The non-existence of the ego, body and world in manōlaya is only temporary, whereas in manōnāśa it is permanent
In a comment on one of my recent articles, There is absolutely no difference between sleep and pure self-awareness (ātma-jñāna), a friend called Roger asked me why, if there is no difference between sleep and self-awareness, Gaudapada says in Māṇḍukya Kārikā 3.44 that (in Roger’s words) ‘when during meditation the mind becomes inactive in oblivion (susupti / sleep) the mind should be awakened again, just the same as if the mind is distracted’. From this verse and Sankara’s commentary on it Roger inferred that ‘It seems you teach that sleep is the highest state, your whole teaching is oriented toward this, but Shankara explicitly warns against it’. Therefore this article is written in reply to this and a subsequent comment by Roger.
Roger, firstly I should point out that I do not have any ‘teaching’ of my own, and what I am doing in this blog is simply sharing my translations and understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings with anyone who is interested in them, and I usually back up my explanations with reference to his original Tamil writings and other reliable sources.
What Gaudapada says in Māṇḍukya Kārikā 3.44 is that if the mind subsides in laya (temporary dissolution or abeyance) one should awaken it, and if it is dissipated (by thoughts or awareness of multiplicity) one should bring it back to a state of quietude, but if it has achieved a state of equilibrium (steadily poised between being dissipated and subsiding in laya) one should not let it move (either towards dissipation or towards laya). If we attend to anything other than ourself, we are allowing our mind to be dissipated, whereas if we are keenly self-attentive, we are preventing our mind not only from being dissipated but also from subsiding into any kind of laya, so the practice that Gaudapada describes in this verse is by implication the same practice of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) taught by Bhagavan, as he confirms in the next verse, 3.45, in which he says that if the mind comes out from the state of motionlessness, it should again make effort to become one (with oneself, ātman).
In this context laya obviously means manōlaya (temporary dissolution of mind), and any state of manōlaya, whether it be brought about by tiredness, shock, anaesthesia, death, any kind of spiritual practice or any other means, is in effect just a state of sleep (suṣupti), as Sankara implies in his commentary on this verse (if the translation of it by Nikhilananda is accurate in this respect), so even if it is called by fancy names such as nirvikalpa samādhi, no state of manōlaya is spiritually any more beneficial than sleep, as Bhagavan used to illustrate by telling the story of a yōgi on the banks of the Ganga who once remained in nirvikalpa samādhi for three hundred years yet came out of it without any spiritual improvement.
Since the ego or mind exists only in waking and dream, it can be destroyed only in either of these two states, so remaining in sleep or any other state of manōlaya cannot help us in our effort to destroy the mind. However, this does not mean that there is anything intrinsically wrong with being asleep in any kind of manōlaya, or that there is any defect in such a state other than the fact that we will sooner or later come out of it. All it means is that if we are intent on destroying the mind by self-investigation we should not remain in manōlaya any longer than is necessary for the mind to recuperate its energy so that we can once again resume our persistent effort to be keenly and steadily self-attentive.
2. By teaching us that there is no difference between sleep and pure self-awareness Bhagavan gave us a valuable clue and prompted us to change our perspective
When Bhagavan taught us that there is absolutely no difference between sleep and pure self-awareness (ātma-jñāna), he was obviously speaking from the perspective of pure self-awareness, and he did not intend to deny that from the perspective of the ego or mind in waking and dream sleep seems to be something other than the eternal and ever-unbroken state of pure self-awareness. The reason why he taught us that there is absolutely no difference between sleep and pure self-awareness was firstly to give us an important clue regarding the nature of pure self-awareness, namely that it is devoid of even the slightest awareness of anything else, as we experience every day in sleep, and secondly because his aim is to get us to change our perspective, which we can effectively do only by investigating ourself and thereby eradicating the ego or mind.
The clue that he thus gave us is extremely valuable because it helps us to understand that anything that we were not aware of in sleep is not what we actually are, which is just pure self-awareness, so whatever else may appear in our awareness, we should try to turn our attention back to fix it firmly on ourself, the fundamental self-awareness that underlies and supports the appearance of everything else. If we persevere in trying in this way to be as keenly self-attentive as possible, our present perspective, which is the perspective of the ego or mind, will dissolve, and the perspective that will then remain is that of pure self-awareness, in the clear view of which there is absolutely no difference between itself and what we experience every day in sleep.
3. Upadēśa Undiyār verse 13: from the perspective of the ego in waking or dream the distinction between manōlaya and manōnāśa is in effect real
As we know from our experience in sleep every day, in the state of pure self-awareness there are absolutely no differences or distinctions of any kind whatsoever. However, from the perspective of the ego or mind in waking or dream differences and distinctions do seem to exist, so they are in effect real so long as we seem to be this ego or mind. From the perspective of the ego one important distinction is the difference between manōlaya (temporary dissolution of the mind) and manōnāśa (permanent destruction of the mind), as pointed out by Bhagavan in verse 13 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
This obviously does not mean that we should try to avoid sleeping altogether, because our mind needs to periodically subside back into its source in order to recuperate its energy, which is dissipated by its activity in waking and dream. However, it does mean that we need to avoid nirvikalpa samādhi or any other kind of manōlaya brought about by any kind of spiritual practice, because our aim should be to destroy the mind, and we can destroy it only when it seems to exist, which is not in laya but only in waking and dream.
The nature of the ego or mind is to attend to things other than itself, and it can survive only so long as it does so, because if it tries to attend to itself keenly enough, it will subside and disappear forever, since it seems to exist only so long as it is attending to other things. That is, just as an illusory snake will cease to exist as soon as one looks at it carefully enough to see that it is actually just a rope, the ego that we now seem to be will cease to exist as soon as we look at ourself carefully enough to see what we actually are, which is just pure self-awareness, forever uncontaminated by any awareness of anything else.
4. The permanent non-existence of any ego, body or world in manōnāśa, and not their temporary non-existence in manōlaya, is the only worthwhile aim
In your second comment you talk about the state of ‘no ego, no body, no world’, which you equate with sleep and nirvikalpa samādhi, which are both states of manōlaya, but you overlook the fact that manōnāśa is also a state of ‘no ego, no body, no world’. In manōlaya the non-existence of the ego, body and world is only temporary, because they all reappear as soon as we rise as this ego in waking or dream, whereas in manōnāśa they not only do not reappear but never appeared in the first place, because manōnāśa occurs only when we investigate this ego and find that it has never actually existed at all.
Therefore manōlaya of any kind is at best only a temporary solution to our problems, so it is not a worthwhile aim, whereas manōnāśa is the permanent solution to all problems, including their root, the ego, so it is the only truly worthwhile aim. However, the choice is ours: sages such as Gaudapada, Sankara and Bhagavan will never compel us to seek manōnāśa, but they have explained very clearly why it is the only worthwhile aim, so if we are wise we will follow their advice and try persistently to investigate ourself by being keenly self-attentive until we lose ourself (this ego) forever in the absolute clarity of pure self-awareness, which is what we always actually are.
5. Even though the ego or mind seems to exist, it does not actually exist, so we can destroy it only by looking at it carefully enough to see what it actually is
If the ego or mind actually existed, there might perhaps be various ways to kill it, but since it does not actually exist but merely seems to exist, the only way to destroy it is self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), which entails it looking at itself very carefully in order to see what it actually is. Since the only thing that actually exists is ātma-svarūpa (the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself), as Bhagavan says in the first sentence of the seventh paragraph of Nāṉ Yār?, what seems to be the ego or mind is only ātma-svarūpa, so when we (as this ego) look carefully at ourself to see what we actually are, we will see that we are just ātma-svarūpa, which is pure self-awareness, and hence we will never again mistake ourself to be the ego or mind.
Therefore, just as the only way to ‘kill’ an illusory snake is to look at it carefully enough to see that it is just a rope, the only way to destroy the ego or mind is to look at it carefully enough to see that it is just pure self-awareness. Therefore if we understand the teachings of Gaudapada, Sankara and Bhagavan clearly enough and are thereby firmly convinced that manōnāśa is the only worthwhile goal, we will naturally be drawn to the path of self-investigation and will not be interested in pursuing any other spiritual practices, because all spiritual practices other than self-investigation entail attending to something other than ourself, which necessarily perpetuates the delusion that we are this ego, the false awareness that is aware of other things.
Other practices may have other benefits, so they may be suitable for those who seek other benefits, but all other benefits can only be for the ego, whose reality Bhagavan has taught us to doubt and therefore investigate. In your view this may seem ‘rather inflexible and narrow’, as you say in your second comment, but is it possible for us to destroy ourself, this ego, unless our focus on being self-attentive is extremely narrow (one-pointed) and inflexible (steadfast and persistent)?
- Apart from whatever sleep we require, we should avoid remaining in manōlaya, because we cannot destroy our mind except in waking or dream
- By teaching us that there is no difference between sleep and pure self-awareness Bhagavan gave us a valuable clue and prompted us to change our perspective
- Upadēśa Undiyār verse 13: from the perspective of the ego in waking or dream the distinction between manōlaya and manōnāśa is in effect real
- The permanent non-existence of any ego, body or world in manōnāśa, and not their temporary non-existence in manōlaya, is the only worthwhile aim
- Even though the ego or mind seems to exist, it does not actually exist, so we can destroy it only by looking at it carefully enough to see what it actually is
Roger, firstly I should point out that I do not have any ‘teaching’ of my own, and what I am doing in this blog is simply sharing my translations and understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings with anyone who is interested in them, and I usually back up my explanations with reference to his original Tamil writings and other reliable sources.
What Gaudapada says in Māṇḍukya Kārikā 3.44 is that if the mind subsides in laya (temporary dissolution or abeyance) one should awaken it, and if it is dissipated (by thoughts or awareness of multiplicity) one should bring it back to a state of quietude, but if it has achieved a state of equilibrium (steadily poised between being dissipated and subsiding in laya) one should not let it move (either towards dissipation or towards laya). If we attend to anything other than ourself, we are allowing our mind to be dissipated, whereas if we are keenly self-attentive, we are preventing our mind not only from being dissipated but also from subsiding into any kind of laya, so the practice that Gaudapada describes in this verse is by implication the same practice of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) taught by Bhagavan, as he confirms in the next verse, 3.45, in which he says that if the mind comes out from the state of motionlessness, it should again make effort to become one (with oneself, ātman).
In this context laya obviously means manōlaya (temporary dissolution of mind), and any state of manōlaya, whether it be brought about by tiredness, shock, anaesthesia, death, any kind of spiritual practice or any other means, is in effect just a state of sleep (suṣupti), as Sankara implies in his commentary on this verse (if the translation of it by Nikhilananda is accurate in this respect), so even if it is called by fancy names such as nirvikalpa samādhi, no state of manōlaya is spiritually any more beneficial than sleep, as Bhagavan used to illustrate by telling the story of a yōgi on the banks of the Ganga who once remained in nirvikalpa samādhi for three hundred years yet came out of it without any spiritual improvement.
Since the ego or mind exists only in waking and dream, it can be destroyed only in either of these two states, so remaining in sleep or any other state of manōlaya cannot help us in our effort to destroy the mind. However, this does not mean that there is anything intrinsically wrong with being asleep in any kind of manōlaya, or that there is any defect in such a state other than the fact that we will sooner or later come out of it. All it means is that if we are intent on destroying the mind by self-investigation we should not remain in manōlaya any longer than is necessary for the mind to recuperate its energy so that we can once again resume our persistent effort to be keenly and steadily self-attentive.
2. By teaching us that there is no difference between sleep and pure self-awareness Bhagavan gave us a valuable clue and prompted us to change our perspective
When Bhagavan taught us that there is absolutely no difference between sleep and pure self-awareness (ātma-jñāna), he was obviously speaking from the perspective of pure self-awareness, and he did not intend to deny that from the perspective of the ego or mind in waking and dream sleep seems to be something other than the eternal and ever-unbroken state of pure self-awareness. The reason why he taught us that there is absolutely no difference between sleep and pure self-awareness was firstly to give us an important clue regarding the nature of pure self-awareness, namely that it is devoid of even the slightest awareness of anything else, as we experience every day in sleep, and secondly because his aim is to get us to change our perspective, which we can effectively do only by investigating ourself and thereby eradicating the ego or mind.
The clue that he thus gave us is extremely valuable because it helps us to understand that anything that we were not aware of in sleep is not what we actually are, which is just pure self-awareness, so whatever else may appear in our awareness, we should try to turn our attention back to fix it firmly on ourself, the fundamental self-awareness that underlies and supports the appearance of everything else. If we persevere in trying in this way to be as keenly self-attentive as possible, our present perspective, which is the perspective of the ego or mind, will dissolve, and the perspective that will then remain is that of pure self-awareness, in the clear view of which there is absolutely no difference between itself and what we experience every day in sleep.
3. Upadēśa Undiyār verse 13: from the perspective of the ego in waking or dream the distinction between manōlaya and manōnāśa is in effect real
As we know from our experience in sleep every day, in the state of pure self-awareness there are absolutely no differences or distinctions of any kind whatsoever. However, from the perspective of the ego or mind in waking or dream differences and distinctions do seem to exist, so they are in effect real so long as we seem to be this ego or mind. From the perspective of the ego one important distinction is the difference between manōlaya (temporary dissolution of the mind) and manōnāśa (permanent destruction of the mind), as pointed out by Bhagavan in verse 13 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
இலயமு நாச மிரண்டா மொடுக்கFrom the perspective of the ego or mind in waking or dream we seem to have risen from sleep, so from this perspective sleep is just a state of manōlaya, and so long as we remain in manōlaya we cannot achieve manōnāśa. This is why Gaudapada, Sankara and Bhagavan all taught us that if the mind subsides into laya as a result of any kind of spiritual practice we should awaken it and try to fix it firmly in self-attentiveness. That is, as Gaudapada implied in Māṇḍukya Kārikā 3.44 (which you referred to in your first comment), we need to remain so steadily balanced in the state of keen self-attentiveness that we avoid both being distracted by any thoughts (any awareness of anything other than ourself) and subsiding into laya.
மிலயித் துளதெழு முந்தீபற
வெழாதுரு மாய்ந்ததே லுந்தீபற.
ilayamu nāśa miraṇḍā moḍukka
milayit tuḷadeṙu mundīpaṟa
veṙāduru māyndadē lundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: இலயமும் நாசம் இரண்டு ஆம் ஒடுக்கம். இலயித்து உளது எழும். எழாது உரு மாய்ந்ததேல்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ilayam-um nāśam iraṇḍu ām oḍukkam. ilayittu uḷadu eṙum. eṙādu uru māyndadēl.
அன்வயம்: ஒடுக்கம் இலயமும் நாசம் இரண்டு ஆம். இலயித்து உளது எழும். உரு மாய்ந்ததேல் எழாது.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): oḍukkam ilayam-um nāśam iraṇḍu ām. ilayittu uḷadu eṙum. uru māyndadēl eṙādu.
English translation: Subsidence [of mind] is [of] two [kinds]: laya and nāśa. What is lying down [or dissolved in laya] will rise. If [its] form dies [in nāśa], it will not rise.
This obviously does not mean that we should try to avoid sleeping altogether, because our mind needs to periodically subside back into its source in order to recuperate its energy, which is dissipated by its activity in waking and dream. However, it does mean that we need to avoid nirvikalpa samādhi or any other kind of manōlaya brought about by any kind of spiritual practice, because our aim should be to destroy the mind, and we can destroy it only when it seems to exist, which is not in laya but only in waking and dream.
The nature of the ego or mind is to attend to things other than itself, and it can survive only so long as it does so, because if it tries to attend to itself keenly enough, it will subside and disappear forever, since it seems to exist only so long as it is attending to other things. That is, just as an illusory snake will cease to exist as soon as one looks at it carefully enough to see that it is actually just a rope, the ego that we now seem to be will cease to exist as soon as we look at ourself carefully enough to see what we actually are, which is just pure self-awareness, forever uncontaminated by any awareness of anything else.
4. The permanent non-existence of any ego, body or world in manōnāśa, and not their temporary non-existence in manōlaya, is the only worthwhile aim
In your second comment you talk about the state of ‘no ego, no body, no world’, which you equate with sleep and nirvikalpa samādhi, which are both states of manōlaya, but you overlook the fact that manōnāśa is also a state of ‘no ego, no body, no world’. In manōlaya the non-existence of the ego, body and world is only temporary, because they all reappear as soon as we rise as this ego in waking or dream, whereas in manōnāśa they not only do not reappear but never appeared in the first place, because manōnāśa occurs only when we investigate this ego and find that it has never actually existed at all.
Therefore manōlaya of any kind is at best only a temporary solution to our problems, so it is not a worthwhile aim, whereas manōnāśa is the permanent solution to all problems, including their root, the ego, so it is the only truly worthwhile aim. However, the choice is ours: sages such as Gaudapada, Sankara and Bhagavan will never compel us to seek manōnāśa, but they have explained very clearly why it is the only worthwhile aim, so if we are wise we will follow their advice and try persistently to investigate ourself by being keenly self-attentive until we lose ourself (this ego) forever in the absolute clarity of pure self-awareness, which is what we always actually are.
5. Even though the ego or mind seems to exist, it does not actually exist, so we can destroy it only by looking at it carefully enough to see what it actually is
If the ego or mind actually existed, there might perhaps be various ways to kill it, but since it does not actually exist but merely seems to exist, the only way to destroy it is self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), which entails it looking at itself very carefully in order to see what it actually is. Since the only thing that actually exists is ātma-svarūpa (the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself), as Bhagavan says in the first sentence of the seventh paragraph of Nāṉ Yār?, what seems to be the ego or mind is only ātma-svarūpa, so when we (as this ego) look carefully at ourself to see what we actually are, we will see that we are just ātma-svarūpa, which is pure self-awareness, and hence we will never again mistake ourself to be the ego or mind.
Therefore, just as the only way to ‘kill’ an illusory snake is to look at it carefully enough to see that it is just a rope, the only way to destroy the ego or mind is to look at it carefully enough to see that it is just pure self-awareness. Therefore if we understand the teachings of Gaudapada, Sankara and Bhagavan clearly enough and are thereby firmly convinced that manōnāśa is the only worthwhile goal, we will naturally be drawn to the path of self-investigation and will not be interested in pursuing any other spiritual practices, because all spiritual practices other than self-investigation entail attending to something other than ourself, which necessarily perpetuates the delusion that we are this ego, the false awareness that is aware of other things.
Other practices may have other benefits, so they may be suitable for those who seek other benefits, but all other benefits can only be for the ego, whose reality Bhagavan has taught us to doubt and therefore investigate. In your view this may seem ‘rather inflexible and narrow’, as you say in your second comment, but is it possible for us to destroy ourself, this ego, unless our focus on being self-attentive is extremely narrow (one-pointed) and inflexible (steadfast and persistent)?
Posts
134 comments:
This means Lakshmana Sarma was wrong when he stated his opinion on this very subject in Maha Yoga ( http://bit.ly/2tpxBcB) p. 130
"It seems likely that the Natural State may come after repeated experience of the other state for some months or years; the mind might get worn away little by little in this way, just as a doll of sugar immersed again and again in a sea of sugarcane- juice might get worn away until nothing is left of it."
... on second thought it's clearly wrong. Even in Nirvikalpa Samadhi there is no time since it belongs to the mind-made illusion, so it cannot come after some "months or years"... well, it's kind of painful to see so many close devotees getting some things wrong... I believe this discussion is important, it can help our mind avoid other practices thinking it may lead to the same goal...
Hi. I completely understand all this. Regarding what Lakshamana Sarma said, isnt it similar to what Sadhu OM said in Path of Sri Ramana part one,page 156-162 [7th edition]?
There are different degrees of mano laya, because both Sri Ramana and Sri Sadhu Om say that after reaching Nirvikalpa Samadhi the mind should be led to the Heart in order to attain Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi (manonasa).
In deep sleep you cant do that.
Plus what about what Sri Sadhu Om says in pag 159 path of sri ramana,
"Why has it been said that one ought to make effort to repeatedly be in that state (sat-chit) and ought to abide in it with more love? Because until all the tendencies which drive one out of it are completely exhausted this state will seem to come and go."
Isnt he saying to abide in our real state, satchit, until we dont come out of it anymore?
Isnt this saying, attain Nirvikalpa Samadhi (manolaya) over and over again until you dont come out of it anymore (Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi, manonasa)?
Thanks
... I don't know
Hope Michael can clarify about temporary and permanent state. Is it possible to have mind abide in Self temporarily until it gets permanant?
It is the ego that wants namely to sleep and not to die.
Salazar,
I have high respect for Lakshmana Sarma, loved Maha Yoga and I know he was tutored by Bhagavan. But on the same page he gives the example with the yogi who was thirsty and then proceeds implies that repeated experience of laya can result in Sahaja Samadhi. A contradiction, I believe.
If that were true it would mean we can certainly reach the goal by other paths in which we can experience the temporary Samadhi (Kevala Nirvikalpa Samadhi). We do this as often as we can and we wear out the mind and we attain the permanent one (Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi). So, if this is true it means I can reach the goal by, say, certain Hatha Yoga exercises, since their breathing exercises applied correctly can result in a temporary Samadhi.
So this path (atma vichara) is just one of many which may yeild the same result... But, for example, Bhagavan says:
‘To make the mind subside [permanently], there are no adequate means other than vicāra [investigation, that is, self-investigation: the practice of vigilant self-scrutiny or self-attentiveness]. If restrained by other means, the mind will remain as if subsided, [but] will emerge again’.
As long as viṣaya-vāsanās [propensities or desires to experience things other than oneself] exist in [our] mind, so long the investigation who am I is necessary’.
So, can we destroy our vasanas by a temporary Samadhi or not?! Because that would mean there are other options available...
Bhagavan says we can't
Hi Michael,
You say "called by fancy names such as nirvikalpa samadhi..."
It sounds as if you have a bias against other languages? :-)
How can you call the sanskrit "nirvikalpa samadhi" "fancy" and at the same time write loads of Tamil script and Tamil words converted to English !? Ha!
That's the "pot calling the kettle black".
Unfortunately, relatively consistent terminology for samadhi does not exist in English... thus the need for Sanskrit.
Bhagavan's description works for me and makes it consistent:
Talk 17:
D.: Does Maharshi enter the nirvikalpa samadhi?
M.: If the eyes are closed, it is nirvikalpa; if open, it is (though differentiated, still in absolute repose) savikalpa. The ever-present state is the natural state sahaja.
He makes further clarification: there is temporary (kevala) nirvikalpa and temporary savikalpa. The practice of either of these leads to sahaja or permanent samadhi (per Bhagavan by Godman).
Michael, your initial statement was: "The non-existence of the ego, body and world... in manonasa is permanent".
This is not logical and absolutely not possible... without some other fancy language.
If the body and world permanently do not exist in manonasa then: Bhagavan was not established in manonasa because he very definitely continued to have a body and interact in the world.
The explanation that I hear occasionally is that Bhagavan did not really exist except in the egos of those observing him. Now that is "fancy"!
If the world and body permanently cease to exist in manonasa.... then we would not know about it because no body could ever experience manonasa and then speak about it! We would know NOTHING about it.
If Bhagavan was only a projection of our ego(s)... then certainly our ego(s) could not manufacture any teaching about manonasa: the ego could not create such a teaching because it is by definition beyond the ego.
Michael, What is the official explanation for this issue?
thanks,
Roger
Roger it seems you have a problem with Michael and his understanding of Bhagavan's teaching. Which is fine of course, each to their own.
It appears you just want to have an argument in some way or another or are holding a grudge against Michael for some reason?
How is this helping you?
Just a suggestion but why not spend more time on your own practise and more time working on your own understanding than waste time writing all these long elaborate frequent argumentative posts which must take up a lot of your time?
Why spend all this time and post all these on a blog which seems to deeply upset you for some reason or another? Why get so upset Roger?
Maybe focusing your time on what works for you and less time on what doesn't work and what you don't agree with will be more helpful?
Just a thought.
Anyway back to practise.
John C
Hi John C,
You misunderstand.
Perhaps we could consider the situation as "faith" versus "reason".
In many religious "faith" based systems (I'm thinking of older Christianity) faith and belief were emphasized and reason and questioning were actually not allowed at all. I recall the Pope writing an official paper in the last decades which said that "reason" WAS important and some church official chimed in and said "yes reason is important... but it should not challenge the basic tenants". Ha!
Questioning is just my style. Did Bhagavan prevent questioning? Seems like he instigated questioning.
Michael introduced the phrase 'FANCY sanskrit' language "nirvikalpa"':
So I mirrored it back to him. I think it's really funny: If you call the sanskrit word "nirvikalpa" "fancy".... what about all the tamil!?! HA!
I mean no disrespect by using "FANCY" in the way I did, I am simply mirroring back to Michael what he introduced.
This blog is based around the statement "The non-existence of the ego, body and world ... in manonasa is permanent".
Now... if you just want to be fed statements to believe without critical examination that is fine, belief without critical examination is one possible style. But do you insist that the other side of critical examination be prevented?
I say that, at least in my understanding, the statement above does not apparently make sense. Can you resolve the apparent difficulties with it? Are you threatened by questions?
I consider this to be a respectful investigation of different ideas and perspectives. I believe that no single perspective could every explain any issue, there are always multiple perspective. Why do you think this is an "argument"? I think it is an "investigation".
I can see a possible way that Michael's statements make sense... but this way is not apparently what is acceptable by Michael.
I AM working on my understanding. Do this disturb you? Why?
Why do you think I am "upset"? Do you feel that people are "upset" when they ask questions?
You suggest that I spend "more time on my practice": do you know anything at all about my practice? Do you really want to put yourself in a position of telling me how I should practice?
The question is this: "The non-existence of the ego, body and world ... in manonasa is permanent"
does not appear to make sense. If you can shed light on this apparent issue then please do so.
Does it concern you that what you are told to believe does not appear to make logical sense or reasonable sense?
If you don't want to consider the logic of it... then fine.
BTW: just a thought:
You are apparently making assumptions and presumptions about my practice and are apparently telling me what I should do.
You have not asked any questions about my practice, you know nothing about me...
Your presumptions about my "practice" appear to border on being arrogant and presumptuous and disrespectful. Is that your intent?
Is it your habit to interrupt discussions (in the world in general) and suggest to people that they should retire and do their spiritual practice?
Dear Roger,
I would like to share my understanding.
Just as a dream is no more when it ends, together with the whole dream world populated by various dream objects and only the Subject remains, in the same way this "real" world will be no more when the Ego finds its way to the Source.
The Ego starts looking for the way back to the source because it has a very powerful though distorted self awareness, a magnet, sooner or later it will overpower all the desires for the dream objects. Frankly its already on the way back, judging by the heated discussion on this forum :)
Self awareness is like a ticking bomb for a dreaming ego but without it the ego could not even exist. The work of this self awareness we call "Grace". To show us the way back to the Source, the Grace shows us in this dream world many dream objects that are asking us to look within. The reason is very simple, the Ego needs objects and is aware of nothing but the objects, therefore there is no other way to show us the way back to the Heart but to show us some dream objects.
The following extract is taken from the article: Recollections Part Two by Vilacheri Ranga Iyer. This article has appeared in the Mountain Path July-Sep 2017 edition. Ranga was a childhood friend and classmate of Bhagavan:
Once Bhagavan related the following to me: ‘A man once did great tapas to attain jnana. God Siva appeared before him and asked him what boon he wanted. He replied, ‘Let me always have poverty and troubles’. Siva replied, ‘What is this. There are all sorts of good things in the world which you might ask for. You might ask for becoming a millionaire or an emperor. Instead you ask for this’. The bhakta replied, ‘If I am a millionaire my eyes will not see nor my ears hear (the things that really matter). I would be caught up entirely in the affairs of the world and will be involved interminably in a succession of births and deaths. That is why I want poverty and troubles, which alone will enable me to think of you always and lead me to jnana’.
[…] If one is rich, one will only yield to its attractions and it will be very difficult for him to turn to jnana’.
My note: Even Draupati asked for a similar boon from Krishna – that is, even she prayed that she should have more and more trouble, because only this would enable her to always remember Krishna. Most of us do not have the eyes to see nor the ears to hear (the things that really matter), but this is more true for rich and famous people. They want more and more wealth and more and more fame, and thus have very little time to see and hear the things that really matter. How many us are attracted to Bhagavan’s direct path of atma-vichara? Very-very few, because we are so enamored by unnecessary worldly pursuits.
If we sincerely follow and practise Bhagavan’s teachings, such a pursuit will make us more and more unfit to run after wealth. But this is good, because only such vairagya can enable us to put all our attention on the pursuit of atma-jnana.
Dr Sarada (President of RMCL, Bangalore) has written and sung about Arunachala, and the song goes somewhat like this: ‘You have made me a worthless wastrel, destroying in me all sense of making a living in this world. What will be my fate if you now leave and abandon me . . .’
Yes, as far as our live in this world is concerned, we become like a ‘worthless wastrel’ after we truly come into the ambit of Bhagavan’s love (grace). However, this is a blessing, because only through such a condition can we expect to turn to something worthwhile. Like Kabir used to sing in Hindi: Laga such fakiri mein . . .. Meaning 'he has now started enjoying his state of poverty'.
The following extract is taken from the article: Seekers and ‘Seekers’ by S. S. Cohen. This article has appeared in the Mountain Path July-Sep 2017 edition:
After the Mahabharata war, Arjuna requested Sri Krishna to repeat the message to Bhagavat Gita to him, and this is what Sri Krishna again advised Arjuna:
He who wishes to apply himself to final Emancipation should give up all action, restrain his senses, and abstain from earning and parading his asceticism. He should not live by any occupation or perform any action which involves expectation of profit… He should resort to concealed piety and adopt the mode of life necessary for experience (of the Brahman). Though undeluded he should act in the manner of the deluded so that others may have no respect for him… (Anugita xxxi, 45/51)
My note: Sri Krishna advises: ‘Though undeluded he should act in the manner of the deluded so that others may have no respect for him’. However, we see exactly the opposite of this. We see many deluded ones acting as if they are undeluded, and thus they fool others and also fool themselves. We see any number of gurus in the spiritual market, but do they seem like real gurus? I don’t think so. As Sri Krishna warms, these so called gurus parade their asceticism, and many seem to making a big business empire out of their act of guruhood.
Roger,
You misunderstand and maybe overreacting. It seems you want to embark on another intellectual tussle.
No thank you.
John.
Michael I don't understand why another type of samadhi (kevala nirvikalpa samadhi) can eventually lead to the permanent one (Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi) like Sarma seems to suggest... (I tought about this since this discussion carefully...) You say that it is no spiritual benefit just like sleep is of no spiritual benefit, but we would merge consciously and with full awareness in that samadhi. We would eventually come out due to the strength of vasanas but doing it repeateadly may lead to total erosion of the illusory mind (and the samadhi will become permanent, world, body etc... will cease to exist as shape and forms).
Why it would not work?! I am a bit confused now...
Thank you,
Dragos
PS: My practice has always been to turn my attention away from any thought or phenomena (no matter how subtle) to what is aware/perceives them, the "I", "I-thought" or Ego as Bhagavan calls it...
"If the body and world permanently do not exist in manonasa then: Bhagavan was not established in manonasa because he very definitely continued to have a body and interact in the world."
Perhaps, the following posts by Sri David Godman might help in better consolidation of
understanding of Bhagavan's teaching on reality of the world?; and thus in reconciling with what or how Sri Michael James explains all along?
http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.in/2008/05/is-world-real.html
http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.in/2010/04/sri-ramana-paravidyopanishad.html
Hi John,
My question is simple as I have stated several times:
Michael says: "The non-existence of the ego, body and world... in manonasa is permanent".
This is not logical and absolutely not possible at least as is stated.
If the body and world permanently do not exist in manonasa then: Bhagavan was not established in manonasa because he very definitely continued to have a body and interact in the world. If you say "Bhagavan did not actually exist, he only existed as a projection of our egos".... then how could my ego have produced the extraordinary insight which Bhagavan presented? And how is it that my ego just happened to project exactly the same Bhagavan that your ego projected?
When you say my question is an "intellectual tussle"... this attempts to divert attention from the question and back on to me personally and it suggests that I am interested in conflict: it's a "put down" of me personally.
When you say that I should go and do my spiritual practice.... this is an attempt to divert attention away from the question back on to me personally.
This is similar to the standard neo-advaita debate maneuver: in order to divert attention away from a question or topic, the questioner is told to go and ask "Who am I?"
John, I have no personal position against you and I look forward to any comments that you might make now or in the future. I am just try to be direct and honest about the situation. And I invite you to do the same.
I insist that my question has value. Even Krishna allowed Arjuna to question him. I resist attempts to divert attention away from the question. Yes, I accept the possibility that the question may just be wrong... but in that case tell me specifically why.
Roger you said, "This is similar to the standard neo-advaita debate maneuver: in order to divert attention away from a question or topic, the questioner is told to go and ask "Who am I?".....
That is not standard "neo-advaita debate" but the core of Bhagavan's teaching. As I said before, your mind is on overdrive and needs a rest [desperately]. It is my impression that you are stuck in a big blind spot.
To ask "Who am I" is not to divert attention away from a question or topic, that is a confused conclusion of mind, but to point back to that what only matters.....
You say "I insist my question has value"..... "Who is insisting?" LOL
What will change if your question has been answered in a satisfying way according to your mind? NOTHING - except in your minds imagination. And I don't say that to put you down, neither did John by the way.
Your insistence on debate is detrimental to Bhagavan's teachings and from having read your comments the last year or so I see that your mind has memorized many spiritual concepts, the problem is that nothing went to the heart and you are stuck on the always misleading mind level.
Too bad that you cannot see that. And no disrespect, but a discussion with you is a waste of time, your mind is stuck in some weird mental loop oblivious to all comments which point out the fallacy of your approach.
Roger,
What Bhagavan is saying is something along these lines: your true nature is experienced daily in sleep. We think this is a gap in our awareness, because in sleep the mind is not at work producing thoughts. In sleep we experience manolaya "The non-existence of the ego, body and world" but we rise again from sleep (like in dreams and in this waking state which according to Bhagavan is just another dream) and consequently we experience a dream-world.
So, according to Him, the mind projects dreams and then goes back to its source. Of course if this is true it means that:
Only your mind exists. So "If the body and world permanently do not exist in manonasa then: Bhagavan was not established in manonasa because he very definitely continued to have a body and interact in the world." <-- this seems to have happened in your view. For Bhagavan there is no such thing as world, time, space, people (all that comprises a dream world). A Bhagavan appearing in your dream and imparting this knowledge is no different than a book you are reading now about Him or an actual visit to his Ashram. This is all dream stuff, yet a valuable one. So "then how could my ego have produced the extraordinary insight which Bhagavan presented?". Well it has produced it and let's be grateful about it. Doesn't the mind produce extraordinary things in dreams?! (According to Bhagavan, the mind includes everything you see, just like in a dream, not what we thing when we refer to the term mind)
Always have the dream comparison in mind not to get confused
Were the people in a dream separate mind-individuals or where they a projection of your mind? So "And how is it that my ego just happened to project exactly the same Bhagavan that your ego projected?"<--- everything is just your projection
Bhagavan also says that if we turn our attention away from any thought towards what is aware of it (ourselves, the "I" or "I-thought" as He calls it) we will deprive such thoughts of their power, which is the attention they get from us. He says that if we do this no matter how many thoughts arise, we will subside into our source and thoughts will not rise ever again, hence " "The non-existence of the ego, body and world... in manonasa is permanent". This is not logical and absolutely not possible at least as is stated." is very much true, since we will cease experiencing any dream world...
... Roger, please try to read and think for yourself on Bhagavan's core philosophy. I am not trying to school you or anything, but no one can do this for us, no matter how well arguments are put, like on this blog. Bhagavan has a very robust and logical philosophy which necessarily imply some apparently strange (or even insane for some people - just try to tell someone about this philosophy, they may think your crazy) conclusions.
For example, if this is just another dream, it means I am the only ego that projects it all. This is hard to accept... it is against everything we've ever learnt... and so on and so forth...
If you want, here's a starting point (http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.ro/2014/07/what-should-we-believe.html) also read carefully the articles about Bhagavan's core tenets (about what we experiencing now being just another dream) and try to reason for yourself... If we get the basic of His philosophy many such questions do not arise ...
Thank your for your time,
Dragos
Hi Salazar,
You have absolutely nothing to say about my question so instead you make personal attacks.
Earlier you made a point of "scholarly". Is your behavior to divert attention from my question by making personal attacks what you consider to be "scholarly"?
Roger, what could I possibly attack?
Let it die and there won't be any notions of being attacked.
And the point of all of my comments, and not only to you, is to realize the irrelevance of making points ;-)
Kind regards.
Roger,
I am only replying out of courtesy as your reply contained questions directed to me. My reply doesn't so you can reply or not that is entirely up to you.
You say
{Michael says: "The non-existence of the ego, body and world... in manonasa is permanent".
This is not logical and absolutely not possible at least as is stated.
If the body and world permanently do not exist in manonasa then: Bhagavan was not established in manonasa because he very definitely continued to have a body and interact in the world. If you say "Bhagavan did not actually exist, he only existed as a projection of our egos".... then how could my ego have produced the extraordinary insight which Bhagavan presented? And how is it that my ego just happened to project exactly the same Bhagavan that your ego projected?}
Roger this shows you are unable or reluctant to accept what Bhagavan is teaching and refuting the foundational principals his entire teachings are based on.
This is absolutely fine of course, each to their own.
However to come to an experts blog with an apparent limited understanding of the subject matter he is an expert in and start a frequent argumentative exchange with him about things you seem to know little about is shall I say strange.
But of course you are entitled to.
Goodbye.
John.
All valid spiritual teachings can only be P-O-I-N-T-E-R-S to Self.
The worst thing what a mind can do is to get lost in these pointers. It tries to comprehend what it cannot comprehend. That's why faith is needed to accept the statement of the guru and then wait until it will be confirmed by one's own direct experience.
There is no other way.
Salazar,
yes, as long as we are self-ignorant we have to put our full trust in inspiring teachings for the time being. (As Socrates said 'The only thing I know is that I know nothing, and i am no quite sure that i know that.'
').
As you say: At best we will be able to confirm the truth of the sadguru's teaching by our own experience.
to Dragos and R Viswanathan:
Hi R Viswanathan:
Thanks, I may read those long articles that you sent links to. I know there's a lot of very interesting stuff on Godman's site. However, as you did not bring forward any concise answer to my question... I wonder if perhaps the answer is not in the links. :-)
Hi Dragos,
thanks for your warm post which is full of deep & genuine feeling. If you know samadhi (direct experience) why do you need any beliefs at all?
IMO, Samadhi is identical with Atma Vichara although pure Atma Vichara maybe a higher stage which is spontaneously revealed with time & practice. The direct experience of Samadhi ruthlessly destroys all beliefs which are just thoughts and concepts.
Roger,
I agree... You do not need any beliefs at all to do the practice prescribed by Bhagavan. Yet the practical philosophy He teaches and the consequent beliefs help our mind restrain its activities and interest in the outer world...
Hi Salazar,
Earlier you said you were struggling with Atma Vichara and didn't really get it like most other people here. And other times you are the know-it-all expert spouting advice and telling others to "shut up".
Well, which is it?
Are you lost or do you "know it all" ?
Could it be that the fact that you consider yourself to be the expert is exactly what is causing your "struggle"?
Have you considered taking your own advice: "shut up" with your "BS concepts"?
John C says:
>> Roger this shows you are unable or reluctant to accept what Bhagavan is teaching and refuting the foundational principals his entire teachings are based on.
>> However to come to an experts blog with an apparent limited understanding of the subject matter he is an expert in and start a frequent argumentative exchange with him about things you seem to know little about is shall I say strange.
But John... you haven't addressed my original question, you can't answer it.
John is advocating blind faith belief and avoidance of reason.
Look at the documents on Michael's site:
Bhagavan NEVER advocates "you must believe..."
This comes from Sadhu Om and Michael.
The promotion of blind faith is a death blow to Bhagavan's real teaching.
Dear Roger,
After seeing your replies I doubt that you are sincere when asking such a question.
You tell people that they cannot give you a logical explanation at the same time claiming that you had read most of the articles here. Let me lay out the logics in my point of view:
1) Do you see dreams? If yes go to 2, if not go to 14
2) Do you see objects (people, buildings, trees, etc) in your dreams, if yes go to 3, if not go to 14
3) Is it the same Roger that sees the dreams and also writes on this blog? if yes go to 4, if not go to 14
4) Can there be anyone in your dreams but you? If yes go to 14 if not go to 5
5) Do you dreams seem real(ie you get aroused when you see a pretty girl, or frightened when you see something dangerous) when you dream them? If yes go to 6 if not go to 14
6) Do you have a sense of doership in your dreams., ie that you do some action like talking to someone, boarding a plane etc? if yes go to 7, if not go to 14
7) do you keep track of the "waking" time when you dream, ie in your dream you know that it is 3 am in the morning in this "waking" state? if yes go to 14, if not go to 8
8) Do you have sensual awareness in you dreams, like feeling cold or pleasurable feelings from an intercourse with a dream woman? if yes go to 9 if not go to 14
9) Do you have a sense of memory in your dreams, like you knew the person you talked before or you have to finish an exam because you started a class some time ago, if yes go to 11, if not go to 14
11) do you feel alive in your dreams? if yes, go to 12, if not go to 14
12) Does your dream keep existing somewhere after your waking up? if yes go to 14, if not go to 13
13) If you have come down here, then there is no evidence that the waking state is different from the dreaming state, therefore your questioning is just a part of a dream like a pretty woman that is not worth any attention because it is unreal.
14) there is nothing to discuss
"Religious Beliefs" are included along with material possessions and social status etc... as attachments to the body. (per Michael James below)
From the introduction to Sri Ramanopadesha Noonmalai
xvi:
So long as we mistake ourself to be a body, the fear of death will always exist in us, at least in a seed form, and it will manifest whenever our body is in danger. However, due to our attachment to this body and to all the things— the relatives, friends, material possessions, social status, knowledge, religious beliefs, favourite pastimes and other sources of pleasure— that we enjoy through it, whenever the thought of death comes to us, we usually allow our mind to go outwards thinking of all such things, which are other than our essential self, and thus our attention is diverted away from the thought of death towards innumerable thoughts about our life in this body. Therefore, even when circumstances make our fear of death intense, that intensity generally lasts for only a brief period of time, because it is soon swamped by the rising of countless other thoughts
"Hi R Viswanathan:
Thanks, I may read those long articles that you sent links to. I know there's a lot of very interesting stuff on Godman's site. However, as you did not bring forward any concise answer to my question... I wonder if perhaps the answer is not in the links. :-)"
I am sorry that I did not bring forward any concise answer to your question, but instead chose to suggest links to some posts of Sri David Godman. Let me hope that these links give you some clarity to you, which you seem to seek genuinely.
Furthermore, if the posts of Sri Michael James and Sri David Godman cannot convince you, I am afraid that any answer from me can ever, since I know that my knowledge or understanding of Bhagavan's teachings came (and continue to come) mainly through these two genuine Bhagavan devotees apart from Sri Nochur Venkataraman.
If you won't mind, I might also suggest Ulladhu Narpadhu Anubhandham verses 28 to 33. I see that these verses are grouped under the title "Jeevan Muktha Prakaranam" by Sri Lakshmana Sarma in his commentary (in Tamil). I translate below only the introduction, if it can benefit you:
"Jeevanmuktha is in the liberated state of jnana and seen with a body. In previous chapters, it has been stated that the state of such a jeevankuktha cannot be envisaged or fully described. However, to help a sadhaka (aspirant) infer or understand to some extent the state of a jeevanmuktha, Bhagavan speaks of qualities of a Jeevanmuktha and also of differences between a normal person and a jeevanmuktha."
Roger you said:
{IMO, Samadhi is identical with Atma Vichara although pure Atma Vichara maybe a higher stage which is spontaneously revealed with time & practice. The direct experience of Samadhi ruthlessly destroys all beliefs which are just thoughts and concepts.]
I think you are getting confused.
Samadhi is an example of manolaya (not permanent subsidence of mind), how can you practise Atma Vichara in a state of manolaya Roger? There is no mind there. Atma Vichara can only be practised during waking and dream (ie) not manolaya. Therefore how is Samadhi and Atma Vichara identical?
What do you mean by pure Atma Vichara? I haven't heard that expression before? Have you made it up? Are you referring to what Atma Vichara accomplishes which is manonasa (permanent subsidence of mind) Which is the whole goal of Bhagavan's teaching?
Atma Vichara is a tool Roger that Bhagavan has given us that like the funeral stick used to poke the ashes will also be burnt at the end.
Sorry but what you say makes absolutely no sense at all.
R Viswanathan,
regarding "jeevankuktha" I think it is only a typo and should be read as 'jeevanmuktha'. Or is it actually a separate term ?
"R Viswanathan, regarding "jeevankuktha" I think it is only a typo and should be read as 'jeevanmuktha'. Or is it actually a separate term ?"
Sorry. Yes, It is a typo and as you guessed it should be read as 'jeevanmuktha'. I don't know whether there is a provision to edit the comment, in which case I can correct it.
section 4.,
"However, the choice is ours: sages such as Gaudapada, Sankara and Bhagavan will never compel us to seek manōnāśa, but they have explained very clearly why it is the only worthwhile aim, so if we are wise we will follow their advice and try persistently to investigate ourself by being keenly self-attentive until we lose ourself (this ego) forever in the absolute clarity of pure self-awareness, which is what we always actually are."
The good on reading even comments which are given past it especially in the last few days is getting the conviction that it is highly necessaray to lose this ego forever ...
R Viswanathan,
no matter, but till now there is no other possibility provided to correct typos in comments than writing an additional correcting comment.
Hi Advik,
thanks for questioning my apparent confusion and lack of sense.
My attitude is apparently the opposite of Michael. Michael seems to say that there is a fixed set of right beliefs. To me.,.. a fixed set of beliefs is a dead religion. I believe that the only "truth" (non-varying forever absolute) is a state of consciousness and this can never be reduced to precise words. So I believe that open questions are better than answers. I am not able to speak the truth... but neither can anyone else because "truth" is a state of consciousness forever beyond words.
BTW, I can not find exact definitions of Manolaya or Manonasa, I like yours, I am more familiar with the sanskrit terms.
"Who am I?" is a subtle inward activity isn't it? It is an wordless inward inquiry.
There is subtle activity in inquiry, a seeking by holding attention inwardly. Therefore "Who am I?" is manolaya (not permanent subsidence of mind) because it is a subtle activity. If there was manonasa (permanent subsidence) then there would be no more inquiry?
While there is a funeral stick poking at the ashes... there is not permanent subsidence?
In "Talks" and "Be as you are" Bhagavan is quoted as describing various versions of Samadhi. Therefore, it may be useful to contemplate these terms? An aside: "contemplation" is not a fixed belief, it is an inward question of sorts which may reveal wordless truth within. Certainly, whether Tamil or Sanskrit or from many different Masters... they are all attempting to describe the same truth?
There are many descriptions of Samadhi. I like Bhagavan's description where he says with eyes open... he is in permanent savikalpa, and with eyes close... he is in permanent nirvikalpa... these two are Sahaja: all the time natural samadhi.
Sahaja (permanent samadhi) must be the same as Manonasa?
But before permanent samadhi... there is the practice of temporary samadhi. It is an exercise to try and describe it: the practice of samadhi is NOT the constant rising of thoughts and emotions, rather, it is a flow of constant inner attention which is subtler than thoughts, or perhaps an absorption into constant inner attention... until it is lost and then we must make subtle effort to go back to it. By "flow" and "absorption" I am trying to describe how the attention becomes fixed and rests in the inward direction.
Many lesser states of samadhi have been described: "samadhi on an object". Regarding "samadhi on an object" an example might be "thumb yoga" where one focuses on their thumb. Bhagavan in "talks" says that there is no one way that works for all people because people have different "temperaments" and are at different stages and he recommends many different yogas: bhakti, jnana, karma... depending on temperament.
So... you start with inner attention in whatever way resonates with you... and then you go more deeply within using less and less effort. If you say the words internally "Who am I?".... this may be useful... but it is not the "pure" form of "who am I?" which is a wordless effortless continuous inward attention.
Yes, I made up "pure atma vichara": There is the advanced practice of resting in "I AM" or resting in effortless "Who am I?" For me, this seems to be a "pure or advanced" state of atma vichara. Whereas if this cannot be held yet... then less pure forms of using an "object" to focus attention on are necessary until the mind and emotions calm down.
Some will probably want to divide: well atma vichara is "who am I?"... all these other samadhi things are not atma vichara. Well... how can one look within without the implicit attempt to discover "who am I?"
At least, that is my attempt to communicate... am I making any sense at all? :-)
Roger
Thank you very much for your reply. Please excuse typos.
You say:
{"Who am I?" is a subtle inward activity isn't it? It is an wordless inward inquiry.
There is subtle activity in inquiry, a seeking by holding attention inwardly. Therefore "Who am I?" is manolaya (not permanent subsidence of mind) because it is a subtle activity. If there was manonasa (permanent subsidence) then there would be no more inquiry?}
Roger self enquiry is not manolaya? I am not sure where you get this from?. For example have you ever practised turning your attention within in deep sleep? How can you? Self enquiry is a practise performed by the ego when it has risen along with duality (waking & dream). Deep sleep and coma are examples of manolaya because the mind has subsided resulting in non duality. But not permanently and it rises again out from yourself, its source. When it does duality occurs simultaneously. Manonasa is where the mind never rises again out from yourself. According to Bhagavan it never has actually risen at all.
You say:
{While there is a funeral stick poking at the ashes... there is not permanent subsidence?}
Exactly Roger there is no subsidence of mind at all it is just being weakened by the practice of self attentiveness. If the practise of self attentiveness is intense enough it will result in manonasa which cannot be described but to try it means you go into deep blissful sleep for eternity where you are aware of nothing but yourself. This is your goal if you trust Bhagavan and what he teaches you first hand in his original writings.
You say:
[In "Talks" and "Be as you are" Bhagavan is quoted as describing various versions of Samadhi. Therefore, it may be useful to contemplate these terms? An aside: "contemplation" is not a fixed belief, it is an inward question of sorts which may reveal wordless truth within. Certainly, whether Tamil or Sanskrit or from many different Masters... they are all attempting to describe the same truth?]
Roger have you read Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu? Bhagavan has bestowed his teaching to you first hand and it is magnificent. Please study this before you read other books like you have mentioned as they may confuse because they are answers to questions from various devotes of differing spiritual maturity.
For example if you had the chance to speak to Bhagavan and ask him first hand face to face what his teaching his or what you should do would you do it? Or would you ask someone to go on your behalf to question Bhagavan and record their understanding and bring it back for you? They would taint the teaching with their own understanding of it. Could you trust their interpretation? Please think of Bhagavan's original writings written by him directly as asking Bhagavan face to face and the other books you mention as sending your friend to him.
Are the other books of no use? No but after you gave understood the teaching the other confusing books will make more sense but you don't need them at all. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu is all you need Roger to understand Bhagavan's teaching it is his gift to you.
There are many words and concepts like the various samadhi's you describe but the whole point of Bhagavan manifesting into your awareness is to help you by simplifying things right down to avoid confusion. It is a blessing is it not? He is a projection from within and you can trust him because he is yourself. You are all alone Roger there are no other sentient beings there is only one sentient being, you but you are not experiencing yourself as you really are. This why you need to look at yourself and investigate yourself (vichara).
The ego/mind has either risen or not when it has risen you don't experience yourself as you really are and vichara is needed to end the ignorance. When the dream of ignorance ends through the help of vichara which is just a tool it will result in manonasa, no more vichara, duality, world, ego, body, Roger nothing but yourself / Bhagavan, Satchitananda.
Take care.
Salazar,
the blessed simplicity seems to be a mysterious city which I could not find on the map of Tamil Nadu. How can I go there ? Is there any bus service or train service ?
Or shall I take the helicopter of atma-vicara ? Is there an heliport on the Arunachala Hill ?
(my take on the practice- the only thing that really matters after all)
Bhagavan always said "look for the "I" ", "trace the I-thought", "what is the "I" ? , "there is an "I" to whom all else happen" , "trace the "I" back to its source" and so on and so forth (something along these lines)... always an "I"...
We have to get very clear what this "I" or "I-thought" or "Ego" in Bhagavan's terminology means and we'll clear everything for us then.
(not trying to school anyone just my thoughts on the practice to arrive at a suggestion for Roger)
Sit with your eyes closed for a moment and let whatever thought, emotion, bodily sensation, feeling, mental image arise... Become aware of it (I know this is not the practice!).... Now WHAT IS AWARE OF IT ?
This is the "I" Bhagavan talks about, or the "I - thought", or the ego... This is the practice
We have to gently and keenly take our attention away from any thought, bodily sensation, feeling, mental image, void, bliss, turbulent emotions etc etc and direct it to what is aware of them. When we first start, the process is very gross... we barely remember to do this... perhaps a few times a day in the beginning. But as we progress the practice becomes extremely refined... It's a matter of perseverance only...
Why am I saying this?!
Because we do not need to have ANY kind of belief to do this! ALL the other beliefs Bhagavan suggested to take up and His powerful and robust philosophy have as purpose to restrain somehow our mind's activities and help it look inwards...
I understand Roger's annoyance, I've been there, so I don't hold any grudge against him...
The truth is only keen and persistent practice can clear what beliefs we should take and what should be given up...
(I am not trying to look "advanced", in fact I am now worse than before since I feel a bottomless pit of vasanas continuously wanting to come up and disturb me)
The only reason I wrote this is because it is truly not necessary to hold any belief to do the practice... Of course, the right beliefs (for this kind of goal) can help us a lot. But we can skip them if they give us more conflict then peace. (although I would say they, together with the Bhagavan's coherent philosophy will become more clear as we practice)
Thanks for your time, and again, I am not trying to look "advanced" or anything...
Dragos
PS: Perhaps others would like to share how they practice...
Dragos,
thinking "Now WHAT IS AWARE OF IT ? is a double-edged sword.
I would instead look by keen attention what is aware of "whatever thought, emotion, bodily sensation, feeling, mental image arise".
Salazar,
I was only joking.
Uluru, it was pretty funny and I saw a deeper meaning in it. I prefer the joke to the "deeper meaning" ;-)
Hi Salazar.
I agree you are right it is indeed a huge blessing.
Bhagavan's teachings is so very simple so logical but the mind wants more it seeks complexity. This is the beauty and power of Bhagavan's teaching it is simple.
However simple it is the mind does not like it !!! It always wants more, it wants to become addicted and entangled in complexity then it can survive, then it can flourish. It craves concepts and ideas. It feeds on thoughts. If it follows Bhagavan's instructions (vichara) turns its attention on to itself and looks closely intensley enough without distraction it is doomed and heading towards its own demise.
This why we must persevere with vichara, we must trust what Bhagavan has given to us, we are heading home. But there, there is no we.
Warmest regards to you.
Advik.
Advik,
" If it follows Bhagavan's instructions (vichara) turns its attention on to itself and looks closely intensley enough without distraction it is doomed and heading towards its own demise."
"But there, there is no we. "
If that is not merely your assumption but already your own experience, how did you handle and overcome dogged and obstinate/stubborn distractions from self-attention ?
Real Arivu
This is my understanding of Bhagavan's teaching, So I am assuming Bhagavan speaks the truth.
How can it be my own experience? The ego that has taken the person Advik to be itself has risen. All I can do is follow his advice and persist as best I can.
Best to you.
Advik,
yes, I too assume that Bhagavan did not live a lie.
As you say - let us do our best in realizing Bhagavan's teaching. Arunachala.
The following extract is taken from the video recently uploaded by Michael in his YouTube channel: 2017-07-08 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK discussion with Michael James on the power of silence:
Devotee: Is silence more eloquent than speech?
Michael: The most eloquent language, according to Bhagavan, because it is the only language that can convey what is real. Because the nature of what is real is silence.
Sanjay Lohia,
yes, it is said that the nature of what is real is silence.
But what do we as the (seeming) ego have to do with the silence of atma-svarupa ?
Atma-svarupa does not look after this ego.
Advik,
you are right in saying "Bhagavan's teachings is so very simple so logical but the mind wants more it seeks complexity. This is the beauty and power of Bhagavan's teaching it is simple."
With the exception of Bhagavan, Gaudapada, Sankara and some few talented persons to carry out that teaching is difficult. To look closely and intensely enough at this ego in order to cause the ego's demise seem to resemble a prodigious hurdle race.
Ginger Baker
Yes the mind fights it does not like vichara. But in time it will not struggle as much and eventually it will yield and surrender to the inevitable. We must persist Ginger Baker. Bhagavan is within us as "I am I" we must seek him within an merge into his eternal love. Vichara is our ticket to him, to our self. There is only one.
Best to you.
You guys are saying that your approach is "simple" or "simplicity".
The title of this blog is: "The non-existence of the ego, body and world ... in manōnāśa is permanent"
We are told that if we were in the ashram and saw Bhagavan... that Bhagavan did not really exist rather he would be a projection of our own ego.
So if Sri Muruganar wants to discussion something with Bhagavan... by your rules this can only happen in the ego of an observer. Neither Muruganar nor Bhagavan have bodies or exist in the world so certainly they can not communicate in the world except through the ego of observer. HA! Crazy!! Nuts!!
This is NOT simple!
I have no issues with Bhagavan, he is the most extraordinary brilliance (although, since he could not exist I guess it is MY/our ego which is extraordinarily brilliant?) Rather, the presentation of the teaching over the last century has become complex, illusory, dominated by "belief", and does not show an actual simple way of doing the practice. "belief" becomes necessary when the direct experience is not being taught. HOW TO HAVE THE DIRECT EXPERIENCE OF ATMA VICHARA IS NOT BEING TAUGHT.
Advik: you make a common plea:
"Roger you but you are not experiencing yourself as you really are. This why you need to look at yourself and investigate yourself (vichara)."
Sir, please tell me how the hell that you know how I am experiencing myself? You are being presumptuous and using these words to put yourself in an imagined superior position. You presume that you can judge the spiritual 'status' of others by comparing them against the dogma that you have been indoctrinated with? outrageous!
It is fine to think that you have the best spiritual practice (or dogma in this case) for yourself. But.. when you tell others that you know what is best for them, and you have never bothered asking me about my practice, this is known as religious arrogance and conceit. While the mind moves outward claiming religious superiority... it cannot look inward.
Hi Dragos, you say "I understand Roger's annoyance, I've been there, so I don't hold any grudge against him .
Thanks Dragos, I reserve my grudges for Salazar! (a joke)
Hi Salazar, Please check out Ulladu Narpadu verse 39 and various commentaries. Good advice about not taking your advaita theories into the world. :-)
"always experience non-duality (advaita) in the heart, (but) do not at any time put non-duality in action".
You guys are constantly advising me to practice atma vichara in a presumptuous manner.
The main text that I use in my practice is this:
http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.com/2008/05/bhagavans-death-experience.html
Search for the word "current" and it will be highlighted in many places.
Bhagavan says he IS the "current of energy", that the current of energy is not different than "I", the current IS "I".
So your presumptions that an intellectual "I" is the only or best way are too narrow by Bhagavan's death experience. Why do we need any other texts than the death experience? I am not totally serious about that comment, just provocative, at least the death experience should be included?
Nisargadatta Maharaj says the same: wow maybe there is something there (if it resonates with you) !
“There is in the body, a current of energy, affection and intelligence, which guides, maintains and energizes the body. Discover that current and stay with it."
real arivu, yes, in one sense atma-svarupa does not look after the ego, because it is not even aware that any such thing as ‘the ego’ exists. However, in another sense it is definitely looking after this ego, because the ego is always in the presence of atma-svarupa, and the power of its presence is taking care of this ego in all possible ways.
You question: ‘But what do we as the (seeming) ego have to do with the silence of atma-svarupa?’ The absolute silence is only atma-svarupa, and this absolute silence is also absolute and infinite happiness. So we, as this ego, have everything to do with atma-svarupa, because we are knowingly or unknowingly looking for or searching for the absolute happiness inherent in our true nature.
Our rising as this ego is the beginning of all noise, because ego itself is the first noise, and once it comes into seeming existence it immediately proliferates into endless thoughts, and these thoughts are just more and more noise (or more and more unhappiness or dissatisfaction). Since we are all looking for eternal happiness and perfect contentment, we have to give up this ego, and return to our source - the only abode of happiness.
We can do this by only by looking at ourself with one pointed attention or concentration. Once our ego is annihilated what remains is our underlying perfect happiness. This is the silence of atma-svarupa.
Roger,
You say:
"We are told that if we were in the ashram and saw Bhagavan... that Bhagavan did not really exist rather he would be a projection of our own ego."
Roger how can Bhagavan not exist he is the only thing that exists and that is aware of its own existence? He is within you as "I am I". Your outward perception of Bhagavan is limiting him within the ignorance of duality, you are seeing the one supreme reality as a body mind among otherness, among manyness. He teaches us that if you look within, if you investigate your own awareness with enough one pointed intensity and persist with earnestness you will merge with the one supreme non dual reality. This is the whole purpose of vichara. Have you read any of his own original writings? You will find them invaluable. Have you read Nan Yar?
You say:
[So if Sri Muruganar wants to discussion something with Bhagavan... by your rules this can only happen in the ego of an observer. Neither Muruganar nor Bhagavan have bodies or exist in the world so certainly they can not communicate in the world except through the ego of observer. HA! Crazy!! Nuts!!]
Roger Bhagavan's teaching is not nuts as you put it or crazy for that matter it is crystal clear clarity.
You are the only thing that is aware, you are the one dreamer. All this is happening in your dream including the persons you identify as the deceased persons Bhagavan and Muruganar. Where is Bhagavan the person / human being in deep sleep? How can the one reality be a temporary fleeting occurrence? Deep sleep is the one true state it appears as one of 3 in duality because the ego rises. If the ego doesn't rise deep sleep becomes the one undivided true and only state, it is Bhagavan in his true form it is you as you really are "I am I".
You say:
[This is NOT simple!]
It is very simple? But can be hard to accept Roger.
You say:
[I have no issues with Bhagavan, he is the most extraordinary brilliance (although, since he could not exist I guess it is MY/our ego which is extraordinarily brilliant?)]
Roger the one ego that takes Roger to be itself is a temporary formless phantom that is neither one thing or another, it is the knot and doesn't actually exist, it exists only in its own view . It is Bhagavan the one reality that is brilliant. Or I should say pure eternal undivided self aware bliss and love. The ego is the problem Roger this is what Bhagavan teaches us. Have you read Upadēśa Undiyār? The last 15 verse are priceless.
Continued below:
Carried on from above:
You say:
[Rather, the presentation of the teaching over the last century has become complex, illusory, dominated by "belief", and does not show an actual simple way of doing the practice. "belief" becomes necessary when the direct experience is not being taught. HOW TO HAVE THE DIRECT EXPERIENCE OF ATMA VICHARA IS NOT BEING TAUGHT.]
Roger there is no need to shout I can understand you.
Are you aware? Yes, is anything else in your awareness aware? Maybe, maybe not it is not certain is it not? Vichara is simply investigating your awareness, investigating yourself. Putting your attention on yourself and staying there unwaveringly. It is that simple. Bhagavan through his teaching is telling you that you are the only thing that is aware you are the one dreamer. But you are not what you seem to be.
You find out how with practise, it can't be shown Bhagavan said do you need to be shown into your own home?
You say:
[Advik: you make a common plea:
"Roger you but you are not experiencing yourself as you really are. This why you need to look at yourself and investigate yourself (vichara)."
Sir, please tell me how the hell that you know how I am experiencing myself? You are being presumptuous and using these words to put yourself in an imagined superior position. You presume that you can judge the spiritual 'status' of others by comparing them against the dogma that you have been indoctrinated with? outrageous!]
Roger please calm down, how can I see myself as superior? Why would I want to feel superior? it will only strengthen the ego, this makes no sense to me ? I am the lowest of the low I am the epitome of ignorance. I don't think you read my message or you have misunderstood it somewhat. Anything I say that you think I am telling you what you should do is directed to me equally. I am no more spiritually mature than you, When I say Roger, Bhagavan says investigate yourself I could equally say Advik, Bhagavan says investigate yourself. I am just discussing Bhagavan's teaching , How can I give advice, It is Bhagavan who gives advice not me, I am just repeating what he says?
I can read this message also it is applicable to me as much as it is to you.
Please do not take offense or take things out of context.
You say:
[It is fine to think that you have the best spiritual practice (or dogma in this case) for yourself. But.. when you tell others that you know what is best for them, and you have never bothered asking me about my practice, this is known as religious arrogance and conceit. While the mind moves outward claiming religious superiority... it cannot look inward.]
Roger I can see you are getting very annoyed with me for some reason. You are misunderstanding my words and seeing things that are not intended and becoming angry for no apparent reason?
I will leave it there.
best to you.
Advik,
thanks for your reply. But if Bhagavan is already within us as 'I am I' why should we in addition "seek him and merge into his eternal love" and put unnecessarily a lot of effort into that task ?
Sanjay Lohia,
how can the ego be "always in the presence of atma-svarupa and the power of its presence be taking care of this ego in all possible ways "?
Is it not said that nothing exists appart from atma-svarupa and that therefore the ego does not exist not at all ?
Obviously you speak only about the seeming existence of the ego.
When you say that "we have to give up this ego" who exactly has to give up or annihilate this ego because evidently atma-svarupa cannot give up a non-existing phantom ?
Will we as the wrong identification with the seeming ego give up ourself as the seeming ego only by hearing or knowing that we are not actually this ego ?
Ginger Baker
All the answers you want can be found in Bhagavan's original works and also through Michael James and his understanding of them.
I need not say anymore just point to the above.
There is nothing more to say from me how can I explain better when we have the above?
I will be quiet and return to my practise.
Thank you and best to you Ginger Baker.
Advik.
Thanks again, Advik. All the best to you and your practice of being quiet(ness).
Hi Michael and Advik,
Michael,
Advik has said something which to me is interesting.
He says "Roger how can Bhagavan not exist he is the only thing that exists and that is aware of its own existence?"
Michael, you say repeatedly things like the title of this blog: "The non-existence of the ego, body and world ... in manōnāśa is permanent".
I take this to imply that you believe Bhagavan is NOTHING but non-existence... non-existence ONLY. And I have never heard you mention once that Bhagavan is also _everything_, in other words everything that exists.
My question: is Bhagavan also everything that exists, the "only thing that exists" as Advik says? I take "everything that exists" as meaning all of creation.
Advik, specifically where are verses supporting your position in Bhagavan's work?
real arivu, our ego and atma-svarupa (pure self-consciousness) are essentially not different. Our ego is also just consciousness, but this consciousness is mixed up with various adjuncts starting with a body, which it takes to be itself. Since atma-svarupa is nothing but pure, infinite self-love, and since in its view this ego is itself, it loves this ego as itself. This self-love is the power which is taking perfect care of our ego and the person whom this ego projects and experiences as itself.
You ask: ‘who exactly has to give up or annihilate this ego’? As you say, atma-svarupa cannot give up this ego, because no such thing as ‘the ego’ exists in its absolutely non-view view. However, our atma-svarupa acts without acting: that is, it acts like a catalyst - a powerful non-acting aid – and its loving presence will sooner or later make us yield to this love. Our true self is constantly pulling us from within, but we have to willingly yield to this inner pull. This is the practice of self-investigation.
Therefore, our ego has to willingly give up itself, and nothing else can force us to give it up. Obviously we cannot give up our ego just by hearing or knowing that we are not this ego. However, such regular reminders can motivate us to practise self-investigation - that is, can motivate us find out: if I am not this ego then who am I? We need to daily practise self-investigation as much as possible or whenever it is possible. In order to progress fast we need to go deeper and deeper into ourself. This is the only way to annihilate our ego. So short-cuts will do.
This is directed to @Roger
Apologies to everyone for totally political post.
I am feeling amused by annoyance of roger for Michael not giving importance to "sanskrit language" or advaita-vedic texts & terminologies 😁
Sanskrit is indeed fancy language with mumbo-jumbo restricted to intellectual show-offs among brahmins through the century. In comparison Tamil Agamas were more accessible, through nayanmargals or tamil saivite bhakti saints.
Smarthas(kind of brahmins, Bhagwan himself is from smarta family) have hijacked Ramana and his teachings, and now Ramanasramam totally burying his tamil saivite background (remember young ramana reading periyapuranam only religious text ever excluding bible in school And of course attachment to Annamalai hill?).
I actually admire, respect, and even love Michael for going back to Tamil roots of Ramana and ignoring sankara or sanskrit or vedantic dominance.
I have only love for Ramana and for him only, without whom sankara to me was some fancy intellectual blabber.
Roger Isaacs
First of all what I am about to say shows my own immaturity as I am not following Bhagavan's advice. Plus I don't often comment I prefer to listen and read.
Also please note what I am about to say is tongue in cheek because this has to be a joke, right?
I'm sure Michael will answer you as he always does, even though you are constantly rude to him, insult him and basically "RANT & RAVE at any given opportunity. He is the definition of patience.
You post very rude obnoxious messages to Michael but now you come crawling back all quiet to ask him a question you want an answer to?
Worse still the question you ask shows you have absolutely no idea what Bhagavan is teaching. Yet you get into verbal fights, actually that's not true it takes two to fight and Michael is not fighting back he has never taken your bait. He just does what he always does patiently answers questions completely free of charge and shares his vast understanding with anyone who come to him.
Anyway you rant and rave with someone who has spent 40 years studying Bhagavan's core teachings when you don't even seem to know the very basics as your recent question to Michael shows. Is Michael omnipotent of course not he is a devotee of Bhagavan and as you have been told numerous times this is not his teaching, maybe this will at long last sink in.
Roger I don't profess to be an expert or all knowing eye about Bhagavan but at least I understand the fundamental basics (lol!) Let me get this right you have no understanding of Bhagavan's teaching (nothing wrong with that at all by the way) But you come on Michael's blog and verbally attack, argue and basically throw all your toys out of the pram at any given opportunity when you haven't even spent time studying what Bhagavan has written?. Geeez my three year old is better behaved.
Is this a joke? It must be, are you for real?
This is a game? yes you are playing a game?
This is absolutely hilarious!!
Sorry everyone for my outburst, as I say it shows my spiritual immaturity. But this is ridiculous.
Sanjay Lohia,
you say "Since atma-svarupa is nothing but pure, infinite self-love, and since in its view this ego is itself, it loves this ego as itself. This self-love is the power which is taking perfect care of our ego and the person whom this ego projects and experiences as itself."
Can or do we really know whether atma-svarupa has a "view" at all ?
We are told that atma-svarupa is aware only of itself. How then can it be aware of this actually non-existent ego ? As you say atma-svarupa is pure infinite self-love.
In atma-svarupa therefore cannot be any room for any phantom-ego which is evidently not "pure infinite self-love". Consequently (real) self-love cannot be even aware of "our ego and the person whom this ego projects and experiences as itself." So I do not think that your explanation "This self-love is the power which is taking perfect care of our ego and the person..." hits the point.
When you say "...we need to go deeper and deeper into ourself. ..." you seem to overlook that we as the seeming ego are up to our ears in ourself as infinite atma-svarupa. There is no place which could be deeper than an other. Presumably you are speaking metaphorically.
What do you mean with "So short-cuts will do." ?
Sorry guys,
But personally I'm out of this... I see no constructive discussion to help the practice...
Best to everyone,
Dragos
Okay Dragos, we are looking forward to read your future comments.
Best to you too.
Existence or Not of World after Self-realization
(from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 65)
A visitor: Is the jagat (world) perceived even after Self-Realization?
M.: From whom is this question? Is it from a Jnani or from an ajnani?
D.: From an ajnani.
M.: Realise to whom the question arises. It can be answered if it arises after knowing the doubter. Can the jagat or the body say that it is? Or does the seer say that the jagat or the body is? The seer must be there to see the objects. Find out the seer first. Why worry yourself now with what will be in the hereafter?
Sri Bhagavan continued: What does it matter if the jagat is perceived or not perceived? Have you lost anything by your perception of jagat now? Or do you gain anything where there is no such perception in your deep sleep? It is immaterial whether the world is perceived or not perceived.
The ajnani sees the Jnani active and is confounded. The jagat [world] is perceived by both; but their outlooks differ. Take the instance of the cinema. There are pictures moving on the screen. Go and hold them. What do you hold? It is only the screen. Let the pictures disappear. What remains over? The screen again. So also here. Even when the world appears, see to whom it appears. Hold the substratum
of the ‘I’. After the substratum is held what does it matter if the world appears or disappears?
The ajnani takes the world to be real; whereas the Jnani sees it only as the manifestation of the Self. It is immaterial if the Self manifests itself or ceases to do so.
D Samarender Reddy,
"The ajnani takes the world to be real; whereas the Jnani sees it only as the manifestation of the Self. It is immaterial if the Self manifests itself or ceases to do so."
Certainly it is scarcely conceivable that the self ceases to manifest itself. However, whereas the body-mind complex is obviously (part of) the manifested self in our essence we are supposedly the complete unmanifested self.
In some respects an unmanifested self would be less suitable for everyday use and everyday culture too. (Smile).
"Since the only thing that actually exists is ātma-svarūpa (the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself), as Bhagavan says in the first sentence of the seventh paragraph of Nāṉ Yār?, what seems to be the ego or mind is only ātma-svarūpa, so when we (as this ego) look carefully at ourself to see what we actually are, we will see that we are just ātma-svarūpa, which is pure self-awareness, and hence we will never again mistake ourself to be the ego or mind."
Certainly it would have been better if I had never mistaken myself to be the ego-mind but rather to be (aware of) atma-svarupa, the real nature of myself. But unfortunately I seem to have the bad prarabdha karma to be unable to end making that mentioned fatal mistake because till now I am lacking the necessary careful look at myself. But of course ! I am fond of seeing that I am actually just atma-svarupa.
Or am I just imagining/persuading myself that this is my most strong desire ? - for crying out loud !
real arivu, you had asked me, ‘What do you mean with “So short-cuts will do”? Sorry, it was a typo. What I meant was ‘No short-cuts will do’. Why no short-cuts will do, can be your question. So I would like to answer this using Michael’s words. He said in one of his videos:
We cannot succeed in this path [or any path] without perseverance. … We have to take one step at a time. If we want to reach our destination, we have to start walking towards it. … How near or far our destination is, we don’t know. Our ego could be annihilated the next moment, or it could take a hundred janmas (births), it doesn’t matter. When we set out on a course of investigation, we don’t know how far we are to our goal, but we pursuit the investigation until we find the end (whatever we want to find out), however near or far that is …
My note: So no short-cuts will do!
Existence or Not of World after Self-realization
In Mandukyopanisad that we were discussing above 1 verse earlier...
Sankara says III-43:
"...withdraw the mind from all dual objects... Realize from the teachings of the Scriptures and the Acaryas that all this is verily the changeless Brahman. Then you will not see anything to the contrary, namely, duality for it does not exist"
Therefore, it is not that the ego, world & body cease to exist, but rather the illusion of body & world as DUALITY which ceases to exist. The world and body continue to exist (when eyes are open) ... but are known as Brahman.
The instruction "withdraw the mind from all dual objects" is interesting to me because one can withdraw the mind from dual objects either with eyes open or closed.
Sanjay Lohia,
okay, now it is clear to me what you wrote. Thanks.
Roger Isaacs,
(how) can ego, world & body continue to seem to exist when the illusion of duality has gone ?
When knowing of brahman happens to whom or to which/whose eyes will body and world continue to appear ?
Hi Phenomena-knowing-ego,
>> how can ego, world & body continue to seem to exist when the illusion of duality has gone ?
The incorrect assumption seems to be that creation IS duality, that the two are exactly the same. This is not correct, it is confused, the two are different.
"Duality" is a layer of creation or a viewpoint , it is an evolutionary stage of the human where the human is identified with and attached to creation. In this illusion of duality, the human suffers, enjoys, claims volition etc... Once this illusion is dispelled... duality is gone, AND creation continues to exist while the eyes are open. Duality and Creation are different! So when Bhagavan, Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Shankara are awake and talking, eating etc... the illusion of duality has totally been dispelled for them... but creation remains... although surely their perception of creation is very refined and different than the "duality human".
The teaching "when ego dies the body and world die" is CONDITIONALLY correct too.
When Bhagavan's eyes are closed and he has withdrawn inwardly... he is the unmanifest God prior to creation. And this is so pure that it can be said that (as Ajata tells us) that in this purity nothing could ever be created at all, "It" could NEVER move at all. The world as the ego of the Lord or God is gone.
If you say "the world is created by the ego"... then that world ego is the ego of the Manifest God as all of creation, the Lord, not an individual.
But, as long as Krishna, Bhagavan et al are alive in the world, they repeatedly come out of the Unmanifest God state (eyes closed) into the state of Manifest God, the Lord associated with a body (eyes open) till the body dies.
The teaching "when ego dies the body and world die" is CONDITIONALLY correct as practice too: in very deep inward attention the ego, body and world disappear. But... when you come out of that state... the body & world appear again. Even if (as Michael says above) 300 years have elapsed.
>>When knowing of brahman happens to whom or to which/whose eyes will body and world continue to appear ?
That's a trick question. The question itself is not correct.
There is no "knowing of brahman" as this describes a subject - object duality. There is identity with brahman which is non-dual.
You say "whose eyes will body and world continue to appear":
this also describes a subject - object duality.
Instead: "I", eyes, body and world are "That".
This great saying says it:
I am That,
Thou are That,
All This is That
"All this is That" indicating that creation (the world and body) are "That" and "I" am "That" too. There is no duality, just "That".
To say that in all cases "ego dies, body and world die too" is incorrect because we are told "All This (creation and body) is That".
There is no duality and there is no non-duality.
Just a mind caught up trying to understand. It never will and can.
Salazar,
how can there be a mind in atma-svarupa ?
A mind can seemingly exist only in the deluded view of the ego.
Roger Isaacs,
I should add to my first question ">> how can ego, world & body continue to seem to exist when the illusion of duality has gone ?" the adverb "forever".
"Knowing brahman" expresses of course grammatically "a subject - object duality".
But knowing brahman is understood as the non-dual awareness of being aware of the identity of the knower with the awareness of brahman.
Besides I avoid interpreting the "great saying" 'All This is That'.
phenomena-knowing, you said to me, "how can there be a mind in atma-svarupa ?
A mind can seemingly exist only in the deluded view of the ego."
Okay, and why are you telling me that?
Salazar,
because you complained about/referred to the limited understanding of the mind by saying: "Just a mind caught up trying to understand. It never will and can."
I didn't complain, I referred to the futility of Roger's and actually also your mind to comprehend Brahman or whatever.
Like your sentence, "But knowing brahman is understood as the non-dual awareness of being aware of the identity of the knower with the awareness of brahman."
Huh? And now what, you are enlightened? LOL
That sentence is such an example of ignorance, "clever" people palavering about spiritual concepts, don't you see that this is an impediment? I guess not.
Take care.
Salazar,
oh, damn it ! did you catch me red-handed ? Huh, now I have to bashfully take flight and in my ignorance keep my safe distance to you exposer and revealer of my dreadful weakness.
Friendly I wave goodbye.
Just the response I expected.
Bye, bye :-)
Salazar,
now I have to remain in rest and recuperation.
Bye-bye for now ! :-)
Salazar says: There is no duality and there is no non-duality.
Imposing "no method" on the world is the clever ruse of an ego which feeds off imposing no-method... as if "no-method" wasn't a method. Ha!
There is no method and there is not a no-method.
Roger Isaacs and Salazar,
you both with your notable pigheadedness supply some entertainment value for us all.
Salazar,
how can there be anything at all ?
gentle tiger, I am pleased to be of service, here for your personal amusement.
Take care my friend.
wisdom, good question and I have not the faintest idea.
That's why I am hanging like a little monkey around Bhagavan's neck and let me carry around by Him.
Salazar,
how lucky you are. Bhagavan seemed to have had a soft spot for little monkeys.
I'll be a monkey's uncle !
Salazar,
to be of selfless service is in any case more benefical than a parasitic behaviour.
Sometimes I cannot suppress a big smile.
gentle tiger, Self-realization seems to be a "serious" business but it is always good to see the comical side of it.
One of my favorite quotes by Bhagavan: "There is no greater mystery than this: Being Reality ourselves, we seek to gain Reality."
And.... "We think that there is something hiding Reality and that it must be destroyed before the truth is gained. This is clearly ridiculous. A day will dawn when you will laugh at your past efforts. WHAT YOU REALIZE ON THE DAY YOU LAUGH IS ALSO HERE AND NOW."
Take care.
To Roger: What is the sound of a one-hand clapping? ;-)
>> To Roger: What is the sound of a one-hand clapping? ;-)
What is the sound of one pigheadedness... ? (ha, smirk)
As it happens, I can answer that question, at least according to tradition. I recently picked up a pretty good book in a small town bookstore in the middle of nowhere. "The Sound of The One Hand", 281 zen koans WITH ANSWERS, Yoel Hoffmann. I was particularly intrigued that there are answers. The original texts with answers used to form this book infuriated the Zen Masters who wanted to preserve their authority or mystery.
One answer that makes some sense:
There is no sound to the one hand --
come hear this soundless voice.
The reason I bought the book was that I first opened it up to a page on "Not Affected, Not Deluded" which I thought applies to this group, think of "no ego, no world, no body" as "not affected by causality":
The old man fell into the state of a fox because he had sought his "enlightenment" in detachment from the natural order ("not affected by causality"). The "not affected" viewpoint is that of the old Theravada tradition in which nirvana is regarded as a state of total liberation from (or "extinction" of) the natural process of cause and effect. Hyakujo suggests that everything is of necessity "affected" by causality. In his view, "enlightenment" does not mean freedom from the natural order, we are "deluded by causality." Zen satori consists not in the rejection of the world but in admitting it to be what it is. In the realization of this truth, the old man is delivered from his foxhood.
Ah, it's perfect "no ego, no world, no body" is "extinction of the natural process of cause and effect".
And it goes on:
Arguing on the difference between "affected" and "deluded" is futile no matter whether you side with "non-affected" or "non-deluded". The moment you are taken in by such speculations you become foxy anyway. ... This does not necessarily mean that there is no difference, only that we had better forget about the whole argument."
And you might enjoy the sentences:
"...in any buddhist temple there is at least one silly monk who would never miss the opportunity to argue Buddhist doctrine."
I don't know who they could be referring to.
"I only thought that the barbarian's beard was red, I never realized it was a red-bearded barbarian."
(emphasizing the futility of argument)
Not of course that I am liable to forget the argument.... (ha!)
Salazar,
what we learn from your first favorite quote:
Being reality ourselves has no sense or significance when we are not aware of it.
Because seeking reality does only one who is not aware of it.
Next quote : Reality may be here and now. What proves a disaster is not being aware of reality.
Take care.
gentle tiger, but you ARE aware of reality, it is your mind telling you that you are not.
Salazar,
what, this delusive mind tells me a wrong story ? To hell with it.
But why do I seem to believe such nonsense ? Because I seem not to be aware of the awareness of reality. What is that kind of awareness that provides only a vague picture of myself ? Is it not a clear symptom of madness ? Brrrrrrrrrrrr
"What is the sound of a one-hand clapping?"
Half the sound of two hands clapping.
Mouna,
an other answer would be: the double of no hand clapping.
I like that sound most, haha.
Michael says: The non-existence of the ego, body and world ... in manonasa is permanent
Bhagavan says:
talk 196
D.: What becomes of the body after realisation? Does it exist or not? We see realised beings acting like others.
M.: This question need not arise now. Let it be asked after realisation, if need be. As for the realised beings let them take care of themselves. Why do you worry about them?
In fact, after realisation the body and all else will not appear different from the Self.
Michael says: The non-existence of the ego, body and world ... in manonasa is permanent
Talk 248.
Sri Bhagavan said: The Jnani says, “I am the body”; The ajnani says, “I am the body”; what is the difference? ‘I am’ is the truth. The body is the limitation. The ajnani limits the ‘I’ to the body. ‘I’ remains independent of the body in sleep. The same ‘I’ is now in the wakeful state. Though imagined to be within the body, ‘I’ is without the body. The wrong notion is not ‘I am the body.’ ‘I’ says so. The body is insentient and cannot say so. The mistake lies in thinking that ‘I’ is what ‘I’ is not. ‘I’ is not insentient. ‘I’ cannot be the inert body. The body’s movements are confounded with ‘I’ and misery is the result. Whether the body works or not, ‘I’ remains free and happy. The ajnani’s ‘I’ is the body only. That is the whole error. The jnani’s ‘I’ includes the body and everything else. Clearly some intermediate entity arises and gives rise to the confusion.
Roger, both are correct, your mind is nit-picking and it should heed Bhagavan's advice: "This question need not arise now. Let it be asked after realization, if need be. Why do you worry about them?"
Do you listen to Bhagavan's advice? No, of course not. Instead it wants to point out apparent contradictions between Bhagavan and Michael.
Your mind craves to understand and with that is has itself moved into a corner.
I could make the effort to explain both viewpoints and why both are correct but what good would that do? To feed mind? To perpetuate maya?
Good grief, have you truly anything grasped from Bhagavan besides regurgitating concepts you have read somewhere?
Disclaimer: This comment was made solely for the amusement of the reader. It was not approved by the FDA and it was done only for entertainment purposes.
Good Evening from the U.K Roger.
I must point out this is only my own understanding of Bhagavan's teaching's, I am only quite knew to it. I found Bhagavan though Nisargadatta Maharaj. Please point out any misunderstandings of my understanding as it would be much appreciated. This goes to anyone else too. Thank you very much.
{M.: This question need not arise now. Let it be asked after realisation, if need be. As for the realised beings let them take care of themselves. Why do you worry about them?}
My understanding is Bhagavan is turning the questioners attention back to themself which is the purpose of his whole teaching and the reason he has manifested externally into that questioners awareness (ie) to point attention back within.
{In fact, after realisation the body and all else will not appear different from the Self.}
Yes this does makes sense to me I must admit from what I have read.
My own understanding is there is only God ("I am"), God will not experience many things or multiplicity as itself only itself "I am". Otherwise God would be limited / divided. Multiplicity is only experienced by the ego which is the wrong knowledge "I am this" "I am the body" (ie) God / "I am" with adjuncts.
The body / world is only experienced by the ego because it is maya / ignorance. God / "I am" experiences nothing but itself. It does not see / experience the world or multiplicity as itself or even as an illusion or a false appearance or imposition upon itself because nothing else exists.
This is my own understanding of what Bhagavan taught.
I love all of Nāṉ Yār? Especially this particular passage / paragraph below. I got this from Michael's website.
Nāṉ Yār?
Paragraph Three
சர்வ அறிவிற்கும் சர்வ தொழிற்குங் காரண மாகிய மன மடங்கினால் ஜகதிருஷ்டி நீங்கும். கற்பித ஸர்ப்ப ஞானம் போனா லொழிய அதிஷ்டான ரஜ்ஜு ஞானம் உண்டாகாதது போல, கற்பிதமான ஜகதிருஷ்டி நீங்கினா லொழிய அதிஷ்டான சொரூப தர்சன முண்டாகாது.
{If the mind, which is the cause of all [objective] knowledge and of all activity, subsides, jagad-dṛṣṭi [perception of the world] will cease. Just as knowledge of the rope, which is the base [that underlies and supports the imaginary appearance of a snake], will not arise unless knowledge of the imaginary snake ceases, svarūpa-darśana [true experiential knowledge of our own actual nature or real self], which is the base [that underlies and supports the imaginary appearance of this world], will not arise unless perception of the world, which is an imagination [or fabrication], ceases.}
I personally find this very clear to understand.
If "we" want to keep perception of the world "we" will not be experiencing our self as we are. When "we" experience our self as we are there will be no perception of the world.
Bhagavan's teaching is ruthless !!! If I am understanding correctly the ego is to become prey for God, completely surrender itself to God. To know God "we" must be God (ie) merge with God which is the indivisible totality. "We" can never know God as anything other than our self.
I believe God exists in the inner most core / centre of "our" being, it is not separate from "us" The ego is not separate from God, God is the source of foundation of its awareness, it a temporary misperception or a mistake.
By the way I have used brackets for "we" "us" etc because my understanding is Bhagavan taught eka jIva vada which is another mind bender !!!!!
Have a good evening (if it's evening where you are)
Cheers
Hector
Roger Issacs,
Just wish to share this with you apropos the Excerpt from 'Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi' that you have posted on 16th July 2017 ,17:19.
This is one rare instance of inaccuracy on the part of Munagala Venkatramiah,the recorder of the Talks...I have alluded to this passage in my response when you posted that you are doing Research on 'Talks with Sri Ramana maharshi'.
I happened to receive the passage from Talks in a mail from one of my friends....and thought that the person who sent it had keyed in wrongly...No jnani would 'I am the Body' ....In fact that is the very root of the problem and the passage further goes on to say ' The wrong notion is not 'I am the body.'!!!
I looked up the talk 248 and found that the friend has indeed copied it faithfully!...so,the mistake is there in the original published version only.
I then referred to the tamizh translation of the original (Bhagavath Vachanamrutam by Sri Viswanatha Swami) and found it as follows:
பகவான்:ஞானிக்கும் அஞ்ஞானிக்கும் உடல் நானேயாம்.ஆனால் அஞ்ஞானி
'நான் இருக்கிறேன்' என்னும் உண்மையை உடலளவாய்க் குறுக்கிக் கொள்கிறான். அதாவது உடலே
நானென்று. தூக்கத்தில் உடலை அபேஷியாமலேயே நான் என்பது சுதந்திரமாயிருக்கிறது. அதே
'நான்' விழிப்பு நிலைமையில் இப்போதும் இருக்கிறது. 'நான்' என்பது உடலுள்ளே இருப்பது
போலத்தோன்றினும் அது உடலற்றதேயாம்.உடல் ஜடமாதலின் அது 'உடல் நான்' என்று
சொல்லாது. ஆத்மாவுக்கு ஏதோவொன்றைப் பற்றிய நான் என்னும் எழுச்சியில்லை. இடையில்
ஏதோவொன்று கிளம்பி 'உடல் நான்' என்று சொல்கிறது. அது உடலின் இயக்கங்களைத் தனதாய்
அபிமானித்து வருந்துகிறது. அவ்வகந்தையற்றுத் தூய அஹம்ஸ்புரணமாய் விளங்குபவனே ஞானி.
அவனுக்கு உடலும் உள்ளதனைத்தும் நானேயாம். அவன் உடலுக்கு எது நேரினும், அத்துடன்
சம்பந்தப்படாது என்றும் ஆனந்தமயனாகவே இருப்பான்.
The Tamizh version is clear and true to what Sri Bhagavan has always maintained.
"ஞானிக்கும் அஞ்ஞானிக்கும் உடல் நானேயாம்"....this can be translated as follows:For both the jnani and the ajnani,the body is verily I (This is not the same as is found in the original- i.e The Jnani says, 'I am the body'; The ajnani says, "I am the body"....for the jnani will never say 'I am the body'!).
This is what Sri Bhagavan has also clarified in Ulladhu Narpadhu Verse 17:
உடனானே தன்னை யுணரார்க் குணர்ந்தார்க்
குடலளவே நான்ற னுணரார்க் குடலுள்ளே
தன்னுணர்ந்தார்க் கெல்லையறத் தானொளிரு நானிதுவே
யின்னவர்தம் பேதமென வெண்ணுவாய் முன்னாம்
Freely translated: Sri Bhagavan says that both for those who have not known self and for those who have known it, the body is certainly 'I', but that the difference between them is that to those who have not known self, 'I' is limited to the measure of the body, whereas to those who have known self, 'I' shines without any limit...Deem this as the difference.
Viswanatha Swami was present when the talks took place...when he undertook the job of translating the Talks from English to Tamil,he not only corrected some of these inaccuracies but also incorporated the original words that Bhagavan used in tamil...so this is a rare thing in which the translation excels the original.
Hope this is of some use to you.
Wishing you the very best...Namaskar
Roger,
keep your mental faculties !
When the "jnani" says "I am the body" jnana itself has evidently evaporated.
That should be clear if you would summon up all your mental powers.
How can an obvious error in recording or translation throw your mind into confusion ?
Roger,
drop your mental faculties! There are no mental powers, that is an illusion!
I hope that previous comment was a joke...
By the way, at some point we have to throw away all texts. There is no Self-realization with attachment to anything.
Translation errors, hahahaha, I have to get that Scanning Tunneling Microscope and look at the "meaning" a little closer. LOL
Amazing how mind can delude itself.
Salazar,
my comment alluded to a mental error.
That is no joke.
kalpita, alright then, my point is that a mind cannot get clarity, it can only go so far. Clarity is only possible without mind.
In order to grasp the viewpoint of a Jnani we have to get realized first, there is no other way. In order to be able to do so we have to give up the attachment to the body and mind and realize the non-existence of them. Without that step we stay stuck with the attachment to objects. If we keep believing "the body is I" then we also believe that all other objects are real and we are back (or better still) in samsara.
It is truly exasperating how Roger is deliberately emphasizing maya with the help of misunderstood quotes by Bhagavan.
Roger Issacs,
Thought of sharing one more instance from 'Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi' where the original English version by Munagala Venkatramiah strays from what Sri Bhagavan actually said...Venkatramiah has padded up additional explanatory words to what Bhagavan has said...and this substantially detracts from the original sense and gives it a different sense!
Someone had quoted this talk 30th January, 1935 Talk 20...and again I found something amiss and it did not convey sense.....Here it is:
D.: What does Maharshi think of the theory of universal illusion (Maya)?
M.: What is Maya? It is only Reality.
D.: Is not Maya illusion?
M.: Maya is used to signify the manifestations of the Reality. Thus Maya is only Reality.
The sentence in Bold took my breath away for a moment....So I consulted the Tamil Version by Viswanatha swami and I am translating it for your consideration:
Q:What does Maharshi think of Maya?
B:mAyA?...Sat is the Reality of mAyA.
Q:Is not mAyA a false appearance?
B:That which seemingly projects out of Sat Swarupa is mAyA.Since it does not have any locus standi apart from the sat swarupa,it is swarupamaya.
To say 'Sat is the Reality of Maya' is totally different than to say 'Thus Maya is only Reality'(as in the Original english Talks).
The Tamizh version is crystal clear...Bhagavan asks 'Maya'? ...with that question mark...This is not the same as 'What is Maya'?(as in The Original English).
It may interest you that the 'Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi' is getting translated into Sanskrit by Nochur Sri Venkatraman and that should be available soon...If there is one who has a clear Experiential understanding of Bhagavan's teaching,Nochur Sri Venkatraman is definitely one of those rarest of the rare....and with a gift to convey it to the listener...so this translation would be pristine as the Tamizh one by Viswanatha swami...and Sanskrit scholars well versed in Vedanta will be in a position to read it and benefit...I am mentioning this as I thought it may interest you and aid you in your research work on 'The Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi'.
Although there are these 'inaccuracies' found in the Talks,by and large this is a rare treasure...and no seeker can afford to ignore this treasure...and we remain grateful to Sri Munagala Venkatramiah for what he has gifted to us.
Namaskar
From the previous comment, "[...] and WE remain grateful to Sri Munagala Venkatramiah for what he has gifted to us." [Emphasis of WE by me]
It seems a little presumptuous because I don't feel grateful at all to Munagala. I don't know the guy and "The Talks" is simply not my cup of tea.
I can only warn anybody to read the Talks, I have encountered quite a few people (who don't frequent this blog and) who have read only The Talks and all of their viewpoints of Bhagavan's teaching was distorted, that includes Roger on this blog (who obviously has read other stuff too, but only to his disadvantage :-).
It is not necessary at all to read the Talks, but if that desire is there it should be only read after having read Bhagavan's major works first. And then re-read those again several times and only after that the Talks which will be by then obsolete.
To call it a "rare treasure" is an obvious exaggeration.
Hi All,
I'm behind in responding... more later (unfortunately for those who would prefer that I shut up).
This is a fascinating passage. Perhaps Ravi is correct that there was a translation error. OR perhaps not. The full talk records a lawyer who ALSO thought he heard Bhagavan say "I am the body", as well as the translator and someone else if "D" is not the translator. So perhaps 3 people heard "I am the body".... and Bhagavan when questioned agrees "YES".
We are to quick to run texts through an "advaita filter". We are too quick to judge, it does not matter.
Shall we discard Bhagavan because of this? (of course not)
Personally, I feel that such things are useful for contemplation and am not so sharp about words. Many would throw out Bhagavan simply due to the use of the word "I". Sometimes I think rather than using "I" that I should use an IP address. "Well, 192.168.45.37 thinks that Salazar is...."
talk 248.
Sri Bhagavan said: The Jnani says, “I am the body”; The ajnani says, “I am the body”; what is the difference? ‘I am’ is the truth. The body is the limitation. The ajnani limits the ‘I’ to the body. ‘I’ remains independent of the body in sleep. The same ‘I’ is now in the wakeful state. Though imagined to be within the body, ‘I’ is without the body. The wrong notion is not ‘I am the body.’ ‘I’ says so. The body is insentient and cannot say so. The mistake lies in thinking that ‘I’ is what ‘I’ is not. ‘I’ is not insentient. ‘I’ cannot be the inert body. The body’s movements are confounded with ‘I’ and misery is the result. Whether the body works or not, ‘I’ remains free and happy. The ajnani’s ‘I’ is the body only. That is the whole error. The jnani’s ‘I’ includes the body and everything else. Clearly some intermediate entity arises and gives rise to the confusion.
Mr. Vaidyanatha Iyer, a lawyer, asked: If the Jnani says “I am the body,” what happens to him in death?
M.: He does not identify himself with the body even now.
D.: But you said just before that the Jnani says “I am the body.”
M.: Yes. His ‘I’ includes the body. For there cannot be anything apart from ‘I’ for him. If the body falls away there is no loss for the ‘I’. ‘I’ remains the same. If the body feels dead let it raise the question. Being inert it cannot. ‘I’ never dies and does not ask the question. Who then dies? Who asks questions?
Roger Isaacs,
The "I am the body" is the root cause of all problems...so wherever it occurs in this excerpt it has to be taken as the 'Body is I'.(The error is on account of the Recorder of the talks)
Sorry,I do not have the Bhagavath Vachanamrutam with me right now as I am away from home.So I am not in a position to share the complete passage from that.
Many people may have heard the same thing but what we read is the recorder's version...and it is here that this error has taken place.
All it means is that the entire manifested universe is a projection of the Reality or Self only...and the Jnani does not see it apart from the Self and the 'Body' is also part of the manifestation...and all this is Just the Self.
The ajnani sees the same projection...but he limits himself to identifying with the body...he thinks 'Body is I'and limits it to just that...He thinks that with the death of the body it is curtains for him.
Perhaps the following example may help understand this...let us say that we have a necklace,bangle and chain made of gold...We may say 'Necklace is Gold' but we cannot say 'Gold is necklace'...for Gold is the substance out which all the different jewels are made and not just necklace alone...there is no jewel apart from Gold but there is Gold that can be apart from Jewels...and we may say that GOLD alone is...Similiarly we may say that Body is I...and so is the rest of the manifestation...all are just the 'I' and nothing but that...but we cannot say 'I is the Body' or 'I am the Body'...for that limits the 'i' to just the body...and this is the limited ,embodied existence that we take ourselves to be.
This is something that is experiential and has to be intuited as such...although the analogies give us a sort of 'possibility' and 'worth exploring' type of a nudge.
The First thing that needs to be grasped is that 'i am the Body' is only a thought...if this is clearly intuited,the attention can be put on the source of this thought...and as this is done,there is a possibility for the Being that is ever there as the substance behind the thought to be intuited....the mind(I thought) falls silent in the Being I or Aham.
The analytical way of thinking and grasping is quite different than the way of intuition...and it is the later that is needed for self enquiry.
Namaskar
Hi Ravi,
Thanks for your translation. It does make more sense. Something was probably lost in translation. I like digging into translations and pondering over them, that is my style.
Kalipta, you are as sharp as the "lawyer" present in the dialogue. :-)
Salazar,
Well there is an actual contradiction between Bhagavan and Michael.
Michael says "The non-existence of the ego, body and world ... in manonasa is permanent".
That is distinctly different than what Bhagavan is saying. Michael is NOT totally correct. We can expect or hope that words still make sense even in duality?
Now... if you change it to say "the non-existence of DUALITY..." it makes sense... but you don't believe in duality. :-)
Salazar, you seem to be interested in personality: Bhagavan versus Michael versus Roger. IMO It is only about the teaching or ideas. Why aren't you as particular with Michael's words as mine? He gets a free pass?
Salazar, you say "I could make the effort to explain both viewpoints and why both are correct....".
I don't believe you. I've been asking for days for someone to make sense of "no ego, no world, no body"... nobody, not even you, could do it. Probably you do not feel your argument is strong enough to share. But I have given several possible arguments:
1) "no ego, no body, no world" could be taken poetically and not literally.
2) it can apply to the temporary state of inward meditation where the body and world drop away.
3) it can apply to the permanent state of Being while eyes are closed in Sahaja (I need sanskrit, I am not familar with Tamil)
4) or it can refer to the body & world as duality, that is lost.
It is one thing if you take the effort to explain both viewpoints and that would be appreciated... but still Michael has not or does not see any reason to amend his description.
Hopefully this caused nobody indigestion as some maybe allergic to my ingredients.
To Salazar: I am your fellow "pighead" signing off,
There is no "way of intuition", that is a similar BS concept as "pure" vichara. Intuition is a natural byproduct when the mind shuts up. It can't be used because in the instance it is "used" mind/ego has taken over and intuition is gone. Then the mind just tells itself it is "intuiting" and with that has fallen into another trap of many traps it keeps falling into.
Amazing how people who claim to be devotees of Bhagavan distort vichara with their confused understanding.
Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi
...bound to prove to be an unfailing guide to...pilgrims of the Light Everlasting
Talk 2. 15th May, 1935
...
Maharshi: ...
similarly in the Transcedental state identity with Brahman places the man in harmony with everything, and there is nothing apart from his Self
Talk 248. 15th September, 1936
...
Maharshi: ...
The truth remains as it is, not affected by any statements, conflicting or otherwise.
...
Thoughts rule the life. Freedom from thoughts is one's true nature - Bliss.
Hi Hector,
thanks for your nice post.
You say "please point out any misunderstandings".
The only useful "understanding" is that which leads to direct inner experience in which case any mental concepts are released.
Hi Roger
Thanks very much for your reply.
Reading your comments I think we have a slightly different understanding of Bhagavan's teaching which is of course fine.
Cheers Roger.
Hector
Hi Ravi,
I generally agree with what you're saying regarding the body.
One way of realizing that you are not the physical layer of the body is to find "the current" as it is a subtler layer of the body and on finding it the attachment to the physical begins to fall away. Some links on "the current" below. Bhagavan and Nisargadatta Maharaj talk about this... but the best source that I have found which shows you how to directly go into the vital body is Barry Long especially the book "Stillness is the Way".
The death experience: search for the word "current": Bhagavan says he IS the "current of energy", that the current of energy is not different than "I", the current IS "I".
http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.com/2008/05/bhagavans-death-experience.html
The "current" is also mentioned several times in Talks.
Also one of my favorite couple of quotes from "A Search in Secret India" by PB:
"The life of action need not be renounced. If you will meditate for an hour or two every day, you can then carry on with your duties. If you meditate in the right manner, then the current of mind induced will continue to flow even in the midst of your work".
And a quote from Nisargadatta Maharaj: he goes on about the current in "The Ultimate Medicine":
“There is in the body, a current of energy, affection and intelligence, which guides, maintains and energizes the body. Discover that current and stay with it."
Regarding Roger Isaacs:
Who posted all those questions to Sir Michael James and argued with him regarding what happens to a sage or should happen to a sage after manonasha occurs. Because his (Roger Isaacs's) manas or mind is very much alive and nasha or destruction of his manas or ego has not taken place yet he will naturally never understand the nature, results and paradoxes of manonasha and how a sage like Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi who has undergone manonasha functions in the world of forms, names, manas and egos. His questions are valid but they all stem from ignorance of atma-svarupa and instead stem from the mind or manas or the ego which has not yet undergone manonasha.
Hi Anonymous,
You appear to be fascinated with the imagined superiority of your favorite dogma over other teachings ... or one personality (MJ) over another personality (Roger). Many here have this attitude.
This is not self inquiry. Self inquiry has NOTHING to do with the outward movement of attention into an imagined competition between different concepts and teachings. Not this!
MJ teaches egoic conflict, he teaches duality (one thing being superior and in conflict with another).
MJ teaches that Nisargadatta Maharaj, Krishnamurti, Eckhart Tolle are ALL wrong and it just so happens that MJ is right! MJ even teaches that the works he translates are correct and other works of Bhagavan such as Talks are wrong. MJ teaches conflict between some works of Bhagavan and others! Astonishing!
This sort of teaching is not spiritual. It's not about Self Inquiry. Obsession with the superiority of one teaching over another is ego. MJ should stop teaching and go into seclusion and devote himself full time to actual Self Inquiry.
MJ teaches what beliefs are correct: "what we should believe...".
This has nothing to do with Bhagavan's real teaching.
"Correct belief" is an advertising technique borrowed from the Catholic Church. How well did this strategy work for the Catholic Church?
Once one set of beliefs are proclaimed as "what we should believe" the thinker is mired in conflict with other supposedly inferior beliefs and the mind becomes stuck in this duality, in the conflict. This inner turmoil blocks Self Inquiry.
Some people get excited about the superiority of their political party over another, or the superiority of their favorite sports team over another. We recognize this as egoic. Claiming that your favorite spiritual teaching is superior is the same egoic mechanism as claiming that your sports team is superior. Not this!
If you realize that all concepts are merely pointers to the deeper reality which is subtler than ALL concept... then how can you claim that your set of concepts is superior?
Good golly, what a pity, this personality Roger Isaacs could still not put aside his inferiority-complex. And so he yet continues blabbing miserable nonsense about MJ.
It's a crying shame.
Hi Salazar,
Thanks for you comments, I'm off and may check back on monday.
I'm not at all interested in personality.
It did seem VERY odd that Anonymous posted a comment in a year old thread. Just looking for argument it seems.
If you google on MJ's posts, you will find such things as "what you should believe...." and then a description of what should be believed.
My challenge to anyone who is interested: let's actually talk about ideas rather than personality.
Did Bhagavan ever say "what you should believe is this...."
Not that I can find. I say MJ is teaching something that did not come from Bhagavan.
Obviously this is the approach that Christianity took. Don't we see the results of that? thousands of years of killing and torture of those who did not accept the official correct beliefs.
Does "belief" have ANYTHING to do with actual Self Inquiry?
I say that "belief" is about the outer layer of mind adopting concepts and has nothing at all to do with Self Inquiry.
thanks,
Roger
Salazar,
you'll be reassured to know that "Huascaran" is not the same person as the mentioned commentators. My previous comment is not at all abusive but states only facts.
Salazar,
whether I feel obliged to criticize a "long-term commentator" or not I decide as I wish.
There you have no say.
Roger Issaacs,
Your points are duly noted even though I feel you are quite misplaced where Sir Micheal James stands spiritually. He is a devotee of Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi and explains the teachings of Bhagavan quite accurately. His answers to few of my questions here have been crystal clear. To be honest I admire and acknowledge Sir Micheal James without any reservations as Bhagavan himself. If you don't that is up to you not to accept the explanations and commentaries of Sir Michael James.
Quote from an a.hole.
Michael deleted a bunch of very abusive comments by him where he talked to himself in an outrageous manner trying to imply that some of the responses came from me pretending to be Anonymous. Quote.
Liar liar pants on fire, shameless poster of "lying farts". Sanjay Lohia knows you are a charlatan posing as a guru.
People, that same fellow Salazar who is also a shameless liar will reply to this post as "Anonymous". Just watch. Let the fun begin.
Salazar, you will not moksha in this life or any life in future but the Satvic soul Sanjay Lohia will. Sir Michael James who is Bhagavan has already got moksha. Awaiting your reply as an imbecilic and schizophrenic "Anonymous". Lol! Hahahaha!!!!
Salazar, you will NOT get moksha in this life or any life in future but the Satvic soul Sanjay Lohia will. Sir Michael James who is Bhagavan has already got moksha. Awaiting your reply as an imbecilic and schizophrenic "Anonymous. Egos which lie, pretend, impersonate etc. like you do over here will not get moksha.
Salazer loves his own huge ego more than his atma-svarupa. Sir Michael James who has realized his atam-svarupa does not post from even his Satvic ego. All posts of Sir Micheal James comes directly from Sir Michael James's atma-svarupa unlike fake Salazar's which comes directly from his worthless, humongous ego.
Anonymous: Salazar lectures nonsense from his behind. Michael James's gems of upadesha regarding ahankara and atma-svarupa flows from his his heart. Yes, Salazar will not get moksha
any time soon in his journeys of lives and neither will your or me.
சொரூப தர்சனம்:
Yes. I agree. Well said. Sir Michael James is Bhagavan, he is the Satguru.
Authority corrupts both leader and follower
Self-awareness is arduous, and since most of us prefer an easy, illusory way, we bring into being the authority that gives shape and pattern to our life. This authority may be the collective, the State; or it may be the personal, the Master, the savior, the guru. Authority of any kind is blinding, it breeds thoughtlessness; and as most of us find that to be thoughtful is to have pain, we give ourselves over to authority. Authority engenders power, and power always becomes centralized and therefore utterly corrupting; it corrupts not only the wielder of power, but also him who follows it. The authority of knowledge and experience is perverting, whether it be vested in the Master, his representative or the priest. It is your own life, this seemingly endless conflict, that is significant, and not the pattern or the leader. The authority of the Master and the priest takes you away from the central issue, which is the conflict within yourself.
JRK
The Book of Life, January 21, Harper SanFrancisco, 1995
Post a Comment