tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post3328978012314876061..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: The role of logic in developing a clear, coherent and uncomplicated understanding of Bhagavan’s teachingsMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger148125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-25104058720929648892016-04-23T22:28:43.525+01:002016-04-23T22:28:43.525+01:00Michael,
section 11. Does any world exist independ...Michael,<br />section 11. Does any world exist independent of our ego or mind ?<br /><br />1. "If this world does not actually exist but merely seems to exist in our view,....., then we can conclude that it does not exist except when we rise as this ego, in which case our ego is the sole cause and creator of the world." <br />2. I share your opinion that the only means by which we can ascertain from our own experience whether or not this world exists independent of our mind is to investigate ourself in order to experience what we actually are. We have neither evidence that it exists independent of our mind nor any of the contrary.<br />3. Bhagavan "teaches us that any world that we perceive is just a collection of thoughts or ideas projected by our own mind, and that therefore no world will seem to exist when we experience ourself as we really are".<br />I remember a similar stated view : The world is nothing but sense perceptions.<br />4. "In sleep there are no thoughts, and consequently there is no world;.....".<br />That derivative statement can be correct only from the view of the sleeping person.<br />Otherwise all our sense-perceptions would impart us a misleading picture.<br />Everybody who is waking while other people are sleeping can confirm that the sleep of a sleeping person does not have any effect of the continued and uninterrupted appearance of the world – at least from the point of view of all waking fellow human beings and animals. <br />"When the mind comes out from atma-svarupa, the world appears. Therefore when the world appears, svarupa [our 'own form' or actual self] does not appear[as it really is]; when svarupa appears (shines) [as it really is], the world does not appear."<br /><br />May I request some clarification of that remarks ? Does not svarupa shine always from its own ?atma-vrttinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-21946827338319409962016-04-18T12:49:05.614+01:002016-04-18T12:49:05.614+01:00Michael,
section 11. Does any world exist independ...Michael,<br />section 11. Does any world exist independent of our ego or mind ?<br />The teaching "that any world that we perceive is just a collection of thoughts or ideas projected by our own mind, and therefore no world will seem to exist when we experience ourself as we really are" seems to me to be extremely exciting, hair-raising, shocking, breathtaking, marvellous,amazing, spectacular and sensational.<br />How could Bhagavan correlate a spider's spinneret with the mind ? How could he juxtapose spinning a spider - thread to the sense-perception of our perceived vast world or universe ?<br />How would the mind project for example the guesthouse at Morvi-ground, the trees and birds there, Dakshinamurti Shrine and Sri Ramanasramam on the Chengam Road and Arunachala mountain in the town of Tiruvannamalai from within for instance when I wake up from sleep in the morning and dissolve it back when I fall asleep in the same guesthouse-room at night ?<br />Could you please give some comprehensive and thorough blow-by-blow description of that evidently gigantic projection-work of the mind as a projector ? What is the screen or surface of that projection ?mind-polishernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-45547969667886286262016-04-17T22:42:43.678+01:002016-04-17T22:42:43.678+01:00Michael,
section 10. Why must we conclude that our...Michael,<br />section 10. Why must we conclude that our ego is the cause of the world-appearance? <br />in the last sentence is written:<br />"...we can legitimately consider only its seeming existence in our own view, because unless we can establish that any world actually exists independent of our awareness of it - which we have no adequate means of doing - we cannot know whether there is actually anyone else in whose view it could seem to exist."<br /><br />In my opinion we on the other hand are equally not able to judge whether anything actually exists. Therefore we do not have adequate reasons/means to believe that there is not actually any world independent of our awareness.virtuos enterprisenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-47533771559535382492016-04-08T23:45:39.656+01:002016-04-08T23:45:39.656+01:00Michael,
would it be not a good idea to ask some o...Michael,<br />would it be not a good idea to ask some of the Tamil and English speaking residents of Sri Ramanasramam to be helpful at the improvement/new translation of Sri Sadhu Om's book "The Path of Sri Ramana" - additional to Wittgenstein ?guru-simhanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-33045532091989119442016-04-08T23:20:58.715+01:002016-04-08T23:20:58.715+01:00Wittgenstein,
we have to thank you in advance for ...Wittgenstein,<br />we have to thank you in advance for your readiness to be an instument in repairing the inadequacy of the present English translation of Sri Sadhu Om's Ramana Vari/Vazhi, The Path of Sri Ramana.svatma-bhaktinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-68701898772343830412016-03-24T16:02:12.039+00:002016-03-24T16:02:12.039+00:00Seeker, as I promised in my reply to one of your c...Seeker, as I promised in <a href="#c4281204007093400123" rel="nofollow">my reply</a> to <a href="#c1857409674277435029" rel="nofollow">one of your comments</a>, I have now completed writing a new article in which I explain in more detail about the need for effort to practise <i>ātma-vicāra</i>: <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/why-is-it-necessary-to-make-effort-to.html" rel="nofollow">Why is it necessary to make effort to practise self-investigation (<i>ātma-vicāra</i>)?</a>Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-6124418538051774952016-03-18T20:07:55.934+00:002016-03-18T20:07:55.934+00:00Michael,
thank you for your reply and admitting th...Michael,<br />thank you for your reply and admitting there a 'certain ambiguity'. As in the allegory of the illusory snake that illusion disappeares only after looking intensly to it, only after finding that there is no such thing called 'I'- we as the seeming 'I' thoughts - do not have to distinguish between actual self and a separate ego.<br />Bhagavan used quite intentionally the future form saying that we will find that there is no such thing called 'I'- thought" after sufficiently investigating/scrutinizing our mind. In my view that doesn't matter to be aware of the illusion of the seeming mind until we actually experience us as the real nature of ourself.<br />On the contrary we have to be on our guard not to fall for our mind's tricks.Koundinyanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-52583103189462495492016-03-18T16:19:26.595+00:002016-03-18T16:19:26.595+00:00Thank you again Michael - and Wittgenstein - for y...Thank you again Michael - and Wittgenstein - for your responses to my last post. I look forward to the next article about effort, that effort that becomes effortless. And thanks Sanjay for your reminder that svatma bhakti (sorry, I can't find the italics tool here) is absolutely necessary on this path.Seekernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-2262824511599247062016-03-18T14:28:50.723+00:002016-03-18T14:28:50.723+00:00{Since currently we cannot get any fresh reminders...{Since currently we cannot get any fresh reminders from Bhagavan, Muruganar and Sadhu Om, I feel the articles by Michael and his other writings are our constant fresh reminders about the need to turn within, hence his articles, videos, emails, and his various translations are priceless.}<br /><br />I agree whole heartedly Sanjay. <br />In appreciation. <br />Bob Bob - Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-51372312639196463172016-03-18T13:46:30.709+00:002016-03-18T13:46:30.709+00:00Koundinya, yes, there is a certain ambiguity there...Koundinya, yes, there is a certain ambiguity there, but I intended ‘which is our actual self’ to refer to the source of our mind rather than to our mind itself. However, even if it were interpreted as referring to our mind, that would not actually be incorrect, because our actual self is both the source and substance of our mind. In other words, what our mind actually is is just our actual self, just as what an illusory snake actually is is just a rope.<br /><br />We are one, so we do not have two separate selves, an actual self and another self called mind or ego. Our mind is what we now seem to be, but what we actually are is our real self, so if we investigate ourself and thereby experience ourself as we actually are, we will find that we have never been anything other than that. This is why Bhagavan said that if we investigate our mind (that is, its essential thought called ‘I’, which is our ego), we will find that there is no such thing, because what seemed to be this mind is actually only our real self.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-18612326223635650472016-03-18T13:07:33.193+00:002016-03-18T13:07:33.193+00:00Michael,
when you write in your latest comment to ...Michael,<br />when you write in your latest comment to Seeker:"...to return to the source of our mind..."<br />the attributuve clause enclosed in brackets("which is our actual self")<br />it is surely to observe that the mind is just not our actual self but the source of it. The grammatical word order of the pronoun 'which' could be probably lead to a misunderstanding that it refers to the noun 'mind' only instead to the noun 'source'.Koundinyanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-36174882281119585712016-03-18T12:37:03.614+00:002016-03-18T12:37:03.614+00:00What Michael has written in his last comment addre...What Michael has written in his last comment addressed to Seeker (18 March 2016 at 11:44) is very helpful, and he has put it beautifully in the second paragraph of his comment as to why our effort is a must to swim against the swift flowing current of our mind, which is constantly taking us in the outward direction.<br /><br />I think one condition is a must to persevere in this inward effort, and that is - our immense clarity that no other spiritual practice can take us to our goal (at least directly), and our goal is <i>manonasa</i> (destruction of our ego). Many of us do not make this effort of being attentively self-aware as much as possible because they lack sufficient <i>svatma-bhakti</i>, and one important reason for this lack of love for this practice is their lack of clarity about the efficacy of <i>atma-vichara</i>.<br /><br />This is the reason why the direct words of Bhagavan and his devotees like Muruganar, Sadhu Om and Michael are so important. If we do frequent <i>sravana</i> and <i>manana</i> of their direct words, we will be left with no doubt that this practice of self-investigation is absolutely indispensable to annihilate our ego and experience ourself as we really are.<br /><br />Since currently we cannot get any fresh reminders from Bhagavan, Muruganar and Sadhu Om, I feel the articles by Michael and his other writings are our constant fresh reminders about the need to turn within, hence his articles, videos, emails, and his various translations are priceless. These have given me - and I believe to many of our friends - sufficient clarity on this path. This clarity has increased my love to turn back within to experience myself alone, and in turn this love has sustained my practice of self-attentiveness. Regards. Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-42812040070934001232016-03-18T11:44:46.631+00:002016-03-18T11:44:46.631+00:00Seeker, while practising ātma-vicāra our aim is of...Seeker, while practising <i>ātma-vicāra</i> our aim is of course to be self-attentive, but how can we be self-attentive unless we try? The nature of our ego or mind is to cling (attend) to things other than itself (as Bhagavan points out in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/why-should-we-believe-what-bhagavan.html#un25" rel="nofollow">verse 25</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>), so in order to cling to itself alone it must make effort to do so.<br /><br />Clinging to things other than ourself, which is what Bhagavan called சுட்டறிதல் (<i>suṭṭaṟidal</i>) or knowing transitively, is the natural மனப்போக்கு (<i>maṉa-p-pōkku</i>), the flow, current, direction, inclination or propensity of our mind, so being self-attentive is reversing this flow and hence it requires effort on our part. If we were floating in the middle of a swift flowing river and made no effort, we would be swept along with its current, so if we wanted to swim back to its source, we would have to make effort to swim against its current. Likewise, in order to return to the source of our mind (which is our actual self) we must make effort to swim against its current by constantly turning our attention back to ourself and trying to keep it steadily poised as ourself (that is, as pure self-awareness).<br /><br />I will explain in more detail about the need for effort to practise <i>ātma-vicāra</i> in my next article, which I have begun to draft.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-14884026289323259552016-03-18T09:49:39.256+00:002016-03-18T09:49:39.256+00:00{In other words, we are trying to experience atten...{In other words, we are trying to experience attentively the pure intransitive awareness that we experienced as ourself in sleep.}<br /><br />Thank you Michael so simple but so helpful.<br />In appreciation. <br />Bob Bob - Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-73739629179840097032016-03-18T04:55:43.507+00:002016-03-18T04:55:43.507+00:00Seeker,
Regarding your comment on 17 March 2016 a...Seeker,<br /><br />Regarding your comment on 17 March 2016 at 22:44, 'trying' is going to be there till the end (albeit at a reducing rate), as duality is going to be there till <i>atma vichara</i> ends. However, there is a great difference between <i>atma vichara</i> and other methods that are <i>objective</i>. In the latter, mind does not shrink (to the extend it would in <i>atma vichara</i>) while in the former it shrinks. 'Trying' and 'effort' are interpretations of the process by the ever thinning mind that is 'doing' <i>atma vichara</i>. In the beginning there is tremendous effort, then it keeps decreasing as the mind shrinks and effort ceases when mind ceases, as the effor is the by the mind. When effort and mind cease, we can be [what we really are], without trying.Wittgensteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-18574096742774350292016-03-17T22:44:30.266+00:002016-03-17T22:44:30.266+00:00Yes, Michael, thanks for your answer. I completely...Yes, Michael, thanks for your answer. I completely get what you are saying. The only quibble I would have is when you say 'try to be self-attentive.' Surely we must only be self-attentive. If we are trying we bring in dualism again. And that begs the question. Can we be it without trying to be it? I don't think you meant to say it. The sentence reads perfectly well without the 'try.' But it does bring up the question of the transition (if any) between finite and infinite.<br />I'm greatly appreciating having this dialogue with you. It's helping me to go so much deeper into my experience. Seekernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-68611220185391511232016-03-17T20:12:53.067+00:002016-03-17T20:12:53.067+00:00Thanks Michael. Thanks Michael. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04435289281370413861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-12660820630509262522016-03-17T20:11:45.304+00:002016-03-17T20:11:45.304+00:00Seeker, regarding your question ‘But isn’t even be...Seeker, regarding your question ‘But isn’t even being attentive to the Self dualism, or as you put it, a form of transitive awareness?’ this is as you say ‘the point where words and thinking can be used no more’. As I explain in section 13 of my latest article, <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/we-are-aware-of-ourself-while-asleep-so.html#silence" rel="nofollow">Silence is the only intransitive language, so it alone can reveal the true nature of pure intransitive awareness</a>, all languages other than silence are inherently transitive and hence dualistic, so however we try to describe self-awareness or the practice of being self-attentive will seem to imply transitivity and duality, whereas they are in fact perfectly intransitive and hence non-dual, because we are one and can therefore never be an object known by ourself.<br /><br />Awareness of or attention to any object is transitive, because it entails a subject (ourself) attending to an object (something other than ourself), whereas self-awareness or self-attentiveness entails no object, because we are attending to nothing other than ourself. Due to the limitations of language we have to say being aware of ourself or attending to ourself, as if ourself were an object of our awareness or attention, whereas in fact we are not an object but the source of both subject (our ego) and object (all the phenomena experienced by this ego).<br /><br />I hope all this will be more clear to you if you read my latest article, <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/we-are-aware-of-ourself-while-asleep-so.html" rel="nofollow">We are aware of ourself while asleep, so pure self-awareness alone is what we actually are</a>, and carefully consider all that I have written in it. As I explain in it, self-awareness is the very nature of awareness, because we cannot be aware without being aware that we are aware, and being aware that we are aware entails being aware of ourself. And because self-awareness does not entail being aware of anything other than ourself, it is absolutely intransitive, so intransitive awareness and self-awareness are one and the same thing.<br /><br />Since being intransitively aware means just being aware without necessarily being aware of anything other than ourself, and since we could not be transitively aware if we were not intransitively aware, intransitive self-awareness is the fundamental and only essential form of awareness. Therefore when Bhagavan says that we are awareness, he means that we are intransitive awareness.<br /><br />Transitive awareness appears with our ego in waking and dream and disappears with it in sleep, so it is impermanent and hence not real. The only awareness that endures in all states and at all times, and also beyond the limits of time, is pure intransitive awareness, which is ourself and always self-aware.<br /><br />Therefore when we try to be self-attentive we are just being attentively aware of the intransitive awareness that we actually are, and thereby we are withdrawing our attention from everything else — that is, from everything of which we are now transitively aware. In other words, we are trying to experience attentively the pure intransitive awareness that we experienced as ourself in sleep.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-46689146818636907472016-03-17T17:24:14.133+00:002016-03-17T17:24:14.133+00:00Michael: thanks for your considered responses to ...Michael: thanks for your considered responses to my questions. Like Sanjay, Sandhya and others I am also only interested in refining my understanding of this technique. I take what you say about stopping thoughts and avoiding dualism. They are, as I describe, only 'enabling techniques' to reach the real thing, then to be cast aside, much like questions such as 'who is thinking' which Bhagavan mentions as being appropriate for some when first approaching atma vichara. But isn't even being attentive to the Self dualism, or as you put it, a form of transitive awareness? There has to be something to be attentive to. Possibly this is the point where words and thinking can be used no more, the step into infinity. But you still have to get there, and for that a process is still needed - right up to the point when you don't need it any more.Seekernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-48764440697145490162016-03-17T16:12:37.566+00:002016-03-17T16:12:37.566+00:00Sir, thank you for your latest comment. The idea o...Sir, thank you for your latest comment. The idea of any form sharing of Bhagavan's teachings is to correct each other and refine our understanding about his teachings, therefore any correction by you in whatever we write is most welcome. I hope our friends will also agree. Thanking you and regards. Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-53348178349131271142016-03-17T15:52:05.057+00:002016-03-17T15:52:05.057+00:00Sanjay, what you originally wrote was not actually...Sanjay, what you originally wrote was not actually so confusing, because most people would have understood what you meant, but I felt it was worth pointing out that we should not try specifically to ignore thoughts, but to only try to attend to ourself. The way you have now corrected what you had written makes this clear.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-19136163240737406532016-03-17T12:50:44.227+00:002016-03-17T12:50:44.227+00:00Sir, I quote below the first paragraph of your rec...Sir, I quote below the first paragraph of your recent comment addressed to Sandhya:<br /><br /><i>Sandhya, the replies that Sanjay wrote to your questions are appropriate, except that it is not quite correct to say, ‘Whenever our thoughts arise, we should try and ignore these thoughts and try to attend to the one who has these thoughts’, because though all thoughts should be ignored, we should not try to ignore them but should only try to attend to ourself. That is, if we try to attend to ourself alone, we will thereby automatically be ignoring all other thoughts, whereas if we try to ignore thoughts, we will be thinking about them and thereby nourishing them with our attention.</i><br /><br />I agree with what you write here and thank you for this correction. Actually when I wrote, 'Whenever our thoughts arise, we should try and ignore these thoughts and try to attend to the one who has these thoughts’, what I meant was ''Whenever our thoughts arise, we should try and ignore these thoughts <b>by attending</b> to the one who has these thoughts.’ Does this sound correct? However I agree, whatever I wrote to Sandhya was confusing and not correct. <br /><br />Thanking you and regards. <br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-74558592805764475812016-03-17T11:30:26.536+00:002016-03-17T11:30:26.536+00:00Sandhya, the replies that Sanjay wrote to your que...Sandhya, the <a href="#c4833038536636997986" rel="nofollow">replies</a> that Sanjay wrote to <a href="#c8499209884347511507" rel="nofollow">your questions</a> are appropriate, except that it is not quite correct to say, ‘Whenever our thoughts arise, we should try and ignore these thoughts and try to attend to the one who has these thoughts’, because though all thoughts should be ignored, we should not <i>try</i> to ignore them but should only try to attend to ourself. That is, if we try to attend to ourself alone, we will thereby automatically be ignoring all other thoughts, whereas if we try to ignore thoughts, we will be thinking about them and thereby nourishing them with our attention.<br /><br />As Sanjay says, our aim should be to try to be self-attentive always, but in practice our attention will be frequently distracted by other thoughts, so we should not worry about our inability to be constantly self-attentive. As Bhagavan frequently emphasised, what is required is perseverance. No matter how many times we fail in our efforts to be constantly self-attentive, we should just keep on trying.<br /><br />We are like a small child learning to walk. Inevitably we will fall down many times, but we should not give up trying. No matter how long it takes us, we should just persevere until our ego is eventually annihilated by perfect clarity of self-attentiveness.<br /><br />Regarding your final question, ‘Is it possible to pay the same attention while talking to others?’, it is possible, because whatever else we may be doing, we are always aware of ourself, so we can devote at least some of our attention to being self-attentive — that is, attentive to our fundamental self-awareness, which is the permanent background to whatever else we may be aware of. It is all a matter of interest. If we are very interested in watching a film, we will ignore the screen on which it appears, but if we are more interested in seeing the screen, we can ignore the film and be intent on watching the screen instead of whatever pictures appear on it.<br /><br />Suppose a very dear friend of yours has had a serious accident and is in a critical condition in hospital. The doctors cannot say whether she will die or survive and make a full recovery. In such circumstances, will not the thought of her be constantly in your mind? Even while you are working or talking to other people about other matters, you will be repeatedly remembering her, because you are so concerned about her survival and recovery.<br /><br />If we were so concerned about being self-attentive, we would likewise be constantly remembering our fundamental self-awareness, even while working or talking to other people. Having so much concern and love to be self-attentive is what is called <i>svātma-bhakti</i>, and it is the key to success in this path. At present most of us do not have so much <i>svātma-bhakti</i>, but by persistent practice we will certainly cultivate it.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-61013166210687987872016-03-17T11:20:06.753+00:002016-03-17T11:20:06.753+00:00Very helpful reading this.
Before I found Michael&...Very helpful reading this.<br />Before I found Michael's blog I thought that thoughts were limited to mental chatter that goes on inside my head so reading this reinforces my understanding that the whole world is just thoughts. <br />In appreciation. <br />Bob Bob - Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-67705318833497826292016-03-17T10:32:49.780+00:002016-03-17T10:32:49.780+00:00In continuation of my previous comment in reply to...In continuation of <a href="#c2475113467850301161" rel="nofollow">my previous comment</a> in reply to Seeker:<br /><br />If we deliberately try to stop all thoughts, our attention would be on the thoughts we are stopping rather than on ourself, which would be counterproductive, because our attention is the food on which our thoughts depend for their survival, since no thought can exist unless we are aware of it. If however we just try to focus our entire attention on ourself alone, other thoughts will automatically subside because we are no longer attending to them.<br /><br />Therefore our sole concern when practising <i>ātma-vicāra</i> should be to focus our attention only on ourself, and to do this we need not wait for other thoughts to subside, because whether thoughts appear or disappear we are always aware of ourself, so we can attend to ourself even in the midst of other thoughts, and the more we manage to focus our attention only on ourself the more other thoughts will just recede naturally into the background and eventually disappear. In other words, what you call ‘that tiny moment of ‘I’ before a thought arises’ is present even now and at every other moment, so without concerning yourself with the presence or absence of other thoughts, you should just try to focus only on yourself, this ever-present ‘I’.<br /><br />Regarding what you write about avoiding duality, all duality is just thoughts, so all that I wrote above applies to avoiding duality as much as to avoiding thoughts. That is, we should not concern ourself with either thoughts or duality, but only with being self-attentive, because the more we succeed in focusing our entire attention on ourself, the more everything else will recede into the background of our awareness, until eventually the clarity of our keenly attentive self-awareness will dissolve our ego along with everything else (all of which are just its thoughts).Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com