tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post7398091904587527874..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: If we choose to do any harmful actions, should we consider them to be done according to destiny (prārabdha)?Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger189125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-4769537844030558362018-01-09T23:59:45.441+00:002018-01-09T23:59:45.441+00:00Ken,
giving up being aware of other things (than p...Ken,<br />giving up being aware of other things (than pure self-awareness) seems to be at least so difficult as reaching the top of Siva's infinite column of light (Arunachala). transcendental glorynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-19372971481127553122018-01-09T23:17:56.813+00:002018-01-09T23:17:56.813+00:00"Q: What is this awareness and how can one ob..."Q: What is this awareness and how can one obtain and cultivate it?<br /><br />Ramana: You are awareness. Awareness is another name for you.<br />Since you are awareness there is no need to attain or cultivate it. All that you have to do is to give up being aware of other things, that is of the not-Self. If one gives up being aware of them then pure awareness alone remains, and that is the Self.<br /><br />Q: If the Self is itself aware, why am I not aware of it even now?<br /><br />Ramana: There is no duality. Your present knowledge is due to the ego and is only relative. Relative knowledge requires a subject and an object, whereas the awareness of the Self is absolute and requires no object."Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-37854771628098581882018-01-07T18:16:05.768+00:002018-01-07T18:16:05.768+00:00Ken,
you quote David Godman saying:
"We think...Ken,<br />you quote David Godman saying:<br />"We think all is destined (or not) because we think we are people inhabiting bodies. When that erroneous thought vanishes, destiny vanishes along with it. "<br /><br />When that "erroneous thought" is really erroneous, so what are we actually ?<br />Could you please tell me/us the right - at least in your opinion or own experience ?<br />Knowing what we really are is the most important thing under the sun. Such knowledge will enable us to annihilate all our false imaginations and hopes together with their afflictions and gloom.<br />transcendental glorynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-50802468236873816002018-01-01T22:30:15.427+00:002018-01-01T22:30:15.427+00:00This issue was explored extensively by David Godma...This issue was explored extensively by David Godman in his very first blog post over 9 years ago. The comments below his post have further exposition and David posts the following private statement by Annamalai Swami to him in the 1990s:<br /><br />"[Annamalai Swami] said, 'It's true. The ego cannot choose to make more and more effort to hasten its final end. The desire to make the effort, and the intensity of that effort are also in the script. It is also in the script that I tell people every day that they must have more determination and make more effort. People who are ready to be inspired to make more effort come here and listen to me speak, and when I cajole them into more effort, they go away and make more effort. But it wasn't their choice, their decision. They were scripted to come to someone who would inspire them to try harder. And that subsequent trying harder is also in their script.'<br /><br />[David:] I was astounded that he backed down on this one. He did say afterwards that he didn't speak like this in his public satsangs (this was a private meeting) since he didn't want people to become lazy and get defeatist. However, if he accepted this position, he must have known that, just as the individual self cannot make a choice to try harder, it cannot make the alternate choice of being lazy.<br /><br />I took someone to see Saradamma around 1990. This question was also on his mind.<br /><br />He asked, 'Bhagavan says that all our physical acts are predetermined. Are our thoughts predetermined as well?'<br /><br />He had told me his question in advance and I had hazarded a guess that Saradamma would say 'no'.<br /><br />However, she surprised me by telling him that the sequence of thoughts as well as the sequence of actions was also part of one's script.<br /><br />The idea that everything is destined doesn't appeal to anyone who buys into the 'I am the body' idea. If you believe the individual self exists, then you appear to have choices. Bhagavan tells us to exercise those apparent choices wisely by putting attention on the Self, rather than the non-Self.<br /><br />However, as Bhagavan says in Ulladu Narpadu, once you have transcended the idea of the individual self and identified with the real Self, both free-will and destiny disappear, being known to be unreal.<br /><br />We think all is destined (or not) because we think we are people inhabiting bodies. When that erroneous thought vanishes, destiny vanishes along with it. "<br /><br />The whole post and lengthy discussion can be read at:<br /><br />http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.in/2008/04/god-scriptwriter.html<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-54540571916304031102018-01-01T22:23:07.500+00:002018-01-01T22:23:07.500+00:00I find this is probably the biggest and most impor...I find this is probably the biggest and most important and most helpful topic that is mostly ignored in most spiritual groups.<br /><br />So, I am going to dispute both Michael's interpretation and Salazar's interpretation. :)<br /><br />Michael is disputing Devaraja Mudaliar's recollection of Ramana's remarks. However, he is overlooking that there is a more extensive conversation on the same subject reported by a different person. In this one, Ramana restates several times, in several ways, the part that Michael is disputing.<br /><br />After I post the quote, I will explain why Michael's overall recommendation is correct, and Salazar's (and Ramesh Balsekar's) interpretation is incorrect. (Hint: in the quote, Ramana explains why those interpretations are incorrect.)<br /><br />"Q: In the early stages would it not be a help to a man to seek solitude and give up his outer duties in life?<br /><br />A: Renunciation is always in the mind, not in going to forests or solitary places or giving up one’s duties. The main thing is to see that the mind does not turn outward but inward. It does not really rest with a man whether he goes to this place or that or whether he gives up his duties or not. All these events happen according to destiny. <b>All the activities that the body is to go through are determined when it first comes into existence.</b> It does not rest with you to accept or reject them. <b>The only freedom you have is to turn your mind inward and renounce activities there.</b><br /><br />Q: But is it not possible for something to be a help, especially to a beginner, like a fence round a young tree? For instance, don’t our books say that it is helpful to go on pilgrimages to sacred shrines or to get sat-sanga?<br /><br />A: <b>Who said they are not helpful? Only such things do not rest with you, whereas turning your mind inward does. Many people desire the pilgrimage or sat-sanga that you mention, but do they all get it?</b><br /><br />Q: Why is it that turning inward alone is left to us and not any outer things?<br /><br />A: If you want to go to fundamentals, you must enquire who you are and find out who it is who has freedom or destiny. Who are you and why did you get this body that has these limitations?"<br /><br />- from Letters from Sri Ramanasramam, p. 211-212<br /><br />So, not only does Ramana say that every action of your body is predetermined, but he also says that some actions are helpful and some are unhelpful. He does NOT say "all actions are predetermined and so what actions happen is unimportant", which is the interpretation of Ramesh Balsekar which is being repeated by Salazar.<br /><br />Thus, if there are two things that you could do in the future, one is to go bowling, and the other is to attend satsang, if you choose satsang instead, then Ramana is saying that means you have better karma for attaining Self-Realization.<br /><br />Here is where the logic gets a little tricky to follow, but bear with me. If you go to satsang instead of bowling because you read the quote from Ramana, then reading that quote was part of the circumstances that led you to do the right thing.<br /><br />Similarly, if you do the right actions in the way that Michael is advocating, it is because your karma led you to an understanding of why they are right actions. Someone who has never heard of non-violence, and does not have the education to understand it, can never do the right action of non-violence.<br /><br />So, someone who says "It doesn't matter what I do, because whatever I do, God made me do it" and then going out to commit crimes, has the karma of not understanding all of the above.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444422146838072196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-75248484747732222612017-09-23T21:21:47.287+01:002017-09-23T21:21:47.287+01:00Right nun mati. We did. Now we know better :-) May...Right nun mati. We did. Now we know better :-) Maybe we had to go through them in order to finally arrive "at the end" i.e. with Bhagavan.Sinhakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16528704504531978970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-76254235797637097302017-09-23T18:19:59.352+01:002017-09-23T18:19:59.352+01:00Why (do we) study "another guys" instead...Why (do we) study "another guys" instead of the one true "guy" ?nuṇ matinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-41704720729565047862017-09-23T09:59:24.337+01:002017-09-23T09:59:24.337+01:00Interesting. There is another guy (Ramesh Balsekar...Interesting. There is another guy (Ramesh Balsekar) who used to say that "The brain cannot produce thought since it is inert matter", "it can only receieve thoughts which come from the outside". Never heard Ramana speak like this. Maybe because it just belongs to the realm of concepts/philosophies.Sinhakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16528704504531978970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-26456734009123688122017-09-18T19:46:48.082+01:002017-09-18T19:46:48.082+01:00Salazar, I have replied to the comment in which yo...Salazar, I have replied to the <a href="#c1670651075807926726" rel="nofollow">comment</a> in which you wrote, ‘Robert Adams, a Jnani, said that the mind cannot create thoughts’, and also some of you other comments in another article: <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/what-creates-all-thoughts-is-only-ego.html" rel="nofollow">What creates all thoughts is only the ego, which is the root and essence of the mind</a>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-42589261344837595612017-09-14T09:49:24.223+01:002017-09-14T09:49:24.223+01:00Sanjay Lohia,
obviously today you were in the good...Sanjay Lohia,<br />obviously today you were in the good mood to go to confession. As Michael wrote recently we need constantly examine ourself very closely in order to cultivate sat-vasana.<br />Cleansing the mind from its visaya-vasanas or outward going inclinations and thereby refining and sharpening our power of attention is our permanent job. Good luck in this endeavour.stray dognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-89616205545101093892017-09-14T06:54:25.584+01:002017-09-14T06:54:25.584+01:00Salazar, if you open me up, you would certainly fi...Salazar, if you open me up, you would certainly find a stubborn and shameless ego inside me. Why stubborn and shameless? It is because it (the ego) has been clearly told that it is not required there, and that therefore it should move out, but it simply is not ready to leave.<br /><br />My ego is too clever. When I look at it, it hides itself somewhere in a safe place, and I think that it has left my house. However, as soon as I take my attention away from it, it again resurfaces and starts to do all its usual mischief in my house.<br /><br />I know I have to look at this shameless fellow hard enough and long enough, and if I do so it would not be able to stand my scrutinizing gaze, and therefore it will leave my house forever. <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-52528119664156981492017-09-13T19:51:26.946+01:002017-09-13T19:51:26.946+01:00If we open up Salazar, what will we find inside hi...If we open up Salazar, what will we find inside him ?stray dognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-80296181325608430652017-09-13T18:20:28.293+01:002017-09-13T18:20:28.293+01:00Sanjay, if we open up you, we won't find no on...Sanjay, if we open up you, we won't find no one inside too. :-). .https://www.blogger.com/profile/03243347924405863536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-60222427130853448182017-09-13T17:53:58.113+01:002017-09-13T17:53:58.113+01:00Salazar, once there was a radio playing in Bhagava...Salazar, once there was a radio playing in Bhagavan’s hall. Bhagavan pointed to it and said something to the effect: ‘Look, there is all this sound emanating from the radio, but if you open it up you will find no one inside. Likewise, I may be answering your questions, but if you open me up you will find no one inside’. <br /><br />What Bhagavan meant was that he had no ego or individuality like we have, and therefore whatever he spoke came from some other source. Yes, as you say, our minds cannot easily comprehend this. <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-7029024577123052532017-09-13T17:39:40.592+01:002017-09-13T17:39:40.592+01:00Sanjay, alright we are making progress. Now Bhagav...Sanjay, alright we are making progress. Now Bhagavan’s thoughts must have come from somewhere, right? Since it can’t be the mind it is as Robert liked to say, out of nowhere and back to nowhere. Now Robert however made no distinction of the origination of a thought between Jnanis and ajnanis since they cannot come from a different source. <br />So the true origination of thoughts is no origination at all. I don‘t believe that our minds could really comprehend that and therefore Bhagavan offered an explanation our minds can be comfortable with and is simultaneously helpful for Self-realization.<br />. .https://www.blogger.com/profile/03243347924405863536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-52501793583267113502017-09-13T17:01:34.603+01:002017-09-13T17:01:34.603+01:00Salazar, you wonder: ‘where from Bhagavan's th...Salazar, you wonder: ‘where from Bhagavan's thoughts originated when he said something? His mind?’ It is also a conundrum. Someone asked a similar question to Bhagavan: ‘Bhagavan you say you have no mind, but then how do you answer all our questions without a mind?’ Bhagavan said, ‘From where the question arises, from there too the answer arises’. I was not sure what Bhagavan meant when he said this, so I requested Michael to clarify this. This is what he wrote to me:<br /><br />From where does the ego rise? Only from us, so since everything arises from this ego, ultimately everything arises from ourself. This I believe is what he meant.<br /><br />Moreover, our questions arise from our yearning to return to our source, and this yearning arises from the fact that being an ego is alien to us, so the same yearning which produces our questions also produces his answers. <br /><br />My note: So, yes, as you imply, Bhagavan had no mind or ego, yet he seemed to spontaneously answer all our questions, and these were the exact answers we needed for our spiritual advancement. However, these answers did not come from the mind of Bhagavan, because he had no mind. <br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-66050205670819543322017-09-13T16:22:32.372+01:002017-09-13T16:22:32.372+01:00Sanjay, yes - one can see it from that viewpoint. ...Sanjay, yes - one can see it from that viewpoint. It's a conundrum, mind rises and yet is does not exist. It just seems that way. <br /><br />Same with thoughts, they are projected by a mind which seemingly has risen, and yet there is no substance in both. It just seems that way.<br /><br />I wonder where from Bhagavan's thoughts originated when he said something? His mind? :-)<br /><br /><br /><br /> . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/03243347924405863536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32802929124899799312017-09-13T08:19:03.835+01:002017-09-13T08:19:03.835+01:00Salazar, you say, ‘So our conscious mind creates t...Salazar, you say, ‘So our conscious mind creates thoughts? You know that for sure or are you just repeating that was Michael has said?'<br /><br />If our conscious mind or ego doesn’t create thoughts, what creates thoughts? We as we really are cannot create thoughts, because we are infinite fullness, and therefore there isn’t anything besides our non-dual reality. So there is no space left for us to create thoughts. So do thoughts create thoughts? It will be absurd to think so, because our thoughts are <i>jada</i>, non-conscious objects, and therefore they cannot create or experience either themselves or anything else. <br /><br />So what creates and experiences our thoughts? It has to be our mind or ego, because that is the only conscious but limited entity - that is, its consciousness is limited to a body. Therefore, it can create and experience things which seem to be other than itself.<br /> <br />Bhagavan has thought us this, for example in the 4th paragraph of <i>Nan Yar?</i>:<br /><br />What is called ‘mind’ [ego] is an <i>atiśaya śakti</i> [an extraordinary or wonderful power] that exists in <i>ātma-svarūpa</i> [our actual self]. It projects [or causes the appearance of] all thoughts.<br /><br />Again Bhagavan reiterates this in verse 26 of <i>Ulladu Narpadu</i>:<br /><br />If the ego, the root, comes into existence, all else [the world, God, bondage and liberation, pain and pleasure, etc.] will come into existence. If the ego does not exist, all else will not exist. Verily, the ego is all! Hence, scrutinising ‘What is it?’ [in other words, ‘Who am I, this ego?’] is indeed giving up all. Know thus.<br /><br />Hence Bhagavan makes it very clear that when our mind (<i>chit-jada-granthi</i>) or ego comes into existence everything else comes into existence. This everything else is nothing but all our thoughts or mental ideas. <br /> <br /> <br /><br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-51735973051009860772017-09-13T08:17:43.073+01:002017-09-13T08:17:43.073+01:00Hi Salazar
You said:
Don't fight your dest...Hi Salazar <br /><br />You said: <br /><br />Don't fight your destiny, of course it could be your destiny to fight your destiny ;-)<br /><br />I like that (lol)!!<br /><br />Thank you for the link but I downloaded all of Robert's audio recordings about 3 years ago and have listened to them all, I use to listen to one in the morning and one at night before bed. I found Robert very helpful indeed.<br /><br />Now and again I do a random shuffle and listen to Robert. I have only ever found one actual video clip of him speaking (33 min) long, it is nice to put a face to the voice. <br />I am pretty sure you have seen this Salazar but just in case you haven't I found it on youtbe <br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yekD7idbf2M <br /><br />However I predominately read Bhagavan's main written works now as they make the most sense to me, but Robert is also priceless. I know David Godman thought very highly of Robert and the level of his spiritual attainment. According to David Bhagavan himself was fond of Robert and use to visit him often with food and talk.<br /><br />Cheers. <br />Hector. <br />Hectornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-88473230422378065382017-09-13T04:43:29.692+01:002017-09-13T04:43:29.692+01:00Friends,
Mind cannot create thoughts?....mind is a...Friends,<br />Mind cannot create thoughts?....mind is a bundle of thoughts only...Strange experience?...for whom?...All just ego excursions...mind has a way to manufacture whatever it strongly believes in...Whatever happened to self enquiry?...Whence did the 'I' arise?...This is the only thing that matters.<br />NamaskarRavihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14875076137584328729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-60510453864066445132017-09-12T21:33:03.536+01:002017-09-12T21:33:03.536+01:00Hector, you seem to be interested in Robert Adams,...Hector, you seem to be interested in Robert Adams, here is a link for the complete satsang recordings and it is free.<br /><br />It is a must supplement for all people interested in Bhagavan's teachings. It is Bhagavan in the language of a Westerner minus distracting "technical" terms which tend to more confuse than actually help. <br /><br />http://www.robert-adams.info/<br /><br />Click on the first link for the complete recorded satsangs.. .https://www.blogger.com/profile/03243347924405863536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-47933569664555288042017-09-12T21:00:52.494+01:002017-09-12T21:00:52.494+01:00We are Lost in Thought
A Response to the 2011 Edg...<br /><b>We are Lost in Thought</b><br /><br />A Response to the 2011 Edge Question<br />Consciousness Philosophy Science Self Spirituality<br /><br />WHAT SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT WOULD IMPROVE EVERYBODY’S COGNITIVE TOOLKIT?<br /><br />I invite you to pay attention to anything — the sight of this text, the sensation of breathing, the feeling of your body resting against your chair — for a mere sixty seconds without getting distracted by discursive thought. It sounds simple enough: Just pay attention. The truth, however, is that you will find the task impossible. If the lives of your children depended on it, you could not focus on anything — even the feeling of a knife at your throat — for more than a few seconds, before your awareness would be submerged again by the flow of thought. This forced plunge into unreality is a problem. In fact, it is the problem from which every other problem in human life appears to be made.<br /><br />I am by no means denying the importance of thinking. Linguistic thought is indispensable to us. It is the basis for planning, explicit learning, moral reasoning, and many other capacities that make us human. Thinking is the substance of every social relationship and cultural institution we have. It is also the foundation of science. But our habitual identification with the flow of thought — that is, our failure to recognize thoughts as thoughts, as transient appearances in consciousness — is a primary source of human suffering and confusion. <br /><br />Our relationship to our own thinking is strange to the point of paradox, in fact. When we see a person walking down the street talking to himself, we generally assume that he is mentally ill. But we all talk to ourselves continuously — we just have the good sense to keep our mouths shut. Our lives in the present can scarcely be glimpsed through the veil of our discursivity: We tell ourselves what just happened, what almost happened, what should have happened, and what might yet happen. We ceaselessly reiterate our hopes and fears about the future. Rather than simply exist as ourselves, we seem to presume a relationship with ourselves. It’s as though we are having a conversation with an imaginary friend possessed of infinite patience. Who are we talking to? <br /><br />While most of us go through life feeling that we are the thinker of our thoughts and the experiencer of our experience, from the perspective of science we know that this is a distorted view. There is no discrete self or ego lurking like a minotaur in the labyrinth of the brain. There is no region of cortex or pathway of neural processing that occupies a privileged position with respect to our personhood. There is no unchanging “center of narrative gravity” (to use Daniel Dennett’s phrase). In subjective terms, however, there seems to be one — to most of us, most of the time.<br /><br />https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/we-are-lost-in-thought<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-16706510758079267262017-09-12T19:32:10.682+01:002017-09-12T19:32:10.682+01:00Sanjay Lohia, of course is turning within the best...Sanjay Lohia, of course is turning within the best purifier, I thought I did not have to add that fact since it is a matter of course. That's one of the things I really don't like on this blog. One has to make a long-winded argument to be sure no smart aleck jumps up and points out the obvious because one has not bothered to mention it.<br /><br />So our conscious mind creates thoughts? You know that for sure or are you just repeating that was Michael has said? Well that's what it is, you don't know - you just have adopted a belief from a ajnani.<br /><br />Robert Adams, a Jnani, said that the mind cannot create thoughts. Frankly, I believe rather him than any ajnani. It makes much more sense for me. In all of my practice I never have ever encountered a mind, just thoughts appearing in consciousness.<br /><br />I even had the strange experience where there was no manifestation at all and then a thought came up (it was not identified or recognized as I since it seemed to happen all in one instance) and simultaneously the world appeared. And there was the instant clarity that this is all imagined, not real at all - no world, no mind. And then "me" came back and it seemed real again. You know, after that people can conceptualize what they want because they really don't know. Do I know? Not really because I cannot believe anymore that there is a mind who could know even though I was sucked back into samsara.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />. .https://www.blogger.com/profile/03243347924405863536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-39966633686138441982017-09-12T19:04:52.505+01:002017-09-12T19:04:52.505+01:00Hello Hector, it is nice to hear from you again. T...Hello Hector, it is nice to hear from you again. This whole destiny thing for sure creates some polarity.<br /><br />Don't fight your destiny, of course it could be your destiny to fight your destiny ;-)<br /><br />. .https://www.blogger.com/profile/03243347924405863536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-77874583815053615432017-09-12T18:35:50.007+01:002017-09-12T18:35:50.007+01:00Salazar, this is in response to your last two comm...Salazar, this is in response to your last two comments. You say, ‘The best purifier is suffering’. Our suffering could be a purifier, but what are the impurities that it purifies? The impurities are our desires and attachments, or in other words they are our <i>vishaya-vasanas</i> and <i>karma-vasanas</i>. According to Bhagavan, the most effective way to cleanse our mind of these <i>vasanas</i> is by vigilant and non-stop self-investigation.<br /><br />To understand more about our thoughts and mind we have to carefully consider verse 18 of <i>Upadesa Undiyar</i>:<br /><br />Only thoughts [are what constitute our] mind. Among all [our countless thoughts], the thought named ‘I’ alone is the <i>mula</i> [root, origin or source]. [Therefore] what is called ‘mind’ is [in essence just the root thought] ‘I’. <br /><br />Michael explains: We generally use the term ‘mind’ as a collective name that denotes the entire multitude of thoughts we constantly think. However, of all these thoughts, our first thought ‘I’ is the root, the subject that thinks all other thoughts. When the mind rises, it does so by first forming itself as the root thought ‘I’, and only then does it form other thoughts.<br /> <br />Thoughts are devoid of consciousness and they do not know their own existence, whereas our primal thought ‘I’ is endowed with consciousness, and knows its own existence and the seeming existence of all other thoughts.<br /><br />My note: The thought called ‘I’ is the essence of the mind, and this essence is also called the ‘ego’. Yes, our mind is the bunch of thoughts (which are non-consciousness objects), but it (as this ego) is also the thinker and experiencer of this bunch of thoughts. So thoughts don’t control other thoughts, but the conscious element of the mind (the ego) can control thoughts, or can bypass thoughts by ignoring them and turning within. <br /><br />Yes, our non-conscious thoughts do not create more thoughts, but our conscious mind (the ego) creates thoughts (by its outward directed attention). Our ego projects our thoughts, and if it so decides to it can stop projecting the same (by focusing its entire attention on itself). <br /><br />Yes, our thoughts do not have inherent power, but the thinker of these thoughts does have inherent power - the power of consciousness. The thinker (the ego or the root thought ‘I’) can use this power to create thoughts, or can instead use its to stop creating them by turning within. <br /> <br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.com