We ourself are what we are looking for
A friend wrote to me recently:
Yes, we are looking for that which existed before our body and mind came into existence, but that exists not only then but also now and always, because it is what we actually are, so since we cannot go back in time we must find it here and now.
Is it (ourself) emptiness or fullness? According to Bhagavan what we actually are is empty of whatever is unreal and full of what alone is real, namely ourself (as I explain in Self-knowledge is not a void (śūnya)).
You ask, ‘Do I explore the personal ‘I’?’ Yes, that is all we need do, because this personal ‘I’ (our ego) is what we now seem to be, so it is like the illusory snake that a rope seems to be. If we look carefully at the snake, we will see it is not a snake but only a rope. Likewise, if we look carefully at our personal ‘I’, we will see that we are not the person that we now seem to be but only the one infinite whole, the pure self-awareness from which and in which everything else appears.
You say ‘but when I explore it there is nothing there’, but how can you know there is nothing there unless you yourself are there to know it? What we are looking for is only ourself, who is the ‘I’ who says ‘when I explore it there is nothing there’, so if we think there is nothing there, we are like the foolish tenth man, who counted the other nine men but forgot to count himself and therefore concluded that the tenth man was lost.
How can we ever lose ourself? If we think we have lost or have not found ourself, that is because we are looking for something other than ourself — something new and wonderful that we do not already have. According to Bhagavan, there is nothing new for us to find, because we ourself are the reality we are looking for. Therefore to experience ourself as we really are, all we need do is remove the illusion that we are a person. Just as we can remove the illusion that there is a snake only by looking at it carefully and seeing that it is only a rope, we can remove the illusion that we are a finite person only by looking at ourself carefully and seeing that we are actually infinite self-awareness.
The illusory experience ‘I am this person’ is our ego, which is the antithesis of true love, because it seemingly divides the one indivisible whole into many distinct parts (phenomena), some of which it likes and some of which it dislikes, so from this ego arises desire for the things it likes and aversion for and fear of the things it dislikes. Therefore to experience the love that we actually are we must investigate this illusory ego and thereby see what we actually are.
Dreams are not created by infinite love but only by this self-divisive ego, which rises and dances about only by imagining and seeing things other than itself. Therefore the only way to dissolve this illusory ego is to try to see ourself alone.
All the suffering and misery we see in this world — our own suffering and misery and that of all other people and animals — is part of this dream created by our ego, so the only way to end all suffering and misery is to vanquish this ego by looking at ourself alone (that is, by trying to be attentively aware of ourself alone).
I am still struggling with understanding the concept of ‘Who am I’. Am I looking for that which existed before my body and mind came into this existence, i.e. emptiness/fullness etc.? Do I explore the personal ‘I’ and from where it arose? I understand that I am that source from which the body came into the dream but when I explore it there is nothing there and I cannot feel the love that is supposed to be the real me. Also why is the dream of life so unpleasant when it has come from a source of love? What is the point of the dream? I find it frightening and I worry so much about the animals/the environment and I feel such pain. Why would the self create such a dream?In reply I wrote:
Yes, we are looking for that which existed before our body and mind came into existence, but that exists not only then but also now and always, because it is what we actually are, so since we cannot go back in time we must find it here and now.
Is it (ourself) emptiness or fullness? According to Bhagavan what we actually are is empty of whatever is unreal and full of what alone is real, namely ourself (as I explain in Self-knowledge is not a void (śūnya)).
You ask, ‘Do I explore the personal ‘I’?’ Yes, that is all we need do, because this personal ‘I’ (our ego) is what we now seem to be, so it is like the illusory snake that a rope seems to be. If we look carefully at the snake, we will see it is not a snake but only a rope. Likewise, if we look carefully at our personal ‘I’, we will see that we are not the person that we now seem to be but only the one infinite whole, the pure self-awareness from which and in which everything else appears.
You say ‘but when I explore it there is nothing there’, but how can you know there is nothing there unless you yourself are there to know it? What we are looking for is only ourself, who is the ‘I’ who says ‘when I explore it there is nothing there’, so if we think there is nothing there, we are like the foolish tenth man, who counted the other nine men but forgot to count himself and therefore concluded that the tenth man was lost.
How can we ever lose ourself? If we think we have lost or have not found ourself, that is because we are looking for something other than ourself — something new and wonderful that we do not already have. According to Bhagavan, there is nothing new for us to find, because we ourself are the reality we are looking for. Therefore to experience ourself as we really are, all we need do is remove the illusion that we are a person. Just as we can remove the illusion that there is a snake only by looking at it carefully and seeing that it is only a rope, we can remove the illusion that we are a finite person only by looking at ourself carefully and seeing that we are actually infinite self-awareness.
The illusory experience ‘I am this person’ is our ego, which is the antithesis of true love, because it seemingly divides the one indivisible whole into many distinct parts (phenomena), some of which it likes and some of which it dislikes, so from this ego arises desire for the things it likes and aversion for and fear of the things it dislikes. Therefore to experience the love that we actually are we must investigate this illusory ego and thereby see what we actually are.
Dreams are not created by infinite love but only by this self-divisive ego, which rises and dances about only by imagining and seeing things other than itself. Therefore the only way to dissolve this illusory ego is to try to see ourself alone.
All the suffering and misery we see in this world — our own suffering and misery and that of all other people and animals — is part of this dream created by our ego, so the only way to end all suffering and misery is to vanquish this ego by looking at ourself alone (that is, by trying to be attentively aware of ourself alone).
Posts
100 comments:
With respect to the question that Michael’s friend asked him:
“Also why is the dream of life so unpleasant when it has come from a source of love? What is the point of the dream? I find it frightening and I worry so much about the animals/the environment and I feel such pain. Why would the self create such a dream?”
These questions are asked by many of us, whether we are on the spiritual path or not. As one progresses on the path, the questions are acutely felt since one is more aware of one’s own and others suffering. It is especially troubling for people who have Ishvara front and center of their lives. How can Ishvara be a silent witness? Does he not have a better way to awaken people other than via suffering?
Spiritual literature offers many explanations like ego is the one that creates it (close to what Michael wrote), or it is the Divine Lila or it is Karma etc. None of them are really satisfactory.
The only non-answer available is that, it is Ishvara’s will and that will is inscrutable. So basically the ego/mind stands no chance of understanding why things are the way things are.
From a practical standpoint, the answer is to follow ahimsa and try to help oneself and others to the best of one’s abilities and means. It will make a very small dent, but it is better than doing nothing.
From a spiritual standpoint, as Michael pointed out, the only way to end the suffering of Samsara is to awaken. Buddha saw this clearly and was able to act on it pretty well.
Very helpful Sivanarul, thank you.
I use to worry about everything, the pain the suffering all beyond my help like animals being mistreated in say china etc etc. I find it easier now to focus my concern on things within my reach . So if I pass a worm struggling on the pavement I can pick it up and place it in nice damp soil to help it hydrate or help injured birds I often find on my early morning walk.
I do find this helps keep my mind quite apart from when I am attending to the things other than myself in need of help. So my concern is more limited to what is actually happening in my self created world or my sensory bubble so to speak / reality tunnel. Compared to hearing about injured birds in say China which are just a thought and not within my reach immeadiate.
I do appreciate even my reality tunnel / sensory bubble is also just a thought (lol)!!
I hope this post came out right.
All the best
Bob
Dear Michael,
In Sadhu Om 's comment on Sri Arunachala Pancharatna (http://www.davidgodman.org/rteach/Arunachala%20Pancharatnam%202007-10-2.pdf), it is said : "Withdrawing the attention from second and third persons is called antarmukham or introversion, whereas focusing the attention on ‘I’ is called ahamukham or facing selfward. Though ahamukham includes in itself antarmukham, antarmukham does not necessarily include ahamukham."
In your translation of Nan yar ?, it is said : "Only to [this state of] retaining the mind in the heart without letting it go outwards [does] the name ‘ahamukham’ [‘I-facing’ or self-attentiveness] or ‘antarmukham’ [‘inward-facing’, introspection or introversion] [refer]."
It seems that in Nan yar ?, ahamukham and antarmukham has the same meaning, whereas Sadhu OM says in his comment that theye are two different thing, could you clarify this ?
Thanks.
Michael,you say:
1. "Therefore to experience ourself as we really are,
all we need do is remove the illusion that we are a person.[...], we can remove the illusion that we are a finite person only by looking at ourself carefully and seeing that we are actually infinite self-awareness".
2. "[...].Therefore to experience the love that we actually are we must investigate this illusory ego and thereby see what we actually are".
3. "Therefore the only way to dissolve this illusory ego is to try to see ourself alone".
I hope you are right.
But if you are not right we are lost for evermore in the wast ocean of illusion.
4. "All the suffering...is part of this dream created by our ego, so the only way to end all suffering and misery is to vanquish this ego by looking at ourself alone(that is, by trying to be attentively aware of ourself alone)".
That sentence is revolutionary and spectacular.
What is the reason to suppose that it is so ?
To think for example that the world wars and the catastrophe of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only a dream cannot be understood without any explanation.
How can be reasoned away all the suffering which was and is experienced by people and animals ?
Michael, maybe you would find time to give clarification to my comment of 28 March 2015 on the article of Monday, 2 March 2015 Investigating ourself is the only way to solve all the problems we see in this world
To Popocatepetl’s question:
“4. "All the suffering...is part of this dream created by our ego, so the only way to end all suffering and misery is to vanquish this ego by looking at ourself alone(that is, by trying to be attentively aware of ourself alone)".
That sentence is revolutionary and spectacular.
What is the reason to suppose that it is so ?”
In deep sleep, there is no ego and there is no suffering. Even people, who have a high degree of pain and suffering in their waking and dream lives, do not experience suffering in deep sleep where there is no ego. So we can infer easily that ego has some part to play in suffering (partial or full).
The teaching at higher levels says that the suffering is fully created by the ego (including events like Hiroshima and Nagasaki). I am not ready to accept that level of the teaching and it looks like you are not ready also. I think it is fair to say that we can accept that the ego has some role (at least a minor one) to play in events. The teaching then says to do Vichara to find whether this ‘I’ really exists, and if it is found not to exist (as a result of Vichara), then the partial player in suffering is removed and we will be left to take suffering on its own terms.
Just watched a nice 13 min video by Rupert Spira on Vichara into the ‘I’. You may find it useful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq248KMOh8I
But as I said in an earlier posting, while we are doing Vichara, in parallel, from a practical standpoint, the answer is to follow ahimsa and try to help oneself and others to the best of one’s abilities and means. It is worth remembering, that Bhagavan even after awakening, strictly followed ahimsa and helped whoever was in his vicinity to the best of his abilities and means.
Sivanarul,
it is no big comfort that in deep sleep no individual suffering is experienced,
because we usually wake up in the morning and experience shows that suffering is experienced again. That there is no suffering in the absence or subsidence of the ego does not reduce the amount of suffering considerably. Therefore the statement that suffering is part of this dream created by our ego does not diminish suffering at any rate.
The mentioned teachings of higher levels are not a great help for beings of low level - as I am.
I do agree with Michael James that we all who do not know/experience ourself as we really are in real trouble.
It may be true as Michael writes that all we need do is remove the illusion that we are a person. But it seems to be just as much saying : to vanquish this ego in order to stay as the untainted happiness of being we need only to cut off a piece of the Andromeda Nebula.
In my experience to be attentively aware of myself alone is equally difficult as the punishments of the Greek mythological figures Sisyphos or Tantalos.
I just think of another comparison : It‘s easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than to remove the illusory of the ego.
But let me close with immediately turning undivided attention to look at ourself alone…
Popocatepetl,
I agree with all you wrote. Considering suffering as something created by our ego does not diminish suffering at any rate. The point, I wrote about deep sleep, is to see that the ego has at least a partial role to play in suffering and the point of Vichara and other spiritual practices is to remove that partial player in suffering. Then suffering can be dealt with on its own terms.
I am also a beginner, so can relate very well with what you wrote. The teachings at a higher level are of no “immediate” use to us. But those higher level teachings plant a seed, which will bear fruit further along the path.
Many people find Vichara hard (including me). In the traditional literature, the path of Jnana yoga and Vichara was meant to be followed only after several prerequisites have been met. Key prerequisites are that mind has been trained to be mostly sattvic, has garnered sufficient dispassion towards the world and has a powerful vairagya towards reality. If these are not met, the traditional Guru would first prepare the student in these areas before asking the student to take the plunge. Bhagavan democratized this such that everyone can at least learn about it. In Aksharamanamalai, he even prays to Arunachala, to not be mad at him, for revealing the secret for everyone to use.
Spiritual progress is not dependent upon us accepting higher level teachings. That would be like saying you need to understand Calculus to pass 1’st grade. At the beginner’s level, what is important is to deeply realize that the world cannot provide permanent happiness. It can throw a bone here or there. Buddha’s first noble truth must be realized very deeply without an iota of doubt. This is what will create dispassion and vairagya.
Other thing that can be very helpful is to have faith in Ishvara/Guru/Arunachala/InnerAwareness. Trust that Ishvara (you can substitute Guru or InnerAwareness if you like) is working with you. In other words, duality with Ishvara/Guru can be a powerful help on the path. A dualistic practice eventually results in the non-dual experience. One of the sadhanas in this practice is then to train the mind to accept whatever happens to it as the will of Ishvara. The reason being that Ishvara, in his infinite wisdom has decided, for whatever reason, that this is the best circumstance for you to attain liberation.
Note that Karma is not the focus here. It is my belief that a focus on karma is a violation of ahimsa (in that it is not compassionate to your current life, you former lives or to other lives). I am fully aware that this contradicts Bhagavan’s writings and much of Hindu and Buddhist scriptures. I am ok with it. So then, Ishvara has decided the best path NOT based on your karma, but simply based on his infinite wisdom. The reason I write this is, many people who suffer, blame their karma for their sufferings which really only adds to the suffering.
The above is essentially the path of Surrender, the second path provided by Bhagavan for those who find Vichara hard. There are many posts in this blog and comments that will equate Surrender to be just another name for Vichara (including Sadhu OM’s writings). I do not subscribe to that view. While the end result is the same, the means are not the same.
Continuation of the previous comment:
Here is the quote from Bhagavan himself which summarizes surrender so nicely.
Sorrow and Evil
It is asked, why all this creation so full of sorrow and evil. All one can say is that it is God’s will, which is inscrutable. No motive, no desire, no end to achieve can be attributed to that infinite, all-wise and all-powerful Being. God is untouched by activities which take place in His presence. There is no meaning in attributing responsibility and motive to the One, before it became many. But God’s will for the prescribed course of events is a good solution for the vexed question of free-will. If the mind is worried over what befalls us, or what has been committed or omitted by us, it is wise to give up the sense of responsibility and free-will, by regarding ourselves as the ordained instruments of the All-Wise and the All-Powerful, to do and suffer as He pleases. Then He bears all the burdens and gives us peace.
http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/teachings/gems/
Many thanks to you, Sivanarul,
for your informative and persuasive explanations.
Yes, because God's will is inscrutable, we must be(come) God itself.
I am not content to regard myself only as an ordained instrument of the Omniscient and Omnipotent. I am not content to receive peace. To be an instrument and receiving peace maybe do not last everlasting but only temporarily.
I want to be what - according the wise Sri Ramana-Arunachala-I really am, that is eternal peace itself.
Popocatepetl,
I hear you. I was only suggesting Surrender, because you told Vichara was hard. Based on your reply, you seem to be well suited for Vichara and I wish you the very best in practicing it. Many people in this blog have said that while Vichara might appear hard in the beginning, it gets better with repeated practice. So you may find that to be true, if you persist in the practice.
“I am not content to regard myself only as an ordained instrument of the Omniscient and Omnipotent. I am not content to receive peace. To be an instrument and receiving peace maybe do not last everlasting but only temporarily. I want to be what - according the wise Sri Ramana-Arunachala-I really am, that is eternal peace itself.”
For the sake of sadhakas for whom Surrender/Bhakthi is the key sadhana, I want to address your above statement. Regarding oneself as an ordained instrument of the Omnipotent is done only during the Sadhana stage and is not the end result. It is similar to how Vichara being done in the Sadhana stage and not itself being the end result. The end result of both Vichara and Surrender is the same expressed with a different vocabulary. In Vichara it is expressed as full abidance as the Self (I really am, as you said it). In Surrender, it is expressed as Jiva merging in Siva and abiding as Siva.
Regarding peace, initial surrender results in the ordinary peace that you describe. But it does not stop there. As one progresses, that peace becomes the “peace that passeth all understanding”. Finally it becomes peace itself.
The conclusions of above are well supported by Bhagavan himself. In addition, the other great sage of Arunachala, Saint Arunagirinathar, in his masterpiece composition of Kandhar Anubuthi, declares unequivocally:
“யானாகிய வென்னை விழுங்கி வெறுந் தானாய் நிலை நின்றது தற்பரவே”
“The Self/Siva absorbed me in it and remained as itself”
Further Saint Thirumoolar in his Thirumanthiram states:
“சீவன் எனச்சிவன் என்னவே றில்லை
சீவ னார் சிவ னாரை அறிகிலர்
சீவ னார் சிவ னாரை அறிந்தபின்
சீவ னார் சிவ னாயிட்டு இருப்பரே”
Jiva and Siva
Separate are not;
Jiva knows not Siva;
When Jiva knows Siva;
Jiva becomes Siva.
Thank you Sivanarul,
for your understanding suggestions and giving the epigrammatic and stunning verses of Tamil poetry.
Regarding vichara my behaviour is indeed conflicting:
On the one hand I yearn to practise vichara. And on the other hand when I take seat to do it I just resist doing that pratice. So at present my persistence in vichara is out of the question.
Yes, vichara and bhakti/surrender are like roads to the same destination.
It is great to read Saint Arunagirinathar's blessed experience of got absorbed by Siva.
Sivanarul,what does Saint Thirumoolar mean by sayingin in his concise five line Thirumanthiram verse ?
In the third line it is stated a negation
"[...]
Jiva knows not Siva;
whereas in the forth line in contradiction to the third line a conditional clause is expressed:
When Jiva knows Siva;
[...]"
Popocatepetl,
If the sadhana one undertakes is natural to one’s own propensity, then the sadhana will not feel hard. This is similar to a flight flying with tailwind helping it. On the other hand, if the sadhana does not match one’s vasanas, then it will feel hard, which is similar to a flight flying with headwind. Eventually the flight will reach its destination whether it encounters tailwind or headwind, but it is easier to fly with tailwind rather than headwind. So it may help you to find out from yourself, how natural Vichara is to you.
There are two camps on this (Let’s say Camp A and Camp B). Camp A says that whether Vichara feels natural or not, hard or easy, it does not matter and Vichara is the practice from beginning to end. This camp relies on Naan Yaar and Ulladu Narpadu of Bhagavan and Michael has written hundreds of articles, supporting this notion. Camp B says to practice whatever feels right and easy to you and this includes Bhakthi, Surrender, Meditation, Japa, Prayer, Pranayama, Vichara and any combination of these. Camp B relies on Talks, Day by Day, Aksharamanamalai etc.
For me personally, due to my deeply religious Saivite upbringing, I naturally fall under Camp B. You have to decide for yourself, which camp feels natural to you and practice accordingly. All I can say is that, any spiritual practice done with earnestness, pushes one forward along the path.
Saint Arunagirinathar of Arunachala demonstrated Siva Yoga, Bhakthi and Jnana in his life. The Lord appeared as Guru in a human form and saved him from attempted suicide by holding him as he fell from Arunachala temple. He gave the instruction “Summa Iru” (Be still). Having received the instruction from the Lord himself, Arunagirinathar went into Samadhi for 12 years. The Lord woke him up from Samadhi and asked him to sing the glory of the Lord, for the benefit of devotees. Arunagirinathar composed soul stirring works of Thirupugazh, Kandar Anubuthi, Kandar Alangaram etc which are literally Upanishads for Saivaites. Arunagirinathar switched between duality and non-duality seamlessly and demonstrated effectively how a saint can live a life both in duality/non-duality at the same time (similar to Sri Ramakrishna).
I wrote the above to show an example of how liberation need not always be like Bhagavan’s (which was quick, brought by intense Vichara) and need not always be through Vichara from beginning to end. I also wrote the above to show that liberation does not depend on belief in Eka Jiva or treating the world as a dream.
Continued on next comment…
Continued from previous comment…
With respect to your question:
What does Saint Thirumoolar mean by sayingin in his concise five line Thirumanthiram verse ?
In the third line it is stated a negation
"[...]
Jiva knows not Siva;
whereas in the forth line in contradiction to the third line a conditional clause is expressed:
When Jiva knows Siva;
[...]"
In ignorance (under the influence of Maya / Anava Malam), Jiva does not know Siva (even though Siva is there within the Jiva as ‘I-I’). When grace descends on the Jiva, with the help of grace, Jiva comes to know Siva. So the third line is written looking at the Jiva in ignorance and the fourth line is written looking at the Jiva under the influence of grace.
In SivaJnanaBotham 8’th verse by MeyKandar, this is explained with a simile. The son (Jiva) of a King (Self/Siva) was stolen by 5 hunters (5 senses) when the son was a baby. The hunters raise the child as one of them. The son being identified with the hunters at this stage does not know that he is the son of the king (3’rd line, Jiva Knows not Siva). When the son turns 16, the king’s minister (Guru/Grace) meets the son and reveals his true identity (4’th line, Jiva now knows Siva). As a result, the son returns to the royal kingdom and becomes King (5’th line, Jiva becomes Siva).
Why not to just practice Buddha's teachings which are 100% sure?
Sivanarul,
thanks again for your reply.
I personally prefer not thinking to belong in any camp.
I subscribe to your opinion that any spiritual practice done with earnestness pushes one forward along the path.
Thanks also for your given explanation about Saint Thirumoolar's verse.
I for me did interpret the essential character of Jiva in the mentioned lines three and four also in the described way:
Jiva in Ignorance/Maya and
Jiva in Grace becomes Siva.
Very nice is the hunter-story of MeyKandar which is ending with Jiva become Siva.
Droga,
Buddha's teachings are in quintessence not at all different from Ramana's teaching
even though different viewpoints may exist. How could essential teachings be ever different ? So I cannot see any prohibitive signs for practising Buddha's recommendations.
Actually you guys (sorry but this is not judgement in the sense of scolding you) need to realize no self which is anatta then you can realize the self of ramana, otherwise you cooking and to get rice.
Droga from what I understand Christ , Buddha & Bhagavan are all saying the same thing with different language / metaphors and of course silence. Sometimes the words used can confuse and convey incompatibility but in essense they are describing the same meaning.
Warmest regards
Bob
Popocatepetl,
You are quite welcome.
In regards to your statement:
“I personally prefer not thinking to belong in any camp.”
I didn’t intend camp to come across as a divisive “us versus them”. Sometimes words do not convey the intention well. What I meant was, if someone is finding Vichara hard, at any given moment, they have 2 choices. Once choice is to investigate who is finding it hard (Camp A). Second choice is to drop Vichara (at that moment) and practice some other Sadhana which they have a propensity for (Camp B). That is all I meant by camp. Choice is probably a better word, and those of us, who do sadhana, do make this choice (implicitly or explicitly) on a day to day basis.
Bob-P,
The way I look at Christ, Buddha and Bhagavan is that, they are saying the same thing as follows:
“Do not get caught up in the material reality that you currently experience. If you perform sadhana, coupled with the act of grace, the “real” reality will be revealed”.
Christ focused on Surrender as primary path (“Not my will, but thy will be done”).
Buddha focused on Suffering and Impermanence.
Bhagavan focused on both Vichara and Surrender as equally valid primary paths.
Sivanarul,
I did well understand the intended meaning of what you expressed with differentiation of "camps".
Yes, daily life keeps us never beyond the stream of permanent sadhana and incessant choice.
Buddha, Christ and Bhagavan Ramana Arunachala would/will grin quietly about us.
Thank you Sivanarul
Yes we must look within, we are what we seek.
Warmest regards
Bob
Bob-P, Yes, as you say, 'we must look within, we are what we seek'. I believe Bhagavan has also said that the only way out is by going within. Therefore we have no option but to constantly look within, by focusing all our interest and attention on ourself alone, if we want to go out. That means, to go out of this samsara, this cycle of recurring birth and death. Regards.
Sivanarul, you have written in a recent comment of yours, 'Bhagavan focused on both Vichara and Surrender as equally valid primary paths'. But are vichara and surrender two different or distinct paths? The following is what Michael wrote to me in a recent e-mail of his:
Initially vicara and surrender may seem to be two distinct practices, but as we go deeper it becomes clear that they are inseparable, like the two sides of a sheet of paper. We cannot investigate ourself without surrendering our ego, and we cannot surrender our ego without investigating ourself, and unless we surrender our ego, whatever else we may surrender is at best a preparation for the surrender of our ego.
Regards.
Sanjay,
How one practices Vichara and Surrender is different. Let’s take the experience of a really unpleasant event. One, who practices Vichara, will investigate who is the ‘I’ that is experiencing the unpleasant event. The one, who practices Surrender, will look at the event as Ishvara’s will. In both cases, the thought/mind that arose to complain will subside temporarily. In the case of Vichara, it subsides, because the ego does not like focus turned on it. In Surrender, it subsides, because the ego knows that there is nothing it can do (other than complaining to Ishvara himself). Accepting deeply that it is “Ishvara’s will” is like the release of Brahmastra to which the ego has no answer other than to subside temporarily.
Vichara requires the Sadhaka at every turn of life to focus on the ‘I’ that is experiencing things. Surrender requires the Sadhaka to look at all events of life as the will of Ishvara.
Bhagavan used the train simile to explain surrender, in which he said, the train (Ishvara) that carries us (Jiva) will also carry our luggage (worries/aspirations/excitations). So just put the luggage in the overhead bin and travel freely, instead of carrying it on your head.
Surrender is, most likely, the natural and primary path for people with traditional Bhakthi or other religious upbringing that have a deep faith in Ishvara.
To me, the role Ishvara (both internally and externally) plays in Sadhana is the key differentiator between Vichara and Surrender.
I respect Sivanarul very much and his posts are extremely helpful to me, thank you.
But my personal opinion is in essence there is no difference between Vichara and Surrender .... both are surrendering the ego (knowing conciousness). But of course opinions especially mine are dangerous and just strengthen the ego (lol)!!
Opinions vary and all is good (smile).
Warmest regards
Bob
Sivanarul, as you say, one who practises vichara investigates the 'I' who is experiencing the unpleasant events, and one who practises surrender will look at the events as Isvara's will, but this distinction or demarcation is not so clear cut or exclusive. Even the one who investigates himself can still look at outside events as God's will. Therefore vichara and surrender can be complementary, and can exist side by side in many sadhakas life. However such surrender will not destroy our ego, which is the source and creator of all the unpleasant and pleasant events. Therefore such surrender is like cutting the leaves and branches of a tree, while letting the root remain intact. Self-attentiveness tries to cut at the very root, our ego.
Yes, while travelling on a train we should just put the luggage in the overhead bin and travel freely, instead of carrying it on our head. Yes, this should be our attitude, but Bhagavan's main teaching is to investigate or attend to the one who tries to put his luggage, or not put his luggage on the overhead bin. This investigation of oneself is the real surrender of our ego to Isvara, and when we try to surrender our ego we also simultaneously try to surrender all our outward concerns also to him.
We can describe Isvara in various ways. We can call him Isvara, God, atma-svarupa, heart, brahman or simply ourself as we really are. It really makes no difference. What we are talking about is just this one non-dual, infinite, being-consciousness-bliss. Their demarcations as internal or external in respect to Isvara is only from the ignorant perspective of our ego. There really can be no internal or external in this one indivisible, infinite, absolute reality. Therefore, as Bob-P writes, 'there is no difference between Vichara and Surrender...both are surrendering the ego (knowing consciousness)' to our actual, real self (or Isvara).
Regards.
Sanjay,
If surrender will amount to just cutting off the branches and not the root, then the following people would have been wrong:
63 Saiva Nayanmars, 12 Alvars, Jesus Christ, Arunagirinathar, Thayumanavar, Pamban Swamigal, Vallalar, Thiruvalluvar, Oovaiyar, Sri Ramakrishna, Tukaram, Tulsidas and hundreds and hundreds more of spiritual giants across all cultures.
We have had several discussions on the same topic, and there would not be of much use to anyone in rehashing it again.
I agree to disagree and will leave it at that.
As long as we continue to "feel and believe" that there is a world "outside there" with people that woke up and we didn't, that there are "many" Jnanis (plural) in the past and we aren't yet one, that there is im/personal god/s separate from "I", according to Bhagavan's teachings, we don't stand a chance to get anywhere.
There is only one Jnani, and that is "I".
There is only one obstacle, and that is the root ego (that actually means "I" in latin) and his many branches: wrong beliefs about ourselves, the world and god.
It is not a question of surrender VS inquiry per se, or which is more aproppiate or if they are the same, etc... the question is WHAT we surrender and/or WHAT we investigate, and most importantly, to WHOM.
yours in Bhagavan,
carlos
Mounaji,
Vanakkum.
"As long as we continue to "feel and believe" that there is a world "outside there" with people that woke up and we didn't, that there are "many" Jnanis (plural) in the past and we aren't yet one, that there is im/personal god/s separate from "I", according to Bhagavan's teachings, we don't stand a chance to get anywhere."
I respectfully, strongly disagree. That may be true according to Bhagavan's Vichara teachings, but not true according to his Surrender teachings. It is certainly not true according to the huge Saivite tradition of which Bhagavan and Arunchala are itself part of (Arunachala is considered the manifestation of Siva in form).
All of the people I mentioned above did get somewhere. Saivism is a 3000+ year old tradition and I have full faith in its teachings. For those Saivites who happen to read this thread, please read Periya Puranam and Thiruvasagam, if you need authoritative validation.
Let’s just say, we belong to different friendly traditions and each of those traditions has their own set of “beliefs and facts”. Since there is not much use in commenting further, I will refrain from any further comments on this topic.
Sivanarulji, Vanakkam
I shall not comment further also.
Just want to say that I completely respect your stand, and you as a strongly committed sadhaka.
Yours in Bhagavan,
Mouna
Mouna, I agree with you when you write, 'It is not a question of surrender VS inquiry per se, or which is more aproppiate or if they are the same, etc... the question is WHAT we surrender and/or WHAT we investigate, and most importantly, to WHOM'. Yes, it is very important to know what we should surrender and to whom? In this regard it will be appropriate to read what Michael had written to me in an e-mail dated 22nd October 2013:
Regarding self-surrender, how is it possible to surrender oneself if one does not know what oneself is? As Sri sadhu Om used to say, it would be like a soldier who is told to surrender his gun but does not know what gun is, so instead he may surrender his pen.
Moreover, our false self (the self that is to be surrendered) rises only by attending to things other than itself, so it will subside completely and permanently only when it manages to attend to itself alone. Therefore self-attentiveness is not only the most effective way to surrender oneself, it is also the only means by which one can surrender oneself completely and permanently.
It will be also appropriate to read here verses 25 and 26 of Ulladu Narpadu. If we read these two verses carefully it will be clear that the only entity we really need to surrender is our ego, because it is only our ego which gives rise to everything else. Therefore investigating and giving up our ego is giving up everything. This is real sanyasa, and also real and only liberation.
Regards.
I agree with what Mouna wrote about only one Jnani. Even though that is not what I / we now experience because we are trapped in a self created world of multipicty.
One of the hardest things I had to grasp was that Bhagavan and all other Jnani's are myself projected into the external world guiding me / us to look within at what I am / we are.
It is my understanding even though it may be wrong is that Bhagavan didn't do anything, he didnt sleep, walk, or even sit in silence that is only my ignorant view of him. I see him as a wonderful kind loving Indian sage with love for all that come to him both human and animal.
This appearence of him obviouisly is what I need to see , you could say it is the perfect representation I need to see to help me love him and listen to his advice which is to look within and find out what I am.
All external stimuli including this wonderful blog and its contributors / friends are a great opportunity to remind us to look within and investigate to whom does all this otherness appear.
The very fact I am writing this long post contradicts what I say above, I should just be silent which tells me my practise is weak and I must be stronger (lol)!!!
I must end in saying that I respect all contributors / friends so very much including those who dont share my views or beliefs, no one is right or wrong and all is good.
In appreciation as always and thank you to all the posters above.
Priceless.
Bob
Atma-vicara is nothing more or less than the SURRENDER of ATTENTION from noise TO SILENCE, remembering that even the subtlest of thoughts is noise, and pure silence alone is what we are.
Keep it simple!
Thank you for the insightful and pragmatic postings Sanjay, Bob and Peter.
Last but not least, we need not forget that we are not surrendering anything real or our own, being ego or noise, but the error, misconception and belief that those are real AND our own.
Yours in Bhagavan,
Mouna
Bob-P and Steve, Bob-P writes 'One of the hardest things I had to grasp was that Bhagavan and all other Jnani's are myself projected into the external world guiding me / us to look within at what I am / we are'. This has to be true. Bhagavan says that what exists in only atma-svarupa, an absolutely single, non-dual reality, but we seem to perceive multiplicity. How? This multiplicity or others has to be our own ego's deluded projection. Similarly whosoever we see an a jnani outside ourself has to be our projection, but he is like an elephant in a lions dream. His only purpose of appearing in our dream is to awaken us from this sleep of our imaginary self-forgetfulness.
Bob-P also writes 'I see him [Bhagavan] as a wonderful kind loving Indian sage with love for all that come to him both human and animal. This appearence of him obviouisly is what I need to see, you could say it is the perfect representation I need to see to help me love him and listen to his advice which is to look within and find out what I am'. Yes, the loving person whom we imagine to be our Bhagavan Ramana is a representation of the true Bhagavan, who is love itself, but even this representation is an inadequate representation of the real Bhagavan within. He is in reality infinite, pure, non-dual love, but when we see him as a person we do not experience the pure love which is Bhagavan in its essential nature as a featureless and formless reality.
Steve writes 'Atma-vicara is nothing more or less than the SURRENDER of ATTENTION from noise TO SILENCE, remembering that even the subtlest of thoughts is noise, and pure silence alone is what we are'. Yes, Michael has also said that all our thoughts, including our root thought called 'I' are just noise, whereas what we are in reality is pure noiseless silence. Therefore as long as we experience thoughts we are surrounded by our own noise (thoughts). To give up all this noise the only way is to remain attentively self-aware. Only this practice will destroy our ego and all its other crowd of thoughts.
Regards.
Steve I agree whole heartedly with you , Bhagavan's teaching is essentially so simple we must simplify it as much as possible and most importantly of all follow his advice.
Michael's wonderful blog, articles, translations & book are such a powerful reminder and explains the teaching so incredibly well. All we have to do is follow the simplistic plan.
Mouna I agree with your words too, so well put thank you
Sanjay what you wrote:
Yes, the loving person whom we imagine to be our Bhagavan Ramana is a representation of the true Bhagavan, who is love itself, but even this representation is an inadequate representation of the real Bhagavan within. He is in reality infinite, pure, non-dual love, but when we see him as a person we do not experience the pure love which is Bhagavan in its essential nature as a featureless and formless reality
Thank you this was very helpful to me to read and your description of Bhagavan is beautiful.
Sivanarul thank you for all your previous posts and future posts they are priceless to me as your perspective has helped me no end. I know we might not agree on everything but I think we agree on a lot more than we don't. And what we don't agree on neither of us are right or wrong just opinions, thank you so very much.
In appreciation to all.
Bob
In connection with the discussion above about self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) and self-surrender, a friend wrote to me quoting the thirteenth paragraph of Nāṉ Yār? and asked whether for attaining salvation (mōkṣa) it is sufficient for us to surrender our burden to God, or whether ātma-vicāra is also necessary. In reply I wrote:
Nothing is sufficient to give us mōkṣa except ātma-vicāra. However, saying this is not to belittle the value of surrendering all our burden to God, because if we are not willing even to surrender our other burdens, we will not be willing to surrender our primal burden, which is our ego. Ātma-vicāra entails surrendering our ego and everything else, so trying to yield our small burden to Bhagavan is a necessary prerequisite to successfully practising self-investigation.
Regarding what Sivanarul wrote in one of his comments above about the numerous saints from various spiritual traditions who attained mōkṣa by following the path of self-surrender, in the light of all that Bhagavan has taught us I believe it is wrong to assume that the surrender of such saints did not culminate in ātma-vicāra, even though they may not have expressed it in such terms, because according to Bhagavan the only way to annihilate our ego and thereby merge in God is to turn our attention inwards to see what this spurious ego actually is. This is beautifully expressed by him in verse 22 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
மதிக்கொளி தந்தம் மதிக்கு ளொளிரு
மதியினை யுள்ளே மடக்கிப் — பதியிற்
பதித்திடுத லன்றிப் பதியை மதியான்
மதித்திடுக லெங்ஙன் மதி.
matikkoḷi tandam matikku ḷoḷiru
matiyiṉai yuḷḷē maḍakkip — patiyiṯ
padittiḍuda laṉḏṟip patiyai matiyāṉ
matittiḍuda leṅṅaṉ mati.
பதச்சேதம்: மதிக்கு ஒளி தந்து, அம் மதிக்குள் ஒளிரும் மதியினை உள்ளே மடக்கி பதியில் பதித்திடுதல் அன்றி, பதியை மதியால் மதித்திடுதல் எங்ஙன்? மதி.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): matikku oḷi tandu, am-matikkuḷ oḷirum matiyiṉai uḷḷē maḍakki patiyil padittiḍudal aṉḏṟi, patiyai matiyāl matittiḍudal eṅṅaṉ? mati.
அன்வயம்: மதிக்கு ஒளி தந்து, அம் மதிக்குள் ஒளிரும் பதியில் மதியினை உள்ளே மடக்கி பதித்திடுதல் அன்றி, பதியை மதியால் மதித்திடுதல் எங்ஙன்? மதி.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): matikku oḷi tandu, am-matikkuḷ oḷirum patiyil matiyiṉai uḷḷē maḍakki padittiḍudal aṉḏṟi, patiyai matiyāl matittiḍudal eṅṅaṉ? mati.
English translation: Consider, except by turning the mind back within and immersing it in God, who shines within that mind giving light to the mind, how to know God by the mind?
There are many ways in which the practice of self-investigation can be expressed, and it is often beautifully expressed by saints in the language of dualistic devotion, but however it may be expressed in words, we each need to do what needs to be done, namely to turn back within in order to merge in the clear light of pure self-awareness, which alone is the real nature of God and ourself. This is what Bhagavan called ātma-vicāra, and he made it clear that it is also the culmination, pinnacle and crowning glory of complete self-surrender.
Sir, thank you for your above comment which neatly and beautifully confirms our understanding that atma-vichara and self-surrender are one in essence. As you have said, saints express their final surrender in different words, but we should try to understand their lakshyartha. Kabir and other saints often appear to speak in dualistic terms, but they are always indicating their absolute non-dual experience in so many ways.
If one reads Bhagavan's works Nan Yar?, Ulladu Narpadu, Upadesa Undiyar carefully and practises self-investigation to the best of one's ability, one will have no doubt that that self-investigation is the only way to surrender our ego and gain moksa. This requires deep manana and whole hearted attempt to practise atma-vichara. I believe many of us are frightened by the seemingly radical teachings of Bhagavan in Nan Yar?, Ulladu Narpadu, Upadesa Undiyar and also in Guru Vachaka Kovai. But if we do not try to understand the message contained in these works, we are not trying to properly understand the true purpose of Bhagavan's advent in our midst.
You have beautifully put it:
...we each need to do what needs to be done, namely to turn back within in order to merge in the clear light of pure self-awareness, which alone is the real nature of God and ourself. This is what Bhagavan called ātma-vicāra, and he made it clear that it is also the culmination, pinnacle and crowning glory of complete self-surrender.
Thanks and regards.
Sacrificing yourself to yourself so to speak seems like the ultimate act of love.
Yes, Bob-P, 'Sacrificing yourself to yourself so to speak seems like the ultimate act of love'. Surrendering oneself (as one seems to be) to oneself (as one really is) is the ultimate act of love, and is also ultimate surrender. Our love to attend to ourself alone will transform us into absolute, infinite love or bliss. Regards.
Sanjay Lohia,
how can it be said that the real nature of ourself will be transformed to what it is already now ?
I think you merely wanted to express your opinion about the transformation of the mind in its real nature.
Seeming walking, yes, if we vigilantly try and investigate our ego for a sufficiently long duration of time we will discover the reality underlying our ego, which is our real infinite, non-dual self.
When I wrote, 'Our love to attend to ourself alone will transform us into absolute, infinite love or bliss', what I meant was that at present we experience ourself as this ego, or a mind and a body, thus we love ourself more than we love others. But when our ego will be annihilated by remaining attentively self-aware for a sufficiently long time, the dividing line between ourself and others (this ego) will be destroyed. Thus we will experience no otherness. Therefore we will exist as an non-dual reality, and as self-love is inherent in us, our love then will be infinite and absolute. Thus we will exist as the beginningless, infinite, unbroken sat-chit-ananda. Regards.
Thank you Michael for your recent post it was very helpful and helped clarify things for me.
I forgot to express my appreciation in my last post.
Bob
Sanjay Lohia,
the mentioned dividing line is drawn by the mind.
As you know: Reality does not depend on our wrong experience.
According to Arunachala-Ramana our existence as non-dual beginningless infinite absolute sat-chit-ananda is already now. There is no need for pointing out any occurence in future using the mode of expressing "will exist".
Regarding the real nature of ourself with an easy conscience you may abstain from using future tense for the verb "exist".
Seeming waking, yes, as you write 'our existence as non-dual beginningless infinite absolute sat-chit-ananda is already now', but from the perspective of our ego or mind we will experience this state of non-dual, beginningless, infinite, absolute sat-chit-ananda sometimes in future. Hence we cannot totally avoid using the future tense for the verb 'exist'.
This is my understanding. But if you experience the state of non-dual beginningless, infinite, absolute, sat-chit-ananda as your true nature here and now and always, you need not use any future tense for this state. Therefore from my ignorant perspective (in which I experience duality), this state of non-duality will come sometime in future, hence I feel that the use of future tense for the verb 'exist' is justified in my case, even though intellectually I may understand that this state is here and now. Regards.
From my own perspective langauge and words complicate matters enough as it is without worrying about perfect grammar (lol)!! Everytime I post I read it back and realise how contradictory everything is I wrote. I think everyone else does a much better job than me especially Michael (thank goodness)
Even this short post contradicts Bhagavans teaching ..... so difficult.
I congratulate Sanjay for writing so much and so much better than I could (lol)!!
In appreciation.
Bob
Sanjay Lohia,
this is not a lecture. But please do realize that the illusury experience of the self-divisive ego and the infinite fullness (purna)or atma-svarupa[our own essential self] are to be distinguished as different as chalk and cheese.
It is an awful pity about you, stop moaning ! Do not complain of having only an ignorant perspective ! I want to shake you out of your lethargy. Why did you empty the full cup of self-forgetfulness ? As a remedy for your nescience swallow now at one gulp Sri Ramana's teaching. Wake up and rid yourself of clinging onto the imaginary and deceptive idea of a future state coming next century ("sometime") to you.
There has been a discussion on this blog whether only our practice of self-investigation (atma-vichara) can give us moksa, or other practices like dualistic devotion can also liberate us. The following quotation of Sri Ramakrishna can be a useful input in this discussion. He says in The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, page 180 (not sure about the edition):
One ultimately discovers God by trying to know who this 'I' is.
Therefore Sri Ramakrishna, who was supposed to have recommended only devotion to Maa (or Divine Mother), is clearly confirming here that 'ultimately' our surrender of any sort has to culminate in our trying to know who this 'I' is. Thus both Bhagavan Ramana and Sri Ramakrishna have confirmed that eventually we can attain moksa only by practising self-investigation. Regards.
Sanjay, I do not have a hard copy of The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna with me here, so I too cannot give a precise page reference where it is recorded that he said, “One ultimately discovers God by trying to know who this ‘I’ is”, but I know that it is in the last few paragraphs of Chapter 7, ‘The Master and Vijay Goswami’, in the final section entitled ‘Constant practice urged’.
“The following quotation of Sri Ramakrishna can be a useful input in this discussion. He says in The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, page 180 (not sure about the edition):
One ultimately discovers God by trying to know who this 'I' is. Thus both Bhagavan Ramana and Sri Ramakrishna have confirmed that eventually we can attain moksa only by practising self-investigation”
Wow! Talk about taking one line out of context, from a 1000 page volume, and drawing a confirmation bias based on it.
http://www.belurmath.org/gospel
http://www.belurmath.org/gospel/chapter07.htm
The line occurs in chapter 7 towards the end. If one reads the previous page, the context can be understood easily. Sri Ramakrishna was explaining about two paths, bhakthi and Jnana and when he was describing Jnana, he was saying that one ultimately discovers God, in the context of Jnana, by neti neti process.
"One ultimately discovers God by trying to know who this 'I' is. Is this 'I' the flesh, the bones, the blood, or the marrow? Is it the mind or the buddhi? Analysing thus, you realize at last that you are none of these. This is called the process of 'Neti, neti', 'Not this, not this'. One can neither comprehend nor touch the Ātman. It is without qualities or attributes.
"But, according to the path of devotion, God has attributes. To a devotee Krishna is Spirit, His Abode is Spirit, and everything about Him is Spirit."
Two ways of God-realization
MASTER: "There are two ways. One is the path of discrimination, the other is that of love. Discrimination means to know the distinction between the Real and the unreal. God alone is the real and permanent Substance; all else is illusory and impermanent. The magician alone is real; his magic is illusory. This is discrimination.
MASTER: "One can attain the Knowledge of Brahman, too, by following the path of bhakti. God is all-powerful. He may give His devotee Brahmajnāna also, if He so wills."
VIJAY: "But those who discriminate according to the Vedanta philosophy also realize Him in the end, don't they?"
Path of bhakti is easy
MASTER: "Yes, one may reach Him by following the path of discrimination too: that is called Jnanayoga. But it is an extremely difficult path. I have told you already of the seven planes of consciousness. On reaching the seventh plane the mind goes into samādhi. If a man acquires the firm knowledge that Brahman alone is real and the world illusory, then his mind merges in samādhi. But in the Kaliyuga the life of a man depends entirely on food. How can he have the consciousness that Brahman alone is real and the world illusory? In the Kaliyuga it is difficult to have the feeling, 'I am not the body, I am not the mind, I am not the twenty-four cosmic principles; I am beyond pleasure and pain, I am above disease and grief, old age and death.' However you may reason and argue, the feeling that the body is identical with the soul will somehow crop up from an unexpected quarter. You may cut a peepal-tree to the ground and think it is dead to its very root, but the next morning you will find a new sprout shooting up from the dead stump. One cannot get rid of this identification with the body; therefore the path of bhakti is best for the people of the Kaliyuga. It is an easy path.
Any spiritual aspirant, with no confirmation bias, can read through the above statements from Sri Ramakrishna and draw their own conclusion. It is very well known that Sri Ramakrishna practiced many spiritual disciplines and realized God through all those disciplines. Basically he verified through practice all paths including Jnana, Bhakthi, Tantra and many others to end in the same truth.
To write “Thus both Bhagavan Ramana and Sri Ramakrishna have confirmed that eventually we can attain moksa ONLY by practising self-investigation” one needs to have a very strong need for confirmation bias. What such statements do is make Vichara look really weak; because it looks it can only stand ground if all other practices are demolished. That is so contrary to Bhagavan’s teachings and life. What a pity!
Ulladu narpadu was not written to be used as a license to berate other spiritual practices. I am really perplexed about, what one gains, by constantly putting dualistic devotion and other spiritual practices down. I am wondering whether Viswanathan, Sundar and others who used to take moderate positions, stopped posting and participating, because they can’t take the constant berating of all other spiritual practices other than Vichara.
The Self will never be realized (or ignorance dissolved), if the ego is involved in constant derision. If one cannot even follow the simple human principle of “Live and Let Live”, how does one really expect to transcend the ego?
I get that some people do not think that dualistic devotion will result in liberation. Fine, you are entitled to your opinion. You can say it once, twice or a few more times. But does it have to be said repeatedly? When will it end? It is sounding more and more like religious fanaticism. Please let go. Live and let live.
Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi
(Just a reminder of why Michael's blog is here.)
As for me, everything is much more simple than it looks.
According to Bhagavan Sri Ramana teachings: god = self (ourself) = I
Being devotion, vichara, discrimination, surrender or any other sadhana that one can imagine, the equation stays the same: god=self.
This is the missing link in some of the conversations here.
As long as we understand that god = self (ourself), any sadhana (emphasizing the word ANY) will do.
Otherwise it won’t.
I am not sure for whom or for what the reminder is addressed to. We are all certainly aware that this blog is for Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharishi. I never read anywhere that those teachings included berating all other practices other than Vichara.
Correct Sivanarul, Bhagavan's teachings do not include the berating of practices other than atma-vicara. Quite the contrary, in fact. According to Bhagavan's teachings, other practices are included in the practice of atma-vicara, which could not have been pointed out more clearly than Michael did in an article he wrote just a few months ago - "Can we experience what we are by following the path of devotion (bhakti marga)?" (July 18, 2015) - which ends with this sentence:
'Therefore the conclusion we can draw from studying Upadēśa Undiyār, Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu and Nāṉ Yār? carefully and in depth is that the ultimate and best practice of bhakti mārga is self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), because it is the only means by which we can surrender ourself entirely to God, the one infinite reality, which alone is what we actually are.'
We can keep talking in circles about it, but Michael's blog, as I reminded anyone who needs reminding, is about Bhagavan's teachings, and Bhagavan's teachings are clear.
We are surely lucky that Sri Bhagavan Ramana and Sri Ramakrishna set us a good example to discover God. We are fortunate that all the wise women and men did go ahead of us.
But let us not overlook that we have to walk the path alone - whatever it may be.
We alone have to jettison our many and diverse kinds of spiritual blindness which are an obstacle to real self-knowledge. We alone have to break up the dense,impenetrable, impermeable crusts and remove the refuse dump of our misconceptions out of the well of consciousness.
No one will dig out for us the buried source of the illusory ego. No one instead of us /deputizing for us will carry out the needed effort to uncover our real nature.
Although we can learn a lot from the wise men we should not adopt/take over to much of their remarks and sayings. To find our own way to Rome is absolutely required.
Because we naturally cannot comprehend all the insights and explanations of our forerunners, repeating parrot-fashion everything somebody says possibly leaves us in disturbed mental state.
Hey you gunfighters,
teaching is given only for the purpose of removing darkness.
Why do you like the jabbering ?
Halahala, pranams
This forum takes many forms and one of them is the respectful exchange of points of view. So far there is nothing that goes beyond those rules.
Sometimes it gets heated, sometimes everybody agree, and most of the time nothing happens till the next posting.
We are all in this process, and I wouldn't call it "jabbering" but rather exposing oneself and one's understanding out there to be tested, and hopefully something that will increase our desire and comprehension of the teaching will come out of it.
Yours in Bhagavan,
Mouna
Sivanarul writes in one of his recent comments:
It is very well known that Sri Ramakrishna practiced many spiritual disciplines and realized God through all those disciplines. Basically he verified through practice all paths including Jnana, Bhakthi, Tantra and many others to end in the same truth.
Yes, this is a commonly believed fact, that Sri Ramakrishna practised many spiritual disciplines and realised God through all those disciples, but this does not tally with Bhagavan Ramana's teachings.
In the context of Bhagavan's teachings eventually only one path can reveal the absolute truth to us, and that is atma-vichara. Then how do we reconcile the statement supposedly made by Sri Ramakrishna that all paths lead to the same truth? Well, there is only one truth, and all paths have to lead to this same truth, but these other paths could be a very roundabout way of reaching the same truth. Vichara is the most direct path to reach and experience ourself as we really are, and according to Bhagavan there is no God other our true self.
In Bhagavan's teachings the final death blow to our ego can come only by vichara. All other paths can lead us to the point where we will be compelled to investigate, who is doing niskamya bhakti; who is following the path of tantra; who is doing niskamya karma; who wants to know God as he really is etc. Or looked from another angle all paths other than atma-vichara will purify our minds to a lesser or greater extent. Eventually such a purified mind will be convinced that only vigilant self-investigation can destroy our ego and give us moksa.
The logic of Bhagavan's teaching is very simple. As long as we attend to anything other than ourself, our ego cannot be annihilated, and until our ego is intact we are in bondage. All spiritual disciplines other than atma-vichara are karmas, which entail our attention to be directed on things other than ourself. Thus such practices cannot destroy our ego. We in our essential nature are non-dual, actionless, being, therefore how can any action enable us to know ourself as we really are? All actions will only take us away from ourself, or away from the absolute truth. Regards.
On the topic of Sri Ramakrishna and the path he took to experience God (himself), Michael had written to me in an e-mail dated 22nd October 2013:
How could any sage know self [God] from direct experience unless they had attended to it? To suggest that anyone could experience themselves as they really are without attending to themselves would like saying that one can read what is written in a book without looking at it.
Simple logic demands that to experience anything one must attend to it, so when Bhagavan teaches us that we can experience self only by attending to it, there can be no doubt that what he says confirms with simple logic.
Other sages such as Sri Ramakrishna may have practised other sadhanas such as dualistic devotion, but whatever they practised purified their mind and thereby enabled them to recognise that God cannot be anya (other that oneself), so the correct way to know him is to know oneself by attending to oneself, and that therefore the correct path to liberation is only self-attentiveness. This is what Bhagavan implies in verses 3 and 8 of Upadesa Undiyar.
Bhagavan used to say that by whatever road one enters the city of liberation, at the gate one has to pay the toll-fee, which is one's ego, and since ego is a wrong knowledge of oneself, it can be given up or surrendered only by correct knowledge of oneself. And as I explained at the beginning of this mail, it is logically impossible for us to know ourself as we really are if we do not attend to ourself alone.
Therefore atma-jnana is not possible by any method other than conscious self-attention.
Regards.
I have found my way here because I wanted to better understand Bhagavan's teaching not someone elses. I appreciate there are other teachings and recommendations but Michael's blog is about Bhagavan's teachings and few understand his teachings better than Michael as he has devoted himself to it.
I therefore trust Michael's explanation of the teaching and I feel finding my way here was meant to be.
Sometimes you just have to trust and let go.
From what I understand Bhagavan never put down other practises and only when asked what should we do did he recommend self investigation.
It is my understanding therefore that Bhagavan's recommendation is to practise self investigation and if you can't do that other practise can be very good to purify the mind so it is more open to practise self investigation. As Michael's blog is specifically about Bhagavan's teaching and not spiritual practise as a whole or a generalised blog on spiritual practise I will follow his advice and Bhagavan's teaching by investigating myself as this temporary knowing counciousness because that is what Bhagavan is telling me to do through his original writings and through Michael's writings.
But all is good from my perspective and all comments are so very helpful.
Thank you everyone for posting.
In appreciation as always.
Bob
I must also express I know that all teachings are created by me and in essence are the same and that there is only one teacher which is my myself appearing in my egoic self creatd world guiding me home.
For me that guide has taken the form of Bhagavan an Indian sage filled with love who presently due to my dualistic ignorance appears separate from me. This is not the truth however and that is why I am here. To wake up or rather dissolve ... because myself as I really am is all there is and all there has ever been ... the infinite, non dual being counciouness that knows only itself.
Bob
Sanjay,
My comment was to highlight your repeated putting down discussion on any other practice (other than Vichara) and going out of your way to bring a one liner from Sri Ramakrishna (out of 1000 page volume), taking his statement out of context, and utilize it to put down other practices.
Please read the full thread to see what I mean. Let me summarize. Popocatepetl said that he was a beginner and was finding Vichara hard. I wrote back that he has two choices. He can continue Vichara by asking who is it that finds it hard. Alternatively, he can practice surrender to Ishvara/Guru/Arunachala. I told him this is another primary method that Bhagavan recommended for people who find Vichara hard. I asked him to make his own choice.
But you cannot let the above stand, come in and say “are Vichara are Surrender two distinct paths”. I explain how while the end result is the same, the process is different. In Vichara, the focus is on ‘I’. In Surrender the focus is on Ishvara. You cannot let that stand and go on to say the Surrender will only cut off branches, which goes against both Bhagavan’s teachings and the rich Bhakthi traditions.
Knowing it is futile to continue discussion, I do not engage further. Then you bring a one liner from none other than Sri Ramakrishna (who is so famous for his devotion to Kali) and use that to further berate other practices. When you, as a Sadhaka, who is still under the influence of Maya, conclusively declare that other practices will not result in liberation, you are effectively berating those practices.
Upon scrutiny, you concede that other practices can take a person to the toll gate (using your analogy). All I am saying is that there are many beginners who read and follow Bhagavan’s teachings. Why don’t you let them follow what they see fit, until they reach the tollgate. Let it be that it is an indirect method. If Ishvara from their heart wants them to take that indirect method, then, that is what is best suited for them. Why do you want to play the role of Ishvara?
Please Live (follow whatever you want to follow) and Let Live (allow others to follow whatever they want to follow, without having to hear constant beration).
Mouna,
respectful salutation to you.
You are right, calling the comments made on that previous day as "jabbering" was a little bit brusque with the authors. To get sometimes heated about the opinion of other jivas does not mean at any rate a breach of the rules of a respectful and politely exchange of views.
Sivanarul,
when you write 'If Ishvara from their heart wants them to take that indirect method, then, that ...'
It may meet our requirements that Ishvara wants anything.
To have certain ideas is perhaps our need.
To rely upon that the world is designed to match our expectations
or conform to our specifications that is too dodgy for my liking.
Sivanarul, you have written, 'Upon scrutiny, you concede that other practices can take a person to the toll gate (using your analogy)'.
I would like to correct you, it was not my analogy but I was just quoting what Michael had written to me in one of his e-mails, and since we respect his words, it has immense value for us.
You also write, 'When you, as a Sadhaka, who is still under the influence of Maya, conclusively declare that other practices will not result in liberation, you are effectively berating those practices'.
Yes, I fully concede that I am under the influence of maya, but was Bhagavan Ramana also under the influence of maya? Bhagavan had repeatedly said that eventually only atma-vichara can liberate us, or can enable us to attain nirvana or whatever else we may choose to call our final destination. Therefore we are fully justified in claiming that only our practice of self-investigation can enable us know ourself or God as he really is. Moreover we are justified in making such a claim on this blog, because Michael has been tirelessly reiterating this in various ways.
Nobody is asking you believe it, but we are justified in sharing Bhagavan's teachings with others, as we have understood it. It is upon the judgement of our other friends to believe what Bhagavan says, or follow any other sadhana which they wish. Regards.
Sri Ramakrishna had supposedly said that all paths lead to the same goal. Bhagavan Ramana also says the same, but Bhagavan has given us more clarity as to how all paths lead to the same goal. In this regards it will be appropriate to quote Michael. He wrote to me in a recent e-mail of his:
It can said that all path do lead to the same goal, but how they lead to that goal is by preparing the ground for atma-vichara, as Bhagavan explains in the first half of Upadesa Undiyar and elsewhere. Until we eventually practise atma-vichara, we cannot experience ourself as we really are, and therefore we cannot know God as he really is and cannot attain moksa, nirvana or whatever else we may choose to call our final destination.
Was Bhagavan berating or criticising paths other than atma-vichara in his works such as Upadesa Undiyar and elsewhere? I do not think so. He was just putting all the modes of sadhanas in their proper places based on their efficacy. He clearly understood that our self-investigation has be the final step before liberation. Stating this fact in not berating other sadhanas, but just pointing out their limitations.
To put in simple words, all sadhanas are good but atma-vichara is best amongst all the sadhanas, because it will take us to our final destination (God) in the quickest possible time. We are just trying to share this fact of which we are fully convinced, because our sadguru Bhagavan Ramana has repeatedly stated this. His words are gospel truth for us.
Regards.
Sanjay,
to be under the influence of Maya is not a terrible shame. Even our sadguru Sri Ramana did evade himself that veiling power only in the month of July 1896.
Regarding your idea that we should reach our final destination in the quickest possible time you may consider that we cannot all run as quick as the Jamaican holder of the sprint world record Usain Bolt.
Sanjay,
Sanjay, my friend, I don’t seem to be getting through. I don’t know whether it is because I am not able to communicate it properly or it is because you are willfully neglecting it. I‘ll assume it is because I am not able to communicate it properly and hence will try a few more attempts.
My point was that you are not able to let anything other than Vichara stand. You were going out of your way and quoting a one liner (out of 1000 page volume) from none other than Sri Ramakrishna (who is famous as a Kali Devotee) and taking that out of context, to put down Bhakthi and Surrender. What did Sri Ramakrishna have to do with the current discussion? Why did you feel the need to take a one-liner from him? Did you read the before and after pages of the one-liner? Here are a few lines that you probably will not like:
MASTER: " In the Kaliyuga it is difficult to have the feeling, 'I am not the body, I am not the mind, I am not the twenty-four cosmic principles; I am beyond pleasure and pain, I am above disease and grief, old age and death.' However you may reason and argue, the feeling that the body is identical with the soul will somehow crop up from an unexpected quarter. You may cut a peepal-tree to the ground and think it is dead to its very root, but the next morning you will find a new sprout shooting up from the dead stump. One cannot get rid of this identification with the body; therefore the path of bhakti is best for the people of the Kaliyuga. It is an easy path.”
To take that one-liner, out of context, from a great devotee like Sri Ramakrishna who is very clear that he supports all paths, does gross injustice to Sri Ramakrishna and all devotees who follow the path of Surrender and Bhakthi. Why do you feel the need to do it? How is that sharing Bhagavan’s teaching with others?
What does sharing Bhagavan’s teaching with others mean? Bhagavan’s first teaching, as he demonstrated by his action, is to let each jiva chart its own course in its return to reality. He never asked anyone to practice Vichara or any other practice, unless asked. If someone asked him, he recommended Vichara. But if they found it difficult he recommended Surrender. If they founded that too difficult, he asked them what they were comfortable with. Some said repeating “Rama”. He asked them to go on repeating Rama and said that it will come all right in the end.
Now compare that with how this thread began. Popocatepetl said that he was a beginner and was finding Vichara hard. I wrote back that he has two choices. He can continue Vichara by asking who is it that finds it hard. Alternatively, he can practice surrender to Ishvara/Guru/Arunachala. I told him this is another primary method that Bhagavan recommended for people who find Vichara hard. I asked him to make his own choice.
So what I told Popocatepetl, is the exact order that Bhagavan went about telling people when they asked him. I am really the one who was sharing Bhagavan’s teaching in this thread. You were sharing your need for confirmation bias, that Vichara is the only way.
Now let’s turn to your statement that you were simply trying to state what Bhagavan has written in his works. Bhagavan wrote those advanced works for the sake of advanced Sadkahas, who are fully ready to take Vichara as their “SOLE” sadhana and dive in deeply. He never asked anyone to follow it (other than very advanced devotees like Muruganar and few others). It was meant for the advanced sadhakas to learn it, assimilate it and meditate upon it. In those works, because it was meant for sadhakas who are advanced, he told them other practices would be a waste of time for THEM (not for everyone else). Bhagavan, whose very nature was compassion, never would have intended that his works would be used to berate other practices.
Now let’s turn to your intention that you want to help Bhagavan’s devotees attain liberation the fastest way. I am giving you the benefit of doubt, and I will assume that your intention is noble and altruistic, but just misplaced. Let’s see whether Bhagavan himself shared your noble intention. With Annamalai Swami, one of his closest devotees, he did not share your noble intention of delivering devotees liberation the fastest way. Instead, he made him work like a dog in hot sun for 10 long years (for Annamalai swami’s benefit), on building projects to first train his mind and prepare him for Vichara. Then one fine morning, he told him he is ready. Then Annamalai swami goes off to Palakotthu and practices regular meditation for several years. Then finally he plunges into Vichara. So Bhagavan, in spite of writing all those things in his written works, when it came to action, like a good doctor, did not really on the medical books but treated the patient according to the patient’s body condition and state.
Now let’s turn to your statement that Michael said all these things and you are just repeating it. Well, Michael does not come at every non-vichara statement I make and tries to put it down. He lets those stand, as teachings of Bhagavan, meant for people who are not fully ready to take Vichara as their “SOLE” practice. We are talking about your inability to let things stand. Michael has nothing to do with it.
Let me close this with an example, which I hope makes it clear what you are doing. Let’s say you are a brilliant student who got triple promotions, and at age 15 finished your medical degree. Your friends are average students who are going through at regular pace and are studying their 10’th grade. Let’s say whenever you meet them you say, “Hey guys, why are you wasting your time. Let me help you. Here is the way by which you can attain medical degree much faster”. Your friends hear you the first time. They give it a try, but realize that it is not for them. Their intelligence (Vasanas) limits their ability. Hence they say, “Thanks, but no thanks. It does not work for us”. So far so good. But every time if you meet them, you keep on repeating that, what does that tell about you?
We all accept that you are that brilliant student, who at age 15 has found Vichara and completed your medical degree. All I am saying is leave us poor souls to study at our own pace, without constantly berating our pace. Look around the world. You will see people with all levels of capabilities in physical, mental, intellectual, material and spiritual means. Diversity is nature’s design.
I think regardless of whether we practise Self Investigation, Japa or any other spiritual practise Bhagavan mnetioned regardless of how effectivly he rated it we should be so thankful and rejoyce that Bhagavan has appeared in our dream to help us wake up and experience ourselves as we realy are, what a blessing it is !.
We have no idea how near we are but we are all headed towards the same destination .. we must keep going with hope in our hearts, vigour in our step and support each other until no more is needed and Bhagavan's grace carries us home.
In appreciation to all.
Bob
Sivanarul, you have written, 'To take that one-liner, out of context, from a great devotee like Sri Ramakrishna who is very clear that he supports all paths, does gross injustice to Sri Ramakrishna and all devotees who follow the path of Surrender and Bhakthi. Why do you feel the need to do it? How is that sharing Bhagavan’s teaching with others?'
I would only respond to this portion of yours. Many of the devotees of Bhagavan Ramana, which include myself also, have the greatest love and regard for Sri Ramakrishna. We take Sri Ramakrishna to be Sri Ramana in another name and form. Their ways of expression may have been different, but a lot of what Sri Ramakrishna said was clearly advaitic in nature, likewise a lot of what Sri Ramana said seemed to be supporting the dualistic mode of worship also.
Why did I quote Sri Ramakrishna by writing, 'One ultimately discovers God by trying to know who this 'I' is?' I had read this statement of Sri Ramakrishna in The Mountain Path. It had appeared as a filler in one of its old issues, and had noted it down somewhere. In the context of our discussion I thought it would be a relevant input to our discussion. Jesus Christ had also said something to the effect that the kingdom of heaven is within, and that we should look for it and find it there.
We sometimes quote other sages to show that they also agree with Bhagavan's core teaching that God can only be discovered by discovering the truth behind this illusory ego which we take to be ourself. This is very much sharing Bhagavan's teaching with others because it shows that other sages have also confirmed and endorsed Bhagavan's core teaching of atma-vichara. Other sages may not have spoken as clearly, or as emphatically as Bhagavan Ramana about the need to investigate only ourself in order to experience ourself as we really are, but they have given us sufficient hints here and there to support Bhagavan's teachings. Like Adi Shankara had said that atma-vichara is necessary to discover the truth of atmam (God), and all karmas (which includes dualistic bhakti) are only for chitta-suddhi (purification of our mind).
Neither does Bhagavan Ramana belong only to me, nor does Sri Ramakrishna belong only to you. They are sages who belong to the entire humanity, thus we are justified to quote them wherever and whenever we feel fit. I just wanted to state this point. Rest all is old story, which I do not feel like responding to.
Regards.
Village idiot, yes, we cannot run as quick as the Jamacian world record holder, Usain Bolt, but most of us can certainly try walking towards our goal or final destination. Let us take small steps to attend to ourself alone, because only atma-svarupa is our true goal and final destination. This is what Bhagavan expects us to do. Regards.
Sanjay,
It is now clear that you are willfully neglecting what I am trying to say. So this will be my last post to you on this topic or any other topic. I wish you the very best in your Sadhana. Good luck.
The point was not about quoting Sri Ramakrishna but quoting him “OUT OF CONTEXT”. Clearly you took a devotee’s one liner out of context and used it as a confirmation bias for your “Vichara only” advocacy.
You do it again in your latest post:
“Like Adi Shankara had said that atma-vichara is necessary to discover the truth of atmam (God), and all karmas (which includes dualistic bhakti) are only for chitta-suddhi (purification of our mind).”
You equate dualistic bhakthi with karmas. I absolutely am flabbergasted. I realize I have been wasting my time and it would have been well spent doing something else.
Who said Bhagavan belongs to you only and Sri Ramakrishna belongs to me only. Where did I say that? Why are you unnecessarily bringing things that were never in the discussion.
I will let you have the last word, if you so choose. I again wish you the very best in your Sadhana and Good luck.
Bob-P,
you are right. We should feel great joy over feeling Bhagavan's incessant help.
His unchanging and uncomparable encouragement is even felt when we were thinking and acting unworthy, unsuitably, carelessly or disproportionately.
The real Bhagavan's grace does and did not stop to keep the fire of knowledge burning in our hearts.
ARUNA ACHALA Siva ARUNACHALAaaaaaaaaaaaa
Could you hear my shout of joy, the sounds of my silent rejoicing ? In accordance with our sense of duty we should not neglect to show our gratitude to Him.
Popocatepetl the tiger has found us and we are in its jaws we must stop struggling. And let me tell you no one struggles more than me (lol)!!! I am a true expert I am ashamed to say.
But the camel's nose is in our tent. How long it takes before we find ourselves pushed out I do not know But its nose is in and it is most welcome.
I heard Michael mention the tiger and camel analogy I don't remember where? But I can't take credit for it, I like it very much.
Bhagavan is always with us Popocatepetl and has undying love for us is unconditional we must return his love by keeping him close in mind and always in our hearts by following his advice as best we can. He is ourself projected helping us .... I am filled with gratitude..
Warmest regards.
Bob
Bob,
can you tell us the analogy (story) of the tiger and the camel ?
Dear Pergamon
They are two separate metaphors as far as I know describing a very similar thing. I heard them used somewhere by Michael in the past and I hope he corrects me if I have got it wrong in any way but my understanding is basically:
The Tiger
Bhagavan / his teaching / the truth is the tiger so to speak meaning that we / us / I as the ego / mind / knowing consciousness has found / been caught by the teaching / Bhagavan /tiger and it now has us in its jaws / grasp .. there is no escape it is just a matter of time before we are dissolved / eaten because the tiger is so strong and powerful. But we struggle in the tiger's jaws and delay the inevitable but there is no hope of escape it is just a matter of time ... The perfect situation is we surrender to the tiger and don't struggle but welcome being eaten ... we give ourselves / sacrifice our selves to the tiger / Bhagavan.
I hope I have this basically right. Anyone please correct me if this is wrong.
The Camel
Very similar to the above the camel is Bhagavan / Teaching we accept / find him / the teaching and let him / it into our life (the tent) so to speak ... once it is in (the camels nose) it is only matter of time before the nose and the head is in our tent ... then half the camel until eventually the whole camel is in our tent and we are pushed out completely ... The ego is being slowly dissolved and all that remains is Bhagavan / our self as we really are (The camel)
The fact we have found Bhagavan and his teaching resonates with us is such a positive sign / a blessing !! We should rejoice !!! There is no going back we have been caught by the tiger and are now in its jaws / we have invited the camel in our tent ... We will be eaten / pushed out ... How long it takes is down to how much we struggle / fight the inevitable ... we must surrender completely and sacrifice ourselves to our self so to speak.
In reality there is nothing to sacrifice as the ego / mind / knowing consciousness has only existed in its own view all there has ever been is our self as we really are sat-chit-ananda / Bhagavan.
I hope this has helped clarify it in some way Pergamon but as you can see I do tend waffle (lol)!!! I find writing about this extremely hard which is down to my spiritual immaturity and lack of ripeness. But I am so happy because Bhagavan and his teaching has caught me and in time I will be consumed in bliss !!
Warmest regards.
Bob
Thank you Bob,
for writing the two marvellous metaphorical picture stories.
Regarding tiger:
Although I had never the experience of a stay between the lower and upper jaw of a tigers mouth I do easily imagine how comfortable and relaxing it may be. The very thought of an escape attempt out of that precarious and surely insecure situation seems to be amply in vain. If the tiger is very hungry it will have his lunch immediately. Even when the tiger would fall now into a daydream that its belly is eaten completely full it might be difficult to escape.
Regarding camel:
Although I had never put my tent near a (hungry)camel because I have seen a camel only in the zoo I guess that the good olfactory sense of a camel will smell easily all eatables you would have in your tent and first only the olfactory organ will come closer to your tent and then in your tent and so on ...
Both allegories symbolize with funny images our fortunate position having Ramana's teaching and Michael's explanations. Therefore rejoice all you lucky pathfinders. And keep on with perseverance in trying to be accurately self-attentive.
Thanks Bob-P, for giving the delightful metaphors.
Thanks Pergamon,
Your reply to Bob-P was also written in my sense, there is nothing to add.
Dear Pergamon & Popocatepetl I think the camel metaphor / analogy was origianlly from Sadhu Om but I could be wrong ? ... The tiger I think was from one of Michael's you tube videos.
I don't think I explained them very well to be honest.
Glad they were of use in some way but like I said they are not mine and I can't take credit for them I just rememeber hearing them.
You have a wonderful way with words Pergamon (lol)!!
Warmest regards to you both.
Bob
Off topic but need some advice....
looking to purchase Periya Puranam in book form and wondered which is the best to buy.
I find different translators/authors and want to make the best decision on which to purchase.
I appreciate any suggestions/feedback.
Best regards to one and all
Gargoyle,
I have read and own only a Tamil copy of Periya Puranam, so I am not sure what to recommend for an English version. I did peruse amazon.com and there is an English version published by Ramakrishna Mission. Based on the fact it is published by Ramakrishna Mission, I would highly recommend it. I have included the link for it. I have also included a link where you can find more information on the 63 Nayanmars, whose stories are depicted in Periya Puranam.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/8178231484?keywords=Periya%20Puranam&qid=1445182007&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
http://www.shaivam.org/periintr.html
Periya Puranam is very close to my heart and I will try my best to answer any questions you might have on that. If you read the story of Kannappa Nayanar, you will realize what Bhakthi is and what Bhakthi can do.
There is also a version listed in Ramanashram site:
http://bookstore.sriramanamaharshi.org/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=6281
From Ramanashram store:
The Periya Puranam is a classical Tamil scripture that describes the lives of 63 Saivite saints. Down through the centuries it has had immense influence over the devotional tradition of Saivism in South India.
Towards the end of 1895, Venkataraman, later known as Sri Ramana Maharshi, found at home a copy of the Periya Puranam. He picked it up and, being the first religious book he had ever read, was tranported to a hitherto unknown sphere of existence. Waves of admiration, awe, reverence, sympathy and emulation swept over his soul in succession.
It was not long after this that the boy Venkataraman, fully absorbed in the effulgence of the Self, made his way to Arunachala. Throughout the next fifty-four years of his life, the Sage of Arunachala, never tired of recalling the stories of these saints and reciting their inspired poetry with deep emotion. pp. 358
Bob-P,
you often use the abbreviation "lol" set in brackets.
Because I am not well acquainted with modern short-spelling please "translate" its meaning.
Gargoyle,
I got an English translation at my first visit in India and Tiruvannamalai
15 years ago in Sri Ramanasramam book-shop.
Its title is: Saint SEKKIZHAR'S PERIYA PURAANAM(THIRUTTHONDAR PURAANAM)
Translation into English by R.Rangachari
First Edition 1992
Reprint 1997
Published by Sri V.S.Ramanan, President, Board of Trustees
Foreword
"The Peria Puranam is the song of the lives of 63 Saivite saints of ancient Tamils sung by a poet saint himself. The importance of Peria Puranam in the glorious advent of our Master, Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi cannot be over emphasized, for is He not Himself the Lord and the Bhakta ? In the source biography of Bhagavan, Self-Realization, we read: "Towards the end of 1895(perhaps a few months after hearing about Arunachalam from a relation) he found at home a copy of the Peria Puranam which his uncle had borrowed. This was the first religious book that he went through apart from his class lessons and it interested him greatly... .
[...]
Then again after the death experience in 1896, there was a big change.
"In the first place I lost what little interest I had in my outward relationship with frieds, kinsmen or studies...."
...Now I would almost go every evening to the temple(of Meenakshi in Madurai).
I would go alone and stand before Shiva or Meenakshi or Nataraja or the 63 saints for long periods. I would feel the waves of emotion overcoming me.The former hold on the boy had been given up and my spirit therefore longed to have a fresh hold... .This was God's , Isvara's play with the individual spirit.I would stand before Isvara, the Controller of the Universe and the destinies of all, the Omniscient and Omnipotent, and occasionally pray for the descent of his grace upon me so that my devotion will increase and become perpetual like that of the 63 saints..."
[...]
We are sure that the devotees would welcome this publication by the Ashram. We pray that Sri Bhagavan may make us fit to receive His Grace so that our devotion too "may increase and become perpetual like that of the 63 Nayanmar Saints."
1.8.1996 Tiruvannamalai V.S. Ramanan, President, Sri Ramanasramam
Pergamon it means smile or laugh (ie) laugh out loud (lol)
To express something in a friendly jovial way.
Hope that helps.
Warmest regards
Bob
Okay Bob-P, let us laugh out loud about our ignorance and try to chase it away !
Why should we hold devotedly to the pillars of unawareness ?
Sivanarul, Cotopaxi
thank you for the suggestions and the input.
I had no idea where or who to ask except readers of Michael's blog and since I'm here every day reading current comments, articles and past articles, and many times re-reading articles over and over it seemed the only place I have to get my question answered.
I feel badly using Michael's blog to ask such a silly question but I really have no where else to turn or who to ask.
Best Regards to one and all
Gargoyle, please do not feel that your question was silly, or that this is not the place to ask such questions. I do not have time to answer all the questions that are asked here, but I hope everyone feels free to ask any questions they like here about Bhagavan, his teachings or any related subject. As we all know, the Periya Puranam was very dear to his heart, so asking about it here is very appropriate.
Crazydoggydog, since you repeated the question you asked in your comment here in another comment on a later article, Why is it necessary to be attentively self-aware, rather than just not aware of anything else?, I have answered it there in a series of two comments.
Dear Michael,
Thanks for the explanation about ahamukham... and sorry for my lack of patience !
Bye !
Pergamon, to further clarify what Bob wrote in reply to your question about the analogies of the prey caught in the jaws of a tiger and of the camel and the tent, the first of these was given by Bhagavan in the twelfth paragraph of Nāṉ Yār? (Who am I?):
“God and guru are in truth not different. Just as what has been caught in the jaws of a tiger will not return, so those who have been caught in the glance of guru’s grace will surely be saved by him and will never instead be forsaken; nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly along the path that guru has shown.”
The analogy of the camel and the tent was given by Sadhu Om, and what it illustrates fits very nicely with what Bhagavan says in the final clause above, namely ‘it is necessary to walk unfailingly along the path that guru has shown’. That is, Sadhu Om often told this story to illustrate what happens if we start to practise self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) at least a little each day. For example, as I recorded in the next instalment of ‘The Paramount Importance of Self-Attention’, which will appear in the January 2016 issue of The Mountain Path, he once said something to the following effect:
“Begin by mentally saying ‘I’, and then try to cling to the self-awareness evoked by this word. You may be able to cling to it for only a few seconds at a time, but even that is beneficial. When you notice that your attention has become extroverted, you should try again, and should continue trying repeatedly until you find your interest in doing so is slackening, and then you should take a rest for a while.
“The important thing is to begin trying, even if only for a few minutes a day. The efficacy of trying at least a little but persistently can be illustrated by the story of the camel and the tent. In Arabia a man was sleeping in his tent, and his camel was sleeping outside, but it was very cold. At first the camel put its nose in the tent, and the man allowed it, thinking ‘Yes, poor creature, it is cold outside’. Then slowly the camel pushed its whole head inside, and still the man allowed it. Gradually it edged more of its body inside, until eventually it occupied the whole tent and the man found himself lying outside. Likewise, if we attempt to be self-attentive for at least a few moments here and there during each day, that will gradually push out our interest in everything else and thereby lead us eventually to our goal.”
(Incidentally, contrary to what you seem to have assumed, the camel in this story was not hungry but just cold, so it was only for warmth that it wanted to enter the tent.)
Yes, we would love if the camel (Bhagavan) can occupy the whole tent (our body), but we (this ego) are very stubborn and reluctant to be pushed out by this camel (Bhagavan). Therefore we just have to persevere in our attempts to yield to Bhagavan, so that he can occupy the whole of ourself.
Michael says, the camel in this story was not hungry but was just feeling cold, but in one sense this camel is hungry also. He (Bhagavan) is hungry and wants to consume our ego here and now, but we seem to be resisting this by clinging to our little egos. Regards.
Thank you Michael for explaining this in a much easier way to understand. They are great little stories to help keep us on track.
In appreciation
Bob
Michael,
thank you for your nice illustration and interpretaion
of the punch line of the camel-story:
The camel- be it of hunger or with cold - stands symbolically for the intensity and perseverance of our efforts to practise self-investigation and thereby to be self-attentive. The man stands for our ego or our interest in everything else.
The symbol of the tent stands for the whole (room/sphere/volume) experience of our real consciousness as we really are.
To what extent we (as the ego)may find ourself out of the tent of experience depends to the full extent upon the quality of our trying to remove the illusion that we are a finite person.
A few of our friends participating in this blog feel that all paths lead the our final goal, God or atma-svarupa, or whatever else we may choose to call our final destination and resting place. However many of us are also convinced that only our practice of atma-vichara will eventually enable us to reach our goal of absolute egolessness. Bhagavan brings to our notice certain statements of his which reinforces our belief that only this practice of remaining attentively self-aware can eventually liberate us. For example, I recently read v. 1185 of Guru Vachaka Kovai, in which Bhagavan says:
Since the Silence of Self, which shines through the pure mind [the pure existence-consciousness which is devoid of all thoughts], alone turns out to be the gateway to Liberation, even though they proceed along any path which is agreeable [to them], that gate alone is the final refuge.
Therefore the toll-gate fee is the destruction of one's ego, and this ego can only be destroyed by our practising to remain in silence. Again Bhagavan says in Upadesa Manjari, (chap. 2, question 4, The Collected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi, pp. 55-56:
Maya [delusion or ignorance] which cannot be destroyed by any other act is completely destroyed by this intense activity which is called 'silence' [mauna].
Regards.
Dear Sanjay, Pranams
You said: "...and this ego can only be destroyed by our practising to remain in silence."
I couldn't agree more... but there are times, for all of us, that is very difficult to keep that simple directive from our Teacher, don't you agree?
Yours in Bhagavan,
Mouna (pun not intended)
Yes, Mouna, I agree. Understanding theoretically Bhagavan's teachings is not very difficult, but we need a lot of perseverance and determination, and above all immense love to practise attentive self-awareness (silence). Regards.
Post a Comment