices who will claim that the product actually works.
Asun,
may I approach you with the same request made by Sanjay today on 20 August 2020 at 12:10 ?
Sanjay,
many thanks for your good transcription of Michael's recent (Spanish) video of 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo.
By the way, it should be :...so long as we are under the sway of vishaya-vasanas...
Sanjay,
in plural it should be: snake oil salesmen.
Thanks, Anadi-ananta.
One has to free oneself first from bondage and then the need to lecture others about freedom and bondage will have resolved in itself. Otherwise it is just a reflection of spiritual pride.
The guru has been guiding us slowly-slowly through so many lives or dreams
We are seeking God, but because our mind is turned outwards, it is necessary for God to appear in the human form to tell us, ‘What you are seeking is within you. Turn within and know yourself and then you will know God’. Since God and guru are not different, so guru is necessary – without guru’s teachings, we wouldn’t turn our mind within. The nature of the mind is to look outwards. It is only when we come across guru’s teachings that we know that what we are seeking lies only within.
Bhagavan, for example, told us that we are all seeking happiness, but we are seeking it in the wrong places. We are seeking in the things outside ourself. We think we can get happiness from better circumstances in life. We think we are going to get happiness by having more money or a better job or a nicer house or a better car or a nicer family or whatever. We all think that happiness depends on things outside. But Bhagavan says that there is no happiness in any of the things in the world. Happiness is your real nature, so it lies only within you.
So that is the function of the guru – to turn the outward-seeking mind into an inward-seeking mind. So guru is absolutely necessary. But though guru appears in a human form, he is not that human form. Most of us were not even born when Bhagavan left his body, but that doesn’t mean that Bhagavan is not our guru. It is because his teachings are always available. And not only his teachings, but we have the story of his life. For many people, the first thing that attracted them to Bhagavan was just seeing a picture of his. So Bhagavan has been attracting us in so many ways.
So though Bhagavan’s body is not physically present now, he is still working as effectively as when he was in the body. Even before he was in a body, he was working effectively because though guru appears as a person, guru not a person. Guru is eternal. Guru is our real nature which has been guiding us slowly-slowly through so many lives or dreams. He has been guiding us in order to bring us to the stage of development that we are in now. He has now appeared in the form of Bhagavan to tell us: ‘What you are seeking lies within you. Turn within and then only will you find what you are seeking’.
So, guru is absolutely necessary, Guru must be living but not living temporarily. Sadhu Om used to say, ‘Yes, a living guru is necessary, but if what you mean by a living guru a living body, then that living guru will one day become a dead guru’. What’s the use of such a temporary guru? We want an eternally living guru, and Bhagavan is that eternally living guru.
So, if anyone feels Bhagavan is their guru, that’s 100% true.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (00:39)
What is inside is only ourself, the pure awareness ‘I am’
When we are following this path, all sorts of anxieties and concerns arise from within. When we look outside, the world is a terrifying place. We see disease, wars, poverty, extreme greed and such things. So many things in the world have the potential to create suffering, but all these things are a problem only to the extent we attend to them. That is, if we look outside, the world is a terrifying place.
But why should we look at the world? If we look at ourself and thereby withdraw our attention from the world, what do we find within? Ultimately, we find only peace within. Some people say that the more they look within, the more the anxieties and fears and so on they feel. But so long as we feel anxieties and fears, we are not looking within.
It may seem to us that fears and anxieties are within, and they are within only in a relative sense – in the sense that the world is outside and these fears and anxieties are within. But that’s taking the standard of inside and outside as the body. The world is outside the body; the mind and all its feelings are inside the body. But that isn’t what Bhagavan meant by inside and outside. According to Bhagavan, even the mind and all its feelings are outside. What is inside is only ourself, the pure awareness ‘I am’.
So if we are looking within in the sense of looking at ourself, the pure awareness ‘I am’, we are ceasing to pay heed or attention to anything else. So to the extent, we turn within and let go of everything else, to that extent we are free from the fears and anxieties that all these things create in us.
It’s easy to say this, but when we put this into practice because we have such strong desires and attachments, it seems to be difficult. It seems to be not so easy to let go.
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:32)
"It seems to not be so easy to let go ....."
How true is that. If one would like to work on one's humility one just has to try to apply Bhagavan's teaching throughout the day. I am doing this much more often and these attempts show painfully how attached one is to a variety of things. It shows how deeply we have imprisoned us with all kind of belief patterns.
However, that's the path, allowing all of this garbage to come up to the surface of consciousness and to release it to Bhagavan.
Sanjay,
it should be:...though guru appears as a person, guru is not a person.
Thanks, Anadi-ananta.
Salazar, yes, we need to apply Bhagavan’s teachings throughout the day. Bhagavan’s path is not a part-time job. We need to try to turn within throughout the day and night – even whenever we happen to be awake at night. However, as you imply, we are not able to do so because of our strong desires and attachments to a variety of things.
I agree we have indeed imprisoned ourself to various kinds of belief patterns. However, the root of all our false beliefs is the belief that ‘I am this body’. This ‘I am this body’ idea is ego, and if this comes into existence, all our other false beliefs also come into existence.
Yes, when we follow Bhagavan’s path all kind of garbage does come to the surface of our mind. This is natural and desirable because if they don’t come to the surface of the mind, how can we get rid of them? So the more we try to turn within, the more our deep-rooted fears, desires, anxieties, attachments and such things will arise to the surface. However, our job is to ignore all these things by turning within more and more, by withdrawing within more and more.
All these fears, desires, anxieties, attachments will eventually leave us for us. What will remain is just pure awareness, which is free of all desires, attachments, fears. A jnani is absolutely fearless because he is absolutely desireless.
Ego is trouble, so it sees itself everywhere
A friend: I use Bhagavan’s teachings to complete myself. Though I am not practising Bhagavan’s teachings much, the teaching itself is filling up a big hole in me.
Michael James: If we had not come across Bhagavan’s teachings, our life would have certainly been emptier than it is now. We would still be looking for happiness outside. Now having read and understood Bhagavan’s teachings, we haven’t given up completely looking for happiness outside, but now we understand more clearly that happiness doesn’t lie outside. So what we are seeking doesn’t lie outside. It lies within.
So in this sense, by merely understanding Bhagavan’s teachings a big hole has been filled. But though his teachings have to a very great extent filled a hole in our life, but that hole hasn’t been filled completely because the hole is a very-very big hole. The hole that exists in our life is the seeming lack of infinite happiness and infinite satisfaction. Because our real nature is infinite happiness, so long as we seem to be not experiencing infinite happiness, there is a big-big hole in our life.
Bhagavan’s teachings can fill that hole to a large extent, but nothing can fill the hole adequately until we experience ourself as we actually are. That’s what Bhagavan’s teachings are all about. So it’s true that Bhagavan’s teachings are a great comfort and solace to us, but to get the full benefits of his teachings, we have to put them into practice. We need to turn within and thereby surrender ourself completely.
At first, we may not seem to be so successful in our attempts to turn within because we still have vishaya-vasanas. But slowly-slowly, gradually-gradually, if we persevere in trying to turn our attention within as much as possible, our vishaya-vasanas will thereby be weakened, and we will be able to turn within more and more.
(To be continued in my next comment)
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (01:18)
Ego is trouble, so it sees itself everywhere (part two)
Michael James: So nothing wrong in feeling that your life is somehow filled with Bhagavan’s teachings, but it is important to recognise that even Bhagavan’s teachings as just teachings cannot fill our life completely. The only way to fill our life completely is to put them into practice. We have to put them into practice for as long it takes for us to experience ourself as we actually are.
When we experience ourself as we actually are, then we will find that there never was any hole in our life to be filled. But until then, there will always seem to be a big hole in our life.
The friend: Ego finds trouble and struggle everywhere.
Michael James: Ego is trouble, so it sees itself everywhere. Bhagavan says if ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence. If ego doesn’t exist, everything doesn’t exist. Ego itself is everything.
So, all problems and struggles are only for ego because ego is the root of all problems. So long as ego survives, problems will never come to an end. But in sleep, there is no ego and no problems. So, all that we need to do is to make that state of sleep a permanent state.
We can make it permanent by finding out what we actually are, and when we find out what we actually are, sleep will no longer seem to be a temporary state of darkness. It will shine as our eternal state of pure awareness and infinite happiness because that is what we actually really are.
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (01:18)
Sanjay,
thanks again for your untiring work of writing perfect transcriptions of MJ-videos.
Sanjay, the recent events with the virus and how it is being handled has created an extreme disgust with this world. It feels that Bhagavan is tearing apart the few remaining interests/desires I had, he's pushing me to turn within. When I hear news or new decisions by politicians or experts my mind usually either agrees or disagrees, however these days there is no agreement nor disagreement, it doesn't matter in "I am", in fact it pushes me to "I am".
America has to decide between a senile and mentally retarded Biden and an egomaniac Trump, Sophie's choice. Kamala Harris slept her way up the ranks and is one of the most corrupted individuals in the world and she could be easily be President when Biden drops dead or is not be able to function anymore.
Funny, it seems everybody hates Trump but when I look at Biden Trump doesn't seem that bad anymore. It doesn't matter. It only matters for the ego.
People still run after the delusion that a certain individual could or would make the world a better place. This world is not created for this purpose, whatever will happen will happen, it is futile to spend even a few seconds thinking about that. Even this mini rant is futile. Needless to say I won't vote and have not voted for over 35 years ....
Jai Guru!
:) I agree to what you said. But I also think evilness/corrupted people is another avenue set forth by Bhagavan to bring the balance in the world and within us.
Anxiety, distress and discomfort (part one)
The friend: Several people are taking seriously the fact that they want to spend more time in self-care [i.e. self-attentiveness] but share with us some cases that a lot of anxiety emerges and they end up feeling distress and discomfort. Could you develop as deeply as possible how those people who start with self-inquiry and try to remain self-aware in these types of situations should approach their practice?
Michael James: When we are turning within, we come up against all sorts of obstacles. The obstacles may be in the form of anxiety or in the feeling of distress or feeling of discomfort or any such feelings, but whatever comes up, this is because we still strongly identify ourself as a person. Because of the strong identification of ourself as a person, we feel anxiety about the person, and when we are trying to separate ourself from this person, that may create the feelings of distress and discomfort.
All such feelings are the manifestations of the strength of our vasanas. Vasanas mean all our likes, dislikes, desires, and so on in their seed form. So long as our vasanas are still strong, we will not be willing to surrender ourself. So all our feelings of anxiety, distress and discomfort ultimately are due to lack of willingness to surrender ourself. If we are willing to surrender ourself completely, we would not be anxious about anything. We will no longer feel distressed because we will no longer be concerned about the person who we seem to be.
In order to go deep within, we have to slowly weaken all our vishaya-vasanas. Vishaya-vasanas are all the outward-going inclinations of the mind. So the spiritual practice is an internal battle – a battle between our love to surrender ourself and all our other desires and attachments which make us unwilling to surrender ourself. This is the battle we all have to fight.
But Bhagavan has taught us a means to deal with these vasanas which is very gentle. That is, slowly-slowly we have to try to wean our mind off its desires and attachments and cultivate the liking to be self-attentive. We can only do so by persistent practice. We may not see immediate results. In fact, after following this path for many years it may seem to us that we have made no progress at all. We seem to be the same we were 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.
But Bhagavan said persistence itself is progress. The very fact that we are persevering means we are making progress. Just like a child cannot perceive its own growth, we cannot perceive our spiritual growth or spiritual development. In the case of a growing child, though they cannot perceive their own growth, after 10 years they can perceive that they are much bigger than they were 10 years earlier.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:00 to 29:00)
Salazar, Jai guru!
Yes, Anadi-ananta, Bhagavan has given me this very pleasant task of writing the transcriptions of Michael’s videos. It’s a task which I never tire of doing.
Anxiety, distress and discomfort (part two)
Michael James: But Bhagavan said persistence itself is progress. The very fact that we are persevering means we are making progress. Just like a child cannot perceive its own growth, we cannot perceive our spiritual growth or spiritual development. In the case of a growing child, though they cannot perceive their own growth, after 10 years they can perceive that they are much bigger than they were 10 years earlier. Not only their body has developed, but their mind has also acquired so much of knowledge and understanding of the world.
But in the spiritual path, we cannot even compare this way. So we need not try to ascertain how much we have progressed. We are on a journey. We have understood from Bhagavan what our destination is. Our destination is the eradication of ego, and the means to do so is self-investigation and self-surrender.
So long as we are following this path we know that we are on the right direction and sooner or later we will reach our goal - today or tomorrow or 10 years’ time or after 10 lifetimes. It doesn’t matter. All that matters is that we follow this path to the best of our ability. So long as we are following this path, we are progressing. We are getting closer to our goal. So we need not be anxious about anything. That is, once we have started on the path we cannot turn back. We may sometimes seem to neglect the practice, but we cannot give it up entirely.
Things will happen in this life that will drive us back to this path again and again because this is the only means we have to deal with all our problems of life. We have no control over what is going to happen in our life. That’s all destined by prarabdha. But we have control over how we view what happens and how we respond to what happens. Whatever is happening is according to prarabdha, and prarabdha is the sweet will of Bhagavan. He has selected our prarabdha is such a way that will be conducive to our spiritual development.
So whatever is happening is happening for our own good according to Bhagavan’s will. So why should we be concerned about what does happen and what does not happen? The path we are following is not only the path of self-investigation but also the path of surrender. Surrender means letting go. So part of the letting go is the letting go of our anxiety and all those feelings that lead to anxiety, distress and discomfort.
How do we let go of all these things? These things are external to ourself. Even our likes, dislikes, attachments, fear and so on, they are all things other than ourself. None of them is permanent. What is permanent is only ourself. So if we recognise the impermanence of these things, whatever reality they seem to have is the reality we give them by attending to them. Impermanence means they are something other than ourself, and they have no reality of their own.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:00 to 29:00)
Sanjay,
"So long as ego survives, problems will never come to an end. But in sleep, there is no ego and no problems. So, all that we need to do is to make that state of sleep a permanent state.
We can make it permanent by finding out what we actually are, and when we find out what we actually are, sleep will no longer seem to be a temporary state of darkness. It will shine as our eternal state of pure awareness and infinite happiness because that is what we actually really are."
Making that state of sleep a permanent state...
Finding out what we actually are...yes,yes, good ideas.
However, in our all experience waking easily triumphs over perpetuating the state of sleep. So there is no other choice than keen and persistent self-investigation although delaying actions and passive resistance of the mind seem not leave off being at work. At least there's the hope that our practice of self-investigation will ultimately emerge victorious.:-)
Anonymous, yes one could say that. In duality balance is a given. That means if there is evil it will be balanced with good, if there is good it will be balanced with evil. In the phenomenal world there will be never only good or only evil. That is true of course for all of the dyads.
Once one has realized that due to the nature of duality peace and happiness cannot possibly prevail one looks towards the non-dual reality and leaves the dual world alone.
Salazar,
America is indeed not to be envied having only the choice between plague and cholera.
Nevertheless, I can comfort you - other continents are not a bit better.:-)
Sanjay,
it should be:...He has selected our prarabdha in such a way that will be conducive to our spiritual development.
Anadi-ananta, thanks for your tireless proofreading.
Sanjay,
if you don't raise an objection to making occasional corrections I will continue it. Usually I find that easy.:-)
Anadi-ananta, from my side, you can continue to correct my typos. I find it helpful. I hope Michael James is comfortable with such typo corrections. If he has some views on it, I am not aware of it.
Anadi-ananta, our real nature is eternally sleeping even now - that is, it is sleeping to this phenomenal world. It is not aware of any objects.
Ego is helpless as long as it is turning away from itself
The following is an extract of my Whatsapp exchange with Michael James:
Sanjay Lohia: There are no others to be helped. But there is one entity to be helped, and that is ourself. Ourself means ego, and how can ego help itself? By turning within to face itself alone. Ego is helpless as long as it is turning away from itself.
Michael James: Yes
Reflection: How is ego helpless as long as it is turning away from itself? It is because ego has to experience whatever it is destined to experience as long as it is facing away from itself. So ego is helpless to bring about any change in whatever it is to experience. But ego can help itself by turning within and subsiding within.
Sanjay,
as you write our real nature is eternally sleeping even now - that is, it is sleeping to this phenomenal world. It is not aware of any objects.
However, this teaching alone is of little consolation to the unreal person with which I am still identified most of waking and dream.
As far as I know typo-corrections of comments till now did not incur Michael's displeasure. But always he approved pointing out occasional typos in articles which he corrected at his earliest convenience.
Anxiety, distress and discomfort (part three)
Michael James: When we turn our attention within, we are turning our back, so to speak, on anything other than ourself. When we turn within, we are turning towards ourself alone, and therefore we are turning away from everything else. So by turning away from our likes, dislikes, desires, attachments and all the feelings of anxieties, discomfort that arise as a result of our likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, we are thereby surrendering or letting go of all these things.
That is, when we attend to ourself, we are clinging to what is real and letting go of everything that is unreal. Everything other than ourself is unreal. Likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, fears, discomfort, all these things appear and disappear. To whom do they appear? Only to ourself. So we remain there whether they appear or disappear. So none of these things is ourself – none of them is real.
So as we follow the path of self-investigation, all other things progressively drop off. That is, they are still there, but they have less impact on us. We may still have desires, attachments, likes, dislikes, fears and so on, but these things are less strong than they were in the past. This way we gain vairagya – freedom from desire or passion. So we will be less concerned about things other than ourself. So this is a gentle path. We cannot force the pace. All that is required is gentle perseverance.
So whatever anxiety, distress or discomfort may arise, it will all pass. None of these things is permanent. So nothing really matters. The things that we are anxious about today, we will forget about them tomorrow. Even if feelings of anxieties and distress arise in us, we shouldn’t be concerned. These are all signs of the residual strength of our vasanas, but we shouldn’t be distressed that the vasanas still retain strength. No matter how much strength they still have, they will be progressively weakened as we follow this path of self-investigation and self-surrender.
If we understand what Bhagavan has taught us and if we put it into practice, we will find that the path that Bhagavan has taught us is the path of happiness. That is, our ultimate goal is to be perfectly happy because happiness is our real nature. That is what we all want. Bhagavan often used to say that the nature of the path cannot be other the nature of the goal. If the nature of the path were other than the nature of the goal, it couldn’t lead us to the goal.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:00 to 29:00)
Anxiety, distress and discomfort (part four)
Michael James: Since happiness is our goal, happiness also is the means to that goal. How to be happy? We are happy to the extent we let go of everything. Whatever we are attached to has the potential to create problems for us, to cause unhappiness. To the extent we let go of things, to that extent they can no longer impeach on our happiness.
In Tamil, there is an ancient work called Tirukkural. It has two-two verses about how to live a good life. How to live a life of dharma? How to experience worldly pleasures and material wealth in accordance with dharma? Though superficially it about how to live in the world, it has got many spiritual truths hidden here and there. That is Tirukkural is a work of wisdom. One of its verses that Bhagavan often used to point out is:
From whatever thing you separate yourself or remove yourself, you are free of the suffering caused by that thing.
So this is the path of surrender. We are slowly-slowly letting go of our attachments to things. We are ceasing to be concerned about things because whatever we are concerned about is not real. The only thing that is real is ourself. So we are training ourself to be unconcerned about all other things. So to the extent to which we let go of things, to that extent we are free of the troubles that those things would otherwise cause us. So that verse of Tirukkural has a very simple idea, but it’s an idea that is extremely relevant to the spiritual path.
So even if we get feelings of anxieties or distress, we shouldn’t feel anxious or distressed about these feelings. We should learn to let go of these feelings. The more we detach ourself from them, the more we are free of the trouble they would otherwise bring us.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:00 to 29:00)
Sanjay,
with 'two-two verses' you mean obviously the couplets of that Tamil text.
Sanjay,
your comment of 22 August 2020 at 17:21,
it should be:"...the nature of the path cannot be other than the nature of the goal."
Anadi-ananta, thanks. Yes, two-two lines mean couplets.
Bhagavan’s teachings & sattvik mind
Michael James: Reading, thinking and discussing Bhagavan's teachings is conducive to a sattvik state of mind. Happiness comes from a sattvik state of mind. Rajas and tamas make us hanker after other things, and therefore make the mind restless.
My reflection: Michael said the above in one of his videos. What does ‘conducive to a sattvik state of mind’ mean in this context? Since Bhagavan’s teachings are all focussing on ‘I’, the more we dwell on his teachings, the more the mind will automatically return to ‘I’. Since ‘I’ in its purity is pure sattva, the more we dwell on Bhagavan’s teachings, the more our mind will become sattvik.
Sattva means 'beingness' or 'isness', explained Michael. Since our being is peace and calmness itself, the more we read, reflect and discuss Bhagavan’s teachings, the more peaceful and calm we will become. As Michael says in this quote, ‘Happiness comes from a sattvik state of mind’ So we want to be happy, we should either remain turned within or remain dwelling of Bhagavan and his teachings in one or another.
Pearls before the swine (part one)
A friend: Michael, your explanations are simply wonderful, but you are throwing the pearls before the swine. We are no better than a swine, so how do we internalise all this wisdom?
Michael James: I plead innocence. You are blaming me for throwing the pearls before the swine, but it’s not me who am going so. Bhagavan threw the pearls before all of us swines.
The friend: Why did he do that? Evolution has a history, but now I have to go beyond evolutionary history.
Michael James: Your evolutionary history is the evolutionary history of the body, but are you this body?
The friend: Yes.
Michael James: You are the body! Are you satisfied living a life according to your evolutionary history? Are you satisfied being born, growing up, getting married, having children, getting old, dying? This happens to all of us. It happens again and again and again, but are we satisfied with this?
The friend: I mean the birds and bees are satisfied.
Michael James: No, they have their desires and fears. Show me a single embodied creature that is satisfied or content. So long as we take a body to be ‘I’, we have to struggle for the survival of this body. We have to clothe the body, give it shelter and feed it - so many problems.
Embodied life is imperfect, and we all know that. But in spite of knowing that, we keep wallowing in this. So you say throwing pearls before the swine. It is better to throw pearls before swines that it is to throw pearls before human beings. According to Bhagavan, human beings are worse than swines.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2017-09-16 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 8 (01:06)
Pearls before the swine (part two)
Michael James: In one verse, Bhagavan says that those who take the body to be ‘I’ are worse than pigs. It is because this body eats pure food and converts it into filth. The pigs eat filth, but at least they are not guilty of turning pure food into filth.
So Bhagavan says we are worse than pigs. However, Bhagavan has thrown pearls before us, but he has done so for a purpose. He knows he has planted a seed now. Like it or not, we are caught in the jaws of the tiger. So we cannot escape now. We may try to struggle, but we will never succeed.
The friend: That’s good to know.
Michael James: So, we may as well give up sooner rather than later. But we are not ready to give up, are we? That’s the problem. So who is not ready to give up? We need to investigate that. Who is not ready to give up?
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2017-09-16 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 8 (01:06)
Yes, "embodied life is imperfect". I remember questioning life in school where I pointed out that life is at least 50% misery. I also remember the shocked reaction of the teacher and some students who immediately exclaimed how great and enjoyable life is and kind of implied that those who are questioning that are 'too negative'.
There was this silent agreement that happiness is a given (in embodied life) and if that is not the case then something is wrong with that person. I intuitively knew that this was wrong and that was one of many incidences where I realized how society is clinging at delusional beliefs.
Bhagavan was already then leading the way, unbeknownst to me.
Sanjay,
"According to Bhagavan, human beings are worse than swines."
Shall we therefore set our sights on being born again as a swine ? :-)
Is it not said that gaining a human body is extremely favourable and beneficial ?
Anadi-ananta, yes, the only use we can make of this human birth is to turn within and experience ourself as we actually are. Otherwise, this human birth will go wasted. We are worse than a swine, says Bhagavan, but I am sure we are in a better position to turn within because we humans are in a better position to understand Bhagavan’s and other spiritual teachings than a swine. At least, so it seems.
Sanjay,
however, a pig usually does not suffer from arrogance and self-important mind. :-)
A swine may not suffer from arrogance however it seems it needs to incarnate as a human being where it has ample time being arrogant. Thus a swine makes experiences as a swine, presumably the main interest is to feed and procreate. The experiences of arrogance, greed, vanity and deceit are reserved for the countless human incarnations after all of the animal experiences :-)
Salazar,
indeed there seem to be no better suitable fields of applications for practising all the mentioned human characteristics than an incarnation as a human being.:-)
Sadhu Om’s classification of five standards of bhakti
Sri Sadhu Om in his book ‘The Path of Ramana – Part Two’ describes our progression in bhakti in terms of the five standards of bhakti. The following is my summary of what he says there:
The school of bhakti has five standards, but only one teacher. We can take the whole of Vedas and Vedanta as one teacher.
Before talking about this school of bhakti, we should know that there are still crores and crores of people happily wandering out of the school of bhakti. They have not even enrolled in the first standard of this school. That is, these people lead a highly undisciplined life. They don’t believe in ethics or values and live a life outside all rules and regulation - whether religious or whatever.
1st Standard of bhakti: When people enrol in the 1st standard, they start believing in the Karma-Kanda of the Vedas. Karma-Kanda is that part of Vedas which relates to ceremonial acts and sacrificial rites and the merit arising from the performance of such rituals. they accept and live according to the instructions in this portion of the Vedas. However, their aim is only to enjoy the worldly objects (vishaya-bhakti). One may spend many births in the first standard before they become dejected with karmas.
2nd Standard of bhakti: Those people are admitted in the 2nd standard who realise karmas cannot yield fruits of their own accord. Karmas are insentient. They yield fruit only according to the ordainment of God. These people are attracted to many different names and forms of God who have great divine powers of bestowing upon the worshipper the many different fruits (results) through the worship of different forms of Gods.
So they will worship a variety of Gods. They may, for example, worship Ganapati to remove obstacles. They may worship Saraswati to bestow learning. They may worship Lakshmi to acquire wealth. But their love and bhakti are only towards the desired objects. So in the 2nd standard instead of various karmas, various Gods become the means to fulfil their dreams or ambitions.
3rd Standard: The worship of one favourite or beloved God is performed in the 3rd standard. 3rd standard is divided into two sections: 3a and 3b. Those in 3a worship God with love for worldly-objects only. So they merely have vishaya-bhakti.
However, those in 3b worship God for the love of God only. In 3b, discrimination dawns on people. They feel ‘Which is greater, gifts or the giver of gifts?’. If God is so gracious as to grant us so many of our wishes, should we not worship God instead of the boons he seems to give us?
4th Standard: His love towards his beloved God ripens into the love for the guru. So a person in the 4th standard has nishkamya guru-bhakti. This is the climax of all dualistic love. No other form of love excels this.
Guru Brahma; guru Vishnu; guru is Maheshwara. Verily guru is supreme brahman. To him my obeisance.
5th Standard: Love for guru matures into love for oneself (svatma-bhakti).
We pass out of school when we become atma-jnani.
In his recent video (of 2020-08-23a Yo Soy Tu Mismo)regarding agamya-karma Michael said amongst other things (up from time-mark 25:27):
"...to the extent that we are practising this path of self-investigation and self-surrender we are curbing our vasanas and are refraining from allowing ourselves to be carried away by our vasanas at least to some extent.
Our vasanas are always dragging our mind here and there, but we're slowly trying to not yield to the inclinations we have because vasanas are just inclinations. Vasanas cannot make us do any action, vasanas urge us to act in certain ways but they can never force us (to do any thing). So it is up to us because we...can either follow our inclinations or we can refrain from following our inclinations. So to the extent we refrain from following our inclinations to that extent we will reduce the amount of agamya we do, but more importantly we'll be thereby purifying our mind. Because to the extent we refrain from allowing ourselves to be carried away by our vasanas we are thereby weakening our outward going vasanas and strengthening the inward going vasanas (sat-vasanas).
We can never completely stop doing our agamy so long we rise as ego. As ego we have a will, likes and dislikes and so on. We may be able to reduce the strength of our likes and dislikes, but so long as we rise as ego we will always have likes, dislikes, desires, attachments and so on to a greater or lesser extent. So by practising self-investigation and self-surrender we are reducing the strength of our vasanas. But eventually we can get rid of our vasanas completely only by destroying their root which is ourself as ego. So only when we cease to rise as ego can we completely avoid doing agamya. [...] as long as we take god to be other than ourselves we cannot completely get rid of these outward going vasanas.
Purification of mind will be complete only when we eradicate/annihilate ego. The only means to annihilate ego is self-investigation... which is both the most effective means to reduce the strength of visaya vasanas and the only means to eradicate their root: ego".
Though ego is not actually what we actually are, it is not something other than what we actually are (part one)
Michael James: Though ego is not what we actually are, it is not something other than what we actually are. If we mistake a rope to be a snake, the snake is nothing other than a rope, but it is not what the rope actually is. If we want to get rid of that snake, how to get rid of it? If we take a stick and start beating it, it is not going to die. The only way to kill the snake is to look at it very very carefully. When we look at it carefully enough, what do we see? We see ‘O it’s just a rope’. So the snake is effectively killed.
Likewise, if we turn our attention within keenly enough, we will see that we are not this ego that we seem to be. We are just pure awareness. As soon we see ourself keenly enough, ego is destroyed and then it’s identification with the person it seems to be will come to an end. So self-investigation means trying to turn our attention back towards ourself. To the extent we turn our attention towards ourself, we are withdrawing it from all other things. Eventually, when we manage to turn our attention fully within ourself, we will experience ourself as pure awareness.
The moment we experience ourself as pure awareness, ego is destroyed, and we have achieved what we have set out to achieve. However, it’s not actually an achievement because we have not set out to gain anything on the spiritual path. What we are seeking is what we actually are. So whether we call it enlightenment or realisation or jnana or whatever, it is not something which we are going to newly acquire.
So, all that is required is to give up our false identification. On the spiritual path, we are going to lose everything. What remains alone is real. So what is called self-realisation is simply the annihilation of ego. So this person or ego is never going to get self-realised. It is a state in which we remain as we actually are.
But when we try to turn our attention back towards ourself, we at once find that there is internal resistance. That is, nothing external to ourself can stop us from attending to ourself, but we ourself are not willing to attend to ourself or not willing to attend to ourself keenly enough. It is because we still have strong likes and dislikes. We are still attached to the person we seem to be. We are attached to the whole life of this person – our friends, our family, our whole identity. We are so attached to that, so we are not yet willing to let go.
(to be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (00:09)
From anadi-ananta's recent comment quoting Michael: "Vasanas cannot make us do any action, vasanas urge us to act in certain ways but they can never force us (to do any thing). So it is up to us because we...can either follow our inclinations or we can refrain from following our inclinations."
That's can be misunderstood and can get tricky. "Who" follows inclinations? Vasanas can never force us and that is true only for that what we really are. However vasanas force the jiva do to actions because the jiva habitually beliefs that he is the doer of actions.
Thus prarabdha "forces" the body of the jiva to do a particular action and the jiva can NOT prevent that from happening. However the jiva can turn within and not identify with the actions of that body (what is considered as "my" body) and that is the freedom the jiva has. Of course identification is not that easily avoided and work and progress, but that the path and goal of the aspirant.
So ideally the body does some action (it could be anything from lying to killing) and that what we really are is not even aware of that. If "we" are aware then we identify with the body, if we are not aware we identify with self.
The freedom of choice of the jiva is directly correlated to the extend of the purity of mind. The purer the mind the more likely the jiva turns within and does not succumb to his vasanas.
Thus the statement "Vasanas cannot make us do any action" is not entirely true just looking at the extreme example of a heroin addict or any addict. Here is where the grace of the guru comes into play and shows the helplessness of the jiva [in that situation].
Salazar,
I will watch the mentioned video-passage again and use the "Subtitles" too.
Then I will reply to you.
Salazar,
it seems that I have transcribed mainly correctly what Michael said in that video-extract. I think Michael wanted to emphasize that in doing something of our own volition we in any case can or at least should use our (free) will. Therefore, if Michael would find time he could explain his statement "Vasanas cannot make us do any action" in more detail.
Perhaps Sanjay could give us too his opinion about that subject.
Any additional input by Michael and/or Sanjay is of course welcome. I'd say that there are phases in the life of a jiva (usually before taking up a spiritual path) where he is at the whim of vasanas and that the grace of the guru leads that impure mind into the right direction.
As per my understanding vasanas manifests as thoughts which in turn manifests into action. Our deep rooted desires - we may not be aware, but it automatically translates into action. I have observed in myself, when my state of mind changes, automatically my outlook towards world changes, thoughts disappear and then it automatically impacts action. Michael’s view on this is interesting.
Asun,
with the words "So it is up to us..." I think Michael clearly wanted to express that it is not the inclination (vasana) itself but our voluntary decision to follow this inclination what makes us following our vasana i.e. allowing ourselves to be carried away by our vasana(s). Despite of being urged by a vasana to act in a certain way we can and should use our free will to refrain from carrying out that action (towards which we may have a big desire or inclination) by our instruments of body, speech and mind.
So this perception is implying that ‘I’ as ego is powerful enough to be able to refrain from carrying out the action. Everything is predetermined. Instead of focusing our attention on ‘refraining’, which is again an egotistical activity, one should just ‘be’ and not swayed by the thought ‘I should do something to refrain from acting certain way’. Even the effort taken to refrain from doing anything is an action by itself.
Anadi-ananta, yes, as Michael says, ‘Vasanas cannot make us do any action’. What is a vasana? It is our urge or inclination to act using our body, speech or mind. So we can act upon our vasanas or refrain from acting on them. The choice is ours. To what extent we succumb to our vasanas and to what extent we avoid succumbing to them depends upon us. So vasanas cannot compel us to act if we do not want to act on our vasanas.
Regarding the example of heroin addict given by Salazar, yes, addiction to such recreational drugs may exist in someone as a vasana, but they can give up that vasanas if they want to and try to. What do de-addiction centres do? They try to wean the drug addicts off their addiction to drugs or alcohol or whatever. So these centres or clinics work on their vasanas for heroin or whatever and they succeed in weaning the addicts off their vasanas in many cases.
So, yes, we are responsible if we get swayed by our vasanas. Ego is like the owner of these vasanas, and these vasanas are like this owner’s servants. These servants cannot act if the owner does not permit them to act. So we should keep our servants – these vasanas – in strict control. We should try and curb them as and when they rise as thoughts.
The best way to curb and eventually destroy our vasanas is by trying to turn our attention within to face ourself alone. The more we turn within, the more these vasanas are weakened and eventually they die. For example, I have realised that my sexual-vasana has become very weak nowadays. So our practice of self-investigation is the most powerful way to keep our vasanas in check.
However, even when we are turned away from ourself we can try to curb our vasanas by trying to not act on them. We may succeed at times or fail at times, or we may partially succeed at times. So in the spiritual path, whether we know it or not, our fight is against our vishaya-vasanas. People think thoughts are a problem. It could be a problem from one context, but our main fight is with our vishaya-vasanas, which is our urge or inclination to be aware of things other than ourself. Vishaya-vasanas is our urge to attend to vishayas (various objects).
Bhagavan says in Nan Ar? that we should try the stone of vairagya upon our waist and try to sink within. So our vasanas will also be driving us to attend to things other than ourself. Our task is to ignore these outward going inclinations by trying to turn within. However, all our vasanas will only be destroyed when ego is destroyed. The very nature of ego is to have vasanas, so without its vasanas it cannot exist or endure. Ego is the root of all vasanas, so we need to cut this root in order to remove all its leaves and branches, namely the vasanas.
The only vasanas we need to cultivate is sat-vasana – the liking just to be. We should try to give up all our other vasanas. Even subha vasanas (good or auspicious tendencies) are in ultimate analysis asubha (bad or inauspicious) because even our tendencies to do good is taking us away from ourself. So, in the true spiritual path, we should try to give up all our vasansas – whether they are subha or asubha.
Sanjay, thank you for your expert comment.
However, I do not think that "even our tendencies to do good is taking us away from ourself."
Too bad we do not have somebody around like Bhagavan who could talk with authority in that matter. In lieu of a competent teacher (meaning being self-realized) we have to resort to our own biases and assumptions.
Of course we still have the remedy and that is atma-vichara. Any notions beyond that are biases and prejudices due to anybodies past life beliefs and habits. Nobody on this blog including Michael is free from biases, that's why this blog has a limited use and eventually people will just leave. And they must if they truly want to be free ....
Geez woman, put a sock in your mouth, still whining after all of this time and conveniently forgetting all of your insults and crazy assumptions like the Gilbert fantasy of yours? Shheeeesh!
Yeah, letting go is easy, isn't it? :-)
Asun and Salazar,
is it really necessary that there are such sharp divisions between you both ?
anadi-ananta, I am more than willing to put that matter to rest, I could never hold for long a grudge. However if I keep reading these one-sided belly-aches long after the fact, this "poor victim" routine, then I truly have to throw up. It's like being in elementary school, somebody has to grow up, seriously!
Anadi-ananda, most of the things I write here pretending that these are my ideas is actually a mere reproduction of whatever I have heard and understood Michael say.
Michael said in one of his videos: ‘even our tendencies to do good is taking us away from ourself’. You do not think this is the case. However, this is clearly the case if we understand Bhagavan’s teachings correctly and clearly. In order to do even something good, we need to first rise as ego and then engage in good or agreeable activities. In order to do something good, we have to attend to things other than ourself. We have to take our power of attention and focus it on good activities.
So our subha vasanas are ultimately not that good because even they keep us bound to activities, and any action is bondage. All our actions keep us bound to ego. They create more and more vasanas to do such good actions again and again. So eventually we need to shun even our good actions in order to turn within. Michael implies all these things in his video: 2020-08-23a Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses what happens to us after death. At 06:00, he says the following:
As Bhagavan says in the 19th paragraph of Nan Ar, there are not different kinds of mind. What are different is the types of vasanas. Some vasanas are what he refers to as the subha vasanas and some vasanas he refers to as the asubha vasanas. Subha vasanas means the vasanas which are good or agreeable, and asubha vasanas means the vasanas that are bad, disagreeable, wicked or harmful.
He says in the next sentence, if the mind is under the sway of subha vasanas, we call it a good mind, and if the mind is under the sway of asubha vasanas, we call it a bad mind. So the differences we see in people, are the differences in the quality of their vasanas, whether they are subha or asubha. Subha and asubha are relative terms. What may seem good from one perspective, may seem bad from another perspective.
So if we are spiritual aspirants, we are trying to turn our mind within and surrender. So from our perspective, vasanas that draws our mind outwards is asubha vasanas. So we can say that for us, there is a very high standard of what is subha and asubha. Ultimately, the only good vasana is the sat-vasana – the vasana that draws our mind outwards.
(The end of the extract)
So do you still feel that even the tendency to do good is not taking us away from ourself?
Sanjay,
it depends with which inner attitude one does a so-called good deed:
if done in selflessness I cannot see any harm. Sometimes one has to help immediately so that you cannot even think of subha quality of vasanas.
For instance if you have to save somebody from drowning what's there to think about ? You will suddenly jump in the water (river, sea or even ocean) without hesitating for a long time.
Not if you can’t swim or are afraid to get pulled down by the drowner. Frankly we cannot know how we would react nor how someone else would react. This is way too much of empty speculation.
It is only one example for a good selfless deed. Of course, a non-swimmer is excepted.:-)
When we try to develop and maintain perfect love for Lord Arunachala we must have a free heart of pure love rich in total surrender and true devotion. Therefore we have to give up our ego-centred little personality, multiple attachments and painful mental agonies.
Though ego is not actually what we actually are, it is not something other than what we actually are (part two)
Michael James: It seems a struggle to turn our attention back towards ourself. The very nature of ego is to attend to things other than itself because we cannot exist as ego without attending to forms. That is, the ego cannot exist without attending to forms, objects other than itself. So when we are trying to turn our attention within, we are so to speak trying to turn against the current of ego or mind. The natural flow of ego or mind is to go outwards – towards things other than itself. We are now trying to turn it back within.
So because of our lack of willingness to surrender ourself completely, we find it to be a struggle. This is natural. That is why Bhagavan said that the only way to succeed in this path is patient perseverance. So how easy or difficult the path seems to depend on the extent of love we have to know ourself. We will be willing to know ourself to the extent we are willing to let go everything else.
We cannot know ourself as we actually are and be interested in other things. It’s one or the other. We cannot know ourself as we actually are - which is pure awareness - and be aware of other things. So we have to make a choice, and at every moment we are faced with a choice – either we attend to other things or we attend to ourself.
So if we are serious about following this path, we should be trying to turn our attention back towards ourself as much as possible, even though we will find that we are up against a lot of internal resistance. That internal resistance is our lack of willingness, the strength of our likes and dislikes. That’s what makes it seem difficult.
We can try to explain this through an analogy. If you got a big balloon and if you try to push it under the water, you try to push it, it will pop up this way or that way. It will always be resisting. As long as it is pumped full of air, it is not possible to push it very far under the water. You can push it a little by little but not very far. As the air starts leaking out – as there is less pressure inside – the easier it will be to push it inside.
Likewise, the air that fills our mind is our desires and attachments. So in order for the mind to sink within, its desires and attachments should start to leak out so to speak. To the extent our desires are weakened, to the extent we are able to go deeper within.
(To be continued in my next comment)
+ Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (00:09)
Sanjay,
the given balloon analogy is a very apt description of the internal resistance put up by ego/mind against turning our attention back towards ourself.:-)
An humble request from Michael James
The following are the last two paragraphs of Michael’s latest article: Praising or disparaging others is ananta-vichara. Many of our friends may not read this long article until the end. So I thought I would reproduce it here as a comment. It has a humble request from Michael:
If a new batch of trolls were to begin commenting as the previous batch did two years ago, it may be necessary for me to begin comment moderation again, but I glanced through the names of those of wrote comments on my previous article and it seems that most of those comments were written by people who have been commenting here for a long time, so most of the inappropriate comments were not written by new trolls but by certain friends reverting to old patterns of behaviour. Therefore rather than me spending undue time reading all the comments and censoring them wherever necessary, it would be more appropriate if all of you who comment here were to self-censor your own comments, making sure that none of them are in any way inappropriate.
Disparaging other people or writing derogatory comments about them is not our வந்த வேலை (vanda vēlai), the work for which we have come, so let us all desist from such petty behaviour, paying due heed to the admonishing advice given to us all by Bhagavan: ‘நீ வந்த வேலையைப் பார்’ (nī vanda vēlaiyai-p pār), ‘Attend to the work for which you have come’.
Sanjay, the correct title of Michael's recent article is
"Praising or disparaging others is anātma-vicāra" - (not ananta-vic...).:-)
Post a Comment