tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post669380001748110628..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: We are aware of ourself while asleep, so pure self-awareness alone is what we actually areMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger221125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-84329734699275173942016-04-12T16:38:29.956+01:002016-04-12T16:38:29.956+01:00There has been some error in the first paragraph o...There has been some error in the first paragraph of my above comment. Please read this paragraph as:<br /><br />Our Anonymous friend quotes V. Ganesan in his comment dated 11 April 2016 at 20:46. What Bhagavan advises Munagala is applicable to all of us. In fact nobody need be a 'teacher' or a 'guru' on Bhagavan's path, as he never sanctioned guruhood by anybody. Nobody can be a 'teacher' on his path because we can really understand Bhagavan's teachings only when we merge in Bhagavan, and before that we can only say that we are trying to understand his teachings. <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-19129757371467163992016-04-12T16:01:33.723+01:002016-04-12T16:01:33.723+01:00Our Anonymous friend quotes V. Ganesan in his comm...Our Anonymous friend quotes V. Ganesan in his comment dated 11 April 2016 at 20:46. What Bhagavan advises In fact we can really understand Bhagavan's teachings only when our ego merges in Bhagavan, and before that we can only say that we are trying to understand his teachings. <br /><br />Bhagavan instructs Munagala: The greatest form of ego for an individual is to present himself as a teacher and become a guru. [...] When a true seeker becomes a teacher, the first casualty is his own advancement in <i>sadhana</i>.<br /><br />How very true, especially when Bhagavan says, 'When a true seeker becomes a teacher, the first casualty is his own advancement in <i>sadhana</i>'. I am literally seeing many such casualties of 'teachers' around me.<br /><br />I recently corresponded with Michael on this topic, and informed him that I see many half-baked 'teachers' of Bhagavan's teachings around me, and that they are only interested to teach others but are hardly interested to learn. Michael agreed with me and wrote in his e-mail 'the trap of becoming a 'teacher' is a serious danger on this path, and one I have been always wary about. [...] I like to consider whatever I write or say about Bhagavan's teachings to be just part of an open and equal discussion with friends rather that teaching anyone'. <br /><br />Even Sri Sadhu Om had strongly warned us against giving talks by assuming that we are a 'teacher'. We can share and discuss Bhagavan's teachings considering ourselves to be equals, like we try to do on this blog. <br /><br />Bob-P reminds us of the story narrated to us by Michael of an old saint sitting outside his cave enjoying some sunshine, and how he asked Alexander to move on the side as he was blocking the sunshine. Yes, Bhagavan is our <i>sadguru</i>, and therefore if we want to guide others we should just subside within and then Bhagavan's all powerful light will guide others without our interference. This is very powerful teaching for all of us. Regards. <br /><br /> Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-48147260406522472672016-04-12T10:00:40.094+01:002016-04-12T10:00:40.094+01:00This reminds me of the old man sitting outside the...This reminds me of the old man sitting outside the cave story Michael told in one of his videos.<br />Bhagavan is the guru, just move to the side and let him shine, don't block or get in the way by saying you are a guru.<br />In appreciation. <br />Bob Bob - Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-26128879149005421352016-04-11T20:46:02.682+01:002016-04-11T20:46:02.682+01:00Bhagavan's grand nephew V.Ganesan From Ramana ...Bhagavan's grand nephew V.Ganesan From Ramana Periyapuranam<br /><br />"Similarly, when Munagala Venkataramiah took down Bhagavan‟s talks in a notebook, he would gather a group outside the ashram and try to impress them. When this came to Chinna Swami‟s notice he came into the hall and stopped him in Bhagavan‟s presence. Munagala Venkataramiah was deeply hurt on being insulted in the glare of public eye. Later, when Munagala was with Bhagavan, still feeling slighted, Bhagavan said, “The greatest form of ego for an individual is to present himself as a teacher and become a guru.” Understanding that this message was for him, Munagala immediately prostrated before Bhagavan and begged him for his forgiveness. Bhagavan saved him and Munagala himself later said, “When a true seeker becomes a teacher, the first casualty is his own advancement in sadhana.” <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32899706348852850502016-04-10T18:22:02.566+01:002016-04-10T18:22:02.566+01:00Relax, enjoy.....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_GSwK0...Relax, enjoy.....<br /><br />www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_GSwK0Azd8Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-19612736156011316242016-04-10T18:13:13.510+01:002016-04-10T18:13:13.510+01:00Continuing a previous thought: the "Why?"...Continuing a previous thought: the "Why?" questions are the original thorn that will and can't never extricate itself. Only the help of the "Who?" question, the second thorn, the first one can be eradicate. And then yes, we can dispose of both of them.Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-65427974254927997382016-04-10T17:19:42.404+01:002016-04-10T17:19:42.404+01:00SanjayJi and SivanarulJi, pranams
I agree in all ...SanjayJi and SivanarulJi, pranams<br /><br />I agree in all counts of what you both said.<br /><br />Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-22764179355976398612016-04-10T17:04:26.026+01:002016-04-10T17:04:26.026+01:00[Therefore we need to distinguish what we actually...[Therefore we need to distinguish what we actually experienced while asleep, which was just pure self-awareness, from what seems to have existed then in the view of ourself now as this ego.]<br /><br />Thank you Michael very helpful.<br />In appreciation<br />Bob Bob - Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-62385922023128649152016-04-10T17:03:19.131+01:002016-04-10T17:03:19.131+01:00Mouna, you write that 'The "Why?" qu...Mouna, you write that 'The "Why?" questions are always the beginning of trouble'. I do not agree with you, at least not fully. For example it is useful to ask ourself, 'why are we leading a miserable and a tension filled life?'; and answer to this question, according to Bhagavan, is 'it is because of your self-negligence (<i>pramada</i>'; then our logical question should be 'how can we remove this <i>pramada</i>?'; Bhagavan's answer to this is 'by perpetual self-attentiveness'.<br /><br />This conceptual understanding of the answers of such 'why' questions can be useful in understanding the paramount importance of self-investigation. Of course, as you say, the 'who' questions are more important and such questions are Bhagavan's direct and most preferred teaching. Therefore I agree here, 'who is miserable?' or 'who is asking this question, investigate it?' can be more useful than the 'how' questions.<br /><br />You say 'The "Why?" questions are always asked from the "I am this body" feeling and belief', but then even the 'who' questions originate from our 'I am the body idea'. All questions and answers originate from our mistaken idea that we this ego (this body), because once we annihilate our ego there will no need left to ask any questions and receive any answers. Of course the 'who' questions, or more specifically self-investigation helps us to annihilate our ego sooner rather than later.<br /><br />You say 'Another optional answer to the question "Why did we come out of sleep" could be... Did we really?' I agree, at a conceptual or at the <i>manana</i> level this can be an answer which we can give to ourself, but as long as we come out of sleep we have admit that we ('Mouna' or 'Sanjay') have come out of sleep, or at least seemingly come out of sleep? Therefore the question we should put ourself should be 'who has come out of sleep?', thereby motivating us to investigate ourself alone. I think you will agree on this. Regards. Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-87783493709726314122016-04-10T17:01:13.821+01:002016-04-10T17:01:13.821+01:00As an addendum regarding the “Why?” questions and ...As an addendum regarding the “Why?” questions and Mounaji’s inquisitive answer “Did we really?”, another answer from a devotee’s perspective is simply, “It is as per Siva’s will”. It is the other answer that Bhagavan provided, from a devotee’s perspective, in addition to “who is asking the question” that was provided from a vichari’s perspective. <br /><br />When the devotion stars maturing, even by just a little, the answer “As per Siva’s will” will put the mind at rest immediately. In the path of surrender, “why” questions do not trouble the Jiva anymore. For any and every question, it is the same answer “As per Siva’s will”. The practice then is to remind oneself everytime the mind complains, frets or rejoices over pleasure and pain, that it is as per Siva’s will. Easier said than done, of course. That is why repeated practice is essential until the mind learns to abide as per Siva’s will, without effort.Sivanarulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-61956015107194426802016-04-10T15:39:44.961+01:002016-04-10T15:39:44.961+01:00The "Why?" questions are always the begi...The "Why?" questions are always the beginning of trouble. Not that we have to deny them, or not ask them, but because it engages the mind in a direction (or at a level) that is at odds with the practical side of the teaching.<br />The "Why?" questions are <b>always</b> asked from the " I am this body" feeling and belief, and can only be answered (if at all) at that level, ergo reinforcing that feeling and belief. Aren't the "Why?" questions the building blocks of science, the srishti-drishti view of reality and the privilege of the waking (and dream) state?<br /><br />Why did we (ego) come out of sleep? Fair question. It can be answered because of the vasanas if we study hindu philosophies or because the energy accumulators of the body mind had being refueled and no need to spend more time in bed if we study science. Fair answers... but only from the point of view that "we", this body/mind complex goes "through" different "states" like waking, dream and sleep.<br /><br />Another optional answer to the question "Why did we come out of sleep" could be... Did we really?<br />Food for thought or investigation.<br />It might be why Bhagavan, when asked "Why?" questions, used to respond "Who is asking the question?"<br /><br /><br />Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-1093741519164217982016-04-10T13:56:59.889+01:002016-04-10T13:56:59.889+01:00Sir, I again agree with you here.
Yes, logically...Sir, I again agree with you here. <br /><br />Yes, logically we need to explain or satisfy ourself about the reason of our re-emergence from sleep, therefore from the perspective of our ego while we are awake or dreaming, it can be taken as true that we exist in a seed form called <i>karana sarira</i> or causal body in our sleep, in which all our <i>vasanas</i> remain in a dormant form. And as you say, this <i>karana sarira</i> in our sleep is as real as the person 'Sanjay' or 'Michael' which we experience now.<br /><br />Thanking you and pranams.Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-64033781996371554772016-04-10T12:13:42.814+01:002016-04-10T12:13:42.814+01:00Sanjay, regarding the comment in which you say ‘We...Sanjay, regarding the <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/03/we-are-aware-of-ourself-while-asleep-so.html?commentPage=2#c867968050696705935" rel="nofollow">comment</a> in which you say ‘We can only say it is because of some uncaused and inexplicable reason that this seeming ego comes out of ourself when we wake up’, I have replied to this idea in the <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/04/self-investigation-atma-vicara-entails.html#c1511701523042919976" rel="nofollow">answer</a> I wrote to your comments on this same subject in another more recent thread.<br /><br />Regarding your remark in the same comment ‘this possibility [that our ego existed in sleep in some seed form] is denied by Michael in many of his recent articles. He says that there is no seed form of our ego or even a seeming ego in our sleep, therefore its vasanas or prarabdha also cannot remain in sleep, even in their seed forms to wake us up’, what actually exists in sleep is only our actual self, whose nature is just pure self-awareness, so from our perspective in sleep there is absolutely no ego existing then even in seed form. However, to explain how our ego arises from sleep it is often said that it exists in sleep in a seed form called <i>kāraṇa śarīra</i> or ‘causal body’, in which its <i>vāsanās</i> remain in a dormant form. Though this is not true from the perspective of what we actually experience while we are asleep, it seems to be true from the perspective of our ego while we are awake or dreaming, because how else can we as this ego explain our re-emergence from sleep?<br /><br />The existence of our ego as <i>kāraṇa śarīra</i> in sleep is as real as its existence now as ‘Sanjay’ or ‘Michael’. So long as we experience ourself as ‘Sanjay’ or ‘Michael’, it seems to us that ‘Sanjay’ or ‘Michael’ existed in a seed form while we were asleep and sprouted again as soon as we woke up or began dreaming. However, since we do not experience ourself as ‘Sanjay’ or ‘Michael’ while asleep, no such seed form seems to exist then. Therefore we need to distinguish what we actually experienced while asleep, which was just pure self-awareness, from what seems to have existed then in the view of ourself now as this ego.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-14089468182338354642016-04-09T17:04:52.931+01:002016-04-09T17:04:52.931+01:00who?, what you write adds depth to our discussion....who?, what you write adds depth to our discussion. As you say 'Ultimately, every description of the reason for the rise of ego from sleep will be as true as the description of the birth of a barren woman's son, so it is best to consider the reason to be uncaused and inexplicable'.<br /><br />If we say that it is our <i>vishaya vasanas</i> or our <i>prarabdha</i> which makes our ego arise from sleep, we are putting the cart before the horse. Our ego is the horse here and our <i>vasanas</i> or <i>karmas</i> are like the cart. Therefore our seeming ego has to first rise from sleep and simultaneously our <i>vasanas</i> can come into operation, but the ego has to be always ahead in the causal chain. Therefore our ego has to rise first before its <i>vasanas</i> or <i>karmas</i>, and since our ego is a non-existent, illusory, ghost like entity, it cannot have a clearly explainable reason for its coming into seeming existence.<br /><br />Therefore we should not reflect on how the ego has come into existence, but only investigate whether or not it has come into existence? This is what Bhagavan has clearly thought us. When we investigate ourself, our ego will take flight and we will know experientially that it had never come into existence. Regards. <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-16842681561134644742016-04-09T13:59:43.445+01:002016-04-09T13:59:43.445+01:00Sanjay, after reading your reply, I agree that pos...Sanjay, after reading your reply, I agree that postulating that the ego came into existence from sleep because of some uncaused and inexplicable reason is perhaps more useful than to postulate the explanation attributing the reason to <i>vishaya vasanas</i>. This is because what is implicit in the former explanation is that we should cease paying interest to the <i>reason</i> why the ego came into existence from sleep, since we are told that it is <i>uncaused and inexplicable</i>. Thus being satisfied on this point, we may focus our attention on the more useful enterprise (so to speak) of <i>atma-vichara</i>.<br /><br />Ultimately, every description of the reason for the rise of ego from sleep will be as true as the description of the birth of a barren woman's son, so it is best to consider the reason to be uncaused and inexplicable.<br /><br />Thanks for the response. With regards.Aseem Srivastavahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15936001403431123372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-8679680506967059352016-04-09T12:30:40.586+01:002016-04-09T12:30:40.586+01:00In reply to Anonymous friend's queries, I agre...In reply to Anonymous friend's queries, I agree with the replies given by 'who?', but his following comment may need some deeper reflection:<br /><br />'While in sleep, no one likes to wake up', as you [anonymous] say, but we inevitably do wake up. To explain this, we can postulate that it is our vishaya vasanas(desires or inclinations to experience things other than ourself) which compel us to wake up and experience otherness'.<br /><br />Yes, as 'who?' says, we can postulate that it is our <i>vishaya vasanas</i> which compel us to wake up and experience otherness, likewise we can also postulate that it our <i>prarabdha</i> which compel us to wake up, or it is our reenergised ego which compel us to wake up and so on. From the perspective of our waking state, all these different kinds of postulations may be correct.<br /><br />However when our ego subsides in sleep due to exhaustion or whatever reason, our ego ceases to exist in sleep, so how can its <i>vishaya vasanas</i> or its <i>prarabdha</i> or its reenergised state exist in sleep to make it rise again? If we say that our <i>visaya vasanas</i> or our <i>prarabdha</i> existed in sleep, then we have to also admit that our ego existed in sleep in some seed form, and this possibility is denied by Michael in many of his recent articles. He says that there is no seed form of our ego or even a seeming ego in our sleep, therefore its <i>vasanas</i> or <i>prarabdha</i> also cannot remain in sleep, even in their seed forms to wake us up. <br /><br />Therefore I think there could be only one correct answer to the question, why do we wake up from sleep? We can only say it is because of some uncaused and inexplicable reason that this seeming ego comes out of ourself when we wake up. It is the same uncaused and explicable reason why it seems to exist in our present so called 'waking sate' or any other 'dream state'. <br /><br />I will be glad to hear any comment by 'who?' and others on my reflection. This is not to say that I disagreed with 'who?' in the first place, but I was just doing some <i>manana</i> on this topic, and felt like sharing it on this blog. Regards. Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-19186877532196653232016-04-09T10:28:12.153+01:002016-04-09T10:28:12.153+01:00Anonymous, a response to the questions you posted ...Anonymous, a response to the questions you posted as a <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/03/we-are-aware-of-ourself-while-asleep-so.html?showComment=1460153493626#c7401482217812317848" rel="nofollow">comment</a> above.<br /> <br />You asked 'If sleep is the highest pleasure, why people are not trying to sleep all the time to experience that pleasure as long as and as many times as they can?'<br /><br />The obvious answer to this is that sleep cannot be directly brought upon by any action of mind, speech, or body. To illustrate this point - if we lie on a bed (action of body), verbally assert that we are going to sleep (action of speech), and try to will ourselves to sleep (action of mind), the very act will prevent us from sleeping. It is only by letting go of thoughts and volition that we can sleep. When you wrote, '[...]once awake, people (including kids) don't like to go to sleep unless they absolutely have to', the conditional clause ('absolutely have to') implies complete exhaustion of mind and body. Bhagavan taught us that we sleep whenever our mind becomes too exhausted to continue thinking any further.<br /><br />Further, it is not quite adequate to equate sleep with 'the highest pleasure', but it is worthwhile to consider that state more deeply. Pleasure is experienced by an individual, and is always associated with and dependent upon something other than that individual. Our experience of sleep confirms the negation of the existence of any finite individual who experienced pleasure. During sleep, what we experience we now in this waking state refer to as a 'happy state', though there was nothing other than the consciousness of our own existence that was experienced then. Thus, the happiness we experience in sleep is simply our self-awareness without any thought whatsoever.<br /><br />'While in sleep, no one likes to wake up', as you say, but we inevitably do wake up. To explain this, we can postulate that it is our <i>vishaya vasanas</i>(desires or inclinations to experience things other than ourself) which compel us to wake up and experience otherness. It is also true that 'while awake, we don't think the happiness in sleep is the highest form of pleasure even though we know it is a good experience', but the reason for this is our lack of discrimination between eternal happiness and ephemeral pleasure, as a consequence of which we are generally more interested in the objects and experiences of this waking-state world.<br /><br />Further, you asked 'Is this because while awake, it is not possible for us to remember the full extent of pleasure experienced in sleep'? To 'remember the full extent of pleasure experienced in sleep', or in more direct terms, to 'remember what we experienced in sleep', is what is recommended by Bhagavan. How to remember it? The only means is to try to attend exclusively to our self-awareness in this waking state.Aseem Srivastavahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15936001403431123372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-60752712135391343872016-04-09T07:29:38.048+01:002016-04-09T07:29:38.048+01:00Anonymous, yes, many of us are addicted to drugs, ...Anonymous, yes, many of us are addicted to drugs, alcohol, sex and so on. Why are we addicted to such things? It is because we wrongly assume that we derive happiness by indulging in these things. Actually what makes us addicted is our desires or <i>vasanas</i> for these things, and when we satisfy our addictions our mind temporarily returns to its source, and since this source (which is ourself as we really are) is a place of rest and happiness our mind experience happiness, but we wrongly assume that this happiness is because of our indulging in our addictions. <br /><br />You ask, 'If sleep is the highest pleasure, why people are not trying to sleep all the time to experience that pleasure as long as and as many times as they can?' Whenever we feel extremely sleepy, no other attraction of this world tempts us to stay awake. Yes, we can avoid sleep for some time but not beyond a point. Bhagavan used to say even a King will give up the company of his most favourite queen when he wants to sleep. Deep sleep gives us real rest and happiness, and therefore it is one of our most basic biological needs to counter all the unrest and exhaustion of our ego based extroverted life.<br /><br />You ask, 'Why people don't get addicted to sleeping pills? In fact, once awake, people (including kids) don't like to go to sleep unless they absolutely have to- they try to fight sleep and stay awake'. <i>People are not addicted to sleeping pills?</i> I think many of us are addicted to sleeping pills of one form or another. I see many such people around me. This is again a proof that we look forward to the happiness and rest that we experience in sleep, and we somehow want to sleep. Many of us (including children) have different timings and different needs of sleep in terms of hours per day, but we cannot avoid sleep for long and we have will not behave coherently if we do not sleep continuously for a few days. <br /><br />Yes, our ideas about sleep is generally very confused. Though we may claim that we had a good night's sleep, but we do feel that we were not conscious in sleep and that it is only in our present waking state that we are conscious, hence it is a more important state. However Bhagavan says that our waking state is ignorance and our sleep is full of knowledge (knowledge of what we really are). Regards<br /> <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-74014822178123178482016-04-08T23:11:33.626+01:002016-04-08T23:11:33.626+01:00I have a question for Michael and the readers:
Pe...I have a question for Michael and the readers:<br /><br />People are always looking for ways to experience happiness. So when they find something gives them pleasure, they try to do it again and again so they can enjoy the happiness repeatedly (e.g. drugs, alcohol, sex etc.). They do this to the point that they may become addicted to drugs and other things.<br /><br />If sleep is the highest pleasure, why people are not trying to sleep all the time to experience that pleasure as long as and as many times as they can? Why people don't get addicted to sleeping pills? In fact, once awake, people (including kids) don't like to go to sleep unless they absolutely have to- they try to fight sleep and stay awake.<br /><br />Is this because while awake, it is not possible for us to remember the full extent of pleasure experienced in sleep? While in sleep, no one likes to wake up so obviously we like it when we are in deep sleep. But it appears that while awake, we don't think the happiness in sleep is the highest form of pleasure even though we know it is a good experience.<br /><br />ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-39822225293509942312016-04-06T13:11:28.718+01:002016-04-06T13:11:28.718+01:00Sir, yes, I have now understood (and when I say &#...Sir, yes, I have now understood (and when I say 'understood', this ego/person called 'Sanjay' is functioning as the intellect (<i>buddhi</i>)). I agree, we cannot describe our mind. intellect and will as modifications of our ego. The examples you give here makes this abundantly clear. Thanking you and pranams. Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-64842313652072870302016-04-06T11:59:41.807+01:002016-04-06T11:59:41.807+01:00Sanjay, in answer to your latest comment, describi...Sanjay, in answer to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/03/we-are-aware-of-ourself-while-asleep-so.html#c5204548518936450234" rel="nofollow">your latest comment</a>, describing the mind (<i>manas</i>), intellect (<i>buddhi</i>) and will (<i>cittam</i>) as modifications of our ego (<i>ahaṁkāram</i>) would not be as accurate as describing them as some of its functions, because ‘modify’ means to change or alter in some way, so a modification is an altered form of something, whereas in order to function as the mind, intellect or will our ego does not need to be altered in any way, just as in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/03/we-are-aware-of-ourself-while-asleep-so.html#c2430793585716601120" rel="nofollow">the example I gave Amalaki</a> of a person who is a son, brother, husband, father, teacher, mathematician and footballer it is the same unaltered person who functions in each of these roles. If we modify a car by replacing its engine with a more powerful one, it is not quite the same car that it was before being modified, whereas a person is exactly the same person whether he is helping his elderly mother, teaching schoolchildren, solving a mathematical problem or playing football, and our ego is exactly the same ego whether it is thinking, reasoning or cherishing a wish.<br /><br />When we say ‘I think’, ‘I reason, calculate, analyse, distinguish, discriminate, judge or understand’ or ‘I want, wish, hope, desire, like or love’, the ‘I’ referred to in each of these statements is the same ‘I’, namely our ego. Thinking about what I must do today is a function of my mind, understanding a logical argument is a function of my intellect, and wishing that everyone would stop eating animals is a function of my will, but though each of these is a different action, I myself do not change but remain the same ‘I’ whichever of these things I happen to be currently doing. What I am doing may alter from moment to moment, but I nevertheless remain the same person, so I myself am essentially unaltered.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-53440362359769683262016-04-05T12:21:33.352+01:002016-04-05T12:21:33.352+01:00Michael,
many thanks for your three detailed yeste...Michael,<br />many thanks for your three detailed yesterday replies <br />and thereby clarifying the terms 'ego'(ahamkara) and its functions 'intellect'(buddhi), 'will'(citta) and 'mind' (manas) particularly the function 'intellect' and intellectual analysis of our experience of ourself.<br />I think my wrong view about portions of our ego was based on and derived from the often read statement :<br />'This ego is a seeming mixture of pure self-awareness (which alone is real) and various adjuncts such as this body (which are all unreal)'. <br />As you say we should train our intellect to take interest primarily in knowing the fundamental light of self-awareness that illumines it. I hope that my clouded intellect will soon move out of the way of the required inner self-luminous clarity by which both ourself and everything else is known. So let us turn back our intellect back within and thereby completely immerse and dissolve it in the clear light of our pure fundamental self-awareness that is always shining within it and illuminating it.<br />Romba nanri.Amalakinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-52045485189364502342016-04-05T07:49:42.169+01:002016-04-05T07:49:42.169+01:00Sir, thank you for your comment and clarification ...Sir, thank you for your comment and clarification on the terms <i>manas, buddhi, cittam</i> and <i>ahamkaram</i>. As you say all these refer to the same entity. <br /><br />Can we say from another perspective that our <i>manas, buddhi</i> and <i>cittam</i> are mere modifications of our <i>ahamkaram</i>?<br /><br />Thanking you and pranams. Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-39490093994905485582016-04-04T21:33:52.602+01:002016-04-04T21:33:52.602+01:00Amalaki, in the last two comments that I wrote in ...Amalaki, in the <a href="#c2430793585716601120" rel="nofollow">last two comments</a> that I wrote in reply to you, I said that we are the fundamental self-awareness that is the self-luminous light or clarity by which both ourself and everything else is known, and that this clarity is the light that illumines our intellect, enabling us to use it for whatever purpose we choose to use it. I also implied that in its refined or purified condition this clarity is what enables us to investigate and discern what we actually are. In connection with this, it is useful to consider what Bhagavan wrote in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/01/why-do-i-believe-that-atma-vicara-is.html#un22" rel="nofollow">verse 22</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>: <br /><br />மதிக்கொளி தந்தம் மதிக்கு ளொளிரு<br />மதியினை யுள்ளே மடக்கிப் — பதியிற்<br />பதித்திடுத லன்றிப் பதியை மதியான்<br />மதித்திடுக லெங்ஙன் மதி.<br /><br /><i>matikkoḷi tandam matikku ḷoḷiru<br />matiyiṉai yuḷḷē maḍakkip — patiyiṯ<br />padittiḍuda laṉḏṟip patiyai matiyāṉ<br />matittiḍuda leṅṅaṉ mati</i>.<br /><br /><b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> மதிக்கு ஒளி தந்து, அம் மதிக்குள் ஒளிரும் மதியினை உள்ளே மடக்கி பதியில் பதித்திடுதல் அன்றி, பதியை மதியால் மதித்திடுதல் எங்ஙன்? மதி.<br /><br /><b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>matikku oḷi tandu, am-matikkuḷ oḷirum matiyiṉai uḷḷē maḍakki patiyil padittiḍudal aṉḏṟi, patiyai matiyāl matittiḍudal eṅṅaṉ? mati</i>.<br /><br /><b>அன்வயம்:</b> மதிக்கு ஒளி தந்து, அம் மதிக்குள் ஒளிரும் பதியில் மதியினை உள்ளே மடக்கி பதித்திடுதல் அன்றி, பதியை மதியால் மதித்திடுதல் எங்ஙன்? மதி.<br /><br /><b><i>Anvayam</i></b> (words rearranged in natural prose order): <i>matikku oḷi tandu, am-matikkuḷ oḷirum patiyil matiyiṉai uḷḷē maḍakki padittiḍudal aṉḏṟi, patiyai matiyāl matittiḍudal eṅṅaṉ? mati</i>.<br /><br /><b>English translation:</b> Consider, except by turning the mind back within [and thereby] completely immersing it in God, who shines within that mind giving light to the mind, how to know God by the mind?<br /><br />The word that I have translated here as ‘mind’ is ‘மதி’ (<i>mati</i>), which means mind particularly in the sense of the intellect or power of understanding, judgement, discrimination and discernment, and which is the same word that he used along with the adjectives நுண் (<i>nuṇ</i>: subtle, refined, sharp, acute, precise or discriminating) and கூர்ந்த (<i>kūrnda</i>: sharp, keen, acute and penetrating) in verses <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-role-of-logic-in-developing-clear.html#un23" rel="nofollow">23</a> and <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-role-of-logic-in-developing-clear.html#un28" rel="nofollow">28</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> to describe the instrument that we require to investigate and discern what we actually are.<br /><br />The light that shines within and illumines our mind or intellect is the light of awareness, the source and fundamental form of which is the pure self-awareness that we actually are, which is what Bhagavan describes here as ‘பதி’ (<i>pati</i>), which means ‘Lord’ or ‘God’. Therefore what he implies in this verse is that our mind or intellect can enable us to know what we actually are only if we turn it back within and thereby completely immerse and dissolve it in the clear light of pure self-awareness that is always shining within it and illuminating it.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-9433485615208735522016-04-04T20:42:52.810+01:002016-04-04T20:42:52.810+01:00Sanjay, no, though ‘mind’ (manas), ‘intellect’ (bu...Sanjay, no, though ‘mind’ (<i>manas</i>), ‘intellect’ (<i>buddhi</i>), ‘will’ (<i>cittam</i>) and ‘ego’ (<i>ahaṁkāram</i>) are all terms referring to the same entity, they are not synonymous (just as son, brother, husband, father, teacher, mathematician and footballer are not synonymous even though they may all refer to the same person), because each term refers to a different function or aspect of that entity.<br /><br />Though they are usually listed in the order <i>manas</i>, <i>buddhi</i>, <i>cittam</i> and <i>ahaṁkāram</i>, this order is going from the grosser to the more subtle aspects, so the ego is the most fundamental of them, and hence you are correct in saying that the answer to the questions ‘whose mind or thoughts?’, ‘whose intellect?’ or ‘whose will?’ is ‘the ego’s’, but it is equally true to say that it is only the ego that functions as the mind, as the intellect and as the will.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com