Self-attentiveness, intensity and continuity
Last week a person called Teck posted two comments on one of my recent articles, Making effort to pay attention to our mind is being attentive only to our essential self, in the first of which he or she wrote:
… My question is, how important is CONTINUITY and INTENSITY of self abidance/attention for our progress (of recognizing our true being)? Recently I started to intuit that these 2 factors are of very critical importance in our progress. …In his or her second comment, Teck continued:
I think I need to elaborate more about what I mean by intensity and continuity.Both intensity and continuity are important, but of these two the most important is intensity, because even a moment of absolutely intense — that is, perfectly clear — self-attentiveness will be sufficient to destroy forever the illusion that we are this finite mind, after which the continuity of our self-attentiveness will never be interrupted even for a moment.
By the 1st I mean the degree of “alertness/mindfulness” of our attention to awareness itself, while ignoring others eg feeling, thoughts etc., kind like when a cat trying to catch a mouse, it’s attention is very alert/focused.
Continuity is very obvious, it’s simply the ability to sustain our attention on our consciousness/awareness without interruption.
I suspect that the speed of our realization (progress) depends on these 2 factors more than anything else. Is this true?
However, though our principal aim should be to experience such absolute intensity of self-attentiveness — perfect clarity of self-consciousness — for just one moment, in order to experience it we should try continuously to avoid allowing our practice of self-attentiveness to be interrupted by pramāda or self-negligence, the result of which would be that we would either fall asleep or become distracted by other thoughts.
In this context the word ‘continuity’ has two meanings. Its first and most obvious meaning is (as Teck wrote) the state in which we are able to sustain our self-attentiveness continuously over a period of time without interruption or distraction. But its other equally important meaning is the state in which we are able to draw our attention continuously back to ourself whenever it is distracted either by thoughts of other things or by drowsiness. That is, since we cannot in practice remain continuously undistracted by thoughts or sleep until we have finally attained our eternal state of true self-knowledge, we must at least be continuous in our effort to draw our attention repeatedly back to ourself whenever we notice that we have been distracted from our self-attentiveness.
Therefore ‘continuity’ in this context should be understood to mean ‘persistence’ or ‘perseverance’. That is, when we are actually self-attentive we should persevere in our effort to be vigilantly self-attentive in order to avoid being distracted by either thoughts or sleep, and whenever we are distracted we should persevere in our effort to regain our natural state of calm self-attentiveness.
In this context ‘intensity’ means clarity of self-consciousness. At any given moment the clarity of our self-consciousness is inversely proportional to the degree to which it is mixed either with drowsiness or with thoughts about anything other than ourself. That is, when we are practising self-attentiveness, the more keenly our attention is focused upon ourself, the less room we are giving for our natural self-consciousness to be mixed with drowsiness or with thoughts of any kind whatsoever — even the subtlest kind.
When our self-consciousness is not mixed with even the slightest degree of either drowsiness or thought, the illusion of our mind will be swallowed and disappear forever in the absolute clarity of pure unadulterated self-consciousness, which is the one real state known as ātma-jñāna or true self-knowledge. But until we experience such absolute clarity (intensity), the degree of our self-attentiveness is less than perfect, because it is mixed at least to some extent with either drowsiness or thought.
The more clear and intense our self-attentiveness becomes, the easier it will be for us to remain relatively undistracted by either sleep or thoughts for a continuous period of time, and conversely, the more frequently and continuously we are self-attentive, the clearer and more intense our self-attentiveness will become. Therefore intensity and continuity go hand in hand, because they are just two measurements of the same underlying quality, namely our ability to remain undistracted by either sleep or thought.
Our ability to remain undisturbed by either sleep or thought is determined by the intensity of our love to be exclusively self-attentive, and the intensity of such love — which is called svātma-bhakti or ‘love for our own self’ and sat-vāsana or ‘propensity just to be’ — is directly proportional to the strength of our vairāgya or desirelessness, which is our freedom from viṣaya vāsanas or desires to think of anything other than ourself.
The more intensely, repeatedly and continuously we practise self-attentiveness, the more our svātma-bhakti and vairāgya will increase, and the more our viṣaya vāsanas will correspondingly be weakened and destroyed. That is, our viṣaya vāsanas can be weakened and eventually destroyed only by the clarity of self-consciousness that we experience when we practise self-attentiveness, and the extent to which they are thus weakened and destroyed is determined by the intensity and duration of such clarity. Likewise, the extent to which our sat-vāsana or svātma-bhakti will correspondingly increase is also determined by the intensity and duration of this clarity.
Thus our practice of self-attentiveness has a snow-balling effect. The more intensely and persistently we practise it, the more momentum it will gain, until eventually we will be swept away entirely by its momentum — its intense clarity — and drown in it forever.
Therefore it is true that — as Teck wrote — our progress depends upon these two factors, the intensity (or clarity) of our self-attentiveness and the continuity (or repeated perseverance) of our practice.
Posts
24 comments:
if i inhibit all thought would i be abiding as the Self?
Is time the measure of continuity? When it is said that you should do Japa continuously, does it mean you should do it non-stop, or all the time while you are awake and alert? Or is it the case that there is only Japa, and there is nothing else?
I remember reading somewhere that Sri Ramakrishna would start Gayatri, and after Om Tat Sat... could not continue further and would go into Samadhi. Elsewhere it is mentioned that even a single utterance of the Name is enough to give liberation. As you put it, "...even a moment of absolutely intense — that is, perfectly clear — self-attentiveness will be sufficient to destroy forever the illusion that we are this finite mind, after which the continuity of our self-attentiveness will never be interrupted even for a moment." I think the story of Ashtavarka Gita is an instance of such intense, perfectly clear moment of self-attentiveness. It is in getting locked into a single thought, Nama or Vichara, so that there is no second thought, that real continuity is achieved.
In the case of Vichara, as you have so beautifully explained, the ends and means are the same, to seek the Self is to BE the Self- in which instance, continuity would imply that one remains in the state where there is no continuity, the continuous sense of time.
This brings us to Jon's question: I think there is a saying, the silent mind is Brahman itself.
It would be helpful if we could know in what sense time is related to continuity, because obviously meditation/ Dhyana/ Vichara is a timeless enterprise.
Regards,
This is a slight modification to the comment i wrote earlier:
I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what Self-attentiveness is. I just don't see where the 'attentiveness' part comes from. The way i understand it Self-attentiveness is the practice of simply remaining without thought while not falling asleep (being keen and vigilant to prevent any thoughts from rising) However, as i noticed, Sri Ramana says this isn't so because if this were the case, one could simply practice pranayama, and Sri Ramana said that the effect of this was only a temporary subsidence of mind and not the annihilation of it. Furthermore, on one of your recent articles, Self-attentiveness, effort and grace, you said: "The exclusion of all thoughts, the cessation of sense-perceptions and the melting away of body-consciousness are by-products that will certainly result as the clarity of our self-consciousness increases, but we should be careful not to make such by-products our aim, because as soon as we do so our attention will be diverted away from our essential being towards the body-consciousness and resultant thoughts and sense-perceptions that we wish to get rid of. We can free ourselves from thoughts, sense-perceptions and body-consciousness only by ignoring them entirely and being attentive only to our essential self, ‘I am’." From this comment, i assume that i am currently not practicing Self-attentiveness correctly. So getting back to my question, what am i supposed to be attentive to? Self. Well what is Self? Self is the 'I am'. Unfortunately, I can't find this 'I am' thing anywhere! how am i to be attentive to it? please elaborate. As i said earlier, the way i understand Self-attentiveness currently is simply being keen and vigilant not to let any thoughts rise. Yet I don't think that when i remain without thoughts i am being self-attentive, because when i remain without thought i am actually not paying attention to anything!(I believe) Yet, isn't the goal of Self-attentiveness merely to destroy all thoughts? can't i do that without focusing on some obscure "Self"? Am i supposed to be additionally Self-attentive? if so, can you please really break it down for me so that there is absolutely no doubt as to whether I'm doing it right?
Thank you very much,
With Much Love, Jon
Jon, I think you've asked a very important question. I hope someone can answer it.
Please someone correct me where I am wrong.
The statement quoted by Jon reads, "The exclusion of all thoughts, the cessation of sense-perceptions and the melting away of body-consciousness are by-products that will certainly result as the clarity of our self-consciousness increases, but we should be careful not to make such by-products our aim, because as soon as we do so our attention will be diverted away from our essential being towards the body-consciousness and resultant thoughts and sense-perceptions that we wish to get rid of. We can free ourselves from thoughts, sense-perceptions and body-consciousness only by ignoring them entirely and being attentive only to our essential self, ‘I am’." (emphasis mine)
I read this statement thus: As our self-consciousness increases, thoughts and sense-perceptions decrease. But this not our purpose. For if we make the cessation of thoughts and perceptions our aim, our attention is then diverted towards what is external to our essential being. Instead of anchoring ourselves on no-thought, we should be attentive to our essential self, "I am".
I feel the practice of Jon is correct. He writes, "The way i understand it Self-attentiveness is the practice of simply remaining without thought while not falling asleep (being keen and vigilant to prevent any thoughts from rising)". But what about awareness, the sense of presence? This is the Self to which attention is to be paid, which I am sure Jon does.
The reply to the other question, "...isn't the goal of Self-attentiveness merely to destroy all thoughts? can't i do that without focusing on some obscure "Self"? Am i supposed to be additionally Self-attentive?" would seem this. Bhagavan, I think, has stated that while the Mahavakya 'Thou art That' implies that we are to seek to know what we are (Thou), we seek to know what we are not (That). There are not two Selves to be known. There is no need to focus on some obscure "Self". Please someone correct me where I am wrong in this.
And finally, Jon says, "I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what Self-attentiveness is." This, to me, says Jon's practice is right. Because, the question, "What exactly is Self-attention?" is the point of Vichara. I feel it can't be right to be given a definition of 'Self', and a definition of 'attention', and then to go and sit comfortably doing 'Self-attention', sure that we are doing it right. We can know the nature of Self-attentiveness only when we know what the Self is. Till such time, the question, What is Self-attentiveness, would be the one that drives Vichara. What Jon is doing is more dynamic than following any set regimen.
Regards,
Bas
I am sorry that I am not always able to reply to all the comments posted on this blog as promptly or as completely as I would like to. I always have a lot of other work to do (including tying to make progress on various on-going projects such as writing new translations and other books, and replying to many personal e-mails asking questions about the practice of ātma-vichāra and other aspects of Sri Bhagavan’s teachings), so with the limited time I have available I have to balance priorities, which inevitably means that some tasks are either delayed or not done at all.
As far as replying to comments on this blog is concerned, I try to reply to as many as I can, particularly those that seem to be most relevant to the practice of ātma-vichāra or any other practical aspect of Sri Bhagavan’s teachings (such as what Jon has written in his comment above), but I cannot always do so very promptly.
At present, in the midst of other work, I am drafting a reply to the first and second comments that Jon posted on my previous article, Self-attentiveness and time, the first of which he has rephrased in his comment above, and while doing so I will also try to reply to what Bas has written in his answer to it.
However, because I am doing some other urgent work at the same time, it may be another two or three days before I can complete the reply that I am writing to this important question, ‘what exactly is self-attentiveness?’.
Since self-attentiveness involves our essential consciousness, is of it and within it, there is no question of any limits of duration in regard to this since this involves a journey, not in terms of time and space, but is one of consciousness. It is only the achievement, result-oriented mind, that is bothered about time though it might have some significance in the beginning, being very rudimentary in advance stages. In a place J.Krishnamurti says with regard to this that patience is timeless whereas impatience involves time.
This is about the statement of Anonymous: Since self-attentiveness involves our essential consciousness, is of it and within it...
I have a doubt about it: Is the kind of attention we pay now, even though it is directed towards the self, qualify as self-attentiveness? As long as there is 'subject-object', 'me-other' in our consciousness, can we pay attention to the self?
Since the self which is negated in our enquiry, is negated because of its association with concepts and sensations, I think the consciousness that negates it is also incomplete, and has to be negated as not-I.
This might seem obvious and unimportant, but sometimes it happens that in looking at the self, I tend to take it for granted that the sense of I or awareness as it is felt now is real, and is followed to its source.
Somehow it feels wrong that the consciousness/ awareness that is perceived now could be the right one.
If this is so, then it looks like continuity of time or intensity or consciousness is a false one, because the consciousness/ awareness/ 'I' that posits it is itself a false one.
Real consciousness is entirely outside time. And Self-attentiveness also has to be timeless.
True. What we do now is not self-attentiveness, it being a subject-object search. But one has to begin somewhere. We can't avoid our being implicated in this duality. But it depends on how much we are intense in tracing it back to the essential source. Until the sphurana, the awareness of the self, transpires, we can't escape from this dichotomy. But we should not place ourselves at a disadvantageous position by being too much guilty of this.
Thanks, Anon. That is helpful. I have more or less given up on this, and I indulge freely in distractive activities- much of this is merely theoretical; just words only.
Looking forward to your ‘what exactly is self-attentiveness?’ post.
I think we are always self-attentive except that our attempt to be that is a distraction as it were introducing alien thoughts, which also we needn't bother as the self is the witness of them whether we want it or not. That is why J.K talked of choicleless awareness
This being's Humble view of Understanding the Self -attentiveness :
This being never bothers the Known one and surrenders to the Unknown .
Over a period , Unknown element empties the mind as nothing is conceived and mind goes to total blank.
Then at this stage where on can be in Self -attentiveness and the intensity and continuity is a daily practice .
So what is Unknown ?
Unknown is logically residing there with every body and one has to explore with this known and wait for the Unknown to arise (like clouds falsely shadowing the sky ) by following Bhagwan's path of either surrender or self enquiry .
I am not sure how relevant my comments are.
I agree with Anon. that we are always self-attentive except that our attempt to be that is a distraction as it were introducing alien thoughts.
We are always self-attentive, but we are also self attentive plus something.
It is like reading a code and acting out the code at the same time. We have lost contact with the acting part of the code, and tranfixed with the reading of the code, we try to become the acting part of the code: this is also more of the same, the continuation of the reading of code, albeit of a different terminology. In that sense, our attempts to be self-attentive is a distraction. Because, in trying to be self-attentive, we merely indulge another chain of thought.
Vishy writes, This being never bothers the Known one and surrenders to the Unknown .
Over a period , Unknown element empties the mind as nothing is conceived and mind goes to total blank.
Then at this stage where on can be in Self -attentiveness and the intensity and continuity is a daily practice .
When one is able to realise such a practice, then there is nothing more to be said about self-attentiveness.
Then with Vishy, we too can say, This being never bothers the Known
Regards,
Thanks for feedback - Known .
This being got admitted to His noble school approx 20 years back but every moment He imparts new thing to this known and that may be the outcome .
Bhagvan's prime teaching "who AM I " and
He emphasized always that all are in that "Realized" state.
As per Him everybody is in a confused state that the
body and mind as the real "I" and
We thought we are always in misery. The absence of thought or "nothing " state happens every moment in everybody's life that is where the whole meaning is tied up. And that is the Holy feet of Arunchala or also called in Guru Ramana's language that is "Silence"
Be that Silence that what Guru has told us and
His grace is always there as Silence is HE and HE is Silence.
In this context , presenting a Tamil prose in English called " Ramana Vasana Saram " written by Great devotee Shri. Shiva pragasam Pillai and after his death this rich sacred text that was selected by Bhagwan himself out of so many of his writings.
Om Name Bhagwate Sri Ramanaya
Sarvamum Ramanamayam
Essence of Ramana teachings -Prose
This is the essence This is the essence
This is the essence of Ramana's teachings
Tell the truth who you are. Truly seek yourself
You are not this smelly body made up of flesh
You are the Intelligence and Intelligence is You
This intelligence never dies nor born
This intelligence is there even while in sleep but you might have understood that this body is not felt in the sleep
Then who is there to confirm that there is birth to this body
In that case who is there to confirm the birth of intelligence
It is confirmed from the above that you are not the body
so please remove the wrong thought that you are the body
The left is the pure which is there always
and so don't think of anything , Be nothing .
If you kill the thought that I am the body all the other thoughts will submerge into this
Finally the thought of this body will vanish
And this body is only a tool to search this "I"
If you are wearing this dress thinking this body the consequences are borne by this body
If you discriminate this body from the world you wont be a part of this suffering.
Finally , done be afraid and lose heart be calm and accept that everything as God's will
Bodies may be so many
But there is no use of it
If you leave the body and look inside then there is no place for this body
All the other visions are only illusion
As You are the real "I"
All that is external or foreign matter has to be dumped into a corner
If you constantly watch the 'I" then it springs
And that will be the final seat of your "SELF"
The constant 'I " will lead to that only state where there is no space, time and that is truth.
The ever shining "I" is real form of you and don't leave that state and stick to it
This is the essence This is the essence
This is the essence of Ramana's teachings
OM TAT SAT .
Hi All,
could somebody please help on this doubt - trying to practice Self inquiry has now become the act of just Being. In this Being there is no question of effort, I just remain (as Being - although only for a very short period). While you are in simple Being there should be no effort to do anything but just Be, of course after some time thoughts come back up till I remember to Be again. My question is is this the right attitude/approach?
All help appreciated.
Thanks
Arvind
Bhaghavan Ramana while explaining self-enquiry in his very first explanation to the earliest devotee, in his work Nanyar, says as follows.
"That which rises as 'I' in this body is the mind.
If one inquires as to where in the body the thought 'I' rises first,
one would discover that it rises in the heart.
That is the place of the mind's origin.
Even if one thinks constantly 'I' 'I',
one will be led to that place.
Of all the thoughts that arise in the mind,
the 'I' thought is the first.
It is only after the rise of this that the other thoughts arise.
It is after the appearance of the first personal pronoun
that the second and third personal pronouns appear;
without the first personal pronoun there will not be the second and third.
By the inquiry 'Who am I?'.
The thought 'who am I?' will destroy all other thoughts,
and like the stick used for stirring the burning pyre,
it will itself in the end get destroyed."
In this connection, may I ask the learned members what they understand by the term the first person or the I thought, and the idea that that which arises as the I in the body is the mind. If we seriously meditate on this truth, we can know that all our traffickings in the world involve the I thought. If we did not have the I thought, we could not do anything; we could only be. Since all thoughts arise only after the I thought, does what Bhaghavan demand in his advise that one should hold on to the I, presuppose the idea of an "I" not admitting of an attachment to objects as against its timeless lapse into the form of thoughts, the I being identified with the object. Even in our tenacious attempts to locate the unassociated, 'I' we are tantalized and tormented by our confronting it only as an object. From what Bhaghavan says can we not infer that anything other than abiding as our true self through self-attention, or being aware of only awareness and not objects, constitutes the involvement in the non-self? Since we are so trenchant and obstinate in our self-identification-and not self-attention- where and how do we miss cognition of our true self? Strictly, we cannot since there is no non-cognition of the Self at any point, since that is also cognised only by the Self. Is the I thought referred to by Bhaghavan a pointer towards a natural pause of thought available as an interval between two thoughts, a sushupti existing even in the jagrat, which we are not aware of? Is it an interval between two thoughts, talked about very much in Tripura Rahasya, Pancadasi, Yogavasishta, all these things being very much referred to by Bhaghavan, very much highlighted by J.Krishnamurthy in his notebooks and the journal, this being referred to by the term, 'Bardo,' in Tibetan Buddhism? Since we cannot be aware of the Self as an act since it involves a duality, a swerving from the natural state of poise of our being, but since this is demanded of us in view of our being a sad mixture of the true and the false, does not self-enquiry presuppose the idea of always falling back upon our natural state as one of Being-Awareness through this natural pause in thought as an interval, being available to us? I request the meditatve people to answer this question without being very scholarly. I feel that to understand our natural state no intellectual scholarship is required.
There is a lot of complication in the implication of the various types of samadhi, savikalpa, nirvikalpa and sahaja, talked about in advaita. Bhghavan stresses the need of samadhi as a sine qua non in understanding our true being as in all states other than samadhi there is a veil cast on the self. Will someone come forward to explaining this?
This is in response to Arvind.
"could somebody please help on this doubt... While you are in simple Being there should be no effort to do anything but just Be, of course after some time thoughts come back up till I remember to Be again. My question is is this the right attitude/approach?"
Being is an effortless state, it is as natural as falling. I feel there is no question of the right approach or attitude. As long as Being happens naturally, as naturally as falling, any approach should be right.
I feel the question we should be asking is, is the state of thoughtless, effortless Being natural, spontaneous, unforced and leaves no residual impression? If it is so, there should be no problem.
Please someone correct me on this.
Let me see if my understanding of the comments of Anon. is correct.
The crux of the comments is these two questions: what do we understand by 'I'?, and what do we understand by 'self-attention'?.
In respect of the first question- what do we understand by 'I'- it is stated by Anon., "all our traffickings in the world involve the I thought. If we did not have the I thought, we could not do anything; we could only be." And, "Since all thoughts arise only after the I thought," there is a further question, whether there is an I that is absolute, and is not related to the object. And is this 'I', "a natural pause of thought available as an interval between two thoughts"?
In respect of the second question, what do we understand by self-attention, this question is posited by Anon.,- "where and how do we miss cognition of our true self?" It could not be so, for, "there is no non-cognition of the Self at any point, since that is also cognised only by the Self". But the fact is that, "Even in our tenacious attempts to locate the unassociated 'I', we are tantalized and tormented by our confronting it only as an object". And, "anything other than abiding as our true self through self-attention... constitutes the involvement in the non-self"
Self-awareness cannot be an act, because that would imply non-duality; any effort would be "a swerving from the natural state of poise of our being". But since it is the case that we are the mixture of the true and the false, "does not self-enquiry presuppose the idea of always falling back upon our natural state as one of Being-Awareness through this natural pause in thought as an interval?"
I think, Anon. implies that the "I" has nothing to do with objects, it cannot be an object of enquiry. Since the "I" arises in the body as the mind, it can better be understood as the natural state that is available to us in the interval between thoughts, that is, that which is prior to thought, that which underlies thought, but is not thought.
In such a case, self-attention is never lost; all efforts to regain it is a swerving from the natural state of poise of our being. Anything other than abiding as our true self through self-attention constitutes the involvement in the non-self, and it is the result of our confronting the "I" only as an object. True self-enquiry, self-awareness can only be a falling back upon our natural state as one of Being-Awareness through this natural pause in thought as an interval.
I think all of us who have an understanding of Bhagavan's teachings would not contradict with any of this; except that the more pedantically inclined among us(the word, 'pedant', is not used derogatively- I can find no other word to express the sense, "one who insists on strict adherence to formal rules"), would baulk at the suggestion that the 'I' is available as the natural pause in thought.
For which my explanation would be, the natural pause in thought is to be understood as the cessation of all thoughts- it is not a mere interval between any two thoughts; for the objective 'I' underlies all thoughts, and even in the interval between two different thoughts, it hums along as an unconscious chain of thought- and till this hum of exertion is broken, the natural falling of the 'I' into its place- the 'I' that is not related to objects, shall not happen. But still, self-attention is attention paid to the self that is available to us; though we should understand that this is merely a seemingness of real attention.
In a long journey home, we might find rest under a tree or roof; but we do not mistake the resting-place for home. In the same manner, the self to which our attention is directed has a semblance to the true Self; but such attention is not to be mistaken for the true Self-attention, which can be revealed to us only at the end of our journey, when we have reached the natural state of Being-Awareness, our home.
Please I would be thankful if anyone would point out the errors in my thinking.
Regards,
Thanks Bas for your response.
Thank you, everyone who has taken part in this interesting discussion about the practice of self-attentiveness. I am sorry that it has taken me so long to complete the article that I promised (in my comment on 6th January) to write on this subject.
Today I have at last completed this article, What is self-attentiveness?, and as you will see it is a very long and detailed one, because in it I have replied not only to the important questions asked by Jon in his original comment, but also to most of the other comments that have been posted above.
While I was drafting this article I also wrote a reply to the anonymous comment asking about the various types of samādhi, but I decided that what I had written about the practice of sahaja samādhi (which is the only form of samādhi that Sri Ramana advised us to practise) could form a separate brief article, which I will post here within the next few days (after catching up on some other urgent work).
I also began to write about aham-sphuraṇa, which was mentioned in an earlier anonymous comment, but since this deserves a more detailed explanation, I decided to write a separate article about it later, which I hope I may have time to do sometime soon.
anyone here have experimented with non-stop self attentiveness,similar to unceasing prayer practiced by christian mystics?
not only continuous,but applying full-force(intensity)attention to the i am,without stopping?
i believe(but at the same time,there's doubt)that several lifetimes of practiced can be cut short to several years,(and several years to several months),if such 100% comtinuous practice is done.
Michael(and anyone),pls reply with your opinions.i myself of thinking of doing/experimenting this and see how long it takes to awaken.
A christian mystic long time ago said,
" Seek ye first the kingdom of God(Self), and everything shall be added unto you "
Why we settle for anything less than that?Why cant we first seek to awaken,WHATEVER THE COST may be?
All of us are guilty of this,arent we?
i would like to challenge everyone here,to start "seek the kingdom" with "all ur heart,mind and soul",with everything u got.no more excuses.spend your whole time,everything single minute and second you r capable of practicing atma vichara.
and the reward,is no less than "eternal life"
many thing,however, can buy our soul,and we settle for that.for some,it's the next meal.or the tv show.a million dollars perhaps.
let my message here serve as a wake up call to all dreamers here,just like what Morpheus is to Neo in The Matrix : blue pill or the red one,the choice is yours.
Post a Comment