tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post356891748282435358..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: How to attend to ourself?Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-41343477143126899472017-03-08T00:39:27.532+00:002017-03-08T00:39:27.532+00:00Sanjay Srivastava, I have replied to the first of ...Sanjay Srivastava, I have replied to the <a href="#c1913814604202349532" rel="nofollow">first of your comments</a> in a separate article: <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/03/rather-than-being-aware-of-being-aware.html" rel="nofollow">Rather than being aware of being aware, we should be aware only of what is aware, namely ourself</a>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-11894925850813907712017-03-07T02:46:06.322+00:002017-03-07T02:46:06.322+00:00Dear Sanjay,
"Though they sound similar, the...Dear Sanjay,<br /><br /><i>"Though they sound similar, they do not feel the same when i start practicing.<br />That's why I wanted to know about other members experience.”</i><br /><br />To my understanding that is one of the problems when we study different approaches within the broad “advaita (vedanta)” world of today, either reading hindu or western <i>teachers</i>.<br />At a certain point, it is a little bit confusing, since all these people use different approaches with different semantic properties. The moon is the same but the fingers pointing at it are of different shapes and colors.<br /><br />That is why is important to dive deep in the teachings of one master and try to go all the way. <br />Complementary knowledge from other gurus is common in the search and sometimes even useful at the beginning, but there is the risk that we get “lost in translation” if we start jumping from one to another randomly.<br /><br />Even within the terminology of Bhagavan Sri Ramana we encounter different ways he used to express the state that can’t be expressed in words and the means to obliterate the illusory layers that seem to cover it.<br /><br />As for myself, I found useful (one of Bhagavan’s tools) to turn the outward going attention “inwards” and rest within that effortless sense of being/existence-knowledge/awareness. In other words, investigate the source of phenomena (ego), and see if there is such a “thing”.<br />How to define what happens next is irrelevant, what is important is to abide “there” (although is not a place, neither a moment in time). <br /><br />All the best in your quest,<br />M<br /><br />Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-5558421054252585712017-03-07T01:10:31.001+00:002017-03-07T01:10:31.001+00:00Thanks Sanjay Lohia for your comments.
I get conf...Thanks Sanjay Lohia for your comments.<br /><br />I get confused with so many descriptions- being aware of being aware, awareness watching awareness, taking stand as awareness, resting in now etc. Though they sound similar, they do not feel the same when i start practicing. That's why I wanted to know about other members experience.Sanjay Srivastavahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12178069405979485331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-91208776065879043972017-03-06T07:27:54.779+00:002017-03-06T07:27:54.779+00:00Sanjay Srivastava, our aim should be to ignore the...Sanjay Srivastava, our aim should be to ignore the ‘entire gamut of experience’ when we practise <i>atma-vichara.</i> Therefore, if any practice makes our attention move away from our fundamental self-awareness, it cannot be the correct practice of <i>atma-vichara</i>. <br /><br />The description ‘being aware of being aware’ is an inappropriate way to describe self-investigation. We can describe our practice as ‘trying to be aware of what is aware’, but we have much simpler ways to describe it:<br /><br />• self-investigation<br />• self-attentiveness<br />• being attentively self-aware<br />• attentive self-awareness<br />• to be vigilantly self-attentive <br /><br />We should avoid any confusing or misleading terms, like 'being aware of being aware' and so on. <br /><br /><br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-19138146042023495322017-03-05T14:48:34.340+00:002017-03-05T14:48:34.340+00:00I have tried being aware of being aware. I find it...I have tried being aware of being aware. I find it slightly different than being aware of myself. In being aware of being aware, it is more like getting more awake towards entire gamut of experience. While being aware of myself is more like somewhat withdrawing from other experiences. There is more effort involved in the latter. What is your experience?Sanjay Srivastavahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12178069405979485331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-27861163860774444202016-07-25T01:44:55.665+01:002016-07-25T01:44:55.665+01:00Simpler, clearer approach to self investigation
h...Simpler, clearer approach to self investigation<br /><br />http://non-duality.rupertspira.com/watch/true-self-investigation-is-self-abidance-or-self-rememberingWho?https://www.blogger.com/profile/07889807392007505053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-56909829637896723662016-07-24T22:08:57.563+01:002016-07-24T22:08:57.563+01:00So many words. So simple a thing made so complicat...So many words. So simple a thing made so complicated. Go to youtube and search "Being Aware of Being Aware" by Rupert Spira. Much simpler clearer pointing. This isn't rocket science, it isn't difficult or special or unique or hard to do. You don't need to be gifted or an intellectual or a savant or an advanced yogi. You are always aware and you simply need to be AWARE of being AWARE. What is aware that you are breathing? What is it that is aware of your speaking? The same awareness that was aware of your breathing 2 years ago, 20 years ago. It is always right there, it is what you are. You could not read this sentence if you were not aware. What is witnessing you read this sentence? Awareness is.... Abide there.Who?https://www.blogger.com/profile/07889807392007505053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-35364711005443100142016-06-19T13:27:11.503+01:002016-06-19T13:27:11.503+01:00Viveka Vairagya, I have replied the question you a...Viveka Vairagya, I have replied the question you asked in <a href="#c3894713479582785257" rel="nofollow">your comment</a> in a separate article, <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/06/what-is-i-feeling-and-do-we-need-to-be.html" rel="nofollow">What is ‘the I-feeling’, and do we need to be ‘off the movement of thought’ to be aware of it?</a>Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-69535595715507228822016-06-11T01:25:43.061+01:002016-06-11T01:25:43.061+01:00Michael,
many thanks for your detailed explanation...Michael,<br />many thanks for your detailed explanation about your interpretation of the term 'subject'. Therefore I do not raise any further objection to it.<br />Regarding your comment of 27 May 2016 at 10:01, last sentence of the third paragraph: ["We are the subject(this ego) only so long as we are distinct from whatever we are aware of, so to the extent that we are aware only of ourself, we cease to be the subject or this ego."] I simply wanted to object that from the viewpoint of grammar also (a) consciousness which is aware only of itself would not lose its position called the 'subject'of a sentence in this grammatical sense. In grammar probably of all world languages the term 'subject' is used in the connection with the component parts of a sentence (main/matrix clause ) for example: "I am" : 'I' is the 'subject' and 'am' is the predicate of the sentence. Because the 'subject' of a sentence is (that) what can asked with "who"? or "what"? the 'subject' as a part of the clause is mostly represented by a noun or a pronoun.<br />Therefore let us try to eradicate this ego entirely by investigating it keenly, as Bhagavan teaches us .without giving roomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-52305640071483032032016-06-03T10:52:20.687+01:002016-06-03T10:52:20.687+01:00Michael,
thanky you for your explanation.
Again I ...Michael,<br />thanky you for your explanation.<br />Again I can reply only next week.without giving roomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-14311939181327484542016-06-02T12:58:03.451+01:002016-06-02T12:58:03.451+01:00In continuation of my previous comment in reply to...In continuation of <a href="#c6560143835770270076" rel="nofollow">my previous comment</a> in reply to Without Giving Room:<br /><br />There are several benefits in using the term ‘subject’ in this sense in the context of Bhagavan’s teachings. Firstly, by using it thus we are emphasising and clarifying the distinction between ourself as this ego, which the subject, and all the phenomena of which we are aware, which are objects. Secondly, we can thereby say that we are the subject only so long as we are aware of any objects (that is, anything other than ourself), which is what Bhagavan implies when he teaches us in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/05/what-is-logic-for-believing-that.html#un25" rel="nofollow">verse 25</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> that we rise, stand and flourish as this ego only by ‘grasping form’. Thirdly, since all objects (that is all phenomena or things other than ourself) are known only by ourself as this ego, it is logical to define this object-knowing ego as the referent or meaning of the term ‘subject’. And fourthly, by using the term ‘subject’ to refer specifically to this ego, which alone is what is aware of all objects, we can clearly distinguish this object-knowing subject that we now seem to be from the pure self-awareness that we actually are.<br /><br />If on the other hand we choose to interpret the term ‘subject’ in the less precise sense in which you propose we use it, we would not thereby be clarifying anything, but would simply be glossing over important distinctions and thereby helping to perpetuate our confusion about what we actually are. Moreover, since according to your interpretation pure self-awareness is ‘the subject without any object’, you are thereby implying that <i>brahman</i> or <i>sat-cit-ānanda</i> is the subject, which seems absurd, especially when we consider the above-cited definition of ‘subject’ from the Oxford Dictionaries, particularly the portion ‘the ego, especially as opposed to anything external’, because <i>brahman</i> is pure awareness (<i>prajñāna</i>), which is opposed to nothing and to which nothing is external, because it is the infinite whole (<i>pūrṇa</i>), other than which nothing can exist.<br /><br />Regarding your final remark, ‘beyond the epistemological basic-structure of the splitting between subject and object we can understand reality as unsplitted’, all splitting or division begins with the fundamental distinction between subject and object, which seems to exist only in the view of ourself as this ego, because this ego is the subject (according not only to my interpretation but also to the standard definition given in the Oxford Dictionaries), in whose view alone all objects seem to exist. Therefore we cannot evade or bypass all the distinctions that we now experience merely by reinterpreting the term ‘subject’ to mean not only this ego but also the one infinite self-awareness from which it arises and which always underlies its seeming existence. The only means by which we can truly and completely ‘understand reality as unsplitted’ is by eradicating this ego entirely by investigating it keenly, because only when we have eradicated it will we experience ourself as the <i>anādi ananta akhaṇḍa sat-cit-ānanda</i> (beginningless, limitless and undivided existence-awareness-happiness) that we actually are (as Bhagavan teaches us in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/09/self-knowledge-is-not-void-sunya.html#uu28" rel="nofollow">verse 28</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>).Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-65601438357702700762016-06-02T12:50:44.593+01:002016-06-02T12:50:44.593+01:00Without Giving Room, words are vehicles for convey...Without Giving Room, words are vehicles for conveying meaning, so as long as we make clear what we intend each word to mean it will mean just that, and hence within reasonable limits we are free to use words as we want to use them. Therefore we should not get entangled in disputes about words unless we are trying to clarify what they mean, and if someone has made clear the sense in which they are using a particular word, we should avoid confusing ourself or others by interpreting their use of that word in some other sense.<br /><br />Regarding the word ‘subject’, it may be used in different senses in different contexts, so we cannot claim that it has a single fixed meaning. However in the context of epistemology and metaphysics, there is a clear distinction between subject and object, and ‘subject’ means what knows or is aware of any object, whereas ‘object’ means whatever thing it is aware of. Therefore it was in this sense that I used the term ‘subject’ to refer to our ego and wrote:<br /><br />‘When we attend to anything other than ourself, we are the subject and whatever we are attending to is an object, so there is a distinction between ourself (as the subject) and that thing (as an object), whereas when we attend to ourself alone we are neither the subject nor an object, because there is absolutely no distinction between ourself and what we are attending to. We are the subject (this ego) only so long as we are distinct from whatever we are aware of, so to the extent that we are aware only of ourself, we cease to be the subject or this ego.’<br /><br />I believe that in this passage I made the sense in which I was using the term ‘subject’ quite clear, and that that sense is perfectly acceptable, easily understandable and in accordance with the sense in which it is generally used in such contexts. For example, you cited the two philosophical definitions of ‘subject’ given <a href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/subject" rel="nofollow">here in the online Oxford Dictionaries</a>, but you omitted an important portion of the main definition and merged the secondary definition with the remaining portion of it. The main definition in the philosophy section (section 5 of the definitions for the noun), which is the only one of these two that is relevant in our present context, is: ‘A thinking or feeling entity; the conscious mind; the ego, especially as opposed to anything external to the mind’, which is very close to the sense in which I was using it.<br /><br />However, rather than defining the subject as ‘the ego, especially as opposed to anything external to the mind’, I would define it as ‘the ego, especially as opposed to anything else known by it’, because according to Bhagavan none of the phenomena known by the ego are external to the mind as a whole (though they are all in a sense external to the ego), because they are all thoughts or ideas created by the ego within the mind (of which it is the root and essence). In other words, the mind as a whole consists of two distinct parts, the subject (the essential portion that is aware, namely the ego) and the objects (the portion consisting of all its other thoughts, which all the phenomena of which this ego is aware).<br /><br />(I will continue this reply in my next comment.)Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-75457531070111823342016-06-01T15:45:55.887+01:002016-06-01T15:45:55.887+01:00Michael,
thank you for your further reflections ab...Michael,<br />thank you for your further reflections about being self-attentive which is both a spiritual state and the actual practice of self-investigation(atma-vicara).<br />You write about the distinction between ourself as the subject and anything other than ourself as an object, <br />"whereas when we attend to ourself alone we are neither the subject nor an object, because there is absolutely no distinction between ourself and what we are attending to. We are the subject (this ego) only so long as we are distinct from what ever we are aware of, so to the extent that we are aware only of ourself, we cease to be the subject or this ego."<br />I think it is only a matter of name or the way of describing or view point.<br />According Oxford Dictionary of English in philosophy a ‚subject‘ is a thinking or feeling entity; the conscious mind; the central substance or core of a thing as opposed to its attributes.<br />Therefore in my opinion it may not be wrong to say : sat-chit-ananda as being conscious of the happiness of the self and being pure self-awareness, that is non-objective awareness of the absolute Brahman, and experiencing that primal state ‚I am‘ or the pure 'I' am 'I' is not a thought but non-dual. Hence attending to ourself alone cannot be any distinction between ourself and what we are attending to. As such an self-consciousness we can be named as the subject without any object. <br />When we define the term 'subject' as a knowing entity provided with consciousness then every carrier of self – consciousness can in the sense of that definition be named a 'subject' albeit without an object. Therefore beyond the epistemological basic-structure of the splitting between subject and object we can understand reality as unsplitted.without giving roomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-28242422056536983132016-05-31T14:02:41.131+01:002016-05-31T14:02:41.131+01:00Sundar, I have replied to your second comment in a...Sundar, I have replied to <a href="#c7735254325264532794" rel="nofollow">your second comment</a> in a separate article: <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/05/what-is-logic-for-believing-that.html" rel="nofollow">What is the logic for believing that happiness is what we actually are?</a>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-71869689677748838012016-05-29T18:07:24.877+01:002016-05-29T18:07:24.877+01:00Recently Venkat, Sunder and Sivanarul had a discus...Recently Venkat, Sunder and Sivanarul had a discussion on the subject of <i>ananda</i>. I share my reflection on some of their comments:<br /><br />Sunder addressed Michael and wrote a comment dated 28 May at 03:55 as follows: 'But, the logic for the ananda part in sat chit ananda is not well explained'. I once asked a similar question to Michael, and he answered me as follows. I reproduce our discussion as I remember it now: <br /><br />Sanjay: Sir, as I understand, <i>sat-chit-ananda</i> is also called <i>asti-bhati-priyam</i> (<i>asti</i> means 'what is' or existence, <i>bhati</i> means 'what shines' or consciousness, and <i>priyam</i> means limitless love or happiness). My question is, why does <i>sat-chit</i> or <i>asti-bhati</i> have limitless love for itself?<br /><br />Michael: You have asked a question which has no answer. Existence exists because it exists, it is conscious because it is conscious and it loves itself because it loves itself. No cause can be attributed to this ever-present, infinite reality. <br /><br />As Michael explained to us in a recent comment of his, the chain of cause and effect begins only with the rising of our ego; therefore, no cause can be attributed to what exists before of beyond this ego. <br /> <br />Sunder further writes in this comment: 'But, I cannot be sure of even having had a dreamless sleep. Hence, I cannot speak of a 'perfectly happy' time during the dreamless sleep'. <br /><br />If we did not have a perfectly happy time in sleep, we will not look forward to our sleep. Bhagavan used to explain, even a king asks his most favourite queen to leave his company when he feels sleepy, thereby indicating that our sleep in a joyous state. Furthermore, do we not feel refreshed and relaxed when we awake up from our sleep? This also indicated that we were in a happy state then. As a matter of fact, we all experience deep sleep and remain only as pure-awareness, bereft of our ego, while asleep. <br /><br />Sunder writes in his comment dated 29 May 01:27 as follows: 'I should not belabour the point about Ananda. Instead get on with self enquiry'. Yes, I agree. Intellectual discussions and arguments have limitations. As Sunder implies, we cannot experience <i>ananda</i> or limitless happiness just by discussing about it, though this discussion (<i>manana</i>) has a role in pointing us towards the right direction. Eventually it is only our persist effort to be self-attentive that can enable us to experience this infinite <i>ananda</i>.<br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-10260250904253391892016-05-29T01:27:38.781+01:002016-05-29T01:27:38.781+01:00Thanks, Venkat,
I agree with you. I should not b...Thanks, Venkat,<br /><br /> I agree with you. I should not belabour the point about Ananda. Instead get on with self enquiry.<br />sundarSundarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02131234373180465075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-11183297225721657982016-05-29T01:24:13.981+01:002016-05-29T01:24:13.981+01:00Sivanarul,
Thanks. You are asking me to extrapolat...Sivanarul,<br />Thanks. You are asking me to extrapolate the happiness, peace that I find in a limited sense during my meditations. And, you are likens the current bouts of happiness / peace to dust. I suppose you can not give me a logic for the claim that it is as minuscule as dust.<br /><br />I guess, until I find it out myself, I should just believe it, when the masters say that it is ananda or great bliss.<br /><br /><br /><br />sundarSundarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02131234373180465075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-88646059233463062342016-05-28T23:35:36.201+01:002016-05-28T23:35:36.201+01:00Sundar
"We have to be satisfied with [an] an...Sundar<br /><br />"We have to be satisfied with [an] ananda . . . nothing more".<br /><br />You sound disappointed! If you carefully examine the lives we live (both yours and others), you will see the selfishness, the sorrow, the desire, the fear permeating every minute. Our minds are never content with with resting in the present (summa iru), but are always going backwards and forwards in time. We are never satisfied.<br /><br />Therefore this ananda, this peace is truly non-trivial. It is just our selfish, pleasure-seeking ego, that wants to imagine some kind of ecstasy, and cannot rest content to simply be. Which neatly brings us back to Bhagavan's self-enquiry - who is it that wants to experience bliss?venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-70035465953535341182016-05-28T21:40:05.478+01:002016-05-28T21:40:05.478+01:00Venkat,
Thanks. I can accept the logic of continui...Venkat,<br />Thanks. I can accept the logic of continuity - Consciousness was there before and after sleep. Hence, it must have existed during sleep also.<br /><br />As to the presence of a period of sleep (dreamless, deep sleep), you have not given proof. I suppose we need to turn to science,MRI scans etc to get proof for dreamless, deep sleep.<br /><br />As for ananda, as you have said before, we have to be satisfied with an ananda, that is defined as an absence of fear, anxiety, incomplete feeling etc characteristic of an ego filled existence. Nothing more.<br /><br />sundarSundarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02131234373180465075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-7479231451756669972016-05-28T16:59:03.888+01:002016-05-28T16:59:03.888+01:00Hi Sundar,
As for sat and chit: to be able to kno...Hi Sundar,<br /><br />As for sat and chit: to be able to know that you exist requires chit; similarly to have chit, there must be existence. Hence sat and chit go together, are inseparable.<br /><br />You know / are aware (chit) of your existence (sat) before you fall into sleep. Similarly you know you exist after you awake. So in the intervening period, your existence must have continued, as must have consciousness. However the consciousness that was there in sleep is entirely devoid of subject (ego) and object, and hence it seems like unconsciousness to the ego, which was not there. But the substratum must have been there all along. And this substratum is colourless, adjunct-free, quiet and free of any desires, fears and suffering. Hence why 'we' feel refreshed when we awaken - because our ego has temporarily subsided into this peaceful substratum.<br /><br />This substratum, this ocean, is what we always are in essence. But the ego, the wave, that arises mistakes itself to be real and separate. And hence our ananda is lost.venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-88576983817426681412016-05-28T15:10:00.202+01:002016-05-28T15:10:00.202+01:00Sundar,
"But, You have not explained the log...Sundar,<br /><br />"But, You have not explained the logic by which you say that we can get infinite peace and happiness when we manage to be attentively aware of ourself alone. I am curious to be attentively aware of ourself alone. Hence I am working on it. But, the logic for the ananda part in sat chit ananda is not well explained"<br /><br />If you cannot accept the explanation based on peace in deep sleep, alternatively, you can experience small portion of that ananda experientially in the waking state itself, which will prove beyond doubt that when I stands alone (apart from the 36 tattuvas, infinite peace and happiness will follow).<br /><br />Here is the Sadhana: <br />1. Withdraw the mind, slowly at a pace that is comfortable to you, from all unnecessary things in your life. Being honest to yourself, you can decide what is necessary and unnecessary. <br />2. Contemplate whenever you can on death (the uncertainty, the immediate disappearance of world objects etc). This will provide a sense of urgency.<br />3. Develop deep trust in Ishvara/Grace/Guru/I-I/Self<br /><br />As desires start to wind down, the mind will gain a state of peace, stillness, joy and happiness. This is certainly NOT the ananda part in sat chit ananda, but simply a dust of that. Once you experience this, you will be convinced of the real ananda (so to speak) in waking state itself by noting that the dust of real ananda has happened due to I leaving behind things. That should convince you that as I gets more alone, peace and happiness increases. I write this from experience and not from theory. I am only a beginner and that too on the long path, so this is certainly possible to be experienced by everyone. Pratyahara really works wonders. Try it and experience it for yourself.<br /><br />With regards to the ananda of sat chit ananda, it really cannot be explained in words, but needs to be experienced.<br /><br />Here are some inspiring verses regarding that:<br /><br />குறள் 365<br />அற்றவ ரென்பார் அவாவற்றார் மற்றையார்<br />அற்றாக அற்ற திலர் <br /><br />Couplet 365<br />Men freed from bonds of strong desire are free;<br />None other share such perfect liberty <br /><br />Saint Arunagirinathar'sKandar Anubhuthi:<br />ஆசா நிகளந் துகளா யின்பின்<br />பேசா அநுபூதி பிறந் ததுவே<br /><br />After the chains of desire was broken<br />the state of Mouna was born<br /><br />தன்னந் தனி நின்றது தானறிய<br />இன்னம் மொருவர்க் கிசைவிப் பதுவோ<br /><br />It has to be realized, with I standing alone.<br />How can I tell someone else such realization? (They themselves have to realize by standing alone)<br /><br />Sivanarulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-8996175780802874922016-05-28T13:45:42.351+01:002016-05-28T13:45:42.351+01:00Venkat,
I agree with your first sentence. I guess ...Venkat,<br />I agree with your first sentence. I guess ananda with that kind of a meaning is a big deal. Some greedy minds, like mine, want ananda to mean lot more than that, an even bigger return on investment.<br /><br />With respect to your second sentence, please take a look at the last para in my prev post. I can only recount dream filled sleeps. Not deep sleep. I do feel relaxed after sleeps. But, I am not sure if I had dreamless deep sleep.<br /><br />sundarSundarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02131234373180465075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-38947134795827852572016-05-28T12:11:50.880+01:002016-05-28T12:11:50.880+01:00Michael,
I think I have finally been able to figu...Michael,<br /><br />I think I have finally been able to figure out the I-feeling or "I am" feeling. It seems to be nothing but the inner sense of awareness (or consciousness or being)/self-awareness one has when one is off the movement of thought, correct?Viveka Vairagyanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-53744338569858017062016-05-28T09:16:05.799+01:002016-05-28T09:16:05.799+01:00Sundar
I would suggest ananda is best described a...Sundar<br /><br />I would suggest ananda is best described as peace, freedom from desires / fears and the consequential absence of agitation / suffering. This after all, is our experience in deep sleep.<br /><br />venkat<br /><br />venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-77352543252645327942016-05-28T03:55:54.760+01:002016-05-28T03:55:54.760+01:00Michael,
I agree that when ego is present there ca...Michael,<br />I agree that when ego is present there can only be interrupted happiness at best. This has been our experience.<br /><br />But, You have not explained the logic by which you say that we can get infinite peace and happiness when we manage to be attentively aware of ourself alone.<br /><br />I am curious to be attentively aware of ourself alone. Hence I am working on it. But, the logic for the ananda part in sat chit ananda is not well explained.<br /><br />Also, you say: "in sleep ........... we are perfectly happy just being aware of our own existence.". I can only be certain of having had a sleep with dreams. Because I can recall some of these dreams in the morning. But, I can not be sure of even having had a dreamless sleep. Hence, I can not speak of a 'perfectly happy' time during the dreamless sleep.<br /><br />sundar<br /><br /><br />Sundarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02131234373180465075noreply@blogger.com