tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post9134111480625226598..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Establishing that I am and analysing what I amMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-62833198108165852942015-09-16T17:11:15.148+01:002015-09-16T17:11:15.148+01:00Michael,
your comment of 11 September 2014 at 10:3...Michael,<br />your comment of 11 September 2014 at 10:30 sheds light on the paramount significance and importance of atma-vicara and thus many questions and doubts have disappeared.<br />So let us see whether investigation of the seeming ego will reveal the ego's own non-existence. Ah, extremely easynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-76125706732244464102014-09-11T14:46:03.598+01:002014-09-11T14:46:03.598+01:00Yes, Steve, self-investigation is necessary only b...Yes, Steve, self-investigation is necessary only because there seems to be an ego (and hence there seems to be everything else that this ego experiences), and the one who investigates itself is only this seeming ego, but its investigation will reveal that it itself does not actually exist.<br /><br />Therefore, as you echo Bhagavan saying: ஐயே, அதி சுலபம், ஆன்ம வித்தை, ஐயே, அதி சுலபம்! (<i>aai-y-e, ati sulabham, āṉma-viddai, ai-y-e, ati sulabham!</i>), ‘Ah, extremely easy is the science of self, ah, extremely easy!’Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-50275656016358473012014-09-11T13:56:33.847+01:002014-09-11T13:56:33.847+01:00"...if we investigate this ego, we will find ..."...if we investigate this ego, we will find that it does not actually exist as such...but is just the one infinite awareness of being, ‘I am’."<br /><br />In other words, there is really no one to investigate this ego. Makes 'our' job even easier! :)Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-87495267381295090722014-09-11T13:26:43.573+01:002014-09-11T13:26:43.573+01:00Sir, I understand why you have said: To say manona...Sir, I understand why you have said: To say manonasa ‘will actually happen in dream or imagination’ is perhaps not the best way of experiencing it.<br /><br />As I had written, if manonasa happens in our dream or imagination, then even after manonasa our dream or imagination would have continued, because then manonasa would have been an action or event in our dream or imagination.<br /><br />Our manonasa will ‘destroy’ the dreamer – that is, our ego; and when this dreamer is ‘destroyed’, it will destroy along with it all its dreams – that is, all our thoughts, this body and this world. Thereafter we will experience, as you say: there is no dream or imagination, and never has been, because the mind that seemed to experience the dreams never actually existed [as the snake never actually existed].<br /><br />Therefore our final experience will always be ajata, but even when this ego, mind, body and this world seems to exist, it is a dreamlike existence, which will dissolve like morning mist on manonasa.<br /><br />Thanking you and pranams.Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-65236111969230334822014-09-11T12:42:44.481+01:002014-09-11T12:42:44.481+01:00I think that Sanjay's idea of the annihilation...I think that Sanjay's idea of the annihilation of mind happening in dream or imagination is based on the presupposition that the mind itself is unreal! and hence its destruction constitutes another thought! any thought capable of existing either by way of a dream, delusion or imagination. Looked at from that perspective what Sanjiv says seems to be correct.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-3331686065761047552014-09-11T11:58:01.555+01:002014-09-11T11:58:01.555+01:00"What shall we do with the drunken sailor, ea..."What shall we do with the drunken sailor, early in the morning ?".<br /> This folksong I had spontan in my ear when reading the same old story of<br />"seeming" or "not actually existing ego", "finite thinker", "this entire illusion", "our ego and all its thoughts", "this seemingly vast world", "everything else is a mere conceptualisation or mental detour".<br />Which cure can we get of such disease - we drunken sailors - unless self-investigation ?<br />...Early in the morning...Josef Brucknernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-34651574013309598202014-09-11T10:30:20.488+01:002014-09-11T10:30:20.488+01:00Yes, all thoughts are experienced only by the ego,...Yes, all thoughts are experienced only by the ego, which is the fundamental thought ‘I am the body’, so their seeming existence depends entirely upon the seeming existence of this ego. But if we investigate this ego, we will find that it does not actually exist as such, because it is not the finite thinker that it now seems to be, but is just the one infinite awareness of being, ‘I am’. Thus self-investigation (<i>ātma-vicāra</i>) will dissolve this entire illusion that we now experience as our ego and all its thoughts (which are what constitutes this seemingly vast world).<br /><br />Therefore ‘I am’ alone is real, and as our anonymous friend observes, everything else is a mere conceptualisation or mental detour.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-67714819054310377632014-09-11T09:30:25.830+01:002014-09-11T09:30:25.830+01:00Stripped of all these mental traffics in regard to...Stripped of all these mental traffics in regard to the existence of the Unmanifest, etc, the crux of self-enquiry seems to boil down to the fact of one having to understand the very mind to be unreal by resolving all thoughts to the fundamental thought ' I am the body' which is the datum of all experience, anything short of it not constituting the precursor to know the true Self, other than it everything being mere conceptualisations, a sort of a mental detour as it were.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-89308583387824394522014-09-11T09:00:07.520+01:002014-09-11T09:00:07.520+01:00Sanjay, trying to kill our mind is like trying to ...Sanjay, trying to kill our mind is like trying to kill an illusory snake. We cannot ‘kill’ the snake by beating it with a stick but only by looking at it carefully and seeing that it is not actually a snake but only a rope. Likewise, we cannot ‘kill’ our mind by any means other than looking at it carefully and seeing that it is not actually a mind but only our infinite real self.<br /><br />To say that <i>manōnāśa</i> ‘will actually happen only in our dream or imagination’ is perhaps not the best way of expressing it, because <i>manōnāśa</i> is the recognition that there is no dream or imagination, and never has been, because the mind that seemed to experience dreams never actually existed.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-48948992215146684272014-09-11T08:41:50.315+01:002014-09-11T08:41:50.315+01:00Sir, you have written in your comment above as fol...Sir, you have written in your comment above as follows:<br /><br />Since this mind and all that it experiences (other than ‘I’) does not actually exist even now, it is never actually either manifest or unmanifest. But since it now seems to be manifest, we can say that its unmanifest state in sleep is as real (or as unreal) as its present seemingly manifest state.<br /><br />This is an important clarification. We feel that we exist as this mind and body, and this ‘I am this mind and body’ idea will be destroyed on manonasa, but you have clarified here that this mind is never actually manifest or unmanifest – whether it is in our waking or dream or sleep state.<br /><br />Therefore even our manonasa will actually happen only in our dream or imagination. I think this understanding is very important; otherwise we take our mind to be real, and by extension we also take our body and world to be real.<br /><br />This understanding and its reflection should greatly aid our practice of self-investigation. We are trying to ‘kill’ our mind by our practice, but does this mind actually exist?<br /><br />As Bhagavan says in verse 17 of Upadesa Undiyar: ‘…there is no such thing as mind…’.<br /><br />Thanking you and pranams.<br /><br />Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-2433892441720060282014-09-10T18:02:59.910+01:002014-09-10T18:02:59.910+01:00So we learn that we should not attach too much sig...So we learn that we should not attach too much significance to the question if the world is round or square - (as you say: if our experiences are seemingly real or actually real - if we are concerned with something manifest or unmanifest - if something exists only as an idea, belief or uncertain inference -).<br /> We can turn the subject upside down or turn the coin back to the front: Do not forget the main thing ! It is a dictate of good sense to learn to be what we really are. Because:<br />We have no alternative.<br />Or should we lifelong place our trust to the conjectures or experiences of our contemporaries ?<br />Shall we leave the answer to that crucial question of what we really are to our fellow men ?<br /> Only hearing the subject of Self-investigation by word of mouth we cannot complain about our ignorance.<br />To hell with our ignorance, let us not make do with second-hand-answers until hell freezes over !!!<br />To hell with wrong assumptions !<br />Let us find the way out of the dump.<br />Oh Arunachala, fire of wisdom, burn burn burn<br />till the veil of Self-forgetfulness is cremated without any residues.Josef Brucknernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-25710270696114884252014-09-10T15:15:13.823+01:002014-09-10T15:15:13.823+01:00Sankarraman, in our experience the so-called ‘Unma...Sankarraman, in our experience the so-called ‘Unmanifest’ (<i>avyakta</i>) is just an idea, because since it is unmanifest it is obviously not experienced, so for us it exists as just an idea, belief or uncertain inference. To say that our mind, its <i>vāsanās</i> and all that it experiences remain in an unmanifest state in sleep is a convenient way of explaining how they reappear when we wake up, but it seems true only from the perspective of our waking experience and not from the perspective of our experience in sleep.<br /><br />Moreover, such explanations are based on the assumption that our mind is real, but as Bhagavan tells us in verse 17 of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>, if we investigate this mind we will find that it does not actually exist. What we now experience as a finite mind is actually just our infinite self. Since this mind and all that it experiences (other than ‘I’) does not actually exist even now, it is never actually either manifest or unmanifest. But since it now seems to be manifest, we can say that its unmanifest state in sleep is as real (or as unreal) as its present seemingly manifest state.<br /><br />Other than ‘I’, everything that we experience or believe is just seemingly real but not actually real, so in order to liberate ourself from all that is seemingly real we must investigate and experience what this ‘I’ actually is.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-60797733677242009662014-09-09T18:32:35.313+01:002014-09-09T18:32:35.313+01:00Michael, your statement that the idea that things ...Michael, your statement that the idea that things other than the Self exist despite our not thinking of them is very illuminative. We usually think that the world of waking state and our karmas get merged in the Unmanifest in a seed form and manifest again, which seems to be blatantly wrong from the perspective of the teachings of Bhabgavan dismantling many of our ingrained beliefs obstinately standing in our way towards understanding ourselves.Sankarramanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718256859263931847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-35897496471742117652014-08-25T20:49:04.072+01:002014-08-25T20:49:04.072+01:00Thanks for giving the examples from Bhagavan's...Thanks for giving the examples from Bhagavan's teachings with regard to usage of Thaan and Naan interchangeably for both ego as well as Self.R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-12510348542546548042014-08-25T16:37:23.636+01:002014-08-25T16:37:23.636+01:00Viswanathan, in my earlier reply to you about நான்...Viswanathan, in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/08/establishing-that-i-am-and-analysing.html?showComment=1408733812080#c7884710380656087470" rel="nofollow">my earlier reply to you</a> about நான் (<i>nāṉ</i>) not always referring only to the ego and தான் (<i>tāṉ</i>) not always referring only to our real self, I did not give any examples to illustrate this. There are many examples that could be given, but the following are particularly clear ones:<br /><br />In the <a href="http://www.happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para20" rel="nofollow">final paragraph</a> of <a href="http://www.happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html" rel="nofollow"><i>Nāṉ Yār?</i></a> (Who am I?), Sri Ramana clearly uses தான் (<i>tāṉ</i>) to refer to the ego when he says:<br /><br />தானெழுந்தால் சகலமு மெழும்; தானடங்கினால் சகலமு மடங்கும். [...]<br /><br /><i>tāṉ eṙundāl sakalam-um eṙum; tāṉ aḍaṅgiṉāl sakalam-um aḍaṅgum</i>. [...]<br /><br />‘If oneself [the ego] rises, everything rises; if oneself subsides [or ceases], everything subsides [or ceases]. [...]’<br /><br />And in verse 21 of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> he clearly uses நான் (<i>nāṉ</i>) to refer to our real self when he says:<br /><br />நான் எனும் சொல் பொருள் ஆம் அது நாளுமே. [...]<br /><br /><i>nāṉ eṉum sol poruḷ ām adu nāḷ-um-ē</i>. [...]<br /><br />‘That is at all times the import of the word called ‘I’. [...]’<br /><br />Here ‘that’ (<i>adu</i>) refers to our real self, which is the infinite reality that he said (in the previous verse) shines forth as நான் நான் (<i>nāṉ nāṉ</i>), ‘I am I’. Thus in verse 21 he says emphatically that our real self is always the true import of the word நான் (<i>nāṉ</i>), ‘I’.<br /><br />Likewise in verse 22, when saying that adjuncts such as the body and mind are not ‘I’, he says சத்தான நான் (<i>sattāṉa nāṉ</i>), which means ‘I, which is <i>sat</i> [what really exists]’, so here also நான் (<i>nāṉ</i>) clearly refers to what we really are and not to our ego.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-27186704283414052562014-08-25T13:40:59.453+01:002014-08-25T13:40:59.453+01:00Thanks for correcting me that (in Bhagavan's t...Thanks for correcting me that (in Bhagavan's teachings), the Tamil word Thaan does not always refer only to Self and that the Tamil word Naan does not always refer only to ego. <br /><br />Thanks also for reiterating that Bhagavan completed the self-investigation in Madurai itself before starting his journey to Thiruvannamalai.R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-79502288663854589952014-08-25T12:16:51.096+01:002014-08-25T12:16:51.096+01:00Yes, Sanjay, the three statements you refer to in ...Yes, Sanjay, the three statements you refer to in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/08/establishing-that-i-am-and-analysing.html?showComment=1408953773522#c80082778361268209" rel="nofollow">your latest comment</a> mean essentially the same. The world is just a creation of our mind, but the substance of which it is created is just mental stuff (ideas, thoughts or perceptual images), so in substance it is nothing but our mind. Being nothing but a series of ideas, the world is also just an expansion of our mind.<br /><br />Sri Ramana repeatedly emphasised in <a href="http://www.happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html" rel="nofollow"><i>Nāṉ Yār?</i></a> (Who am I?) and elsewhere that the world is nothing but thoughts or ideas. For example, in the <a href="http://www.happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para04" rel="nofollow">fourth paragraph</a> he says:<br /><br />[...] நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை. [...]<br /><br />[...] <i>niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam-eṉḏṟōr poruḷ aṉṉiyam-āy illai</i>. [...]<br /><br />‘[...] Except thoughts [or ideas], there is separately no such thing as ‘world’. [...]’<br /><br />And in the <a href="http://www.happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para14" rel="nofollow">fourteenth paragraph</a> he says:<br /><br />[...] ஜக மென்பது நினைவே. [...]<br /><br />[...] <i>jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē</i>. [...]<br /><br />‘[...] What is called the world is only thought. [...]’<br /><br />Whenever Sri Ramana uses either the word நினைவு (<i>niṉaivu</i>) or எண்ணம் (<i>eṇṇam</i>), both of which literally mean ‘thought’ or ‘idea’, he uses them in a very broad sense to mean any type of mental phenomenon, so since the perceptual images (sights, sounds, tastes, smells and tactile sensations) that we experience as the world are just mental phenomena, he says that the world is nothing but ideas or thoughts. What he clearly implies by this is that no world exists independent of our perception of it.<br /><br />Therefore, since any world that we may perceive consists only of our own thoughts, and since thoughts are nothing but our mind, being just a creation or expansion of it, any world that we perceive (whether in dream, waking or any other state) is nothing but our mind, is just a creation of our mind, and is just an expansion of our mind.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-800827783612682092014-08-25T09:02:53.522+01:002014-08-25T09:02:53.522+01:00Sir, you have written in your above comment:
‘Lik...Sir, you have written in your above comment:<br /><br />‘Likewise, according to Sri Ramana, the world that we now experience is just a creation of our mind, and hence nothing but our own ideas or thoughts, because this state of seeming waking is actually just another dream. Therefore this entire universe is just an expansion of our mind, and our mind is just an expansion of our ego. Hence in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu he says:<br /><br />If the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist. [Hence] the ego alone is everything. [...]’<br /><br />We read the following three ways of equating our mind with this world:<br />a) This world is nothing but our mind.<br />b) The world is just a creation of our mind.<br />c) The world is just an expansion of our mind.<br /><br />Do the three statements mean the same thing? Or is there some difference in the meaning being indicated in the various above statements?<br /><br />Thanking you and pranams.Sanjay Lohiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384912997886218824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-4587962379762703542014-08-23T10:41:09.105+01:002014-08-23T10:41:09.105+01:00In answer to the latest question asked by Anonymou...In answer to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/08/establishing-that-i-am-and-analysing.html?showComment=1408743311006#c3470510811378452436" rel="nofollow">the latest question asked by Anonymous</a>, ‘Is there anything in a dream that is separate/different from a dreamer?’:<br /><br />While we are dreaming the world that we experience seems to be something that is separate from ourself, but after we have woken from the dream we recognise that it was actually just a creation of our mind — in other words, it was nothing but our own ideas or thoughts, and as such it was not really anything separate from ourself. The dream world was just an expansion of our mind, and our mind is just an expansion of our ego.<br /><br />Likewise, according to Sri Ramana, the world that we now experience is just a creation of our mind, and hence nothing but our own ideas or thoughts, because this state of seeming waking is actually just another dream. Therefore this entire universe is just an expansion of our mind, and our mind is just an expansion of our ego. Hence in verse 26 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> he says:<br /><br />அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும். அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம். [...]<br /><br /><i>ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum. ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām.</i> [...]<br /><br />If the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist. [Hence] the ego alone is everything. [...]Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-34705108113784524362014-08-22T22:35:11.006+01:002014-08-22T22:35:11.006+01:00Is there anything in a dream that is separate/diff...Is there anything in a dream that is separate/different from a dreamer?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-79646643431186971982014-08-22T21:13:44.779+01:002014-08-22T21:13:44.779+01:00"I feel that having been drawn to Bhagavan..."I feel that having been drawn to Bhagavan's teachings thus far, we might just need to wait a little longer for Bhgavan's grace to swallow us (our ego) completely."<br /><br />Ego is destined to die, just have to be ready by then....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-42315305833818305192014-08-22T20:05:39.746+01:002014-08-22T20:05:39.746+01:00Yes, Steve, the understanding you express in your ...Yes, Steve, the understanding you express in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/08/establishing-that-i-am-and-analysing.html?showComment=1408715651539#c3538524658866258937" rel="nofollow">your comment</a> is correct. Stillness or silence is our real nature, so to be still means to be as we really are. And since we really are always self-aware — aware of nothing other than ourself alone (even though we now seem to be aware of other things) — in order to be as we really are we must be aware of nothing other than ‘I’. This, as you say, is the practice of <i>ātma-vicāra</i>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-78847103806560874702014-08-22T19:56:52.080+01:002014-08-22T19:56:52.080+01:00Viswanathan, as you say, நான் (nāṉ) means ‘I’ and ...Viswanathan, as you say, நான் (<i>nāṉ</i>) means ‘I’ and தான் (<i>tāṉ</i>) means ‘self’, but it is not correct to say, as you seem to imply in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/08/establishing-that-i-am-and-analysing.html?showComment=1408713116380#c2460457698627164217" rel="nofollow">your latest comment</a>, that நான் (<i>nāṉ</i>) refers only to the ego whereas தான் (<i>tāṉ</i>) refers only to our real self. The only difference between நான் (<i>nāṉ</i>) and தான் (<i>tāṉ</i>) is that the former always refers only to the first person (I), whereas the later may refer to the first person (myself or ourself, where ‘ourself’ is used as an inclusive form of the first person singular pronoun), the second person (yourself), a third person (himself, herself or itself) or anyone in general (oneself).<br /><br />In the context of Sri Ramana’s teachings, தான் (<i>tāṉ</i>) generally refers to the first person, in which case it is synonymous with நான் (<i>nāṉ</i>). Sri Ramana often used either of these two words to refer either to our ego or to our real self, or simply to ourself in general in contexts in which they do not refer specifically either to one or the other. That is, as I explained in this article, we each experience only one ‘I’ or ‘self’, and when we experience it as it really is, it is our real self (our real நான் or தான்), whereas when we experience it mixed and confused with adjuncts as if those adjuncts were ourself, it is our ego (our seeming நான் or தான்). Therefore our ego is nothing other than our real self seeming to be something other than what it actually is.<br /><br />Regarding your second paragraph, this seems to be based on what Sri Ramana wrote in the first two verses of <i>Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam</i>, but we should not take what he wrote there to be autobiographical in a strictly literal or chronological sense, because he had completed his self-investigation (<i>ātma-vicāra</i>) in a single moment in Madurai about six weeks before coming to Tiruvannamalai. Since the seer (the ego) had already become non-existent in him at that moment in Madurai, we should understand that what he wrote in verse 2 of <i>Aṣṭakam</i> about investigating who is the seer and seeing what remained when the seer became non-existent referred to the <i>vicāra</i> he had done in Madurai rather than any <i>vicāra</i> that he did when he came to Tiruvannamalai and saw Arunachala as a hill.<br /><br />Regarding your final remark that ‘we might just need to wait a little longer for Bhagavan's grace to swallow us (our ego) completely’, so long as we attend to anything other than ‘I’ we are, so to speak, running away from Bhagavan and his grace, because he and his grace are always shining within us as ‘I’ alone. Therefore, if we want to wait for his grace to swallow us, we must attend only to ‘I’.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-35385246588662589372014-08-22T14:54:11.539+01:002014-08-22T14:54:11.539+01:00The true nature of 'I' is infinite self-aw...The true nature of 'I' is infinite self-aware being. <br /><br />This is why Sri Ramana tells us to be still, and as mentioned in a recent article, Sri Sadhu Om spoke of being attention rather than paying attention. Those two are really one and the same - to be still, is to attend to stillness. This is the practice of atma-vicara.<br /><br />I hope my understanding is also correct...thank you, Sri Michael James!Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-24604576986271642172014-08-22T14:11:56.380+01:002014-08-22T14:11:56.380+01:00Sri Nochur Venkataraman would often appreciate the...Sri Nochur Venkataraman would often appreciate the existence of two words in Tamil: Naan and Thaan, the latter meaning in English the self, real self or real 'I' or the only 'I' that really exists. The word Thaan is the base on which Naan (ego) will rise and into which Naan will subside. In page 180 of the book Swathma Sukhi, while explaining Ulladhu Narpadhu verse 21, he raises a question, how to see Atma? Then he writes that Bhagavan himself states in Upadhesa Saram: Thaana Iruththale Thannai Dharsiththal. That is, remaining in self as self is seeing the self. He explains further that the only experience of awareness of self is the existence (Sat). To see or know that Chit, there is none separate from it. If illusion of other things gets removed, Chit will reveal itself.<br /><br />In page 177 of the same book, Sri Nochur writes: Before leaving Madurai, Ramana Maharshi wrote that he is going out to see his father. Then coming to Arunachala, he saw the hill, and at that moment itself, his mind entered into self investigation of who is that I that saw rhis. No 'I' rose to say that I saw this. There was none to say that I did not see either. Only the silence of the heart remained. <br /><br />I feel that having been drawn to Bhagavan's teachings thus far, we might just need to wait a little longer for Bhgavan's grace to swallow us (our ego) completely.R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.com