tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana MaharshiMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger23193125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-1796027474872055602022-02-09T17:31:14.157+00:002022-02-09T17:31:14.157+00:00After posting this article yesterday, I remembered...After posting this article yesterday, I remembered some other explanations that I wanted to include in it, so I wrote them as a new section, which is now section 6, <a href="#unreal" rel="nofollow">What is real is only ourself as the fundamental awareness ‘I am’, but since we are now aware of ourself as ‘I am this body’, this unreal body seems to be real, and consequently the entire world also seems to be real</a>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-57737020481614397172021-12-05T15:37:27.671+00:002021-12-05T15:37:27.671+00:00The same friend in reply to whom I wrote this arti...The same friend in reply to whom I wrote this article replied to me saying, ‘Some of my original confusion stemmed from thinking about that the “fruits” that have been selected for one’s prārabdha leave behind “seeds” after being experienced. After reading your explanation, I am now thinking that the fruits leave behind seeds because one is drawn to attend to experiencing the fruits due to one’s viṣaya-vāsanās. This attention strengthens some of them and causes new one’s to sprout. Is that is what, “The fruit of action perishing, as seed it causes to fall in the ocean of action,” means?’, in reply to which I wrote:<br /><br />Yes, but the reason the <i>vāsanās</i> are strengthened and give rise to related ones is because under the sway of those <i>vāsanās</i> we attend to whatever experiences arise according to <i>prārabdha</i>, so what strengthens them and causes related ones to sprout is not the experiences themselves but our allowing ourself to be swayed by those <i>vāsanās</i>.<br /><br />What Bhagavan means in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu02" rel="nofollow">verse 2</a> of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i> is that it is the seeds (namely <i>vāsanās</i>) that cause us to fall in the ocean of action, and though each fruit perishes as soon as we experience it, the seeds persist and perpetuate themselves, but only to the extent to which we allow ourself to be swayed by them. Therefore the fundamental error we make is allowing ourself to be swayed by our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, and hence the only solution is for us to cling firmly to being self-attentive and thereby not allow ourself to be swayed by any <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-88642750156692215032021-12-05T15:29:47.248+00:002021-12-05T15:29:47.248+00:00After posting this article here yesterday, today I...After posting this article here yesterday, today I have added one more paragraph before the <a href="#ny10" rel="nofollow">paragraph</a> preceding the tenth and eleventh paragraphs of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>, namely:<br /><br />Though <i>vāsanās</i> seem to have power over us, they do not actually have any power of their own, so they derive their power only from us. That is, we endow them with power by allowing ourself to be swayed by them, so when we do not allow ourself to be swayed by any particular <i>vāsanā</i> we are thereby depriving it of whatever power it may seem to have over us. The ultimate source of all power is only ourself as we actually are, namely <i>sat-cit</i>, which is pure awareness of being, ‘I am’, so when we rise as ego we derive our power from what we actually are, and since everything else (all phenomena or <i>viṣayas</i>) seem to exist only in the view of ourself as ego, they derive whatever power they seem to have only from ego. That is, the seeds that sprout as <i>viṣayas</i> are our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, because <i>viṣayas</i> appear only when we allow our attention to move away from ourself under the sway our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, so by directing our attention away from ourself we give power firstly to our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> and consequently to whatever <i>viṣayas</i> appear from them like plants appearing from seeds.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-6270875442775754202021-12-02T11:19:57.376+00:002021-12-02T11:19:57.376+00:00In another comment on the same video the same frie...In another <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpmWJbN6Ww8&lc=Ugyzq5Sg0IiCfjSEksB4AaABAg" rel="nofollow">comment</a> on the same video the same friend asked, ‘When there are thoughts arise in my mind “go and watch tv” and I do and am therefore distracted and not self attentive are these thoughts my vishaya-vasanas?’, in reply to which I wrote:<br /><br />Sky, <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> are our inclinations to attend to and experience things other than oneself. Therefore thoughts arise and consequently we engage in actions only to the extent to which we allow ourself to be swayed by our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, so we should try our best to be self-attentive and thereby not allow ourself to be swayed by any <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-58170008066931164472021-12-02T11:07:42.510+00:002021-12-02T11:07:42.510+00:00In a comment on one of my recent videos, 2021-11-2...In a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpmWJbN6Ww8&lc=Ugyzq5Sg0IiCfjSEksB4AaABAg" rel="nofollow">comment</a> on one of my recent videos, <a href="https://youtu.be/JpmWJbN6Ww8" rel="nofollow">2021-11-24 Two Michaels discuss the transience of experiences versus the permanence of ‘I am’</a>, a friend asked, “If we don’t have strong desire to practice atma-vichara isn’t that our karma? Can we actually develop this desire to turn inwards and practice or is it really out of our control because of our karma? I’m not so sure we can develop anything, may be it happens when it suppose to happen, when that karma ripens? I mean if we could develop the passion, desire and love to practice atma-vichara surely everyone would do it once they hear these teachings”, in reply to which I wrote:<br /><br />Sky, desires, or to be more precise, the inclinations (<i>vāsanās</i>) that give rise to desires, are the cause of <i>karma</i>, not the effect of <i>karma</i>, and we are not bound by our inclinations, because we are free either to allow ourself to be swayed by them or to refrain from being swayed by them. To the extent to which we allow ourself to be swayed by any particular inclination, we are thereby strengthening it, and to the extent to which we refrain from being swayed by it, we are thereby weakening it.<br /><br />When we attend to anything other than ourself, we are being swayed by our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> (inclinations to experience things other than oneself), so we are thereby strengthening such <i>vāsanās</i>, whereas when we are self-attentive, we are not allowing ourself to be swayed by any <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, so we are thereby weakening them, and instead we are being swayed by our <i>sat-vāsanā</i> (inclination just to be as we actually are), so we are thereby strengthening it. Therefore, to the extent to which we are self-attentive, we are thereby weakening all our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> and strengthening our <i>sat-vāsanā</i>.<br /><br /><i>Karma</i> is of three kinds, namely: <i>āgāmya</i>, which are the actions of mind, speech and body that we do under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, and which consequently bear fruit; <i>sañcita</i>, which is the store of all the fruits of our past <i>āgāmya karmas</i> that we have not yet experienced; and <i>prārabdha</i>, which is a selection of the fruits of our past <i>āgāmya karmas</i> that God or <i>guru</i> has allotted for us to experience in our present life. Therefore all <i>karma</i> is the result of our allowing ourself to be swayed by our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, so no <i>karma</i> can give us <i>sat-vāsanā</i>, nor can it prevent us from cultivating <i>sat-vāsanā</i> and weakening all our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>.<br /><br />In order to cultivate <i>sat-vāsanā</i> and destroy all <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, we must try to be self-attentive as much as possible and thereby develop the love to cling more and more firmly to being self-attentive. Therefore we are all free to cultivate this love, and whether we do so or not is entirely up to us. Bhagavan’s grace is of course always available and waiting to help us, but we must yield ourself to it by trying our best to be self-attentive.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-74185716887928351652021-12-01T12:32:28.219+00:002021-12-01T12:32:28.219+00:00In reply to the reply I reproduced in my previous ...In reply to the reply I reproduced in my previous comment, another friend asked, ‘Isn’t this a game of semantics? Most scholars say it is Brahman dreaming but you say it is ego that is dreaming?’, in reply to which I wrote:<br /><br />Before Bhagavan there was a lot of confusion about this, and there still is, but if we are willing to accept what he taught us, such confusion will be removed from our mind, because he has clarified this in a very simple and logical manner.<br /><br /><i>Brahman</i> is nothing other than ourself as we actually are, our own real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is pure being (<i>sat</i>) and pure awareness (<i>cit</i>), one only without a second, infinite, eternal and immutable. Therefore our real nature is not to do anything but just to be as we always actually are, so as such we do not dream or create anything. Since we alone are what actually exists, we are never aware of anything other than ourself, not even of the appearance of any other thing.<br /><br />Other things appear and seem to exist only in the view of ourself as ego, so the dreamer who dreams all this appearance is only ourself as ego and not ourself as <i>brahman</i>, which is what we actually are. This is why he says in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un26" rel="nofollow">verse 26</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>:<br /><br />“If ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if ego does not exist, everything does not exist. Ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this is alone is giving up everything.”Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-39382880001520821842021-12-01T12:26:50.291+00:002021-12-01T12:26:50.291+00:00In a comment on one of my recent videos, 2021-11-2...In a comment on one of my recent videos, <a href="https://youtu.be/JpmWJbN6Ww8" rel="nofollow">2021-11-24 Two Michaels discuss the transience of experiences versus the permanence of ‘I am’</a>, a friend asked, ‘Are you saying one ego or one witness consciousness?’, in reply to which I wrote:<br /><br />It depends on what you mean by witness consciousness. If you mean the consciousness that is aware of all this appearance, that is ego, but the term ‘witness’ (<i>sākṣi</i>) is also used in a deeper sense to refer to the presence in which all this appears rather than that to which it all appears, and in this deeper sense ‘witness’ refers to our real nature (<i>ātma-svarūpa</i>), which is the pure awareness ‘I am’, in the clear view of which nothing other than itself exists or even seems to exist.<br /><br />In either case, it is one. That is, there is only one ego that dreams all this appearance, and that one ego is the false awareness ‘I am this body’, which appears from the one pure awareness, which is what we actually are.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-23959570041855423932021-11-27T09:07:41.737+00:002021-11-27T09:07:41.737+00:00Within the last couple of hours I have made some c...Within the last couple of hours I have made some corrections and added some further clarifications in this article, so if you started reading it within about 18 hours of the time I posted it, I suggest you refresh this page in your browser in order to see the revised version.<br /><br />I may also make some further corrections as and when any friends point out any typos that they may spot, and I may make some other changes if fresh ideas occur to me, so whenever you resume reading this or any other article, it is always good to refresh it in your browser, because unless refreshed browsers tend to show the latest version of any page you were reading rather than any new version of it. Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-35946387729194518132021-11-08T08:53:11.509+00:002021-11-08T08:53:11.509+00:00In continuation of my previous comment:
When you ...In continuation of my previous comment:<br /><br />When you say, “In my experience, it is becoming harder and harder to find this ‘I’ feeling as a result of my practice”, that means that you are trying to find something other than yourself, because it can never be hard for you to find yourself, since you are always clearly aware of yourself as ‘I’. Who is trying to find what? The ‘I’ who is trying to find this ‘I’ feeling is itself the ‘I’ feeling whom it is trying to find, so we should attend only to ourself, the one ‘I’ we are always clearly aware of, and should not be trying to find anything that we are not already clearly aware of.<br /><br />We can investigate what we actually are, who am I, only by being self-attentive, which means attending only to the ‘I’ who is attending, so this practice of self-investigation that Bhagavan has taught us is extremely simple. If we understand it correctly, we will not get confused by trying to hunt for or find some ‘I’ that is unknown to us, because whatever is not always clearly known by us is not ‘I’. The subjective feeling of ‘I’, as you call it, is not anything other than you, the one ‘I’ who is trying to attend to it.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-84680001280276213762021-11-08T08:52:47.442+00:002021-11-08T08:52:47.442+00:00In a comment on one of my recent videos, 2021-10-3...In a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8nzCSOscU0&lc=Ugyjqe0z5CHzm-rZQ9Z4AaABAg" rel="nofollow">comment</a> on one of my recent videos, <a href="https://youtu.be/B8nzCSOscU0" rel="nofollow">2021-10-30b Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i> paragraph 17</a>, a friend wrote:<br /><br />“Michael, the description of self enquiry you provide in your answer to the question at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8nzCSOscU0&t=4560s" rel="nofollow">1:16:00</a> is different to what is described in <i>Be As You Are</i>. In <i>Be As You Are</i>, we are told to focus our attention in the subjective feeling of ‘I’. If sustained, the individual ‘I’ will disappear and in its place there will be a direct experience of the Self (page 48). This is probably the ‘hunt’, the questionner is referring to. In my experience, it is becoming harder and harder to find this ‘I’ feeling as a result of my practice.”<br /><br />In reply to this I wrote:<br /><br />Tommy, how many ‘I’s are you? Are you not just one ‘I’? We cannot be more than one ‘I’, because we always experience ourself as one, and Bhagavan points out in <a href="https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un33" rel="nofollow">verse 33</a> of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i>.<br /><br />This one ‘I’ is what we always experience as our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, and in its pure condition without being mixed or conflated with anything else, it is what we actually are, and what alone is actually real. However we now experience it mixed and conflated with adjuncts as ‘I am Tommy’, ‘I am Michael’ or ‘I am whoever’, so in its adjunct-conflated condition it is what is called ego or the thought called ‘I’, and this is what you describe as ‘the subjective feeling of I’.<br /><br />When we investigate ourself by focusing our attention in the subjective feeling of ‘I’, as you put it, what we should be attending to in this adjunct-conflated awareness ‘I am Tommy’ is not the adjunct portion, namely the person called Tommy (who consists of five sheaths: body, life, mind, intellect and will), which is unreal and devoid of awareness, being just a temporary appearance, but only the awareness portion, namely ‘I am’, which alone is real, being what is permanent and unchanging.<br /><br />Therefore, whether we describe the practice as attending to ego, to the thought called ‘I’, to the subjective feeling of ‘I’, or to our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, it all amounts to the same thing, because there is only one ‘I’ for us to attend to, and even though this one ‘I’ is now conflated with adjuncts, what we are trying to attend to is not the adjuncts but only ‘I’.<br /><br />Suppose you see something that you mistake to be a snake, but Bhagavan tells you that it is not actually a snake but only a rope, and advises you to look at it carefully to see what it actually is for yourself. Whether you think that you have to look at the snake or at the rope, it makes no difference, because what seems to you to be a snake is actually just a rope. There are not two things there, a snake and a rope, but only one thing, so all Bhagavan is advising you to do is to look at that one thing to see what it actually is.<br /><br />Likewise, there are not ‘I’s, an ego and our real nature, but only one ‘I’, namely ourself, so when Bhagavan advises us to investigate this one ‘I’ to see what we actually are, it does not matter whether we think we are attending to ego (the subjective feeling of ‘I’) or to our real nature (our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’), because what seems to us to be ego is actually just our real nature, as we shall see if we attend to ourself keenly enough.<br /><br />(I will continue this reply in my next comment.)Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-10487359570273875992021-09-24T10:55:21.024+01:002021-09-24T10:55:21.024+01:00In a comment on one of my recent videos, 2021-09-1...In a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWfW4j8zEQc&lc=UgyqKfFBuvLEs1ZoXUh4AaABAg" rel="nofollow">comment</a> on one of my recent videos, <a href="https://youtu.be/cWfW4j8zEQc" rel="nofollow">2021-09-17 Palani and Michael discuss why and how to practise self-investigation (<i>ātma-vicāra</i>)</a>, a friend wrote:<br /><br />“Sri Michael James, please correct any errors in my (simple minded) understanding: In summary, ‘self attention’ and ‘self surrender’ seem to be the key to happiness. In the realm of doing, attending to and surrendering appear to be in opposition to each other: seeking and giving up, respectively. So, the word ‘self’ is used here to mean two somewhat different things. The first one is ‘fundamental awareness’ and the second is ‘ego.’ Self attention is constantly identifying with fundamental awareness to the exclusion of everything else. Self surrender is surrendering one’s ego.”<br /><br />In reply to this I wrote:<br /><br />Anitya, self-attention and self-surrender are not in opposition to each other, because the nature of ego is to subside and dissolve back into its source to the extent that it attends to itself, so being self-attentive is the only means by which we can surrender ourself completely. To the extent that we hold on to ourself, we are thereby letting go of everything else, and ego cannot stand or survive without holding on to things other than itself.<br /><br />We are not two separate selves or ‘I’s but only one. What we actually are is only our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, but now we seem to be this ego, the adjunct-mixed awareness ‘I am this body’. Just as a rope may seem to be a snake but nevertheless remains just a rope, we seem to be ego but nevertheless remain just pure awareness, ‘I am’.<br /><br />The rope and the snake are not two different things, but just one, so the difference between them is not a difference in substance but only a difference in appearance. Likewise, pure awareness and ego are not two different things, but just one, so the difference between them is not a difference in substance but only a difference in appearance.<br /><br />If we look at the snake carefully enough, we will see that it is actually just a rope and was never a snake. Likewise, if we attend to ourself keenly enough, we will see that we are actually just pure awareness and were never this ego that we now seem to be. Therefore the only way to surrender ego is to attend to it keenly to see what it actually is.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-72916325328950217312021-09-12T15:15:05.386+01:002021-09-12T15:15:05.386+01:00A friend asked me ‘if being aware of being aware i...A friend asked me ‘if being aware of being aware is the same as self attentiveness?’, in reply to which I wrote:<br /><br />Yes, being aware of being aware is one way of expressing it, but it would be more precise to describe it as being aware of what is aware, namely ourself.<br /><br />Moreover, we need to understand that we are always aware of being aware and of what is aware, but because of our interest in other things our attention is on those other things rather than on ourself, who are what is aware, so the missing ingredient in our awareness of ourself is attentiveness. Therefore it would be even more precise to describe the practice as being attentively aware of what is aware, namely ourself.<br /><br />This is why I generally describe it as being self-attentive or being attentively self-aware.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-47256161712196676482021-09-12T08:56:35.740+01:002021-09-12T08:56:35.740+01:00In a comment on one of my recent videos, 2021-09-0...In a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQtYF23KlOk&lc=Ugx4VDeluB5WyUdBIad4AaABAg" rel="nofollow">comment</a> on one of my recent videos, <a href="https://youtu.be/dQtYF23KlOk" rel="nofollow">2021-09-05 Sri Ramana Advent: Michael discusses how Bhagavan clarified the nature of ego</a>, a friend wrote, ‘Dont make such a big deal about the ego. Just leave it and it will go’, in reply to which I wrote:<br /><br />Bret, you are telling ego to leave ego. How is that possible?<br /><br />The reason why Bhagavan explains the nature of ego so clearly and precisely (which is what you seem to refer to disparagingly as making such a big deal about it) is that we need to understand its nature in order to understand how to eradicate it. Otherwise we would be struggling in the dark not knowing how to get rid of our own shadow.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-18919525446521896822021-09-09T07:44:14.788+01:002021-09-09T07:44:14.788+01:00In a comment on one of my recent videos, 2021-09-0...In a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8fLFtgUdTQ&lc=UgyXwLSJjzIn4w1fFtR4AaABAg" rel="nofollow">comment</a> on one of my recent videos, <a href="https://youtu.be/R8fLFtgUdTQ" rel="nofollow">2021-09-01 Sean & Michael discuss Bhagavan’s teaching that our present state is just a dream</a>, a friend wrote:<br /><br />“Around the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8fLFtgUdTQ&t=660s" rel="nofollow">11:00</a> min. mark Michael says anything you can experience in this waking state you can also experience in a dream. That is far from the truth. For one thing you cannot read symbols, for instance lucid dreamers train themselves to look at a digital wristwatch. Like the perpetual spinning top in the movie inception it lets you know you are dreaming. There are other examples I’m sure of stuff that would not occur in a dream but you get what I mean.”<br /><br />In reply to this I wrote:<br /><br />Michael, this is a very strange idea, and clearly disproved by experience. Have you never dreamt that you are reading or seeing numbers? Even if you don’t remember doing so, do you deny that it is possible to do so? I have often dreamt that I am reading or writing not only English but also Tamil and sometimes even Devanagari (the script in which Sanskrit is nowadays usually written).<br /><br />It is certainly possible to dream that you cannot read symbols such as numbers or letters, but that doesn’t mean that you cannot dream that you can read them. Dreams come in all varieties, because we can dream anything that is experienceable, including things that may now seems to us completely absurd, but which nevertheless seemed perfectly real while we were dreaming them.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-31526683213755997612021-09-03T17:28:47.429+01:002021-09-03T17:28:47.429+01:00A few months ago friend wrote to me asking for a g...A few months ago friend wrote to me asking for a good English translation of the <i>maṅgalam</i> verse that Bhagavan wrote for his Tamil translation of <i>Vivēkacūḍāmaṇi</i>, but I managed to find time to translate it only today:<br /><br />அகமெனு மூல வவித்தை யகன்றிட<br />வகமக மாக வல்லும் பகலற<br />வகமொளி ராத்ம தேவன் பதத்தினி<br />லகமகிழ் வாக வனிசம் ரமிக்கவே.<br /><br /><i>ahameṉu mūla vaviddai yahaṉḏṟiḍa<br />vahamaha māha vallum pahalaṟa<br />vahamoḷi rātma dēvaṉ padattiṉi<br />lahamahiṙ vāha vaṉiśam ramikkavē</i>.<br /><br /><b>பதச்சேதம்:</b> அகம் எனும் மூல அவித்தை அகன்றிட அகம் அகம் ஆக அல்லும் பகல் அற அகம் ஒளிர் ஆத்ம தேவன் பதத்தினில் அக மகிழ்வு ஆக அனிசம் ரமிக்கவே.<br /><br /><b><i>Padacchēdam</i></b> (word-separation): <i>aham eṉum mūla aviddai ahaṉḏṟiḍa aham aham āha allum pahal aṟa aham oḷir ātma dēvaṉ padattiṉil aka mahiṙvu āha aṉiśam ramikkavē</i>.<br /><br /><b>English translation:</b> So that the root ignorance called ‘I’ may depart, may we always delight as inner joy in the feet of <i>ātma-dēva</i>, who shines without night and day in the heart as ‘I am I’.<br /><br /><b>Explanatory paraphrase:</b> So that the <i>mūla avidyā</i> [root or original ignorance] called ‘I’ [ego] may depart, may we always delight as inner joy in the feet [or state] of <i>ātma-dēva</i> [the shining one or God, who is oneself], who shines without night and day in the heart as ‘I am I’.<br /><br />I plan to talk about this verse on Sunday during <a href="https://youtu.be/WwKd2VI1Yh8" rel="nofollow">Bhagavan’s Advent celebration</a> (in which I will be talking from about 7.15-8.15am EST; 12.15-1.15pm BST; 4.45-5.45pm IST), because in it he clearly indicates that what is called <i>mūla avidyā</i> is nothing but ego, which is why his teachings are focused entirely on eradicating ego by means of self-investigation and self-surrender.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-75336104279811971292021-08-31T07:57:47.394+01:002021-08-31T07:57:47.394+01:00A friend asked me some questions ‘about how we sho...A friend asked me some questions ‘about how we should rightly understand the presence of the Coronavirus, and what we should do in a practical way to prevent ourselves and others from contracting it’, in reply to which I wrote:<br /><br />According to Bhagavan whatever we experience in each life is according to <i>prārabdha</i> (destiny or fate), which is a small selection from <i>sañcita</i> (the vast accumulation of the fruits of actions that we have done in past lives under the sway of our <i>vāsanās</i> or inclinations, thereby misusing our freedom of will and action) chosen by God for our own spiritual benefit. Therefore it is all the will of God, because though it is the fruit of our own actions, when, where and how we should experience such fruit is entirely in his hands, and since he is all-loving, he will make us experience whatever fruit are most beneficial for us, not in a worldly sense but in a spiritual sense.<br /><br />Therefore this pandemic is according to his will, as also are all the means of prevention offered both by common sense and modern science. A few hundred years ago people could only cover their faces, observe simple hygiene and practise social distancing during such pandemics, but nowadays we have vaccines, medicines, intensive care facilities and so on, all of which are available to us according to his will, so we should obviously avail ourselves of all such means of prevention and treatment, because we do so not only for our own protection but also for the protection of others, many of whom may be more vulnerable than we are.<br /><br />As you say, all this is according to <i>vyāvahārika satya</i>. In a dream if we experience thirst, we drink water and our thirst is thereby quenched. Our thirst, the water, our drinking it and our thirst being quenched are all part of the dream, but they seem real so long as we are dreaming them. Likewise our present state is just a dream, and whatever we do or don't do is also part of this dream, so we should act appropriately according to the circumstances even though we understand all this to be just a passing dream.<br /><br />If you have not seen it already, you may also be interested to listen to this video: <a href="https://youtu.be/3RiwPXu2y1E" rel="nofollow">2020-03-14 Coronavirus and the note that Bhagavan wrote for his mother in December 1898</a>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-26203550151770610712021-08-30T13:51:49.491+01:002021-08-30T13:51:49.491+01:00A friend wrote to me, “Been thinking about a thing...A friend wrote to me, “Been thinking about a thing Bhagavan said... it was something like... ‘realization takes time to stabilize itself’. Was wondering if you have any videos or something regarding this topic”, and mentioned an experience he had that he cannot describe but that has taken over his whole life. In reply to this I wrote:<br /><br />People who recorded what Bhagavan said often did not have a deep or clear understanding of what he meant, so what they recorded reflected their own poor understanding.<br /><br />What does ‘realisation’ mean in this context? According to Bhagavan our real state is that in which we never rise as ego, so annihilation of ego alone is true realisation. When ego is annihilated, what remains is only our real nature, which is pure and immutable awareness and therefore eternally stable, so there is no question of any need for it stabilise itself.<br /><br />Stabilisation is required only for ego. That is, as ego we need to stabilise ourself more and more in the practice of being self-attentive, because such practice alone will lead to the annihilation of ego. In other words, stabilisation is required only before realisation (annihilation of ego), not after realisation (unless of course what we mean by ‘realisation’ is some state or achievement other than annihilation of ego).<br /><br />Regarding the experience you had, we may have all sorts of experiences when following this path, and some of them may seem to be sublime and ineffable, but whatever experiences come and go are not real, so they need not and should not concern us. What is real is only our eternal and unchanging awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, so that alone is what we should be interested in and try to cling to.<br /><br />In order to experience anything, we must exist and be aware, but as our fundamental awareness of our own existence we are not aware of anything else. It is only when we have risen as ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’, that we seem to be aware of other things. Therefore any experience that comes and goes is not experienced by ourself as we actually are but only by ourself as ego, so no matter how sublime and ineffable such an experience may seem to be, we need to investigate ourself, the one to whom it has appeared.<br /><br />Though all experiences appear only to ourself as ego, if we investigate ego keenly enough it will subside and dissolve back forever into its source and substance, namely the one pure awareness, ‘I am’, which alone is what we actually are. What will then remain as our eternal and immutable experience is only our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, so this alone is the real experience, which is what is also called ‘realisation’.<br /><br />Being eternal and immutable, such realisation is always perfectly stable, so there is no need for it to stabilise itself. If we want to stabilise ourself in it, all we need do is investigate ourself by being so keenly self-attentive that we remain as we actually are, because what we always actually are is only that eternally stable and ever-realised awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-84533681015933650082021-08-30T09:32:18.546+01:002021-08-30T09:32:18.546+01:00A friend wrote to me, “I was curious, Ramana came ...A friend wrote to me, “I was curious, Ramana came to realization without any formal technique or study and then remained in silence for many years. Later when assisting Muruganar he was able to elucidate the various facets of puranas & the vedas. How did he achieve this mastery? Did he ever study scripture after his realization? Did he have this knowledge automatically upon realization? Did he pick up clarity through the questions of devotees?”, in reply to which I wrote:<br /><br />Infinite clarity is our real nature, so to the extent that we turn within to face ourself alone, the deeper meaning and implication of all scriptures will become clear to us.<br /><br />In the case of Bhagavan, when the ego that was aware of itself as ‘I am Venkataraman’ experienced an intense fear of death, it turned within to find out ‘who am I?’, and it did so so keenly that it merged forever in the infinite clarity of pure awareness. What then shone through the body that we call Bhagavan was only that infinite ocean of clarity and love, so whenever he was asked any questions about any sacred texts, he could explain their meaning and implication effortlessly. There was no need for him to study anything, because he himself was the source from which all such texts derived their meaning and sanctity.<br /><br />Real clarity cannot be found in anything outside ourself but only deep within our own heart. Whatever understanding we may gain from <i>śravaṇa</i> (hearing or reading sacred texts) is relatively superficial. To gain a deeper understanding we need to do <i>manana</i> (carefully and critically considering their meaning and implication), but even such understanding is insufficient. We can gain a truly deep and clear understanding of what we have read and considered only to the extent that we put it into practice by trying our best to turn within and attend to ourself alone.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-48798425858487995672021-08-21T17:23:30.868+01:002021-08-21T17:23:30.868+01:00In a comment on one of my recent videos, 2021-08-1...In a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJUtkHSUlck&lc=Ugw7NGdBEvIoQN67nE14AaABAg" rel="nofollow">comment</a> on one of my recent videos, <a href="https://youtu.be/PJUtkHSUlck" rel="nofollow">2021-08-14a Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i> (Who am I?) paragraph 12 (<i>ātma-vicāra</i>)</a>, a friend wrote:<br /><br />“Thank you.. i see that my vairagya is only to the extent of the vasanas.. so most times my effort to let go of things turn futile and i surrender my inability to Bhagavan. Example- fasting and observing silence. When clearly my mind is waiting for the fasting and silence to end, i can only surrender this state to Bhagavan.. is there any more effort that i can put in? Perhaps to keep repeating it although it seems hopeless?<br /><br />Because my mind can trick me to say how does it matter anyways.. you are now holding on to the fast instead of eating so let go of the fast and be as you are.. so how do we keep to the vairagya, and do as our Guru has shown us.”<br /><br />In reply to this I wrote:<br /><br />Uma, the answer to your questions can be found in the <a href="https://happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para11" rel="nofollow">eleventh paragraph</a> of <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i>:<br /><br /><a href="https://youtu.be/OSrhJ0GKh14" rel="nofollow">2021-07-31a Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses <i>Nāṉ Ār?</i> (Who am I?) paragraph 11</a><br /><br />Here Bhagavan defines <i>vairāgya</i> as ‘அன்னியத்தை நாடாதிருத்தல்’ (<i>aṉṉiyattai nāḍādiruttal</i>), ‘not attending to anything other [than oneself]’, and says that it is the same as <i>jñāna</i>, which he defines as ‘தன்னை விடாதிருத்தல்’ (<i>taṉṉai viḍādiruttal</i>), ‘not leaving [or letting go of] oneself’, thereby implying that the most effective way to cultivate and strengthen <i>vairāgya</i> is to cling firmly to self-attentiveness.<br /><br />Regarding the examples you give, true fasting and true silence are both only the state in which we cling to self-attentiveness so firmly that we thereby do not allow our attention to stray away to anything else. So long as we are thinking of anything other than ourself, we are not fasting or observing silence, nor are we practising <i>vairāgya</i> or <i>jñāna</i>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-19860808444599644452021-07-29T17:07:57.603+01:002021-07-29T17:07:57.603+01:00In a comment on my latest video, 2021-07-24 Vinay ...In a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV7XpQeLquU&lc=Ugxb7VeXnQNJfE9og7F4AaABAg" rel="nofollow">comment</a> on my latest video, <a href="https://youtu.be/DV7XpQeLquU" rel="nofollow">2021-07-24 Vinay and Michael discuss the practice of self-investigation (<i>ātma-vicāra</i>)</a>, a friend wrote:<br /><br />“Some events require us to speak, for example, if I am to move out of the place i rent, i am to speak to the landlord and give him 30 days notice but when i turn within the interest to speak drops away. I trust that the prabadba karma will take care of it all and even this i that says i trust... in investigation it is revealed it is not the real I. Thx Michael, I appreciate you speaking. Do you ever have the interest to speak fall away? Is it Bhagavan’s grace only that you speak or is it a mixture of His grace and your vasanas? I am just curious bc all you ever say is turn within and I wonder if you were to turn within each time you said it, would you be speaking at all lol... Either way I appreciate that you still are able to speak.”<br /><br />In reply to this I wrote:<br /><br />Rafael, I love to talk about Bhagavan and his teachings, but at the same time I would like to be less active and under less pressure than I am. In particular I find replying to an endless stream of emails very tiring, but when people ask for help and clarification, I feel duty-bound to answer as many of them as possible (though I simply do not have time to reply to most of the emails I receive).<br /><br />Regarding your question about whether it is Bhagavan’s grace or my <i>vāsanās</i>, the driving force behind most of the actions we do is a mixture of his grace (making us act in accordance with our <i>prārabdha</i>) and our <i>vāsanās</i> (under whose sway we are acting to a greater or lesser extent whenever we allow our attention to move away from ourself even to the slightest extent), but though we can be sure that our <i>vāsanās</i> are driving most of our actions, we cannot be sure whether or to what extent they are also being driven by him in accordance with our <i>prārabdha</i>.<br /><br />However, we need not concern ourself with such questions, because we cannot avoid doing any actions of mind, speech or body that he makes us do in accordance with our <i>prārabdha</i>, and we can avoid doing actions under the sway of our <i>vāsanās</i> only to the extent that we cling firmly to self-attentiveness, so trying to be self-attentive is all that should concern us.<br /><br />Trusting what Bhagavan taught us about <i>prārabdha</i> is a very great aid to our turning within, because everything that happens in our life is in accordance with <i>prārabdha</i>, so we need not be concerned about it, and he will unfailingly make us do whatever actions of mind, speech or body we need to do in order for our <i>prārabdha</i> to unfold (such as speaking to your landlord in the example you gave), so we need no be concerned about such actions either.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-72590209609416783072021-07-02T09:03:31.810+01:002021-07-02T09:03:31.810+01:00In reply to a friend who asked me some questions a...In reply to a friend who asked me some questions about destiny and free will in relation to a recent change in her life, I wrote:<br /><br />Yes, whatever we experience in this life (down to the smallest detail) is according to destiny, which is a selection of the fruits of our past actions that have been chosen by Bhagavan for our own spiritual benefit, so what we call destiny can equally well be described as his will. No matter how much we may want to and try to, we cannot change what we are destined to experience, so we cannot experience anything that is not destined and (except by turning our attention within) cannot avoid experiencing anything that we are destined to experience.<br /><br />However, though we cannot change what we are destined to experience, we can want to change it and try to change it, but all to no avail. In other words, though we do have freedom of will and action, we must experience what we are destined to experience. The only way to avoid experiencing it is to turn our attention back within to face ourself alone and thereby merge back into the source from which we have risen.<br /><br />So long as we allow our attention to move away from ourself towards anything else whatsoever, we do so under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i>, and whatever we do by mind, speech or body under the sway of our <i>viṣaya-vāsanās</i> is called <i>āgāmya</i>, the fruit of which will be stored in <i>sañcita</i> along with all the countless fruits of past actions that we have not yet experienced, and it is from this vast heap called <i>sañcita</i> that Bhagavan selects which fruit we are to experience as the destiny (<i>prārabdha</i>) for each life.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-79604711186672174332021-05-12T13:18:51.655+01:002021-05-12T13:18:51.655+01:00A friend wrote to me: “My Question concerns the ex...A friend wrote to me: “My Question concerns the existence of Things other than I AM. For example, a lamp, a table, a tree, a mountain, are said to not really exist. That they depend on I AM (I) for their existence. Is this because the lamp, the table are made by man, thus depending on man for its existence? Where a tree and a mountain are of the earth, and depend upon the earth for their existence? I understand that it’s all Consciousness, even the earth and universe are so. I also understand These Things Need my Consciousness to be known. But to say they don’t exist puzzles me”, in reply to which I referred him to this article and added:<br /><br />According to Bhagavan our present state (and any other state in which we experience phenomena) is just a dream. Whatever we perceive in a dream does not actually exist, even though it seems to exist so long as we are dreaming. To whom does it seem to exist? Only to the dreamer, namely ourself as ego.<br /><br />Only when we rise as ego do other things seem to exist. Since they seem to exist only in the view of ego, their seeming existence depends upon ego’s perception of them, so they seem to exist only when we seem to be ego, the perceiver of them.<br /><br />Looking back on your experience in a dream, do you suppose that anything you perceived there existed independent of your perception of it? I assume you do not. Why then should you suppose that anything you now perceive exists independent of your perception of it? Whatever does not exist independent of your perception of it does not actually exist, even though to you it seems to exist.<br /><br />Therefore this entire universe that you perceive and believe to exist depends entirely upon you for its seeming existence, and you perceive it only when you have risen as ego and are consequently aware of yourself as ‘I am this body’, so it does not seem to exist whenever you do not rise as ego, as in sleep or any other state of <i>manōlaya</i> (temporary dissolution of mind).Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-11435024657734310922021-04-09T17:13:45.500+01:002021-04-09T17:13:45.500+01:00In reply to my reply that I reproduced in my comme...In reply to my reply that I reproduced in my comment of <a href="#c551905034232301846" rel="nofollow">9 April 2021 at 08:40</a>, another friend wrote, ‘So even sleep appears in the view of our ego? But if I understand correctly, sleep is our real nature and there is no ego in sleep?’, to which I replied:<br /><br />What exists and shines in sleep is only our real nature, namely the fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which is eternal and immutable, but from the perspective of ego in waking and dream sleep seems to be a temporary state, from which we have risen and into which we will subside.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-2776357345654142832021-04-09T17:12:33.028+01:002021-04-09T17:12:33.028+01:00In reply to my reply that I reproduced in my previ...In reply to my reply that I reproduced in my previous comment, the same friend wrote, ‘Thanks for that, appreciated. Am I therefore right in saying that Bhagavan was aware of the ‘I am’, during deep sleep? He therefore experienced something, different to the blankness we experience?’, to which I replied:<br /><br />The blankness your refer to, Tommy, appears only in the view of ego in waking and dream, because ego as such does not exist in sleep. What exists and shines in sleep is only ‘I am’, which is the essence and underlying reality of ego, so as ego we can recall ‘I was asleep’, but it seems to us that what we experienced in sleep was just a blankness because of the absence of any phenomena, which we are familiar with experiencing in waking and dream.<br /><br />We mistake Bhagavan to be a person, and as such he seemed to experience waking, dream and sleep just as we do, but he is actually just the fundamental awareness ‘I am’, which alone is what is real, so as such he is always aware ‘I am’ and is never aware of anything other than ‘I am’.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-5519050342323018462021-04-09T08:40:55.045+01:002021-04-09T08:40:55.045+01:00In a comment on my latest video, 2021-04-04 San Di...In a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcUN6MyYq9Y&lc=UgyolqoyEKQAgnX6bWt4AaABAg" rel="nofollow">comment</a> on my latest video, <a href="https://youtu.be/xcUN6MyYq9Y" rel="nofollow">2021-04-04 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> verses 17-18 and 38-40</a>, a friend asked, ‘Was Bhagavan aware during deep sleep?’, to which I replied:<br /><br />Awareness is our real nature, so there is never a moment when we are not aware. In sleep we are aware, but not aware of anything. That is, in sleep there are no objects of awareness, but our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, remains shining as clearly as ever.<br /><br />That fundamental awareness, ‘I am’, is what Bhagavan actually is, so he is not affected in the least by the passing appearance of waking, dream and sleep, which appear only in the view of our outward-turned mind.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com