tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post8420906152528914904..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Our basic thought āIā is the portal through which we can know our real āIāMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-25654064429638951812014-05-30T19:45:13.454+01:002014-05-30T19:45:13.454+01:00To put all that Maharshi taught us all is simply t...To put all that Maharshi taught us all is simply this. <br />Mind - I-thought = Brahman & <br />Mind + I-thought = Jiva. <br /><br />Or, <br /><br />Prana + I-thought = Brahman & <br />Prana - I-thought = JivaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-14936674819753959552009-01-03T11:55:00.000+00:002009-01-03T11:55:00.000+00:00Unlike traditional Vedanta, Bhaghavan does not sub...Unlike traditional Vedanta, Bhaghavan does not subscribe to concepts of cosmic consciousness, gradual liberation in the world of Hiranyagharbha etc. Does it mean that Ramana is of the view that these ideas are not real or are irrelevant? Further one doesn't find the tenacious equation of the waking state with the dream state in the traditional vedanta, a semblance of reality being given to waking state. Would Michale give an answer to this explaining this obvious deviation in Ramana's approach from the views of tradition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-6128243702917890672009-01-01T13:40:00.000+00:002009-01-01T13:40:00.000+00:00In my earlier postings I have made a reference to ...In my earlier postings I have made a reference to the views of some modern teachers, especially Jiddu Krishnamurti, who are of opinion that the crux of the bondgae is only the psychological memory, the mere objective phenomena not being incmpatible with our sense of inner freedom or abidance in it. To support this, there is this idea of Iswara Srishti and Jiva Shrishti, propounded by Sri Vidyaranya, a celebrated advaitin. Iswara Shrishti is synonymous with the objective world, and the Jiva Shrishti, the inner phenomena of the mind. This gives rise to the doubt that there can be still an I seening a world, the world of Iswara. This runs counter to the philosophy of Bhaghavan. Is it that Vidyaranya has used these terms of duality as a working hypothesis, and that this does not constitute the ultimate truth. Even Bhaghavan, in some places, doesn't encourage the idea of the unreality of the world by posing the question whether if it were so would not one attain mukti in deep sleep. I would request Michale James to expatiate upon this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-56238848047177761362008-12-31T09:36:00.000+00:002008-12-31T09:36:00.000+00:00Further to my earlier postings on the implication ...Further to my earlier postings on the implication of I thought, as propounded by Bhaghavan Ramana, I feel that according to his teachings-he doesn't mince matters by making practical distinction-any form of the reality of the world or its counterpart, the I, is the cause of our bondage. Which is to say that psychologically one cannot be happy with the reality of the I or the world, being rooted in our mind. I feel one need make no distinction of our bondage as the I thought or the world, both of them being one and the same illusion, the one exacerbating the other. There can be no vestige of thoughts in the enlightened mind according to Ramana, there being no intermediate states of freedom, that is the world or the I being still cognized and admitted as real.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-55130865521374455642008-12-31T09:25:00.000+00:002008-12-31T09:25:00.000+00:00Thanks a lot, Michale, for your elaboration on the...Thanks a lot, Michale, for your elaboration on the implication of, 'I,' thought, and the practice of self-enquiry. Here I have a basic doubt. Some modern teachers are of the opinion that only thoughts at the psychological level, which is termed as psychological memory, are fit to be eschewed; or it is that their unreality has to be understood, whereas those thoughts, which are needed in empirical life, do not constitute an hindrance, nor is their reality to be disputed. Only the subjective states of pleasure, pain, sorrow, loneliness, boredom, to wit, all those thoughts which involve our conscious being, are stated to be unreal by these modern teachers. That is because a simple thought about a rose or a banyan tree or a stray dog, is not going to disturb my psyche; but only those thoughts which affect my conscious being-let us say that I feel the presence of a ghost near the tree, or the rose reminds me my failure in my love affair, or that I have a phobia of the dogs; only these thoughts are going to affect me- constitute a spiritual bondage. But Ramana demands a very serious thing, demanding the extinction of the entire field of objectivity, be it of my intimate psychical thoughts or some superficial thoughts mentioned above. Is it possible to make this fragmentation, bringing about a state of freedom at the psychological level, with the reality of the objective elements being there still intact? On the other hand, Ramana brands all conscious states, that is mind-bound states, there being no distinction of thoughts as aforesaid, as unreal. The reality of the practical world itself is called into question in Ramana's worldview. How does one explain the paradox of Ramana's practical undertakings in the face of the mind-boggling philosophy of his that only the Self is the true reality, answering to which we don't have anything in the phenomenal existence unless it were pure void?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-10915830140816853472008-12-31T04:30:00.000+00:002008-12-31T04:30:00.000+00:00Excellent explanation. I find it very useful. The ...Excellent explanation. I find it very useful. The comment by Anonymous and your explication of it are both deep and conducive to instrospection.<BR/><BR/>I am not flattering you both- but your dialogue reads like some Vedantic Bhasyam.<BR/><BR/>Hope this continues further so that we can profit from the fruits of your association.<BR/><BR/>Regards,natbashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14403716051658767925noreply@blogger.com