tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post764366760503800098..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: A paradox: sphuraṇa means ‘shining’ or ‘clarity’, yet misinterpretations of it have created so much confusionMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-63007924710080596362019-11-27T15:00:06.565+00:002019-11-27T15:00:06.565+00:00Thank you, Michael.
I had never understood why s...Thank you, Michael.<br /> <br />I had never understood why so called ” ahaṁ-sphuraṇa” had to be discarded as mere experience because of what you say that it “is in itself essentially non-dual and otherless” so, how can it be called “experience” which implies the experiencer? Nor how someone could be asked if s/he didn´t want it to be permanent since it is ever what it is and never changing. Now it is clear as well as what Bhagavan means by its subsidence. <br /><br />Yes, the first thought after reading this article is that it is obvious. Key word is “after” because though that “viśēṣatva (difference, distinctiveness or specialness)” you talk about in the article which gave rise to this one, is also obvious, it is not questioned, unless we are driven to do it by some external source, and nor even then we can find the answer, so simple it is and such an extreme cleanness or clarity is required. <br />.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12379570382779918899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-87569338277943905592018-08-16T23:53:48.701+01:002018-08-16T23:53:48.701+01:00If anyone here has had direct cognition of "A...If anyone here has had direct cognition of "Aham-sphurana" in your own life please share your experience and knowledge of it. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-89207339315656091312014-12-31T18:51:20.196+00:002014-12-31T18:51:20.196+00:00Jacques, as far as I know none of the published En...Jacques, as far as I know none of the published English translations of <i>Vicāra Saṅgraham</i> are satisfactory. I have never attempted to translate more than a few extracts from it, because I do not consider most of it to be a clear or accurate representation of Bhagavan’s teachings, since most of the questions asked by Gambhiram Seshayyar were about books on <i>rāja yōga</i> and <i>jñāna yōga</i> written by others, which he asked Bhagavan to explain to him. Therefore many of the ideas expressed in it are not Bhagavan’s own ideas but ones that he translated or paraphrased from the books that Seshayyar asked him to explain. It does contain some useful teachings, but it is a text that needs to be read with discrimination in order to distinguish the portions that do represent Bhagavan’s teachings from those that represent other ideas.<br /><br />Both the question-and-answer version and the essay version were edited by Swami Natananandar from the notes made by Gambhiram Seshayyar, and the essay version (which is the one included in <i>Śrī Ramaṇa Nūṯṟiraṭṭu</i>, the Tamil ‘Collected Works of Sri Ramana’) is generally the better of them. However, the English translation by T.M.P. Mahadevan of the question-and-answer version is generally more accurate than the translation of the essay version included in <i>Words of Grace</i> (and in some versions of <i>The Collected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi</i>).Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-26539495458079054762014-12-31T08:22:53.021+00:002014-12-31T08:22:53.021+00:00Michael, is there a good translation of vichara sa...Michael, is there a good translation of vichara sangraham, mainly chapters (verses) that deal with Atma vichara. Like nan yar there is two versions, prose and essay, which one is better? is the one in the collected works is good or the one in words of grace?<br /><br />Thank you Michael... <br /><br />JFinvestigation de soihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07785467481308543769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-42754719977939303832014-07-13T19:18:56.771+01:002014-07-13T19:18:56.771+01:00Wittgenstein and Sanjay, it seems to me that you h...Wittgenstein and Sanjay, it seems to me that you have both understood (each in your own way) what I was trying to explain, so there is not much more for me to add. Whatever words we may use cannot capture or adequately express the experience of clear self-awareness, so we should understand that whatever words may be used are only crude indicators, and that to recognise what they are indicating we must investigate ourself by trying to experience the clear shining of ‘I’ alone.<br /><br />No matter in how many ways we may try to express this, what we are trying to express is actually very simple and can be known only by experiencing it, which is what we are all trying to do. However, though it may seem futile to continue trying to express the inexpressible, it is not without some benefit, because writing, reading and thinking about it helps to draw our attention back to it (the clear shining of ‘I’) again and again.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-55252737149135652252014-07-13T17:58:29.405+01:002014-07-13T17:58:29.405+01:00Sir, your these three articles on ‘sphurana’ has g...Sir, your these three articles on ‘sphurana’ has given us enough sphurana (clarity) on its meaning. Thank you.<br /><br />You have written in this article:<br /><br />[…] This is why I tried to explain that this aham-spurippu is in itself essentially non-dual and otherless, even though it is experienced along with things other than itself. That is, it is in some sense an isolated (or at least a relatively isolated) experience in which we experience ourself alone, yet at the same time we peripherally experience other things to a greater or lesser extent. What exactly this means (and hence why this seeming contradiction is not actually a contradiction) can perhaps be understood only by those who have practised ātma-vicāra sufficiently deeply and have thereby experienced this kind of aham-spurippu clearly.<br /><br />Wittgenstein has commented on this passage. Now I would also like to write my reflections on it:<br /><br />Our deep-sleep is a non-dual and otherless experience, because in deep-sleep our ego fully subsides in self and therefore no effort is possible in this state – either to attend to objects or to attend to self.<br /><br />Similarly our heightened and intense experience of aham-spurippu is also ‘essentially non-dual and othereless experience’, but with slight difference. Our ego stands with its head bent in such aham-spurippu, that is, though our ego is active in a very tenuous form here, it has no love or will to attend to thoughts or objects. Thus it is akin to sleep. But smaller or greater effort is possible and needed to maintain this ‘essentially non-dual and otherless experience’. Therefore it can be called conscious sleep or sleep with effort.<br /><br />It will be nice to hear your comments on my reflections.<br /><br />Thanking you and pranams.<br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-55160651540211462022014-07-13T16:32:03.546+01:002014-07-13T16:32:03.546+01:00The reason why I added jagrat-sushupti as an eleme...The reason why I added <i>jagrat-sushupti</i> as an element in the range of <i>aham-sphurana</i> was that you had answered one of my comments on 6 June 2014 11:18, in your article, "Self-investigation, effort and sleep", posted on Thursday, 5 June 2014:"... though the term ‘sleep in waking’ or <i>jāgrat-suṣupti</i> would normally mean the state of true self-knowledge (pure self-awareness), <b>Bhagavan might also sometimes have used it to denote any state of practice in which we have come close to experiencing pure self-awareness</b>. In the former sense it would be the state in which our attention has finally turned a full 180 degrees away from everything else towards ourself alone, whereas in the latter sense it would be the state in which our attention has turned close to 180 degrees" [bold emphasis mine].<br /><br />There were two <i>personal</i> reasons for writing that comment. [1] Since <i>sphurana</i> refers to a range of experiences of varying clarity, I just wanted some sort of listing of those elements that constitute the range, to improve and consolidate my own understanding and [2] I have been around here for more than a month or so and I have participated in discussions revolving around nature of sleep and the I-thought and that comment of mine sort of summarizes to myself all that I have been learning here so far. I did this because I feel understanding the nature of sleep and the I-thought in Sri Ramana's philosophy plays a vital role in carrying out the correct practice. It is so important that if one misses the point, the practice is going to be invariably wrong.<br /><br />Apart from the above two selfish reasons, I totally agree with you that the focus on 'I' should alone be our primary concern, not any list-making on the go. However, I should say that being around here helps me a lot in that focus too. Further, as I normally do not write or talk about Sri Ramana elsewhere and when I want to re-visit any questions I had asked, I am sure it is in your blog [with the right answers from you] and within it, it is all a search away! This too is selfish.<br /><br />I was just being lazy with the <i>Ulladu Narpadu</i> verse. Many thanks for translating that. Every bit of what you write helps me in some way or other.Wittgensteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-78848361526315403212014-07-13T09:53:09.051+01:002014-07-13T09:53:09.051+01:00Wittgenstein, regarding what you write in your pre...Wittgenstein, regarding what you write in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-paradox-sphurana-means-shining-or.html?showComment=1405229329691#c7803087737117484423" rel="nofollow">your previous two comments</a> about <i>jāgrat-suṣupti</i> (‘waking sleep’ or ‘wakeful sleep’), this term is generally used to denote only our natural state of true self-knowledge (<i>ātma-jñāna</i>), which transcends the three states of waking, dream and sleep and is in fact the only real state, as Bhagavan says in verse 32 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Anubandham</i>.<br /><br />That is, only in the absolutely non-dual state of <i>ātma-jñāna</i> will we be truly awake only to ourself and completely asleep to the world (because the world does not actually exist, being just an illusion that seems to exist only in the deluded view of the mind, which is itself unreal), so it is the only state that can be truly described as ‘waking sleep’ or <i>jāgrat-suṣupti</i>. Though during our practice of <i>ātma-vicāra</i> we may sometimes come close to being in such a state in which are aware only of ourself and not of anything else, until our mind is finally destroyed by the absolute clarity of <i>ātma-jñāna</i> we will still be experiencing at least a trace of something other than ourself. Therefore if we choose to describe any state that we may experience during practice as <i>jāgrat-suṣupti</i>, we should understand that it is not actually the perfect state of <i>jāgrat-suṣupti</i> but only a semblance of it — a state in which we are almost aware only of ourself and only slightly aware of anything else.<br /><br />Anyway, what is most important is not any terminology that may be used to describe the varying degrees of clarity of self-awareness, but is only the understanding that our sole aim is to experience only ourself, ‘I am’, in complete isolation from everything else, and that so long as we still experience even the slightest trace of anything other than ‘I’, we must persevere in our effort to experience ‘I’ alone.<br /><br />Other than this one point about <i>jāgrat-suṣupti</i>, I agree in general with all that you write in these comments.<br /><br />Incidentally, for the benefit of those who do not know Tamil, your final sentence நாம உரு சித்திரமும், பார்ப்பானும், சேர் படமும், ஆர் ஓளியும், அத்தனையும் தான் ஆம் அவன் (<i>nāma uru cittiramum, pārppāṉum, sērpaḍamum, ār oḷiyum — attaṉaiyum tāṉ ām avaṉ</i>) is a quotation of the last half of verse 1 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>, which means: ‘[...] The picture of names and forms [the world], the one who sees [it], the screen on which [it] depends, and the pervading light [of consciousness that illumines it] – all these are he [the ‘first thing’ or base], which is self’.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-32740669334980875242014-07-13T08:21:25.245+01:002014-07-13T08:21:25.245+01:00To explain the various degrees of relative clarity...To explain the various degrees of relative clarity of the self, an analogy of a perfectly clear crystal is given here. Here are my reflections on the same using another analogy.<br /><br />In the popular film projector analogy, we can liken the intensity of light on the screen to the degree of clarity of the self. At the very least level, we can have a dark screen, representing sleep. It would be very interesting to observe that the initial response to explain this darkness would be to assume that the light is turned off. This is equivalent to thinking erroneously that we are not there in sleep [since we are the light]. Another possibility [in fact the correct one] is that the light is on but the film in front of the light is <i>completely opaque</i>. This is equivalent to saying the non-self is not there [represented by completely opaque film], although we [the light] are there.<br /><br />The other extreme is to have a <i>completely transparent</i> film and with the screen fully bright. This could also be understood as having <i>no film</i> at all. Of these, the second case represents complete destruction of ego.<br /><br />Of course, between these two extremes of <i>laya</i> and <i>nasa</i> we have various mixtures of light and darkness [contrast on the screen] representing the 'tenuous current of self-awareness', <i>jagrat-sushupti</i> etc. In the end, the film [<i>vasana</i>], the screen [whatever we experience] and the level of intensity of light on it [<i>sphurana</i>], the one projecting all this [கர்த்தன்] are all not diffrent from the light. நாம உரு சித்திரமும், பார்ப்பானும், சேர் படமும், ஆர் ஓளியும், அத்தனையும் தான் ஆம் அவன்.Wittgensteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-78030877371174844232014-07-13T06:28:49.691+01:002014-07-13T06:28:49.691+01:00The 'I' we experience [even before turning...The 'I' we experience [even before turning-in] is <i>aham-spurippu</i>, with feeble clarity, since 'I [am] I' is never fully concealed.<br /><br />"In fact we can experience a certain degree of <i>aham-spurippu</i> even while we are outwardly engaged in other activities [...]" - this is Sri Sadhu Om's tenuous current of self-awareness, with little increased clarity due to turning-in.<br /><br />"[...] it is [<i>aham-spurippu</i>] in some sense an isolated (or at least a relatively isolated) experience in which we experience ourself alone, yet at the same time we peripherally experience other things to a greater or lesser extent. What exactly this means (and hence why this seeming contradiction is not actually a contradiction) can perhaps be understood only those who have practised <i>ātma-vicāra</i> sufficiently deeply and have thereby experienced this kind of <i>aham-spurippu</i> clearly" - this is <i>jagrat-sushupti</i>, with increased turning-in and experienced with much higher clarity.<br /><br />So, there is a range of clarity, called by various names as, 'tenuous current', '<i>jagrat-sushupti</i>' etc. All these are not apart from 'I [am] I' and they all get dissolved in that eventually.<br /><br />Thanks Michael for giving me this understanding!Wittgensteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-25007602776445353082014-07-13T06:01:56.392+01:002014-07-13T06:01:56.392+01:00On 19 June 2014 15:19, I wrote in the comment colu...On 19 June 2014 15:19, I wrote in the comment column of your article, "Why do we not experience the existence of any body or world in sleep?", as a reply to Sanjay's comment preceding mine: "That 'fresh clarity' stuff appears somewhere as a footnote in The Path of Sri Ramana and it is the only place where it occurs. After that, in one of the appendices, a tenuous current of self awareness is mentioned, although I am not sure if this is sphurana. After you quote Michael, I have a hunch that it might be so. Of course, with increasing <i>abhyasa</i> a faint constant current is felt throughout the day, especially when one is not doing something serious".<br /><br />My hunch gets confirmed when you say here, "... but this relative kind of aham-spurippu is in itself essentially non-dual and otherless, even though it is experienced along with at least some trace of experience of something other than itself. In fact we can experience a certain degree of <i>aham-spurippu</i> <b>even while we are outwardly engaged in other activities</b>, but because it is in itself non-dual and otherless, it is an experience that is tending towards absolute non-duality and otherlessness" [bold emphasis mine]. Strange how things get answered!Wittgensteinnoreply@blogger.com