tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post1247565676436008346..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: What is the relationship between the ‘I-thought’ and awareness?Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-56475230054421549032019-04-20T09:23:33.997+01:002019-04-20T09:23:33.997+01:00Salazar feel free to post all your neo-advaita con...Salazar feel free to post all your neo-advaita concepts or should we say your "neo-nonsense" sprouting from your immature brain of an ajnani. Thanks for nothing.Asunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05375243105817283476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32792973976298527242019-03-29T17:10:00.148+00:002019-03-29T17:10:00.148+00:00I have now the time to reply to Michael’s comment ...I have now the time to reply to Michael’s comment addressed to me on 23 March 2019 at 08:09 where he says and I quote, “If we do not understand the nature of ego clearly and correctly, our self-investigation will be neither deep nor subtle, so we will continue floating on the surface and remain a prey to ego instead of becoming a prey to our real nature.”<br /><br />I do not agree and that comment doesn’t make sense to me. Atma-vichara is not dependent at all by a conceptual understanding of the ego; I’d say that it could be more of an obstacle than actual help. Concepts can only be in the realm of imagination, atma-vichara is quite the opposite. Once one has grasped what Bhagavan meant with atma-vichara, NO other concepts are necessary and actually quite redundant and are more for the entertainment of the mind.<br /><br />Atma-vichara is without thoughts and concepts, how could a supposedly better understanding of the concept of ego enhance atma-vichara? To think about that better understanding, to recall what seemingly was understood? That would be not atma-vichara.<br /><br />Better understanding of the ego, or better the true knowledge of its non-existence, can only come through atma-vichara [alone], not by recalling or thinking about concepts of it, that is an impediment.<br /><br />So, if atma-vichara, or Self-investigation as Michael likes to call it, goes “deeper” or not is clearly not depended on a better conceptual knowledge but rather how often one ‘does’ atma-vichara. In fact, except to have read Nan Yar, nothing else by Bhagavan is necessary to do properly atma-vichara! <br />. .https://www.blogger.com/profile/03243347924405863536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-45418245151804374952019-03-24T18:44:46.477+00:002019-03-24T18:44:46.477+00:00Michael, I feel sorry for (the last sentence of) m...Michael, I feel sorry for (the last sentence of) my emotional reply to Salazar. Somehow I did not want then keep back my current idea of expressing. anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-27286653147622043422019-03-24T12:50:19.610+00:002019-03-24T12:50:19.610+00:00May I respectfully request Unknown and others to d...May I respectfully request Unknown and others to desist from making <i>ad hominem</i> attacks on Salazar or anyone else who chooses to comment here. I am reluctant to not allow any comments, but strictly speaking some of the recent criticism of Salazar has come close to transgressing the <a href="#comment-guide" rel="nofollow">Guidelines for Comments</a> on this blog, so if more such comments are written I shall have to stop allowing them.<br /><br />Attacks on the personality or motives of others does not help anyone and has no place on this blog, which is dedicated to discussing Bhagavan’s teachings. If you disagree with ideas or views expressed by others, by all means explain your reasons for disagreeing them, but please do not allow your criticism of any ideas or views to degenerate into criticism of the personality or motives of those who hold such views or express such ideas.<br /><br />If Salazar or anyone else disagrees with my views or my understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings, they are welcome to say why they disagree with them and to express their own ideas and understanding, because that can lead to a fruitful discussion and exchange of views. Even if they choose to imply that anyone who does not agree with their views or understanding is immature, as Salazar tends to do, that is also fine, so long as they are not directing such criticism at any particular individuals, because by saying so they are telling us more about their own level of maturity than anyone else’s.<br /><br />Unknown, regarding the <a href="#c6281746428458733226" rel="nofollow">comment</a> in which you claim that it was Salazar who posted a critical reply under the name Paul to a review that Alan Jacobs wrote about my book, what does it matter whether Salazar and Paul are the same person or two different people? We need not be concerned about who wrote that reply, and it is up to each person who reads it to decide for themself whether or not they agree with it.<br /><br />Regarding Paul’s claim that ‘Michael stated that a Jnani (or sage) in a living body is worthless’, I never stated any such thing, so this claim is presumably a misinterpretation of something else that I wrote. Bhagavan appeared in human form to give us his teachings, so his appearing thus is certainly not worthless. As he used to say, the appearance of <i>guru</i> in human form is like a lion that appears in an elephant’s dream, the shock of which causes the elephant to wake up. The lion itself is unreal, but it brings about a real awakening. Likewise, the human form of <i>guru</i> is unreal, but it wakes us to the real state of pure self-awareness.<br /><br />Bhagavan often explained that he is not the body or person that he seemed to be, and that it is only in our self-ignorant view that he seems to be that body or person. However he appeared as a person in order to teach us that we should turn within to see what we ourself actually are, and when we see what we actually are we will see that what he actually is is nothing other than that. In other words, he is our real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is pure, infinite, indivisible and eternal awareness, other than which nothing exists.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-89897746494375147672019-03-24T10:34:32.150+00:002019-03-24T10:34:32.150+00:00As Michael says "...so the seeming existence ...As Michael says "...so the seeming existence of all other things depends on the seeming existence of ourself as ego. Therefore as long as we perceive any other thing, we who perceive it are ego, so we need to take the seeming existence of ego more seriously...".<br /><br />Indeed there is no other starting point in our practice: Any effort (of self-investigation) can and must be done only by the tool of the seemingly existent ego/mind.anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-89728331413464217632019-03-23T22:42:57.505+00:002019-03-23T22:42:57.505+00:00Salazar do feel free to quirk big time as you alwa...Salazar do feel free to quirk big time as you always do as that is your favorite pastime and your full time occupation.Asunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05375243105817283476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-47577391681550190292019-03-23T22:31:08.760+00:002019-03-23T22:31:08.760+00:00Mr. James like the saying goes there is no point i...Mr. James like the saying goes there is no point in casting pearls ( regarding your comment of 23 March 2019 at 08:09) before a swine. But then that comment from you was filled with pearls and I sincerely thank you for posting it. Asunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05375243105817283476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-67312283910126973032019-03-23T22:23:34.867+00:002019-03-23T22:23:34.867+00:00Salazar please do realize Self first instead of bl...Salazar please do realize Self first instead of blubbering about concepts from "neo-advaita" like you always do here and at Amazon.Asunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05375243105817283476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-33750602369150795902019-03-23T22:20:40.696+00:002019-03-23T22:20:40.696+00:00Regarding comment of 23 March 2019 at 15:13
Okay ...Regarding comment of 23 March 2019 at 15:13<br /><br />Okay Salazar and feel free to come back whenever (as you certainly will) and post you neo-advaita concepts or should we say your "neo-nonsense" sprouting from your immature brain of an ajnani. And by the way when are you changing your Amazon moniker from Paul to Michael James?<br /><br />Anyway you are no match to Michael James and you are not in his league just as none of here are. This is not said to flatter him at all but it just happens to be that way. By the way there seems to be no one to listen to and appreciate your neo-advaita theory (except yourself) which you dish out everywhere.Asunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05375243105817283476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-72046372184673969652019-03-23T15:13:40.764+00:002019-03-23T15:13:40.764+00:00Michael, yes - 'I' do not take the ego ser...Michael, yes - 'I' do not take the ego seriously at all because it is its intrinsic nature which will make it serious just by itself in form of all kind of (grandiose or less grandiose) thoughts. Why deliberately adding to it even "more" serious [considerations]? That is an impediment.<br /><br />Also, your "mix story" is entirely conceptual, do you have any direct experience to really KNOW, or is it just a repetition of concepts you have read? What makes you think (must be the ego) that you have grasped these concepts without direct experience? It was not an accident that Bhagavans greatest teaching tool was silence and not concepts. <br /><br />To make it short, I do not concur with quite a few points you are making but it does not make sense to argue here about it. Because arguments have strong limitations and why do we just figure that out by realizing Self instead of blubbering about concepts from Bhagavan?<br /><br />To the "followers": Thanks for the nice "welcome back" but this was just a little quirk, you guys now carry on as usual with your mantra of "Michael, thank you for that great article" .....<br /><br />Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03403745904820287115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-23245861385814599222019-03-23T08:49:48.395+00:002019-03-23T08:49:48.395+00:00In reg to comment of 23 March 2019 at 08:09. Well ...In reg to comment of 23 March 2019 at 08:09. Well said, an apt reply to a quarter baked aspirant.Asunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05375243105817283476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-62817464284587332262019-03-23T08:47:59.905+00:002019-03-23T08:47:59.905+00:00Mr. James,
Salazar has posted a reply comment und...Mr. James,<br /><br />Salazar has posted a reply comment under the name of Paul to a 5 star review by Alan Jacobs of your book THE BEST AND MOST IMPORTANT COMMENTARY ON SRI BHAGAVAN RAMANA MAHARSHI'S TEACHINGS. In it Salazar a k a Paul says, <br /><br />Quote.<br /><br />Also Michael stated that a Jnani (or sage) in a living body is worthless (he also of course has an [plausible sounding] explanation for that), however if a living Jnani is worthless, how much more worthless must be a lecturing ajnani? Unquote.<br /><br />I am curious to know where you said that and under what context you said that and why you said that? Thanks, in case you respond.<br />Asunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05375243105817283476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-53136259289566454732019-03-23T08:09:18.815+00:002019-03-23T08:09:18.815+00:00Salazar, regarding your recent comment, Bhagavan o...Salazar, regarding <a href="#c6946839950866639492" rel="nofollow">your recent comment</a>, Bhagavan often described ego as <i>cit-jaḍa-granthi</i> (the knot (<i>granthi</i>) formed by the entanglement of awareness (<i>cit</i>) with a body, which is non-aware (<i>jaḍa</i>), binding them together as if they were one), such as in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un24" rel="nofollow">verse 24</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, and he did so for a good reason, because it aptly defines the nature of ego.<br /><br />Saying that ego is a confused mixture of the real and the unreal is not giving it reality, as you seem to assume. A chain is as strong as its weakest link. Likewise, ego is as real as its most unreal element. Since one element of the mixture is unreal, the mixture itself is unreal.<br /><br />Nevertheless it is important to recognise that ego also contains an element of reality, ‘the essential <i>cit</i> aspect of the ego’, as he describes it in the final chapter of <a href="http://selfdefinition.org/ramana/Maharshi's-Gospel.pdf" rel="nofollow"><i>Maharshi’s Gospel</i></a> (2002 edition, page 89), and as he explains there, this is the reason why investigating ego leads us to pure awareness (<i>cit</i>), which is our real nature. So long as we have risen as this unreal ego, it is the only door we have back to reality.<br /><br />You say correctly, ‘there is no such thing as a mind or ego’, but do you understand the full implication of this teaching given by Bhagavan? As he says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un26" rel="nofollow">verse 26</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, ‘அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும்’ (<i>ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum</i>), ‘if ego does not exist, everything does not exist’, and in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/06/what-is-i-feeling-and-do-we-need-to-be.html#aa7" rel="nofollow">verse 7</a> of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam</i>, ‘இன்று அகம் எனும் நினைவு எனில், பிற ஒன்றும் இன்று’ (<i>iṉḏṟu aham eṉum niṉaivu eṉil, piṟa oṉḏṟum iṉḏṟu</i>), ‘If the thought called I [ego] does not exist, even one other [thought or thing] will not exist’, so the seeming existence of all other things depends on the seeming existence of ourself as ego. Therefore as long as we perceive any other thing, we who perceive it are ego, so we need to take the seeming existence of ego more seriously than you seem willing to do, and we need to understand its nature clearly in order to investigate it effectively.<br /><br />This is why Bhagavan taught us all that he taught us about the nature of ego and about how the appearance of all other things depends entirely upon the appearance of ourself as ego, so we should not lightly dismiss anything that he taught us in the regard, because if we do we will end up with a half-baked understanding. If we do not understand the nature of ego clearly and correctly, our self-investigation will be neither deep nor subtle, so we will continue floating on the surface and remain a prey to ego instead of becoming a prey to our real nature.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32938473566611909782019-03-22T23:15:26.540+00:002019-03-22T23:15:26.540+00:00Salazar,
it is really good that the truth of the n...Salazar,<br />it is really good that the truth of the non-existence of ego or mind is revealed only to mature aspirants who can comprehend that. So spoke the Prince of Darkness: let the immature stew in their own juice of unripeness. Huaaaaaaaaaahuah... anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-56646454119543178612019-03-22T21:10:56.166+00:002019-03-22T21:10:56.166+00:00Ah! The return of Salazar and the(im)mature ego wi...Ah! The return of Salazar and the(im)mature ego with a knot tightly tied around it to perpetuate its perennial ignorance. What a revelation indeed. Mr. James it would be a shame if you did not post this comment.Asunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05375243105817283476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-69468399508666394922019-03-22T19:19:50.068+00:002019-03-22T19:19:50.068+00:00Mr. Bruckner, actually the ego is not really a mix...Mr. Bruckner, actually the ego is not really a mixture of false and pure awareness since the "false" awareness is not real, the pure is. So to give the ego any reality and substance is an illusion. "Mixing" would or could imply that the ego has a reality in its own right in the same fashion than the reality of Self. That is not the case.<br /><br />Mixing or any similar concepts like "heart-knot" cannot really describe the nature between Self and ego/mind/body. Because as the sages imply, there is no such thing as a mind or ego, and therefore there is really no heart-knot or a "mixture" of consciousnesses. But that is revealed only to mature aspirants who could comprehend that.. .https://www.blogger.com/profile/03243347924405863536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-37018881221819869642019-03-22T14:51:34.844+00:002019-03-22T14:51:34.844+00:00Mr. Bruckner, the “spider emitting the thread” and...Mr. Bruckner, the “spider emitting the thread” and the “lens/pure light” analogies are saying the same in different words.<br />And yes, Bhagavan stated that the ego is a mixture of “false” and pure awareness, and that underlines the powerlessness of the ego. The “supreme power” is that what not identifies with a body and mind; however that “false awareness” is the one who complains and is the one with no power in that mix. It just confuses the power of Self as its own power and that is the definition of bondage and delusion. There is nobody, an entity or ego, what could have any power at all.<br /><br />Therefore to say that the ego is nothing but supreme power can only be false since the ego is by definition, as you stated yourself, "false awareness".<br /><br />Atma-vichara is nothing else than to move away from the delusional idea of individual power and subsequent attention to it and to be, or as some say, attend to, the pure awareness unspoiled by any thoughts and notions of “power”. <br /><br /><br />Also Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18114407642753670309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-73423464525475520612019-03-22T14:20:17.818+00:002019-03-22T14:20:17.818+00:00section3.,
"As the subject or perceiver of al...section3.,<br />"As the subject or perceiver of all phenomena, ego is what projects everything, because projection (sṛṣṭi) is nothing other than perception (dṛṣṭi)"<br />So projection together with perception seem to be nothing other than creation.<br />Projecting a world of mental phenomena is said to be done by ego only.<br /><br />But means having a look in an English dictionary creating that dictionary ? Means watching a video or cinema film creating that film ?<br />Means flying in an aircraft over London creating all that ?<br />Means walking in Hampstead Heath Park creating it ?<br />Means swimming in the Atlantic Ocean creating it ?<br />Obviously not - or yet actually ? <br />How to comprehend the real meaning of the statement "Therefore what projects all thoughts or phenomena is only the perceiving element of the mind, namely ego, which is the first of all thoughts, the thought called I. This is why Bhagavan says that the mind makes all thoughts appear..."?<br />I would like to be able - in waking - putting aside all thoughts and seeing that there is no such thing as mind..."...because the very nature of the mind is only thoughts."<br /><br /><br />anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-5918077484351086132019-03-22T08:38:30.330+00:002019-03-22T08:38:30.330+00:00Also Unknown,
you write "You say that the pha...Also Unknown,<br />you write "You say that the phantom mind is in the position to create a whole universe. That is not entirely correct as you seem to imply it. The phantom mind does not create anything by itself;..."<br />In T.M.P. Mahadevan's (University of Madras) English translation of the essay version of Nan Yar "Who am I?" it is written in question/answer nr.8:"...Just as the spider emits the thread of the web out of itself and again withdraws it into itself, likewise the mind projects the world out of itself and again resolves it into itself. When the mind comes out of the Self, the world appears...".<br /><br />"If the ego is nothing but supreme power, why are then egos suffering?"<br />Ego is said to be only a mixture/knot of chit(self-awareness) and jada(insentient body) which identifies itself wrongly to be any person.<br />Therefore ego's complaining and suffering is the natural result/consequence of that false awareness.anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-36397129454521191982019-03-21T14:47:38.485+00:002019-03-21T14:47:38.485+00:00Mr. Bruckner, you asked “how takes that supreme po...Mr. Bruckner, you asked “how takes that supreme power care of the storage of cereals” and you answered with “correctly ….”.<br /><br />What does correct mean? It assumes that the supreme power takes care as a mind imagines it would or should. However it could very well be that the supreme power “takes care” in the form of not storing cereals at all. Because to expect a certain outcome is an attachment which is an impediment.<br /><br />You say that the phantom mind is in the position to create a whole universe. That is not entirely correct as you seem to imply it. The phantom mind does not create anything by itself; it is like a lens which just by its mere presence reflects the pure light of Self and that refection is called “world”. Without Self there could be no world, in fact without Self there could be no such appearance called “mind”. <br /><br />If the ego is nothing but supreme power, why are then egos suffering? Why are egos complaining that they cannot do atma-vichara? With “supreme” power surly nothing like that could transpire. <br />Also Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18114407642753670309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-11785416961342040452019-03-21T14:11:18.036+00:002019-03-21T14:11:18.036+00:00Thank you Michael.
As you say, it is necessary to...Thank you Michael. <br />As you say, it is necessary to cling tenaciously to svarūpa-dhyāna. However, even that I do often miss. Yes, ah yes, instead of lamenting one should be zealous and steadfast in self-attentiveness and then certainly will be reformed [transformed into what one actually is]...So I can/should hope so. anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-46612009621889663892019-03-21T13:17:15.419+00:002019-03-21T13:17:15.419+00:00Josef, patience and perseverance are necessary. As...Josef, patience and perseverance are necessary. As Bhagavan says in the <a href="http://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para10" rel="nofollow">tenth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br /><br />தொன்றுதொட்டு வருகின்ற விஷயவாசனைகள் அளவற்றனவாய்க் கடலலைகள் போற் றோன்றினும் அவையாவும் சொரூபத்யானம் கிளம்பக் கிளம்ப அழிந்துவிடும். அத்தனை வாசனைகளு மொடுங்கி, சொரூபமாத்திரமா யிருக்க முடியுமா வென்னும் சந்தேக நினைவுக்கு மிடங்கொடாமல், சொரூபத்யானத்தை விடாப்பிடியாய்ப் பிடிக்க வேண்டும். ஒருவன் எவ்வளவு பாபியாயிருந்தாலும், ‘நான் பாபியா யிருக்கிறேனே! எப்படிக் கடைத்தேறப் போகிறே’ னென்றேங்கி யழுதுகொண்டிராமல், தான் பாபி என்னு மெண்ணத்தையு மறவே யொழித்து சொரூபத்யானத்தி லூக்க முள்ளவனாக விருந்தால் அவன் நிச்சயமா யுருப்படுவான்.<br /><br /><i>toṉḏṟutoṭṭu varugiṉḏṟa viṣaya-vāsaṉaigaḷ aḷavaṯṟaṉavāy-k kaḍal-alaigaḷ pōl tōṉḏṟiṉum avai-yāvum sorūpa-dhyāṉam kiḷamba-k kiḷamba aṙindu-viḍum. attaṉai vāsaṉaigaḷum oḍuṅgi, sorūpa-māttiram-āy irukka muḍiyumā v-eṉṉum sandēha niṉaivukkum iḍam koḍāmal, sorūpa-dhyāṉattai viḍā-p-piḍiyāy-p piḍikka vēṇḍum. oruvaṉ evvaḷavu pāpiyāy irundālum, ‘nāṉ pāpiyāy irukkiṟēṉē; eppaḍi-k kaḍaittēṟa-p pōkiṟēṉ’ eṉḏṟēṅgi y-aṙudu-koṇḍirāmal, tāṉ pāpi eṉṉum eṇṇattaiyum aṟavē y-oṙittu sorūpa-dhyāṉattil ūkkam uḷḷavaṉāha v-irundāl avaṉ niścayamāy uru-p-paḍuvāṉ</i>.<br /><br />Even though <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> [inclinations or desires to experience things other than oneself], which come from time immemorial, rise [as thoughts or phenomena] in countless numbers like ocean-waves, they will all be destroyed when <i>svarūpa-dhyāna</i> [self-attentiveness, contemplation on one’s ‘own form’ or real nature] increases and increases [in depth and intensity]. Without giving room even to the doubting thought ‘So many <i>vāsanās</i> ceasing [or being dissolved], is it possible to be only as <i>svarūpa</i> [my own form or real nature]?’ it is necessary to cling tenaciously to <i>svarūpa-dhyāna</i>. However great a sinner one may be, if instead of lamenting and weeping ‘I am a sinner! How am I going to be saved?’ one completely rejects the thought that one is a sinner and is zealous [or steadfast] in self-attentiveness, one will certainly be reformed [transformed into what one actually is].Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-79957329055296071222019-03-21T12:32:21.358+00:002019-03-21T12:32:21.358+00:00Michael,
it is said that Bhagavan is our real natu...Michael,<br />it is said that Bhagavan is our real nature which seems to be beyond the mind.<br />However, the mind is not very fond of becoming quiescent. It puts that off until never before I get anywhere in my attempts at self-enquiry/investigation. It seems that will never happen in a million years. - That is not very pleasing...:-)anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-69176300933572924932019-03-21T07:11:39.526+00:002019-03-21T07:11:39.526+00:00Sanjay,
puppets do not stand comparison with ego w...Sanjay,<br />puppets do not stand comparison with ego whose underlying reality is pure awareness.anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-12081520249531345082019-03-20T20:41:51.471+00:002019-03-20T20:41:51.471+00:00.
A lovely reminder from Mr James,
" Self ....<br /><br />A lovely reminder from Mr James, <br /><br /><i>"<a href="https://youtu.be/oR2KvWOSPVU?t=2768" rel="nofollow"> Self is only I Am....this I Am is mixed up with so many other things </a>".</i> (click the quote)<br /><br />Not to mention summarising his entire blog and Sri Ramana's Teachings in just a few words.<br /><br />.Aham Asmihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11706579115577800525noreply@blogger.com