tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post4487838015663334782..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: We can separate ourself permanently from whatever is not ourself only by attending to ourself aloneMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger296125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-87484732127796827282017-07-16T18:21:09.509+01:002017-07-16T18:21:09.509+01:00And you write and you write and you write and come...And you write and you write and you write and come all this no closer.<br /><br />Direct perception is off when your mind is on. You think and identify with thought and let thoughts lead you away<br /><br />/thread.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-35749393422952184422016-08-21T18:34:52.644+01:002016-08-21T18:34:52.644+01:00Just for the record (i.e. future readers of this t...Just for the record (i.e. future readers of this thread):<br /><br />"Adi Da" was a fake, charlatan and an abuser who only wanted to be a Guru for the power and sex.<br /><br />Like Rajneesh (aka "Osho"), he gathered followers by copying and pasting spritual truths from others, and then spouting various anti-establishment diatribes that resonated with his listeners.<br /><br />All fakes can succeed only by being persuasive and charismatic, in which case it does not matter if you know anything. The technique always involved peppering your speech with statements that you know your audience will like and agree with. Then they will tend to accept whatever else you say.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-51627956244643944612016-06-08T13:59:38.035+01:002016-06-08T13:59:38.035+01:00Anonymous, regarding your comment in which you que...Anonymous, regarding <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/05/we-can-separate-ourself-permanently.html#c5230738945957671711" rel="nofollow">your comment</a> in which you question David Godman about <a href="http://davidgodman.org/rteach/jd5.shtml" rel="nofollow">his statement</a> ‘the Self can only destroy the mind when the mind no longer has any tendency to move outwards. While those outward-moving tendencies are still present, even in a latent form, the mind will always be too strong for the Self to dissolve it completely’, I have replied to this on his behalf in a separate article: <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/06/can-our-mind-be-too-strong-for-our.html" rel="nofollow">Can our mind be too strong for our actual self to dissolve it completely?</a>Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-6434074377483479442016-06-07T17:22:31.733+01:002016-06-07T17:22:31.733+01:00Michael,
thank you for your detailed riposte and e...Michael,<br />thank you for your detailed riposte and explaining thereby exhaustively the meaning of 'firm conviction' which is (only) intellectual. As you say : To be sufficiently motivated to investigate ourself to see what we actually are an intellectual conviction that we cannot be what we now seem to be is a necessary starting point.<br />'To be aware of ourself alone' is easy to read but because of the deep –rooted illusion that I am whatever body I currently seem to be is not (always) a simple matter to do it. Therefore even the meditation on myself alone I do not find no trouble. As you state absolute certainty can surely be achieved only by atma-vicara.<br />To focus my entire attention on myself alone by separating myself entirely from all things other than myself in order to prevent me/myself from 'rising to think or meditate anything' is something I first have to learn.nourish and flourishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-40908729436396208242016-06-07T13:21:49.427+01:002016-06-07T13:21:49.427+01:00Michael James,
many thanks for your honest reply w...Michael James,<br />many thanks for your honest reply which has the ring of sincerity.<br />My question was not put as a catch question but only asked (by me as mistaking myself to be a finite person) straight to you as a the person 'Michael James'.<br />Obviously you try to follow the path of Sri Ramana Maharshi in the right comprehension. You convincingly did avoid holding yourself up to ridicule in the sense of the quoted verse 33 of Ulladu Narpadu. That you are powerfully attracted by the teachings of Bhagavan is distinctly perceptible. Therefore I am pleased to study your articles with a clear conscience.<br />However, bowing the ego’s proud head by atma-cintana and not clinging to anything other than ourself seems to me still highly demanding. Nevertheless thereby dissolving the ego forever in the all consuming light of pure self-awareness is our noble aim and purpose in life.chinna Vyasanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-8748024959778065892016-06-07T11:51:45.818+01:002016-06-07T11:51:45.818+01:00Thank you very much Michael for your reply.
The tw...Thank you very much Michael for your reply.<br />The two examples you gave were very helpful. <br />In appreciation. <br />Bob Bob - Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-970936152686954852016-06-07T11:45:33.829+01:002016-06-07T11:45:33.829+01:00Bob, whatever Bhagavan answered was always appropr...Bob, whatever Bhagavan answered was always appropriate not only to the question but also to the particular needs, beliefs, aspirations, understanding and spiritual maturity of the questioner, so I cannot predict what he would answer to any specific question. However whatever he did answer would generally be intended to make the questioner view whatever he or she was asking about in a fresh light.<br /><br />For example, once when he was looking out of the window towards Arunachala someone asked him whether he was seeing God, and he replied something to the effect: ‘Is anyone ever seeing anything other than God?’ One another occasion someone praised him saying, ‘Your realisation is unique in the spiritual history of the world’, to which he replied: ‘What is real in me is real in you and in everyone else. Where then is the room for any uniqueness or difference?’Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-47448033926351222432016-06-07T10:58:49.485+01:002016-06-07T10:58:49.485+01:00Dear Michael
With regards you above comment.
I...Dear Michael <br /><br />With regards you above comment. <br /><br />If anyone ever asked Bhagavan was he self realised or if he was a jnani what did Bhagavan say to them? <br />Did he just say "Who sees me as a jnani" or something like that to turn the questioner's attention back on to themselves the questioner? <br />Or did he ever give a different kind of answer? From what you are saying he would not state I am a jnani or I am self realised.<br /><br />I know you once said the only question Bhagavan could not answer was: <br /><br />"Why does the ego rise?" <br /><br />He would say something like "See if it has risen" <br /><br />I am just interested to know how Bhagavan would answer a question by a ajnani asking him if he is God or he is a jnani etc etc.<br /><br />In appreciation <br />Bob <br /><br />Bob - Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-54271695002114342132016-06-07T09:52:02.833+01:002016-06-07T09:52:02.833+01:00In continuation of my previous comment in reply to...In continuation of <a href="#c921949127177426495" rel="nofollow">my previous comment</a> in reply to Chinna Vyasa:<br /><br />Since no ego or person will remain then to say ‘I am self-realised’ or ‘I am aware of myself as I actually am’, in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/01/why-do-i-believe-that-atma-vicara-is.html#un33" rel="nofollow">verse 33</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> Bhagavan says:<br /><br />என்னை யறியேனா னென்னை யறிந்தேனா<br />னென்ன னகைப்புக் கிடனாகு — மென்னை<br />தனைவிடய மாக்கவிரு தானுண்டோ வொன்றா<br />யனைவரனு பூதியுண்மை யால்.<br /><br /><i>eṉṉai yaṟiyēṉā ṉeṉṉai yaṟindēṉā<br />ṉeṉṉa ṉahaippuk kiḍaṉāhu — meṉṉai<br />taṉaiviḍaya mākkaviru tāṉuṇḍō voṉḏṟā<br />yaṉaivaraṉu bhūtiyuṇmai yāl</i>.<br /><br /><b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> ‘என்னை அறியேன் நான்’, ‘என்னை அறிந்தேன் நான்’ என்னல் நகைப்புக்கு இடன் ஆகும். என்னை? தனை விடயம் ஆக்க இரு தான் உண்டோ? ஒன்று ஆய் அனைவர் அனுபூதி உண்மை ஆல்.<br /><br /><b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>‘eṉṉai aṟiyēṉ nāṉ’, ‘eṉṉai aṟindēṉ nāṉ’ eṉṉal nahaippukku iḍaṉ āhum. eṉṉai? taṉai viḍayam ākka iru tāṉ uṇḍō? oṉḏṟu āy aṉaivar aṉubhūti uṇmai āl</i>.<br /><br /><b>அன்வயம்:</b> ‘நான் என்னை அறியேன்’, ‘நான் என்னை அறிந்தேன்’ என்னல் நகைப்புக்கு இடன் ஆகும். என்னை? தனை விடயம் ஆக்க இரு தான் உண்டோ? அனைவர் அனுபூதி உண்மை ஒன்றாய்; ஆல்.<br /><br /><b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>‘nāṉ eṉṉai aṟiyēṉ’, ‘nāṉ eṉṉai aṟindēṉ’ eṉṉal nahaippukku iḍaṉ āhum. eṉṉai? taṉai viḍayam ākka iru tāṉ uṇḍō? aṉaivar aṉubhūti uṇmai oṉḏṟu āy; āl</i>.<br /><br /><b>English translation:</b> Saying ‘I do not know myself’ [or] ‘I have known myself’ is ground for ridicule. Why? To make oneself an object known, are there two selves? Because being one is the truth of everyone’s experience.<br /><br />Therefore if anyone claims ‘I know myself’ or ‘I am an <i>ātma-jñāni</i>’ they are just displaying their self-ignorance and inviting ridicule from the wise. Only those who do not clearly understand that in <i>ātma-jñāna</i> no separate ‘I’ can survive to think or say ‘I know myself’ will believe such a self-deluded charlatan.<br /><br />Since there are not two selves for one to know the other, our actual self can be known only by our actual self, as it always is, and not by this ego. Since as we actually are we always know ourself as we actually are, to say ‘I do not know myself’ is as ridiculous as saying ‘I know myself’, but so long as we mistake ourself to be a finite person, it is better for us to be honest with ourself and others by admitting ‘I still seem to not know myself’ than to delude ourself still further by claiming ‘I know myself’, as if any ego or person could ever know what it actually is.<br /><br />Therefore in answer to your question I am happy to admit that what I still seem to be is just an ordinary self-ignorant person who has nevertheless been powerfully attracted by the teachings of Bhagavan and who is therefore trying his best to follow the path he has shown us in order to surrender himself entirely and thereby merge back forever into the infinite source from which he arose.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-9219491271774264952016-06-07T09:48:03.202+01:002016-06-07T09:48:03.202+01:00Chinna Vyasa, regarding the question you ask me in...Chinna Vyasa, regarding the question you ask me in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/05/we-can-separate-ourself-permanently.html#c8350929345350988027" rel="nofollow">your first comment</a>, namely ‘Did you experience the mentioned clear knowledge or awareness of ourself as we actually are or do you merely write about the subject as an interested aspirant?’, to whom exactly are you addressing this question?<br /><br />Are you asking this person called ‘Michael’? If so, the answer is that this person has not and never can experience clear awareness of what he actually is, nor can any other person, because a person is just a body and an associated set of adjuncts, all of which are <i>jaḍa</i> (non-aware or insentient) and therefore not actually aware of anything at all.<br /><br />Or are you asking the ego who experiences this person as ‘I’? If so, the answer is similar, namely that this ego has not and never can experience clear awareness of what it actually is, because as an ego its very nature is to be ignorant of what it actually is. That is, this ego rises and stands only by grasping a body as ‘I’, and when it does not grasp any body in this way, as in sleep, it does not exist at all.<br /><br />Unlike whatever person it currently seems to be, this ego is not only <i>jaḍa</i> but a confused mixture of <i>cit</i> (awareness) and <i>jaḍa</i>, and hence it is described as <i>cit-jaḍa-granthi</i>, the knot (<i>granthi</i>) formed by the seeming entanglement of awareness with a non-aware body. When awareness is separated from this body and all other phenomena, every one of which is <i>jaḍa</i>, the <i>cit-jaḍa-granthi</i> ceases to exist, and hence there is no ego at all.<br /><br />We can understand this from our experience in sleep. As soon as we fall asleep, our self-awareness is thereby separated from this body and all other forms or phenomena, and hence in sleep we do not experience ourself as this form-grasping ego but only as pure self-awareness. Hence this ego is not real but just an illusory appearance, and therefore as this illusory ego we can never be aware of ourself as we actually are.<br /><br />Therefore it is only when this ego is permanently eradicated that we will be aware of ourself as we actually are. As this ego we may imagine that we are ‘self-realised’ or ‘enlightened’, but if we do so we would be deluding ourself. What can and always does know our actual self is only our actual self and nothing else, so all this ego can do it to bow its proud head and surrender itself entirely by ‘ஆன்மசிந்தனையைத் தவிர வேறு சிந்தனை கிளம்புவதற்குச் சற்று மிடங்கொடாமல்’ (<i>āṉma-cintaṉaiyai-t tavira vēṟu cintaṉai kiḷambuvadaṟku-c caṯṟum iḍam-koḍāmal</i>), ‘not giving even the slightest room to the rising of any thought other than thought of oneself (<i>ātma-cintana</i>)’ (as Bhagavan teaches us in the first sentence of the <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/06/why-should-we-rely-on-bhagavan-to-carry.html#ny13" rel="nofollow">thirteenth paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Yār?</i>), or in other words, by not clinging to anything other than ourself. If we do so, our ego will dissolve forever in the all-consuming light of pure self-awareness, and nothing other than that will then remain.<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-35347841200865351452016-06-06T21:24:16.755+01:002016-06-06T21:24:16.755+01:00Nourish and Flourish, regarding your first comment...Nourish and Flourish, regarding <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/05/we-can-separate-ourself-permanently.html#c7030868624029396766" rel="nofollow">your first comment</a>, the conviction I was referring to in <a href="#un36" rel="nofollow">section 11</a> of this article, from which you cited a passage, is an intellectual conviction that we cannot be whatever body or other adjuncts we seem to be, because we are aware of ourself in waking, dream and sleep, whereas we are aware of any particular body and associated set of adjuncts only in one of these three states, either waking or dream. Being firmly convinced of this intellectually is a necessary starting point, because only when we are convinced that we cannot be what we now seem to be will we be motivated to investigate ourself to see what we actually are, but any intellectual conviction is relatively superficial, so it is insufficient by itself to eradicate our deep-rooted illusion that we are whatever body we currently seem to be.<br /><br />In order to destroy this ‘I am this body’ illusion we must be aware of ourself as we actually are, and in order to be aware of ourself thus we must be aware of ourself alone, because so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself — any thought or phenomenon of any kind whatsoever — we are aware of ourself as this ego, which is the finite mode of awareness that experiences the illusory distinction between subject (itself) and object (whatever else it is aware of). Therefore no meditation of any sort — other than meditation on ourself alone — can be sufficient to enable us to experience what we actually.<br /><br />When you question whether we can be firmly convinced that we are not this body but only pure self-awareness by meditating ‘I am not this body, I am <i>brahman</i>’, the firm conviction you seem to be referring to is not mere intellectual conviction but only absolute certainly, which we obviously cannot achieve merely by such meditation. Conviction in the sense of absolute certainly is synonymous with <i>ātma-jñāna</i> — clear awareness of ourself as we actually are — so it can only be achieved by <i>ātma-vicāra</i> and not by any other means.<br /><br />What Bhagavan refers to in verses <a href="#un29" rel="nofollow">29</a>, <a href="#un32" rel="nofollow">32</a> and <a href="#un36" rel="nofollow">36</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> as thinking or meditating ‘I am not this, I am that’ can be understood in two different ways. A crude but nevertheless popular understanding of such meditation is that it merely entails mentally repeating to oneself ‘I am not this body, I am <i>brahman</i>’, as if it were a form of <i>japa</i>, but a more refined and beneficial understanding of it is that it is a form of <i>manana</i> and as such entails critically analysing one’s own experience of oneself in each of the three alternating states of waking, dream and sleep and reflecting deeply on the various arguments given to us by <i>ātma-jñānis</i> and in sacred texts to convince us that we cannot be this body, mind or any other transitory adjuncts, and that we are therefore only pure self-awareness.<br /><br />Therefore when Bhagavan said in these verses that thinking ‘I am not this, I am that’ is a good aid, the interpretation of it that he was referring to was primarily the latter, because doing such <i>manana</i> is far more beneficial than merely repeating ‘I am not this, I am that’ like a <i>mantra</i>. However, though it is necessary for us to do such <i>manana</i>, it is not sufficient by itself, because so long as we are thinking of anything other ourself we cannot separate ourself entirely from all such things. In order to separate ourself from everything that is not ourself (including the idea ‘I am <i>brahman</i>’), we must focus our entire attention on ourself alone, because so long as we are attending even to the slightest extent to anything else we are thereby clinging to it or grasping it in our awareness, thereby preventing ourself from separating from it entirely.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-90026972092269677492016-06-01T03:05:12.872+01:002016-06-01T03:05:12.872+01:00PART 2
As usually happens, I may agree, but requir...PART 2<br />As usually happens, I may agree, but requiring further elaboration.<br />IMO the situation is like a wagon wheel with spokes leading into the center. You personally are concerned with the situation happening near the center of the wheel, the hub, where all the various schools / paths converge. And... Sri Ramana is most articulate at this level too. He says something like "bhakti and Jnana are the same." But when an in-experienced person is just beginning a path/school, (say bhakti or jnana) they are at a point where the characteristics appear to be much different (close to the outside of the wheel). I am most interested in the hub for my own practice, but I am also interested in discussing the entire range. I can't start talking advaita to new friends, may have to start with a suitable style of meditation first. I'm afraid if only the "hub" is discussed (as sometimes happens with advaita teachers) without the experience of meditation, the student will never reach the hub, because descriptions of advaita become just more mental concepts without direct experience.<br /><br /><i><br />venkat said: Jnana yoga is a technical term in advaita...<br /></i><br /><br />My teacher was very intelligent (Tarabilda) and totally into Sankara. He said Sankara came to him in dreams, but Tarabilda's exposition is creative. I have "drg, drsya viveka", commentary on the yoga sutras by sankara, mandukyopanisad with krika and Sankara's commentary, A thousand teachings translated by Mayeda, "the method of early advaita vedanta" etc... so I am not entirely illiterate. But, I may not understand or have read everything.<br /><br />IMO Jnana Yoga is different depending on if it's next to the outside of the wheel, or the hub. And, next to the hub, the other paths take on the flavor of Jnana.<br /><br />>> So 'who am I?' in its broadest sense, can be seen as encompassing the entire gamut of metaphysical speculation - from the intellectual understanding through to the direct experiencing of non-duality.<br /><br />I agree, I saw in Paul Brunton rather than "who am i?" he said "what am I?". <br />All of creation could be seen as the play of "who am I?" or "what am I?": spirit first moving into matter, then matter coming back to spirit. But, at different stages... it might manifest in vastly different ways. Creation is extremely diverse. So my practice is a little different than yours, but very similar.Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12886674544129003153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-72110254441438923122016-06-01T03:04:22.456+01:002016-06-01T03:04:22.456+01:00Hi Venkat (and Sanjay), PART 1
Regarding our gene...Hi Venkat (and Sanjay), PART 1<br /><br />Regarding our general discussion, there is a quote I like from Franklin Merrell Wolff. He was a 20th century master who studied Math and Philosophy at Harvard and Stanford and taught at Stanford. He says regarding "there is one spiritual practice that is ideal for everyone": <br /><i>In general, such attitudes are simply not sound, for even a considerable degree of enlightenment is compatible with a failure to transcend one’s own individual psychology... and if the individual has not become cognizant of the relativity of his own psychology, he can very easily fall into the error of projecting his own attitude as an objective universal. <br /></i><br /><br />My reason for pointing this out is: discussion might be more effective it were <b>comparative rather then competitive.</b> I can see situations where Venkat, Sanjay ( and perhaps even Roger) have different positions, and yet each position deserves elaboration and might stand on it's own. Something may work differently for Venkat than me.... but I learn from him.<br /><br /><i><br />venkat said... But, I am afraid that I am selfish...<br /></i><br /><br />Well I think you should be selfish, BL says, after all 'you are the only "I" in the universe'.<br />You are making my point: generally we can't evaluate others sadhana, but we might learn something. So we can switch from "competition" to being more "comparative".<br /><br /><i><br />venkat said: I do think you are mistaken in talking about different schools - different teachers may emphasise different practices, but that doesn't mean that there are different schools. There can only be one truth - 'not two' <br /></i><br />Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12886674544129003153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32824530868931246062016-05-31T13:22:08.048+01:002016-05-31T13:22:08.048+01:00Venkat, yes, I know little about the exact Vedanti...Venkat, yes, I know little about the exact <i>Vedantic</i> practice of <i>sravana, manana and nididhyasana</i>; therefore, whatever I wrote was based on my limited understanding. However, I did write as follows: <br /><br />Though even our <i>sravana, manana and nididhyasana</i> is some sort of <i>neti-neti</i>, because the sadguru's main teaching is that we are not this body, but the ever pure and ever perfect <i>atman</i>. <br /><br />As you can see, I did try to include <i>neti-neti</i> as part of our <i>sravana and manana</i> (though I qualified the similarity by saying 'some sort'). In fact, while he was in his body, Bhagavan was constantly teaching us the essence of <i>neti-neti</i>. He was always teaching us - directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly - that he was not the body which we took him to be. It was a vital clue to us: If he was not the body, how can we be this body? Because the essential nature of all the bodies cannot be different from each other. Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-36501041709565368212016-05-31T13:06:38.956+01:002016-05-31T13:06:38.956+01:00Sanjay Lohia,
thank you for clearing that you have...Sanjay Lohia,<br />thank you for clearing that you have not replaced the term 'sravana' with a new term.<br />Besides keenly onlooking is like to attend keenly.<br />Regardskeen onlookernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32593973351606505252016-05-31T11:52:25.956+01:002016-05-31T11:52:25.956+01:00Sanjay, I don't want to be pedantic, but srava...Sanjay, I don't want to be pedantic, but sravana, manana and nididhyasana are vedantic terms with clear meanings: sravana is listening / reading scriptures as elucidated by your guru, manana is the reflecting intellectual rationalisation of these teachings (which therefore can include neti neti, and should not be lightly dismissed), and nididhyasana is constantly contemplating on this truth.<br /><br />It is incorrect to believe that neti neti is an either/or with respect to S, M and N. It is definitely part of S and M.venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-23981616025023925432016-05-31T10:40:27.688+01:002016-05-31T10:40:27.688+01:00Recently, I wrote a comment dated 30 May 2016 at 1...Recently, I wrote a comment dated 30 May 2016 at 11:35. In the comment I had quoted Venkat, who written in one of his comments, 'I think as you progress, the intellectual conviction no longer needs reinforcing, and the peace you taste from simple self-abidance draws you in'. Subsequently, some more thoughts, on this topic, have come to my mind; therefore, I share these below:<br /><br />If we merely talk from the perspective of the practice of <i>neti-neti</i>, then Venkat is right. He rightly says, 'I think as you progress, the intellectual conviction no longer needs reinforcing' - that is, once we have done enough practice of <i>neti-neti</i>, we need to stop this mental repletion of 'I am not this body, I am brahman...', and, henceforth, we should devote all our efforts to directly experience brahman. <br /><br />However, if we talk from the perspective of doing <i>sravana</i> and <i>manana</i> of our <i>sadguru's</i> teachings, then this reinforcement has to go on until the very end of our <i>sadhana</i>. There are certain similarities, but many differences between these two practice:<br /><br />1. Intellectual clarity can be achieved by practising <i>neti-neti</i>, but this clarity is also brought about by our <i>sravana, manana and nididhyasana</i> (of our sadguru's teachings), and that too at a much faster rate.<br /><br />2. This practice of '<i>sravana, manana and nididhyasana</i> (of our sadguru's teachings) is much more purifying than the practice of <i>neti-neti</i>. This <i>neti-neti</i> is some sort of a mental <i>japa</i>, and if it is done with <i>niskamya-bhava</i>, it is sure to purify our mind. And this purified mind is more likely to understand the path of self-investigation. <br /><br />3. Though even our <i>sravana, manana and nididhyasana</i> is some sort of <i>neti-neti</i>, because the <i>sadguru's</i> main teaching is that we are not this body, but the ever pure and ever perfect <i>atman</i>. However, the scope and role of <i>sravana, manana and nididhyasana</i> (which is nothing but our <i>sadguru's</i> grace) is much wider. For example, if we study our guru's teachings, we will understand that how this illusory worldly comes into existence; understand about the karma theory; and so on. <br /><br />4. The scope of <i>neti-neti</i> is limited, because, though, it can make us understand our true nature (at least to some extent), but it can never enable us to experience ourself as we really are. Whereas, this <i>sravana, manana and nididhyasana</i> of our sadguru's teachings can and will take us to our goal, sooner rather than later.<br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-20137051481203424992016-05-31T09:00:48.313+01:002016-05-31T09:00:48.313+01:00PS Advaita, jnana yoga, is all about the fundament...PS Advaita, jnana yoga, is all about the fundamental phiosophical question "who am I", and its subsidiaries, why am I here, whence have I come, what is the purpose of this all? Neti neti, the three states analysis, drk-drysam viveka, etc are all attempting to help the student address this fundamental question. So 'who am I?' in its broadest sense, can be seen as encompassing the entire gamut of metaphysical speculation - from the intellectual understanding through to the direct experiencing of non-duality. venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-17200543670685350282016-05-31T08:50:20.798+01:002016-05-31T08:50:20.798+01:00Thanks Roger for your detailed response - and yes ...Thanks Roger for your detailed response - and yes I do understood your points better.<br /><br />I too have been around the block - Krishnamurti, tao, dzogchen, ch'an, Nisargadatta, Atmananda and Sankara. I came to the conclusion that Bhagavan's teachings are the epitome, the Occam's razor, of non-duality; but also that Sankara, and the advaita vedanta scriptures are perhaps the most eloquent elaborators of this.<br /><br />Whilst I don't always agree with Michael regarding his interpretation of say Nisargadatta or JK, it is an interesting perspective / lens with which to reflect on their words. But, I am afraid that I am selfish - my main concern is deepening my understanding of what all these fingers are pointing at, as opposed to requiring that others acknowledge that the finger I might be following is valid. What others think of what sadhana I do is not my concern; only what I can learn from them.<br /><br />I do think you are mistaken in talking about different schools - different teachers may emphasise different practices, but that doesn't mean that there are different schools. There can only be one truth - 'not two' - the initial techniques may be different, but they all point to non-separation, 'no-mind', summa iru. <br /><br />Jnana yoga is a technical term in advaita - which is a school of philosophy that was systematised by Sankara. All advaita teachers, including Bhagavan, acknowledge this debt to Sankara. Therefore to talk about the path of knowledge, jnana yoga, and how it is different from atma vichara, without having an understanding of Sankara and scriptures and their exposition of jnana, is a non-sequitur. I am not advocating that you cannot be realised without knowing the scriptures; I am simply pointing out that jnana yoga is a technical term, which does imply knowledge of the scriptural position on and Sankara's exposition of jnana.venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-28634778893490165452016-05-31T06:10:38.852+01:002016-05-31T06:10:38.852+01:00keen onlooker, yes, I mistyped sravana once but th...keen onlooker, yes, I mistyped <i>sravana</i> once but thanks to the 'copy-paste' facility, the mistake appeared at six places. You indeed have, just like your pseudonym, very keen eyes. Thanks for pointing out this mistake. Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-72742414732138560572016-05-31T03:16:58.010+01:002016-05-31T03:16:58.010+01:00VENKAT PART 3
>> In this context, your need ...<br />VENKAT PART 3<br />>> In this context, your need for acknowledgement from Michael that 'discrimination leads to self-abidance' is rather odd, given that Michael is a Bhagavan devotee and trying to explicate his teaching, and this was not Bhagavan's teaching of the 'final' path. <br /><br />I never said that neti-neti delivers realization. In my practice, not-this is used effortlessly when attachment to a thought or emotion is noticed, there is no effort at thinking because it just this simple noticing that attachment existed, and after this noticing... abiding in stillness. My current personal theory (for me) is that extensive "abiding in stillness beyond thought" or "I AM" may result in realization. Where you use "Who am I?" I use "not this (no literal thinking of it): or while being vigilently aware, just noticing that an attachment has starting to arise."<br /><br />I have found this whole situation to be very strange. I find a some of Michael's writing to be interesting. But... I am surprised (although not in retrospect) that Michael is a one way pipe regarding issues outside the school. I was surprised that I could not get any two way discussion considering my different viewpoints, but now I understand: it's all about Bhagavan's words without considering any alternatives, that makes sense from a perspective. There have been times where I thought that some common understanding might happen and I found this tantalizing... but now I see it's impossible. At one point after reading your quote from Iyer, I thought you and I had the same position with Michael on the outside! Ha!<br /><br />>> If you believe Bhagavan taught something else, then please provide the references from his writing (preferable) or talks, and that would be a worthy discussion to have. If you believe Bhagavan was wrong, then it would be interesting to see references from advaita - Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads or Brahma Sutras.<br /><br />When you say "if you believe bhagavan taught something else": so this confirms that this whole site and you personally are only interested in the apparent perspective taught by Sri Ramana. Any viewpoints from my particular practice are not open for discussion, and that is entirely fine. You have a different definition for "intellectual curiosity": your's in "inside" the school, and mine has no limitations other than my interest or my "inner guide". Furthermore, I have been taught in Jnana Yoga that there can be NO AUTHORITY at all other than what is discovered internally. And you have a different perspective: Ramana is the Authority. And that is fine: two different but valid viewpoints. You are using scripture as an authority, I love scripture but just as input, not as an authority.<br /><br />Ya know... I see that by being here and trying to suggest different perspectives other than Sri Ramana that I am automatically considered hostile. And that makes sense to focus on Sri Ramana. I just didn't understand, partly because I have not been in a guru structured organization for decades: I forgot!<br /><br />So it is time to end this conversation?<br /><br />But I would like your comment on various questions above: special instruction regarding "Who am I?" when a thought arises, BG detailed references etc...<br /><br />thanks, I learned a lot,<br />Roger<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12886674544129003153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-46288507656315360302016-05-31T03:16:30.636+01:002016-05-31T03:16:30.636+01:00VENKAT PART 2
Venkat wrote: In the Bhagavad Gita,...VENKAT PART 2<br /><i><br />Venkat wrote: In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says:<br />"By means of an extremely courageous intellect (power of discrimination), make the mind motionless little by little; fix the mind firmly in Self (atman) and never think of any other thing.<br />Towards whatever thing the unsteady mind wanders, from each thing pull it back, fix it always in the Self and make it firmly abide there."<br />>> Your next point seems to be that neti neti and self-enquiry are both equally valid paths to lead you to realisation in their own right. Michael has pointed out that Bhagavan recommended self-enquiry / self-abidance as the final path; and as my quote from the Bhagavad Gita pointed out, this is what Krishna says to Arjuna.<br /></i><br /><br />Re "BG": what verse? what translator?<br />When I made a statement earlier quoted above, I did not realize that your definition of neti-neti and Jnana Yoga are a bit different than mine.<br /><br /><i><br />>> Michael is communicating to the best of his ability his understanding of what Bhagavan wrote and said. You found a quote in "Be as you are" in which Bhagavan extolled jnana yoga - but as I have pointed out above jnana yoga is not different from atma vichara, and if you have read Bhagavan, you will see that they are the same for him.<br />>> So you either believe that Bhagavan is wrong, or that Michael is wrong in his interpretation of Bhagavan's teachings. But at this point it becomes trivial doesn't it - given that we are all saying that neti neti is important step in the understanding process.<br />Does it then really matter if Bhagavan, Michael or I or anyone else believes that neti neti will culminate in self-enquiry, or whether as you state, neti neti can deliver realisation on its own?<br /></i><br /><br />Again: "if I have read Bhagavan...": author, book, page. please. There are at least 20 pages of "ramana maharshi" books on amazon and 500K+ hits on google, am I required to read them all? :-) what are the best books from Sri Ramana regarding Jnana Yoga?<br /><br />"does it really matter": well I guess it depends on the level of "intellectual curiosity". I certainly want to know what you think.<br />Furthermore, there is a mis-understanding. I am not saying "wrong", I am arguing for intellectual curisosity. But... nobody here has to be interested in that.Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12886674544129003153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-10695963007894362072016-05-31T03:14:40.666+01:002016-05-31T03:14:40.666+01:00Hi Venkat, PART 1 VENKAT
There is a nice techniqu...Hi Venkat, PART 1 VENKAT<br /><br />There is a nice technique I learned called the "couples dialogue" from relationship therapy. It may come from the wonderful Jain Philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada<br /><br />Especially when we are dealing with such subtle topics as this, words mean different things in different schools it may be useful (although clumsy) to emulate something like this technique:<br />Partner 1 says: "I feel [xyz]"<br />Partner 2 says: "OK, let me see if I understood. I think you said [yxw]. Did I get it? Do you have more to say?<br />Partner 1 says: "you almost got it but... here are some refinements..."<br />And repeat until partner 1 is satisfied that understanding is complete.<br /><br />So, please understand, I am trying to understand your practice, I want to know.<br />So when you said that I was "missing the point". I went into the mode of telling you what I thought you said in order to give you the opportunity to provide clarity.<br /><br />And... on the reverse... I don't necessarily believe that I am being heard either.<br /><br />There is one thing I would like to ask: when Sri Ramana advised you to use "who am I?" in response to an arising thought.... was there any more refinement in the instructions on how to use "who am I?" ?<br /><br /><i><br />Venkat says:<br />>> My main point in previous posts has been that neti neti and self-enquiry are complementary, two sides of the same coin - one negative and the other positive. And that you are mistaken in your original assertion that 'your school of jnana yoga' is somehow different from self-enquiry - this is patently absurd if you have read Shankara or Bhagavad Gita or the Upanishads.<br /></i><br /><br />I accept that your point "neti-neti are complementary" & "jnana yoga and self-enquiry" are not different (in your school). I believe I understand your practice now from your earlier post (it took a while to get this all out). So it sounds great to me. I have no problems with it. Although, while accepting it and even delighting in your explanation & practice of it, I am not letting go of my own perspective. I believe in "multiplicity", there are often multiple valid viewpoints. If I appeared to resist your position earlier, it is because I did not understand it.<br /><br /><i><br />Venkat says:<br />>> And that you are mistaken in your original assertion that 'your school of jnana yoga' is somehow different from self-enquiry - this is patently absurd if you have read Shankara or Bhagavad Gita or the Upanishads.<br /></i><br /><br />If I understand your quote above, I think you are saying that your school has the only valid interpretation of Jnana Yoga. And that any different position that I might have is "patently absurd" ? In this case I think we should end our discussion because... what good is further discussion when Venkat has the only right answer?<br />Ending the discussion is entirely reasonable: you are "inside" a particular school. The effort is to focus strictly on Sri Ramana's words... and certainly I am on the "outside" and it is probably better to ignore me and avoid confusion.<br /><br />BTW: you quoted the BG earlier: What chapter and verse is this and which translator? This verse is interesting, but I do not see in any way how it supports your version of Jnana over mine, in fact, it could easily be taken to support mine. And PLEASE NOTE: this is not a contest: as far as I am concerned both of us can be right regarding our respective Jnana Yoga practices etc... I'm simply investigating. Now that you have explained it, I believe your practice is RIGHT, but mine is different.<br />Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12886674544129003153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-8324656671227678872016-05-30T18:51:47.532+01:002016-05-30T18:51:47.532+01:00Sorry, "ourselves".Sorry, "ourselves".venkatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-59564397487343528932016-05-30T18:50:52.623+01:002016-05-30T18:50:52.623+01:00Sanjay, I would not disagree with that. Each of u...Sanjay, I would not disagree with that. Each of us must figure this out for themselves.venkatnoreply@blogger.com