tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post6849456766713738240..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Do we need to try to ignore all thoughts, and if so how?Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-38411996402475562832019-08-26T21:09:27.691+01:002019-08-26T21:09:27.691+01:00Just being the reality of the first person does no...Just being the reality of the first person does not facilitate imagining and experiencing oneself to be other than that being the reality of the first person.<br />Therefore 'Being the reality of the first person' is our real nature.anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-40097742211519578482019-08-26T20:29:06.120+01:002019-08-26T20:29:06.120+01:00Rafael,
yes, certainly.:-)Rafael,<br />yes, certainly.:-)anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32160816157091036352019-08-26T20:08:10.662+01:002019-08-26T20:08:10.662+01:00Michael,
thank you for your excursus in Bhagavan&#...Michael,<br />thank you for your excursus in Bhagavan's subtly nuanced use of Tamil syntax in order to emphasize the oneness of awareness and ourself.<br />The purpose of my comment was only the emphasis of the oneness of awareness and ourself - for the sake of clarity.<br />Rafael's alternative saying only "Awareness alone is" seemed to me not to give sufficient reference for that oneness of awareness and ourself. anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-39504301428317495812019-08-26T19:20:07.206+01:002019-08-26T19:20:07.206+01:00anadi-ananta
As a koan or pointer to the wordless...anadi-ananta<br /><br />As a koan or pointer to the wordless presence: 'Awareness alone is' seems to dissolve thoughts, words, ideas, concepts. <br /><br />A. H. https://www.blogger.com/profile/15575931333538621870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-8872962510245471902019-08-26T17:13:42.032+01:002019-08-26T17:13:42.032+01:00Anadi-ananta, ‘Awareness alone exists as we’ is ac...Anadi-ananta, ‘Awareness alone exists as we’ is actually a more exact translation of the original Tamil sentence than ‘Awareness alone we are’, but it is not perfectly exact, because the syntax of the Tamil sentence is very unusual (perhaps unique) and deeply significant, but difficult to convey clearly in English.<br /><br />The sentence is ‘உணர்வே நாமாய் உளம்’ (<i>uṇarvē nām-āy uḷam</i>), in which the subject is ‘உணர்வே’ (<i>uṇarvē</i>), ‘awareness alone’, but the verb ‘உளம்’ (<i>uḷam</i>) is not a third person singular form, as one would expect, but a first person plural form, meaning ‘exist’ or ‘are’ (as in ‘we exist’ or ‘we are’). The complement of the subject is ‘நாமாய்’ (<i>nāmāy</i>), which is a compound of two words, ‘நாம்’ (<i>nām</i>) meaning ‘we’ (nominative first person plural pronoun, but meaning ‘we’ in a sense that includes whoever is addressed, as opposed to ‘நாங்கள்’ (<i>nāṅkaḷ</i>), which means ‘we’ in a sense that excludes whoever is addressed), and ‘ஆய்’ (<i>āy</i>), which is an adverbial participle that means ‘being’ or ‘as’. Therefore an exact translation of this sentence would be ‘Awareness alone exist being we’, ‘Awareness alone exist as we’ or ‘Awareness alone are as we’.<br /><br />By using a first person plural form of the verb ‘உள்’ (<i>uḷ</i>), which means to be or to exist, instead of a third person singular form of it, Bhagavan emphasised in a beautiful way the oneness of awareness and ourself. That is, awareness is never a third person but only the reality of the first person.<br /><br />However, since awareness is singular, not plural, why does he use a first person plural form instead of a first person singular form of this verb? Just as he often uses ‘நாம்’ (<i>nām</i>), ‘we’, as an inclusive alternative to the first person singular pronoun ‘நான்’ (<i>nāṉ</i>), ‘I’, in order to avoid excluding whoever is being addressed, for the same reason he uses a first person plural form of this verb as an inclusive alternative to a first person singular form of it.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-36185019770141264462019-08-26T15:30:22.677+01:002019-08-26T15:30:22.677+01:00Rafael,
more exactly one could say:
Awareness alon...Rafael,<br />more exactly one could say:<br />Awareness alone we are. <br />anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-49387290881492854022019-08-26T14:08:42.984+01:002019-08-26T14:08:42.984+01:00"Awareness alone exists as we."
This is ...<br />"Awareness alone exists as we."<br />This is very clear. Another way to say this would be: Awareness alone is. <br />Thank you for pointing to this teaching of Ramana.A. H. https://www.blogger.com/profile/15575931333538621870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-13691745313690077102019-08-26T10:11:27.216+01:002019-08-26T10:11:27.216+01:00Rafael, in this context ‘to experience ourself as ...Rafael, in this context ‘to experience ourself as we really are’ means to be aware of ourself as we actually are. We are always aware of ourself, but when we rise and stand as ego we are aware of ourself as a body, which is not what we actually are, so since ego is the false awareness that is aware of itself as ‘I am this body’, it can be eradicated only by our being aware of ourself as we actually are.<br /><br />No words are adequate for expressing this subject, and part of the reason for this is that words can be interpreted in different ways, so whatever words may be used, we need to understand their intended meaning from the context in which they are used and to interpret them accordingly. With regard to the term ‘experience’, I have discussed the issue you raised in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2019/06/how-can-there-be-any-experience-without.html#experience" rel="nofollow">Generally ‘experience’ refers to experience of something other than ourself, but we need to be flexible in our use and understanding of words, so it is not necessarily wrong to talk of self-experience</a> (section 4 of one of my recent articles, <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2019/06/how-can-there-be-any-experience-without.html" rel="nofollow">How can there be any experience without something that is experiencing it?</a>).<br /><br />Regarding your contention that ‘Being ourself is not the same as experiencing ourself’, if we understand ‘experiencing ourself’ to mean being aware of ourself as we actually are, then it is the same as being ourself (in the sense of being as we actually are), as Bhagavan points out in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu26" rel="nofollow">verse 26</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br /><br />தானா யிருத்தலே தன்னை யறிதலாந்<br />தானிரண் டற்றதா லுந்தீபற<br /> தன்மய நிட்டையீ துந்தீபற.<br /><br /><i>tāṉā yiruttalē taṉṉai yaṟidalān<br />tāṉiraṇ ḍaṯṟadā lundīpaṟa<br /> taṉmaya niṭṭhaiyī dundīpaṟa</i>.<br /><br /><b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> தானாய் இருத்தலே தன்னை அறிதல் ஆம், தான் இரண்டு அற்றதால். தன்மய நிட்டை ஈது.<br /><br /><b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>tāṉ-āy iruttal-ē taṉṉai aṟidal ām, tāṉ iraṇḍu aṯṟadāl. taṉmaya niṭṭhai īdu</i>.<br /><br /><b>English translation:</b> Being oneself alone is knowing oneself, because oneself is not two. This is <i>tanmaya-niṣṭha</i> [the state of being firmly established as <i>tat</i>, ‘it’ or ‘that’, the one absolute reality called <i>brahman</i>].<br /><br />What we actually are is pure awareness, which is always aware of itself as it actually is, so being as we actually are entails being aware of ourself as we actually are, and being aware of ourself as we actually are entails being as we actually are. In other words, awareness (in the sense of pure awareness) is our very being, because it is what we actually are, so awareness and being are one and the same thing, as Bhagavan points out in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu23" rel="nofollow">verse 23</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>:<br /><br />உள்ள துணர வுணர்வுவே றின்மையி<br />னுள்ள துணர்வாகு முந்தீபற<br /> வுணர்வேநா மாயுள முந்தீபற.<br /><br /><i>uḷḷa duṇara vuṇarvuvē ṟiṉmaiyi <br />ṉuḷḷa duṇarvāhu mundīpaṟa<br /> vuṇarvēnā māyuḷa mundīpaṟa</i>.<br /><br /><b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> உள்ளது உணர உணர்வு வேறு இன்மையின், உள்ளது உணர்வு ஆகும். உணர்வே நாமாய் உளம்.<br /><br /><b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>uḷḷadu uṇara uṇarvu vēṟu iṉmaiyiṉ, uḷḷadu uṇarvu āhum. uṇarvē nām-āy uḷam</i>.<br /><br /><b>English translation:</b> Because of the non-existence of [any] awareness other [than what exists] to be aware of what exists, what exists (<i>uḷḷadu</i>) is awareness (<i>uṇarvu</i>). Awareness alone exists as we.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-37131585133730198612019-08-25T17:19:42.600+01:002019-08-25T17:19:42.600+01:00"Therefore self-attentiveness (that is, being..."Therefore self-attentiveness (that is, being attentively self-aware) is the only means by which we can investigate ourself and thereby learn to experience ourself as we really are, because we can experience ourself as we really are only by experiencing ourself in complete isolation from everything else."<br /><br />There is no way to experience ourself. It is only possible to be ourself. Being ourself is not the same as experiencing ourself. Experiences pertain to limitations within the Self, such as time, space and all the dualistic elements that appear hot/cold, far/near, etc. <br /><br />It may just be a matter of semantics but because much of what you share on this site is very detailed semantics, could you comment on this distinction of being the Self and experiencing the Self, using Ramana's teachings. Thanks. A. H. https://www.blogger.com/profile/15575931333538621870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-37356740532637735952016-08-02T01:32:12.688+01:002016-08-02T01:32:12.688+01:00Michael, what a beautiful analogy of the cliff and...Michael, what a beautiful analogy of the cliff and the railing. I was wondering why my vasanas, particularly one addiction to escape through food, seems to have come back with a vengeance the deeper I explore myself. Your descriptions in this post (as well as the rest of this blog) give me hope to just persevere in self-enquiry.Zubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02219788084356971947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-21605743778248164062015-07-21T20:50:16.485+01:002015-07-21T20:50:16.485+01:00Michael,
in your reply to Thomas you describe self...Michael,<br />in your reply to Thomas you describe self-attentiveness as "This simple practice of turning our attention back towards ourself whenever it is distracted by any thought and thereby trying to be aware of ourself alone is atma-vichara or self-investigation, which is the only means by which we can experience ourself as we actually are."<br />Unfortunately and regrettably "this simple practice" seems to be applicable only by "spiritual giants". Maybe it is imposed to me by my special prarabda karma, but as far as I have experience of doing this practice whenever my attention is distracted by a very strong sexual thought/desire I have no chance to overcome that thought only by investigate myself, to whom it has occured. When I accomplish twenty times to be aware only of myself and not of that sexual thought I am defeated at the twenty first occurence of that strong desire.<br />I seem to be engaged in fierce fighting and in a life and death struggle.<br />If I can emerge as the victor from that inner struggles know only the gods.<br />I only can refuse to give up the struggle/fight. Instead I have to accept that challenge and go into battle.<br />If I will perhaps be killed in action I have to make it better next time.Sambesinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-23242953528128334832015-04-21T01:39:18.617+01:002015-04-21T01:39:18.617+01:00Thanks R Viswanathan for your advice to the mentio...Thanks R Viswanathan for your advice to the mentioned article<br />"The question 'who am I ?' ",<br />dated Saturday, 18 August 2007.<br />All the five posts beginning with Wednesday, 15 August 2007 and continued till Sunday, 19 August 2007 contain valuable explanations <br />about atma-vichara, the question 'who am I' and the practice of self-investigation.Upamanyunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-23959720643317883062015-04-20T19:43:01.933+01:002015-04-20T19:43:01.933+01:00"Is not trying to be self-attentive i.e. just..."Is not trying to be self-attentive i.e. just focus all our concern, interest, effort and attention on being aware of ourself alone also only a thought ?"<br /><br />The following article by Sri Michael James may be of relevance to the above question.<br /><br />http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2007/08/question-who-am-i-as-verbalised-thought.html<br /><br />The concluding statement in this article is:<br /><br />"This practice of intense and clear self-attentiveness or self-consciousness is not a thought or an action of any kind whatsoever, but is only the absolutely silent and peaceful state of just being as we really are."R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-11309882298700082672015-04-20T10:42:41.542+01:002015-04-20T10:42:41.542+01:00Michael,
Now while I am sitting here -in front of...Michael,<br /><br />Now while I am sitting here -in front of the screen - I am on the horns of a dilemma:<br />Because I am not able to feel the birthplace, origin or source of the thoughts I am not able to annihilate thoughts in the very place or source from which they arise or appear.<br />Is not trying to be self-attentive i.e. just focus all our concern, interest, effort and attention on being aware of ourself alone also only a thought ?Upamanyunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-6114733572768530662015-04-19T19:48:03.753+01:002015-04-19T19:48:03.753+01:00Thank you Michael for this post.
You explain very...Thank you Michael for this post.<br /><br />You explain very well the benefit of focusing the mind's attention on what you want and not on what you don't want. (i.e) not focusing on preventing thoughts but switching focus and investigating the thinker which will automatically take care of the thoughts. <br /><br />Very helpful indeed.<br /><br />I also found your railing / cliff metaphor very helpful. Like you say even we find the cliff and peer over it, it takes courage to disregard everything including the teaching and jump into our self with no sense of self preservation.<br /><br />Thank you very much Michael. <br /><br />In appreciation. <br /><br />Bob Bob - Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-3870425904795939812015-04-19T19:39:21.327+01:002015-04-19T19:39:21.327+01:00Thomas, there is certainly nothing for one to allo...Thomas, there is certainly nothing for one to allow.Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-31105966289552015192015-04-19T19:23:02.581+01:002015-04-19T19:23:02.581+01:00Steve, the one in this question was meant as one, ...Steve, the one in this question was meant as one, so ... allowing is maybe irrelevant?Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15519521489719491402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32080067988210308942015-04-19T18:52:02.856+01:002015-04-19T18:52:02.856+01:00Who is the 'one say[ing] "just" ... ...Who is the 'one say[ing] "just" ... allowing?' <br /><br />The illusion itself is asking to be allowed.Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-55336777197807786232015-04-19T18:27:07.411+01:002015-04-19T18:27:07.411+01:00Sorry for the lack of clarity Michael, thanks for ...Sorry for the lack of clarity Michael, thanks for the reply anyway.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15519521489719491402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-2319257164710705762015-04-19T13:03:58.957+01:002015-04-19T13:03:58.957+01:00Thomas, I am sorry, I am not sure exactly what you...Thomas, I am sorry, I am not sure exactly what you mean, but if you are asking whether we should allow thoughts, the answer is that we are allowing them all the time (except when we are fast asleep), so allowing thoughts cannot be a spiritual practice.<br /><br />Moreover, we need to consider what allowing thoughts entails, and how we allow them. We allow them only by attending to them, because no thought can rise unless we are aware of it, and we cannot be aware of it unless we attend to it. Therefore allowing thoughts entails attending to them, which is precisely what we should not be doing. As Bhagavan often said, whenever any thought arises, we should not follow it or allow it to continue, but should instead investigate ourself, to whom it has occurred.<br /><br />That is, whenever our attention is diverted away from ourself towards any thought, we should turn it back towards ourself alone. In other words, we should try to be aware only of ourself and not of any thought.<br /><br />If we turn our attention back towards ourself whenever it is diverted away by any thought, that thought will subside, because it cannot endure without us attending to it, and what will then remain is only our awareness of ourself alone. This simple practice of turning our attention back towards ourself whenever it is distracted by any thought and thereby trying to be aware of ourself alone is <i>ātma-vicāra</i> or self-investigation, which is the only means by which we can experience ourself as we actually are.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-37963691290684655692015-04-19T09:18:27.900+01:002015-04-19T09:18:27.900+01:00Can one say "just" ... allowing?Can one say "just" ... allowing?Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15519521489719491402noreply@blogger.com