tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post4023528687117699969..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: To curb our rising as ego, all we need do is watch ourself vigilantlyMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger177125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-28771081843798952302020-03-28T10:15:27.672+00:002020-03-28T10:15:27.672+00:00Frank, I spoke about the coronavirus pandemic in t...Frank, I spoke about the coronavirus pandemic in the light of Bhagavan’s teachings in one of my recent videos, <a href="https://youtu.be/3RiwPXu2y1E" rel="nofollow">2020-03-14 Coronavirus and the note that Bhagavan wrote for his mother in December 1898</a>, and also to a lesser extent in my latest video, <a href="https://youtu.be/dnDlisU6Vlw" rel="nofollow">2020-03-22 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses the key role of our will</a>. I hope these may help to answer <a href="#c6836424584453773310" rel="nofollow">your request</a> for ‘some wisdom from life of Raman Mahrshi in context of this virus epidemic’.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-68364245844537733102020-03-26T12:05:01.072+00:002020-03-26T12:05:01.072+00:00I request you to send some wisdom from life of Ram...I request you to send some wisdom from life of Raman Mahrshi in context of this virus epidemic.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Frank Brynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01474206524342046137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-6076526349114891872020-03-02T15:02:25.497+00:002020-03-02T15:02:25.497+00:00Rajat, regarding your comment of 1 March 2020 at 1...Rajat, regarding your comment of <a href="#c4788437462105029999" rel="nofollow">1 March 2020 at 12:48</a>, awareness (in the sense of what is aware) is always self-aware, because we cannot be aware without being aware that we are aware, and being aware that we are aware entails being aware of ourself. What we actually are is just pure awareness, and as such we are aware of nothing other than ourself, but when we rise as ego, we are aware of ourself conflated with adjuncts, and as such we are aware not only of ourself but also of other things. Therefore pure awareness is pure self-awareness, whereas ego is an adjunct-conflated form of self-awareness.<br /><br />The principal feature that ego borrows from pure awareness is awareness, but whereas pure awareness is never contaminated with even the slightest awareness of anything else, ego is a form of awareness that is aware of things other than itself. Therefore, since nothing other than ourself actually exists, pure awareness alone is real awareness, and ego is just a semblance of awareness, because it is always aware of things that do not actually exist but merely seem to exist in its self-ignorant view.<br /><br />You are therefore correct in saying that awareness of phenomena is just a by-product of ego’s conflation of self-awareness with awareness of a body, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un04" rel="nofollow">verse 4</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>: ‘உருவம் தான் ஆயின், உலகு பரம் அற்று ஆம்; உருவம் தான் அன்றேல், உவற்றின் உருவத்தை கண் உறுதல் யாவன்? எவன்?’ (<i>uruvam tāṉ āyiṉ, ulahu param aṯṟu ām; uruvam tāṉ aṉḏṟēl, uvaṯṟiṉ uruvattai kaṇ uṟudal yāvaṉ? evaṉ?</i>), ‘If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise; if oneself is not a form, who can see their forms, and how [to do so]?’ Only when we mistake ourself to be the form of a body can we perceive other forms, some of which we call the world and others of which we may call God.<br /><br />Regarding your final question, namely ‘is the awareness of a world included in the awareness of a body, because body is five sheaths and one of the sheaths is thoughts and the world is nothing but thoughts, according to Bhagavan[?]’, that is one way of explaining it. When Bhagavan defines ego as being that which is aware of itself as ‘I am this body’, what he means by the term ‘body’ is a form composed of five sheaths, namely a physical form, life, mind, intellect and will. In this context ‘mind’ (<i>manōmaya kōśa</i>) means the grosser aspects of the mind, namely those aspects that exclude intellect, will and ego, so in this sense mind includes aspects such as perceptions, memories and emotions.<br /><br />As he says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un06" rel="nofollow">verse 6</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, ‘உலகு ஐம் புலன்கள் உரு; வேறு அன்று’ (<i>ulahu aim pulaṉgaḷ uru; vēṟu aṉḏṟu</i>), ‘The world is a form [composed] of five [kinds of] sense-impressions [sights, sounds, tastes, smells and tactile sensations], not anything else’, so since sense-impressions (sensory perceptions) are just mental impressions, and as such are an aspect of the <i>manōmaya kōśa</i> (sheath composed of mind), awareness of a world comes packaged along with our awareness of ourself as a body.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-58969263177966502592020-03-01T15:18:06.137+00:002020-03-01T15:18:06.137+00:00Ego is always aware of itself as “I am this body”,...Ego is always aware of itself as “I am this body”, this is why I said that it is this self-awareness what has to be surrendered and where I went wrong because when ego separates, isolates or discriminates, by using intellect which, as Michael says in this talk, is the power of seeing the truth in things, “am” or consciousness which is the only reality in it, from the adjuncts, it is self-awareness or pure awareness itself. Correct is to say that “I am this body-consciousness” is what has to be surrendered or lost.<br /><br />.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12379570382779918899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-47884374621050299992020-03-01T12:48:18.227+00:002020-03-01T12:48:18.227+00:00Thank you Michael for clearing my confusion betwee...Thank you Michael for clearing my confusion between the terms "self-awareness" and "awareness of a body". I understand now that awareness can refer, depending on the context, either to that which is aware, or to our knowledge of something. Does self-awareness always refer to "awareness that is aware of only itself"? That is, self in self-awareness is only referring to awareness itself? When ego is said to borrow certain features from self-awareness, is this feature the ability to be aware, or is it specifically the ability to be aware of itself, to know that it exists, that I exist? What about about the ability to be aware of the world and phenomena? Is that just a byproduct of the conflation of self-awareness with awareness of a body? Or is the awareness of a world included in the awareness of a body, because body is five sheaths and one of the sheaths is thoughts and the world is nothing but thoughts, according to Bhagavan.Rajathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10446174099698255476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-86329296928704050392020-03-01T11:47:47.811+00:002020-03-01T11:47:47.811+00:00This comment has been removed by the author..https://www.blogger.com/profile/12379570382779918899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-27409425851120478292020-02-28T19:21:05.912+00:002020-02-28T19:21:05.912+00:00Rajat, regarding your comment of 25 February 2020 ...Rajat, regarding your comment of <a href="#c4196863090033544118" rel="nofollow">25 February 2020 at 08:27</a>, the exact sense in which the term ‘awareness’ is used in each case is determined by the context in which it is used. In same contexts it means what is aware, namely ourself, and in other contexts it means our knowledge or experience of something. In the term ‘awareness of a body’, awareness is obviously used in the latter sense, so such awareness is not the same awareness as in the term ‘essential self-awareness’. However, as ego we conflate our self-awareness with awareness of a body, and hence it seems to us that we are a certain body.<br /><br />I assume, however, that this is not exactly what you meant when you asked: ‘The awareness in “awareness of a body” is the same awareness in “essential self-awareness”, right?’ What I think you meant to ask is whether what is aware of a body is what is aware just of itself, to which the answer is yes and no.<br /><br />There is only one thing that is aware, namely ourself. When we are aware just of ourself (that is, of nothing other than ourself), we are pure awareness, which is what we always actually are, and which is what I assume you meant by the term ‘essential self-awareness’. However, when we are aware of ourself as a body, we are what is called ego, which is not what we actually are. Pure awareness and ego are one in substance, but different in appearance. That is, the substance (<i>poruḷ</i> or <i>vastu</i>) of ego is just pure awareness, but as ego we seem to be something other than pure awareness, namely something that is aware of itself as a body and that is consequently also aware of other phenomena.<br /><br />However, though we now seem to be ego, if instead of attending to anything else we turn our entire attention back to face ourself alone, we will see that we are just pure awareness. This is why Bhagavan sometimes used to say that if the one awareness turns outwards (that is, away from itself), it becomes ego and projects all phenomena, and that if the same awareness turns back within (that is, towards itself alone), it remains as pure awareness, which is its real nature. This does not mean that awareness (in its real sense of pure awareness) ever turns outwards, but that is what seems to have happened when we rise as ego.<br /><br />In the next paragraph you say, ‘the ego takes itself to be a body, so the ego’s self-awareness is its awareness of a body’, but that is not correct. As ego we conflate our self-awareness with awareness of a body, but these are never actually the same thing. Ego is a form of self-awareness, but it is an unreal form of it, because instead of being aware of itself just as ‘I am’ it is always aware of itself as ‘I am this body’.<br /><br />Self-awareness and awareness of a body are two distinct things, and ego is neither of them, but something that borrows certain features of both, because it is aware of itself, but aware of itself as if it were a body. The body is an object of which ego is aware, but what ego is is not just awareness of that body but awareness of itself as that body (in the sense of what is aware of itself as that body).Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-29689692484196363962020-02-28T17:59:36.607+00:002020-02-28T17:59:36.607+00:00‘To whom? To me. Who am I?’, regarding your questi...‘To whom? To me. Who am I?’, regarding your <a href="#c822663905569415612" rel="nofollow">question</a> about the term ‘தன் ஒளி உரு’ (<i>taṉ oḷi-uru</i>), ‘its [or one’s] own form of light’, in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu16" rel="nofollow">verse 16</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>, ‘light’ is a widely used metaphor for awareness, because awareness is the light by which we know all things, both ourself and everything else. Likewise, ‘form’ is a metaphor for nature (<i>svarūpa</i>), so ‘தன் ஒளி உரு’ (<i>taṉ oḷi-uru</i>), ‘its own form of light’, implies that our real nature (or the real nature of the mind) is the light of pure awareness.<br /><br />Regarding your final question, ‘What is the ‘other direction’ in the case of sleep?’, when we fall asleep we simply withdraw our attention from all other things, but without turning it back to face ourself, so we are not looking in any direction at all. Since ego subsides in sleep, what remains then is only our own real nature, which is pure awareness, but since ego is then not present, it does not experience pure awareness and is therefore not annihilated by it.<br /><br />Therefore, in order to be annihilated, we as ego must turn our entire attention back to face ourself alone during either waking or dream, because then only will ego experience itself as pure awareness, and as soon as it does so it will thereby be dissolved forever in pure awareness.<br /><br />Seeing ourself as pure awareness and thereby being dissolved forever in it is what Bhagavan meant by the term ‘<i>svarūpa-darśana</i>’ (sight or perception of our own real nature) in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para03" rel="nofollow">third paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>, which you had asked about in your comment of <a href="#c6264959902171936733" rel="nofollow">19 February 2020 at 04:57</a>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-8226639055694156122020-02-28T14:57:30.611+00:002020-02-28T14:57:30.611+00:00Thank you for the reply Michael.
Thanks for pointi...Thank you for the reply Michael.<br />Thanks for pointing out what you say in the last paragraph, "investigating ego is itself investigating our real nature, just as looking carefully at what seems to be a snake is actually looking carefully at the rope." I feel that before I might understand this unity of self and ego, I have to first deal with the problem of separating I from this body. But perhaps both steps require the same kind of discrimination.<br /><br />From the quote of Upadesa Undiyar that you quote, the phrase "tan oḷi-uru" I would like to ask you about. The word "light" seems to be another adjective used to describe our real nature, such as infinite, eternal, etc. But i suspect there is lot of meaning in this description of our real nature. What is the meaning of "own form of light"? Why is our real nature described as a "form" of light?<br /><br />You say " [..]we cease perceiving any world whenever we fall asleep, but we do not thereby achieve svarūpa-darśana. We can cease seeing the rope as a snake just by looking in some other direction [...]" You are implying here that in sleep we are looking at neither ego nor our real nature, but 'in some other direction'. This is because in sleep I as ego subside so there is nothing that can look at anything, is that right? What is the 'other direction' in the case of sleep?<br /><br /><br /><br />To whom? To me. Who am I?https://www.blogger.com/profile/05449564680695678803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-33511504628083237192020-02-27T22:07:34.420+00:002020-02-27T22:07:34.420+00:00In continuation of my previous comment in reply to...In continuation of <a href="#c1231694647994915076" rel="nofollow">my previous comment</a> in reply to ‘To whom? To me. Who am I?’:<br /><br />As you say, ‘if we look at ego closely it will disappear and only our real nature will remain’, just as if we look at the snake carefully enough, we will see that it is only a rope. However, your final inference, namely ‘This paragraph seems like a clear pointer that we have to investigate only this ego’, should not be taken to mean that we cannot investigate our real nature, because as I explained in my latest article, <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2020/02/though-we-now-seem-to-be-ego-if-we-look.html" rel="nofollow">Though we now seem to be ego, if we look at ourself keenly enough we will see that we are actually just pure awareness</a>, investigating ego is itself investigating our real nature, just as looking carefully at what seems to be a snake is actually looking carefully at the rope.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-12316946479949150762020-02-27T22:06:25.283+00:002020-02-27T22:06:25.283+00:00‘To whom? To me. Who am I?’, regarding your commen...‘To whom? To me. Who am I?’, regarding your comment of <a href="#c6264959902171936733" rel="nofollow">19 February 2020 at 04:57</a>, the snake is just a misperception of a rope, and that misperception will cease only when we see the rope as it is. The reason why Bhagavan says in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para03" rel="nofollow">third paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i> ‘கற்பித ஸர்ப்ப ஞானம் போனா லொழிய அதிஷ்டான ரஜ்ஜு ஞானம் உண்டாகாதது போல, கற்பிதமான ஜகதிருஷ்டி நீங்கினா லொழிய அதிஷ்டான சொரூப தர்சன முண்டாகாது’ (<i>kaṟpita sarppa-ñāṉam pōṉāl oṙiya adhiṣṭhāṉa rajju-ñāṉam uṇḍāhādadu pōla, kaṟpitam āṉa jaga-diruṣṭi nīṅgiṉāl oṙiya adhiṣṭhāṉa sorūpa-darśaṉam uṇḍāhādu</i>), ‘Just as unless awareness of the imaginary snake goes, awareness of the rope, [which is] the <i>adhiṣṭhāna</i> [basis, base or foundation], will not arise, unless perception of the world, which is <i>kalpita</i> [a fabrication, imagination or mental creation], departs, <i>darśana</i> [seeing or sight] of <i>svarūpa</i> [one’s own form or real nature], [which is] the <i>adhiṣṭhāna</i>, will not arise’, is that what he is pointing out in that context is that we cannot be aware of ourself as we actually are so long as we are aware of any world.<br /><br />Why is this the case? Because what perceives any world is only ourself as ego, and ego is a mistaken awareness of ourself as a body, which is not what we actually are. So long as we are aware of ourself as a body, we are not aware of ourself as we actually are, and when we are aware of ourself as we actually are, we can no longer mistake ourself to be a body, and hence we cannot perceive any world. Therefore unless we cease perceiving any world, we cannot achieve <i>svarūpa-darśana</i> (seeing or perception of our own real nature).<br /><br />However, though ceasing to perceive any world is a necessary condition for <i>svarūpa-darśana</i>, it is not a sufficient condition, because we cease perceiving any world whenever we fall asleep, but we do not thereby achieve <i>svarūpa-darśana</i>. We can cease seeing the rope as a snake just by looking in some other direction, but we do not thereby see the rope as it is. In order to see it as it is, we not only have to cease seeing it as a rope, but also need to look at it carefully enough to see what it actually is. Likewise, to achieve <i>svarūpa-darśana</i>, we not only have to cease perceiving any world, but also need to look at ourself keenly enough to see what we actually are, as Bhagavan implies in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu16" rel="nofollow">verse 16</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br /><br />வெளிவிட யங்களை விட்டு மனந்தன்<br />னொளியுரு வோர்தலே யுந்தீபற<br /> வுண்மை யுணர்ச்சியா முந்தீபற.<br /><br /><i>veḷiviḍa yaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉantaṉ<br />ṉoḷiyuru vōrdalē yundīpaṟa<br /> vuṇmai yuṇarcciyā mundīpaṟa</i>.<br /><br /><b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.<br /><br /><b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām</i>.<br /><br /><b>அன்வயம்:</b> மனம் வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.<br /><br /><b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>maṉam veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām</i>.<br /><br /><b>English translation:</b> Leaving aside external <i>viṣayas</i> [phenomena], the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness [true knowledge or knowledge of reality].<br /><br />Leaving aside external <i>viṣayas</i> is ceasing to perceive any world, but we do so whenever we fall asleep, so that is not உண்மை உணர்ச்சி (<i>uṇmai uṇarcci</i>), ‘real awareness’ or ‘awareness of reality’. In order to be aware of what is real, we not only need to cease perceiving any world, but need to do so by being aware of ‘தன் ஒளி உரு’ (<i>taṉ oḷi-uru</i>), ‘our own form of light’ (our real nature, which is the original light of pure awareness).<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-41968630900335441182020-02-25T08:27:07.837+00:002020-02-25T08:27:07.837+00:00From Rob's comment, "while we are investi...From Rob's comment, "while we are investigating this ego, the portion of it that we are trying to investigate or observe is only its essential self-awareness and not its awareness of a body or anything else"<br /><br />The awareness in "awareness of a body" is the same awareness in "essential self-awareness", right? It is just the same awareness that can be turned outwards (attending to body/world) or turned inwards (towards itself) when it becomes self-awareness. <br /><br />Also, the ego takes itself to be a body, so the ego's self-awareness is its awareness of a body, because 'self' here refers to the body. But this is wrong inference on my part, i think. Because ego, although it takes itself to be a body, it still says "this is my body, this body is my possession". So self does not refer to the body, when we talk about ego's self-awareness. "self" only refers to awareness, the same awareness that can attend to itself or to the body/world.<br />Rajathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10446174099698255476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-82816819896773260032020-02-24T22:09:17.396+00:002020-02-24T22:09:17.396+00:00This comment has been removed by the author..https://www.blogger.com/profile/12379570382779918899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-143703606944125012020-02-24T21:29:05.537+00:002020-02-24T21:29:05.537+00:00Thanks Michael. I will take some time and read it....Thanks Michael. I will take some time and read it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04435289281370413861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-40664504297851230242020-02-24T19:36:57.885+00:002020-02-24T19:36:57.885+00:00Anonymous, I have replied to several of your comme...Anonymous, I have replied to several of your comments, such as those of <a href="#c4902020504429850914" rel="nofollow">19 February 2020 at 03:25</a>, <a href="#c270782539855138537" rel="nofollow">19 February 2020 at 18:06</a>, <a href="#c6588352782799439214" rel="nofollow">20 February 2020 at 19:41</a>, <a href="#c4210780005816995578" rel="nofollow">20 February 2020 at 21:05</a>, <a href="#c7943877496355828104" rel="nofollow">21 February 2020 at 14:01</a> and <a href="#c8381391614923019663" rel="nofollow">22 February 2020 at 13:35</a>, in a separate article: <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2020/02/though-we-now-seem-to-be-ego-if-we-look.html" rel="nofollow">Though we now seem to be ego, if we look at ourself keenly enough we will see that we are actually just pure awareness</a> (particularly in the final four sections).Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-84602913097989309982020-02-24T18:36:40.341+00:002020-02-24T18:36:40.341+00:00From
http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09...From <br />http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html<br /><br />Upadēśa Undiyār verse 17: our ego or mind does not actually exist at all, even now<br /><br />Moreover, if we claim that the ego exists in any form whatsoever in sleep, we would be attributing undue reality to it. According to Bhagavan, this ego does not actually exist even now, but merely seems to exist, whereas in sleep it does not even seem to exist. Whatever is experienced must either actually exist or at least seem to exist, because whatever does not actually exist or even seem to exist cannot exist at all and hence cannot be experienced. Therefore, since our ego does not ever actually exist, whenever it does not even seem to exist, as in sleep, it does not exist at all or in any form whatsoever.<br /><br />Even though our ego seems to exist in waking and dream (that is, whenever we are aware of anything other than ourself), Bhagavan advises us not to assume that it actually exists, but instead to investigate it to see whether it actually exists even now, because according to his experience if we investigate this ego we will find that there is no such thing at all, as he declares in verse 17 of Upadēśa Undiyār:<br /><br />English translation: When [one] investigates [examines or scrutinises] the form of the mind without forgetting, anything called ‘mind’ will not exist. For everyone this is the direct [straight, proper, correct or true] path.<br /><br />Since we now experience ourself as this ego, our self-investigation must begin with investigation of this ego, but even while we are investigating this ego, the portion of it that we are trying to investigate or observe is only its essential self-awareness and not its awareness of a body or anything else. In other words, within this body-mixed self-awareness called ego we must try to isolate and experience only its essence, our pure self-awareness, which is what we actually are.<br /><br />When we eventually succeed in our attempt to experience our pure self-awareness in complete isolation from everything else, we will find that there is actually no such thing as a ‘mind’ or ‘ego’ at all, but only an infinite expanse of pure self-awareness, just as if we were to carefully observe an illusory snake we would eventually see that it is not actually a snake but only a rope. Just as what seemed to be a snake was actually only a rope, what now seems to be this ego, mind or thought called ‘I’ is only our actual self, which is pure self-awareness, devoid of even the slightest awareness of anything else whatsoever. Therefore since our ego or mind does not actually exist even when it seems to exist, as in waking and dream, to believe that it actually exists even when it does not seem to exist, as in sleep, would be absurd.Rob Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774159045676419103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-59485190979070827172020-02-24T15:51:32.228+00:002020-02-24T15:51:32.228+00:00Upadēśa Undiyār verse 19: we should investigate th...Upadēśa Undiyār verse 19: we should investigate the source of our ego, which is what we actually are<br /><br />Bhagavan: <br />When one investigates within what the place is from which it rises as ‘I’, ‘I’ will die. This is jñāna-vicāra.<br /><br />Michael:<br />Our ego obviously cannot itself be the place or source from which it rises, so its source cannot be anything other than ourself as we actually are, and hence what Bhagavan implies in each of these verses is that what we should investigate and know is our real self, the source from which our ego rises as ‘I’. However, though he teaches in this way that we should investigate what we ourself actually are, he often explained that the only way in which we can investigate what we actually are is by attentively watching our ego, because when we watch it exclusively, it will subside back into ourself, its source.<br /><br />This is why he sometimes said that our ego is like the scent that a dog follows in order to trace its ‘master’ or human companion. So long as the dog holds on to that scent, it will be led by it unfailingly back to its (the scent’s) source, who is the person it is seeking. Likewise by vigilantly holding on to or observing our ego, we will be led by it unfailingly back to its source, which is our real self.<br /><br />However, in the case of a person and his or her scent, they are actually two different things, whereas in the case of our ego and our real self, they are not actually two different things but one and the same thing, because it is our real self alone that now seems to be this ego. Therefore a still more accurate analogy is that looking at our ego is like closely observing an illusory snake. If we observe the snake keenly enough, we will see that it is only a rope. Likewise, if we observe our ego keenly enough, we will see that it is only our real self.Rob Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774159045676419103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-46479981563093651442020-02-23T19:57:24.162+00:002020-02-23T19:57:24.162+00:00Anonymous, no conflicts - just different opinions ...Anonymous, no conflicts - just different opinions ....<br /><br />Conflicts will arise as long as an ego arises, same with opinions. I.e. IMO there is no difference between the ego saying and believing "I am self-realized" or saying "I am not self-realized and therefore I still have to practice ...."<br /><br />Both statements are based on ignorance since both are statements by an ego. 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-87408199637528113002020-02-23T18:23:47.001+00:002020-02-23T18:23:47.001+00:00Didn’t mean to bring any conflicts here. As I am d...Didn’t mean to bring any conflicts here. As I am doing pranayama and acupuncture, my mind is becoming clearer more and hence my outlook towards the teachings are also changing. I feel good commenting here, hence posting something or other everyday. I think all of us are heading in the right direction. We are in a better off situation than others who don’t care to hurt others , put up a fake face all the time and are more malicious. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04435289281370413861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-16519493344286910962020-02-23T16:56:03.433+00:002020-02-23T16:56:03.433+00:00Muruganar: Bhagavan said more than fasting, sattvi...<b>Muruganar: Bhagavan said more than fasting, sattvic food in moderate quantities is the proper aid for sadhana</b><br /><br />Bhagavan teaches us verses 492 and 493 of <i>Guru Vachaka Kovai</i> as follows:<br /><br />492: Since the gracious Lord produces the needful food for all creatures only in the needed quantity, if one consumes more than what is needed to sustain life, it is a sin of stealing violently other’s food. Thus should you know. <br /><br /><b>Sri Muruganar</b>: <i>Although this verse mentions only food, it is applicable to all the necessities of life. Whatever one heaps more than necessary is nothing but heaping sins. This is well confirmed by the next verse</i>. <br /><br />493: By the crime of excess, even the nectar will become poison. By the crime of excess, many are the evils. Hence one should realize the crime of excess and remove it. <br /><br /><b>Sri Muruganar</b>: <i>Though it is said that fasting and non-sleep are in a way an aid to spiritual progress, excess of them is certainly harmful. Bhagavad Gita points out: "For he who sleeps more or utterly restrains sleep, and for he who eats more or fasts more, there is no success in yoga." Sri Bhagavan also used to say that more than fasting, sattvic food in moderate quantities is the proper aid for sadhana</i><br /><br />My reflection: Bhagavan has given us enough for our needs but not enough for our greed. So we should consume food and other necessities in the absolutely essential quantity. At least, this should be our endeavour, even though as long as we experience ourself as ego, we will eat and consume things in excess. This is how ego survives. It has to constantly grasp things in order to survive and the more things it grasps, the better it is for its survival. <br /><br />Regarding fasting, if we fast by suppressing our desires, it could be detrimental to our sadhana. However, if we joyfully fast in order to conserve our vital-energy and to redirect it towards our sadhana, I think this could be beneficial for us. However, Bhagavan’s teaching is clear: one should consume sattvik food in limited quantity. We need not ignore this advice. So we should progress gradually in our fasting if we want to fast, and this should be a willing and joyful process and not something forced. What do others (including Michael) have to say on my views on fasting? <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-71976197383404236212020-02-23T15:47:23.353+00:002020-02-23T15:47:23.353+00:00Anonymous, Asun has an issue with people who belie...Anonymous, Asun has an issue with people who believe to be self-realized and therefore from time to time she has to comment about her concept about reality. I find it amusing since it keeps coming up repeatedly.<br /><br />I.e. I didn't know that there is a difference between holding "I am" and reality. How does she come up with that idea? How does she know what "I am" entails for "others" unless she projects her own idea of "I am" and seeming differences to reality?<br /><br />I find it silly to argue about the intricacies of vichara. <br /><br />When Bhagavan was asked about details of the practice of vichara he gave only indirect answers, probably well knowing if he would give a more direct explanation then mind would quickly pervert it and then centuries of arguments would follow like the endless arguments about free will and destiny.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-3636608218807932582020-02-23T13:46:17.234+00:002020-02-23T13:46:17.234+00:00This comment has been removed by the author..https://www.blogger.com/profile/12379570382779918899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-450749596933631112020-02-23T12:43:46.216+00:002020-02-23T12:43:46.216+00:00Muruganar was Bhagavan’s shadow
The following is ...<b>Muruganar was Bhagavan’s shadow</b><br /><br />The following is a paraphrase of an extract from the article <i>Guru Vacaka Kovai and Muruganar</i> by H. Vaidyanathan, which was published in the book <i>Ramana’s Muruganar</i>:<br /><br />Muruganar would never leave Bhagavan’s presence, so he was Bhagavan’s shadow. So Murugunar was always present when Bhagavan interacted with devotees and others and answered their questions. He listened to whatever Bhagavan said with utmost attention and care. This accounts for his deep and clear knowledge of Bhagavan’s teachings. Muruganar noted down all that Bhagavan said in such conversations and all this was later compiled in the book <i>Guru Vachaka Kovai</i>. Since Muruganar had totally surrendered to Bhagavan, his recordings of Bhagavan’s sayings are free of his ego’s distortions because there was no ego left in him to distort anything. <br /><br />Each night Muruganar would write these sayings and submit them to Bhagavan the next morning for scrutiny. Bhagavan would either approve them or suggest modifications. In some instances, Bhagavan would write his own fresh verses to amplify or elucidate Muruganar’s recordings. Bhagavan wrote 28 such fresh verses.<br /> <br />My reflections: We owe a lot to Muruganar. He has not recorded Bhagavan’s teachings in works such as <i>Guru Vachaka Kovai</i> but has also demonstrated to us what real love for Bhagavan is. He has shown us through his life and works how we should surrender to Bhagavan and his teachings. Glory to Bhagavan! Glory to Muruganar! <br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-41597183571632252552020-02-23T12:12:03.249+00:002020-02-23T12:12:03.249+00:00Bhagavan’s entire teaching is pointing towards mau...<b>Bhagavan’s entire teaching is pointing towards mauna (silence)</b><br /><br />In <i>Ramana Puranam</i> (1: 321-22), Muruganar writes:<br /><br />All the best books are but a preface to his [Bhagavan’s] book of mauna.<br /><br />Our spiritual journey will come to a halt only when we drown ourself in mouna (silence). On our way to this silence, we may read many books or read other things but all such writings can at best be like a preface to Bhagavan’s book of mouna (silence). So, we have not learnt anything worthwhile before we read the book of mouna. How do we read mouna? We can do so by not rising as ego. And if we have risen as ego, we can reconnect to mouna by turning within and subsiding back into our source. <br /><br />Only mouna is eternal satisfaction, so until we permanently reach mouna, we will always be dissatisfied. So let us strive our best to merge in mouna. Everything else is ultimately maya, which needs to be forgotten. <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-54836988017565766972020-02-22T23:24:54.746+00:002020-02-22T23:24:54.746+00:00Salazar,
I thought Asun said that. So I disagreed...Salazar,<br /><br />I thought Asun said that. So I disagreed with her. I agree there is just one. I strongly feel you and Asun are practicing it right, but all of us have disagreements in terminologies used to describe the practice. That should be fine, since ego is just not existent after all . Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04435289281370413861noreply@blogger.com