Sri Ramana Teachings: Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: Tamil text, transliteration and translation

Friday, 20 October 2017

Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: Tamil text, transliteration and translation

As I explained at the beginning of my previous article, Upadēśa Undiyār: Tamil text, transliteration and translation, Nāṉ Ār?, Upadēśa Undiyār and Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu are the three texts in which Bhagavan expressed the fundamental principles of his teachings in the most clear, coherent, comprehensive and systematic manner, which is why these are the three texts that I cite most frequently on this blog, and therefore friends often ask me for my complete translation of each of them. My translation of Nāṉ Ār? has been available on my website for many years, and for a long time I have been meaning to post my complete translations of Upadēśa Undiyār and Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu there also, but somehow I did not get round to doing so till recently, when I finally decided that I should put it off no longer. Therefore having posted my translation of Upadēśa Undiyār in my previous article, in this one I give a fresh translation of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, which is a carefully revised and refined version of all my earlier translations of it.

Of all the works of Bhagavan, Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu is arguably the most fundamental and important text, and I think it would be no exaggeration to say that unless one has imbibed to a considerable extent the full import of these forty-two verses (two maṅgalam verses and forty verses of the main text) by carefully studying and reflecting deeply on the meaning of each of them and the close and coherent connections between the ideas expressed in them, and of course by trying as much as possible to follow the simple path of self-investigation that he teaches in them, it is not possible for one to adequately grasp and appreciate the real depth and radical import of his teachings, because many of the key principles of his teachings are expressed nowhere as clearly and coherently as they are in these verses.

For example, in Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu he makes it abundantly clear why self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) is the only means by which we can eradicate ego (the first person or subject) and hence all its progeny (all second and third persons or objects), because ego, which he describes in verse 25 as a ‘formless phantom’, is a false self-awareness — an awareness of ourself as a body composed of five sheaths (as he points out in verses 5 and 24), whereas what we actually are is not any such transient phenomenon but just pure, infinite, indivisible, eternal and immutable awareness (as he points out in verses 12 and 13) — and it comes into seeming existence and stands only by grasping the form of a body as itself, and it nourishes and sustains itself by grasping other forms (that is, by being aware of anything other than itself), so it will dissolve and disappear only when it tries to grasp itself (that is, only when it investigates itself so keenly that it ceases to be aware of anything else). He also makes it clear (for example, in verses 6, 7, 14, 23 and 26) that everything else seems to exist only when we are aware of ourself as this ego or mind, because all other things (all phenomena) are forms that we perceive only when we perceive ourself as a form (as he says in verses 4 and 5), so when this ego does not exist nothing else exists, and hence investigating what this ego is is giving up everything (as he says in verse 26).

Since we seem to be this ego whenever we are aware of anything other than ourself (that is, any forms or phenomena of any kind whatsoever), we cannot eradicate ego so long as we cling to awareness of anything else, and hence the only way to eradicate it is to cling to awareness of ourself alone, as he very clearly implies in verse 25. What then remains is only pure awareness, which is what we always actually are, and the nature of which is to be aware of nothing other than itself, as he implies, for example, in verses 11, 12, 13 and 31. Therefore since everything else is just an illusory appearance that seems to exist only when we seem to be this ego, and since this ego will cease to exist only when we investigate it, the only truly worthwhile enterprise is for us to investigate who or what we actually are.

What he teaches us in Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu is supplemented and supported by what he teaches us Nāṉ Yār? and Upadēśa Undiyār, and also to a lesser extent in his other writings and in numerous answers that he gave to those who came to him seriously seeking the way to put an end to all suffering, deficiency and dissatisfaction, which have been recorded more or less accurately in various other books, but Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu shines as the core and crest-jewel of his teachings, being the quintessence of all of them (which are in turn the quintessence of all vēdānta philosophy and of all that is metaphysically true in other philosophies, religions or systems of belief).

As in Upadēśa Undiyār, in Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan expressed the fundamental principles of his teachings in the style of sūtras or aphorisms, so though each verse is relatively short, it is packed with deep meaning and is rich in implications, and hence they require explanation in order for us to understand and appreciate them more deeply and completely. However no explanation of them should be considered complete, because no matter how much we may study and reflect on their meaning, we can always find fresh depth of meaning and wealth of implications in them, and consequently our understanding of them can become more clear, as I often find while answering questions or replying to comments on this blog, because when I cite and apply these verses in different contexts my understanding of them is deepened and enriched.

Therefore in this article, for each verse I have given a bare translation, which is as accurate, clear and simple as possible, followed by an explanatory paraphrase in order to make its meaning and most important implications more clear. Then instead of attempting to give any new explanations of these verses, after each one I have given a list of links in reverse chronological order to places in this blog where I have already cited, explained and discussed it. Later I intend to post a copy of this translation on my website, but until I do so I will try to keep the list of links for each verse up to date by adding new links as and when I write any further explanations of any of these verses.

Pāyiram: introductory verse composed by Sri Muruganar

Maṅgalam verse 1: what exists is only thought-free awareness, which is called ‘heart’, so being as it is is alone meditating on it

Maṅgalam verse 2: by surrendering to God, who is devoid of death and birth, the ego, who fears death, will die, and what will remain is deathless

Verse 1: because we see the world, it is best to accept that one fundamental, which is ourself, is what appears as all this multiplicity
Verse 2: instead of the ego arguing whether there is just one fundamental or three fundamentals, standing in the real state of oneself by destroying the ego is best
Verse 3: the state in which the ego has died by investigating itself, leaving aside the world and all differences and disputes, is agreeable to all
Verse 4: if one perceives oneself as a form, one will perceive everything else as forms, but one’s real nature is infinite (hence formless) awareness, so it perceives no forms at all
Verse 5: the body is a form consisting of five sheaths, and without such a body has anyone ever perceived any world?
Verse 6: the world consists of nothing but the five kinds of sense-impressions, and the mind alone perceives it, so is there any world besides the mind?
Verse 7: the world shines only by the mind, but what shines as the space for the appearing and disappearing of the world and mind is the real substance, the infinite whole
Verse 8: worshipping in name and form is the way to see in name and form, but seeing oneself and thereby becoming one with the real substance is true seeing
Verse 9: dyads and triads depend on one thing (the ego), so if one sees within the mind what that one thing is, they will all cease to exist and what is real will be seen
Verse 10: knowledge and ignorance of other things are mutually dependent, but only the awareness that knows the reality of the ego, to whom they appear, is real awareness
Verse 11: knowing anything other than oneself is ignorance, but when one knows the reality of oneself, knowledge and ignorance of everything else will cease
Verse 12: oneself is real awareness, which shines without anything else to know, so it is devoid of both knowledge and ignorance of other things, but it is not void or nothingness
Verse 13: oneself, who is pure awareness, alone is real, so awareness of multiplicity is ignorance and unreal, and hence it does not exist except as oneself
Verse 14: if one investigates the reality of the first person, it will cease to exist along with all second and third persons, and what then shines as one is one’s real nature
Verse 15: past and future depend on the present, the only time that actually exists, so trying to know the past or future without knowing the reality of the present is like trying to calculate without knowing the value of one
Verse 16: if we are a body, we are ensnared in time and place, but if we investigate ourself, there is no time or place but only ourself, who are the same one always and everywhere
Verse 17: for those who do not know themself and for those who do, the body is ‘I’, but for the former ‘I’ is limited to the body, whereas for the latter ‘I’ shines without limit
Verse 18: for those who do not know themself and for those who do, the world is real, but for the former reality is limited to the world, whereas for the latter it pervades without form as the substratum of the world
Verse 19: dispute about which prevails, fate or will, arises only for those who do not discern the ego as the root of them both, but if one knows the reality of the ego, one will thereby discard them
Verse 20: seeing God without seeing oneself is seeing a mental vision, so only one who has seen oneself, the origin of one’s ego, is one who has seen God, because oneself is not other than God
Verse 21: since oneself is one, how is oneself to see oneself, and how to see God, except by becoming food to him?
Verse 22: how to know God, who shines within the mind illumining it, except by turning the mind back within and thereby immersing it in him?
Verse 23: this body is not aware of itself as ‘I’, and ‘I’ does not cease to exist in sleep, but after something called ‘I’ rises, everything rises, so keenly discern where it rises
Verse 24: the jaḍa body is not aware of itself as ‘I’, and sat-cit does not rise, but in between something called ‘I’ rises as the extent of the body, and this is cit-jaḍa-granthi, the ego, mind and so on
Verse 25: grasping form the formless phantom-ego comes into existence, stands, feeds itself and flourishes, but if it seeks itself, it will take flight
Verse 26: if the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence, and if it does not exist, nothing exists, so investigating what it is is giving up everything
Verse 27: the state in which the ego does not rise is the state in which we are that, but without investigating the place where it rises, how can one annihilate it and stand as that?
Verse 28: like sinking to find something that has fallen in water, sinking within by a keenly focused mind it is necessary to know oneself, the source where the ego rises
Verse 29: investigating by an inward sinking mind where one rises as ‘I’ alone is the path of jñāna, whereas thinking ‘I am not this, I am that’ is an aid but not vicāra
Verse 30: as soon as the ego dies by inwardly investigating who am I, one thing appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’, which is not the ego but the infinite substance, namely oneself
Verse 31: when the ego is destroyed by tanmayānanda, there is nothing to do, because one is not aware of anything other than oneself, so who can conceive such a state?
Verse 32: when the Vēdas proclaim ‘That is you’, instead of knowing and being oneself by investigating what am I, thinking ‘I am that, not this’ is due to lack of strength
Verse 33: saying ‘I do not know myself’ or ‘I have known myself’ is ridiculous, because there are not two selves for one to know the other as an object
Verse 34: instead of merging the mind within and thereby knowing and standing firmly as the real substance, quarrelling about its existence and nature is mischief born of māyā
Verse 35: knowing and being the ever-accomplished real substance is the real siddhi, whereas all other siddhis are unreal, like siddhis experienced in a dream
Verse 36: if we think that we are a body, thinking ‘No, we are that’ will be just a good aid, but since we are already that, why should we always be thinking ‘We are that’?
Verse 37: even the contention ‘Duality in spiritual practice, non-duality in attainment’ is not true, because even while one is searching for the tenth man, who is one other than him?
Verse 38: if we are the doer of action, we will experience the resulting fruit, but when one knows oneself by investigating who is the doer, actions and their fruits will cease to exist
Verse 39: thoughts of bondage and liberation exist only so long as one seems to be bound, but when one looks at oneself to see who is bound, one will see that one is ever liberated
Verse 40: if it is said that liberation is with form, without form, or either with form or without form, I will reply that only destruction of the ego is liberation

687 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 687 of 687

Sanjay Lohia said...: 1) We are very simple, but we mistake ourself to be something very complex, and we have got ourself caught up in this complexity. So need to separate ourself from this complexity and turn to our native simplicity. It is only by separating ourself from this person that we can return to our native simplicity.

2) Once a Muslim asked Bhagavan, ‘Swami, what is the goal of all religions?’ Bhagavan answered, ‘salaam’ (meaning ‘peace'), and the person asked, ‘what is the path to attain that goal?’, and Bhagavan said, ‘Islaam’ (meaning ‘surrender’).

3) Bhagavan is touching on the heart of everything, which is ‘I’. Nobody can deny ‘I’, and also nobody can deny that because of what we take ourself to be, we are suffering a million problems. So surrendering our self-identification (which is Islaam), we attain peace (which is salaam).

So Bhagavan is beyond all religions. What Bhagavan has taught us is not a religion, but at the same time it is the essence of all religion – the real heart of every religion, the spiritual essence of every religion.

<-> Slightly modified extracts from the video: 2017-07-22 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 6; 18 December 2017 at 06:07
Sanjay Lohia said...: My reflections based on Michael’s article: Do we need to do anything?:

We think that we need to do this or that (which is our kartavya-buddhi), and we also think that we are doing this and that (which is our kartrtva-buddhi). But since Bhagavan has taught us that we are pure self-awareness, how can we as pure self-awareness have any needs, duties and responsibilities? Likewise, how can our pure self-awareness do anything or act in any way?

As pure self-awareness, we are immutable and actionless existence, and therefore we cannot act in any way. We are just pure bring. So our kartavya-buddhi and kartavya-buddhi belongs to only our ego, and doesn’t belong to ourself as we actually are.

When we rise as this ego, we simultaneously project a body and take it to be ourself, and since this is a living body, we experience ourself as a person so-and-so (Sanjay or whatever). As a person we have needs, duties and responsibilities. We need to breathe, we need food and water, we need shelter and clothing, and we need to provide for our family, so we need money and so on.

Since I experience myself as a living person (Sanjay), as this person I do have needs, duties and responsibilities. Suppose if I stop eating or drinking water, I may die after a few days. So no living body is without any needs.

(I will continue this in my next comment); 18 December 2017 at 08:13
Sanjay Lohia said...: In continuation of my previous comment:

But do we (our true self) have any needs? Do we (our true self) have to earn money to live? No, according to Bhagavan, we need nothing to exist or live. Once Kavyakantha told Bhagavan, ‘Bhagavan, I think we can easily live on three rupees a month. What do you think?’ Bhagavan replied, ‘Why three rupees, we need nothing to live’. So our body may need three rupees (may be a thousand rupees now) a month to survive, but we can live even without a body, and therefore we can live without any money. We are the eternally living reality, and therefore we need nothing.

Bhagavan said, ‘your only real duty is to be, and not to be this or that’. Whatever the body is to go through in this life, has already been decided when it came into existence. So we cannot change, add to or subtract from our predestined actions and experiences. So it is foolish to think otherwise. Therefore, as Bhagavan advised his mother, ‘it is best to keep quiet’.

Bhagavan is taking perfect care of all our body’s needs, duties and responsibilities, isn’t he? So why should be worry on this front? Thus we should devote all our time to investigate who we are, and consequently give up our identification with the person which we now seem to be. Once this identification is gone, our kartavya-buddhi and its concomitant kartrtva-buddhi will both disappear, never to reappear again. This is nirvana or mukti or whatever else we may choose to call it.; 18 December 2017 at 08:16
arive arivu ahum said...: Sanjay Lohia,
"So surrendering our self-identification (which is Islaam), we attain peace (which is salaam)."
In which sense/function is the verb "surrender(ing)" used in the above sentence,
as an intransitive, transitive or reflexive verb ? If used intransitively or reflexively could you please state to whom this surrendering is to be happen.; 18 December 2017 at 08:49
vasuki said...: Sanjay Lohia,
"We are just pure bring. So our kartavya-buddhi and kartavya-buddhi belongs to only our ego...".
Should we not read pure "being" instead of "bring" ?
What means double "kartavy-buddhi" ?; 18 December 2017 at 11:06
Sanjay Lohia said...: Arive Arivu Ahum, I do not know much about grammar rules. However, our transitive awareness (the awareness which is aware of things other than itself) has to turn within and merge in our intransitive awareness (the awareness which is aware of only itself). This is surrender - surrender here means 'self-surrender'.

In other words, we need to surrender what we now seem to be (this ego), into what we actually are (pure self-awareness). Bhagavan describes the method of self-surrender beautifully in the 13th paragraph of Nan Yar?:

Being completely absorbed in ātma-niṣṭhā [self-abidance], giving not even the slightest room to the rising of any thought other than ātma-cintanā [thought of oneself or self-attentiveness], alone is giving oneself to God.

Bhagavan uses the term 'God' here to mean our true self, which is our pure intransitive self-awareness.; 18 December 2017 at 11:12
vasuki said...: Sanjay Lohia,
you emphasize that you experience yourself as a "living person".
Can one experience oneself as a dead person ?; 18 December 2017 at 11:21
Sanjay Lohia said...: Vasuki, I thank you for pointing out my typos. The corrected sentences should read: We are just pure being. So our kartavya-buddhi and kartrtva-buddhi belongs to only our ego, and doesn’t belong to ourself as we actually are.

Yes, we always experience ourself as a ‘living person’. We can know only others as ‘dead persons’. For example, 'my dead father'.; 18 December 2017 at 11:29
Anonymous said...: Looking for suggestion on which book to purchase of Vivekachudamani Of Sri Sankaracharya.
I was reading on Advaitin.net a PDF that seems to have good commentary but thought might be better to ask some experts.
thanks for help; 18 December 2017 at 11:34
Sanjay Lohia said...: There is no body in sleep. If there is a body in sleep we would be aware of it, because according to Bhagavan nothing exists apart from our perception of it. This world seems to exist because we perceive it. Just like any dream world seems to exist because we perceive it. When we see any person in a dream, they come into existence only when we perceive them, and they cease to exist when we stop perceiving them.

Can you point to me anything about this waking state that distinguishes it from a dream? The whole life of Alasdair, from the time he was a small child to now, is one dream. Within that one dream there are periods of sleep, and there are periods of dream within that sleep.

There may be different qualities of our dream, but their substance is exactly the same. In both states, we experience a body as ‘I’, and through the five senses of that body we experience a world, we experience passage of time, people we talk to seem to be real, and we seem to have memories stretching back many years. All the memories we have in waking state, we take to our dream.

There were no Wright Brothers (who were the first to fly an aeroplane) until you learnt about them in your history book. So the idea that the Wright Brothers were the first to fly an aeroplane is your own mental projection.

*^* Modified extract of the video: 2017-04-22 (afternoon) Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James; 18 December 2017 at 14:41
venkat said...: Anonymmous

I would suggest getting the version with commentary from Sri Chandraeskhara Bharati of Sringeri. Though this may be out of print.

Otherwise, Sw Chinmayananda's translation and commentary is also very good.; 18 December 2017 at 16:15
maravadu said...: Sanjay Lohia,
you say or quote "...according to Bhagavan nothing exists apart from our perception of it. This world seems to exist because we perceive it. Just like any dream world seems to exist because we perceive it. When we see any person in a dream, they come into existence only when we perceive them, and they cease to exist when we stop perceiving them."
Therefore according Sri Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi any sense-perception has nothing to do with reality. However, it is hardly to accept that any human sense-perception - the essential foundation of our experience in waking and dreaming - is to be considered as totally irrelevant to reality. Is not even that consciousness which is the solid basic foundation of our sense-perception supported anyway only by atma-svarupa itself ?
Regarding the mentioned example of the Wright brothers:
How can reading (in a history book) be called as the own mental projection of the reader ?; 18 December 2017 at 19:59
tanmaya-nishtha said...: Some reflections:

1.) "...according to Bhagavan nothing exists apart from our perception of it."

2.) " This world seems to exist because we perceive it."

3.) These above statements are in any case correct.

4.) But we cannot know with certainty whether that world does really exist.

5.) Because I am aware of myself - that is of my awareness of my own being - at least all the indications are that - I conclude to exist.

6.) Being aware of oneself - that is certainly not a matter of course.

7.) Is it not astonishing/amazing that I never am and never was afraid of getting lost or annihilated when the moment has come to fall asleep ?

8.) That indicates that one is or must have been conscious/aware also/even in dreamless sleep. There can be no doubt about it !; 18 December 2017 at 22:39
Sanjay Lohia said...: Maravadu, Bhagavan says in the 18th paragraph of Nan Yar:

Except that waking is dīrgha [long lasting] and dream is kṣaṇika [momentary or lasting for only a short while], there is no other difference [between these two mind-created states]. To the extent to which all the vyavahāras [doings, activities, affairs or occurrences] that happen in waking seem [at this present moment] to be real, to that [same] extent even the vyavahāras that happen in dream seem at that time to be real. In dream the mind takes another body [to be itself]. In both waking and dream thoughts and names-and-forms [the objects of the seemingly external world] occur in one time [that is, simultaneously].

Though Bhagavan says here that waking is long lasting and dream is momentary, he clarifies in GVK that even this is not exactly true, because waking and dream occur in two different time references. So, according to Bhagavan, there is absolutely no difference between waking and dream – both are just our mental projections.

Are you willing to accept this tentatively? If not would you mind answering Michael’s question to Alasdair, namely, ‘Can you point to me anything about this waking state that distinguishes it from a dream?’

(I will continue this reply in my next comment); 19 December 2017 at 07:08
Sanjay Lohia said...: In continuation of my previous comment in reply to Maravadu:

However, I will proceed with the assumption that you are willing to tentatively accept that this world could be a dream. Bhagavan says in the 6th verse of Ulladu Narpadu:

The world is a form of five sense-impressions, not anything else. Those five sense-impressions are impressions to the five sense organs. Since the mind alone perceives the world by way of the five sense organs, say, is there a world besides the mind?

Since our mind perceives the world by way of the five sense organs, and since, according to Bhagavan, our mind will be destroyed if it investigated, all our sense impressions are utterly unreal. These impressions are as unreal as our unreal mind. Therefore, as you imply, our pure self-consciousness, which is the solid basic foundation of our sense-perceptions alone is real and permanent. Everything else that appears and disappears is nothing but an unreal superimposition, which has no substance of its own.

Suppose if I am dreaming, and I experience myself studying in a school. My teacher teaches me about Wright brothers and how they were the first to fly an aeroplane and so on. When I wake up from my dream, will I not consider the Wright brothers and all their inventions as part of my dream? These were just my mental projections.

Likewise, if this world is a dream, everything we hear about Wright brothers is our mental projection. Of course, as long as we consider this world to be real, this world and all our scientific discoveries will also seem real to us. However, once we wake up to our true nature, we will come to know that everything was part of our dream. This is what Bhagavan teaches us.; 19 December 2017 at 07:10
Sanjay Lohia said...: It is said in Bhagavad Gita that we should work, eat and sleep in moderation. This is an important teaching, and therefore I would like to share my reflections of this statement by Sri Krishna:

Why should we work in moderation?

It is because if we work too much, we will be exhausted and consequently will have very little energy left to carry on with our sadhana. Suppose if I am a workaholic and work for 14 hours a day, all of this time I may be passionately involved with extroverted activity, and my practice, which needs me to be introverted, will suffer.

Likewise, we should not abstain from work altogether. We need to keep our body and mind engaged with whatever work comes to us according to our prarabdha. Our self-remembrance can go on even in the midst of our worldly duties. Of course, as Sri Krishna says, we should work in moderation.

Why should we eat in moderation?

Bhagavan has also asked us to consume mita sattvika-ahara (moderate quantity of sattvic food). If we overfill our belly, we will feel uncomfortable or sleepy. Such conditions are not conducive to our turning within. Likewise, if we eat too little or fast for long durations, we may have no energy left to practise self-investigation. So again, consuming food in moderate quantity is best.

Why should we sleep in moderation?

If we sleep in excess, we are wasting our precious time in a state in which no sadhana is possible. So we should sleep enough in order to recharge our batteries, and get up as soon as we have had enough sleep to continue with our sravana, manana and nididhyadana. We can make no spiritual progress in any state of manolaya.

Likewise, we should not sleep too little. A drowsy mind obviously cannot help us to perform any task properly, whether the task is worldly or spiritual.; 19 December 2017 at 07:48
Sanjay Lohia said...: I take myself to be Michael. Michael is not the ego, but the one who says ‘I am Michael’, that’s the ego. Even though one day this Michael is going to die, but because I am so much attached to Michael, I want to cling to this form at any cost. Even if I have to give up this form, I will grasp some other form. That’s the nature of the ego, it’s not willing to let go. It keeps grasping something or the other because it wants to survive. We want to survive; we want to continue living.

Basically we are enamoured by the experience of phenomena. We fall asleep when we are too tired to cling to phenomena, but again we rise and project things. Even in our sleep (in the middle of the night) we dream of phenomena. This desire to cling to things is so strong. The taste or liking to experience things other than ourself is called vishaya-vasana, and this taste or liking is the problem.

How to give up the desire to attend to things other than oneself? We have to constantly turn our attention back to ourself. If you have got a big balloon full of air, and if you try to push it under the water, you can push it down to certain extent, but it will pop up this way, you push it down again, it pops up that way. It is because of the air inside. Because of the buoyancy you can’t push it far under the water.

That’s the nature of the ego. However many times we try to turn it within, it will again jump out to grasp things, because it’s doing it for its own survival. Even though we are suffering, we are not ready to let go. Even if we get some very-very painful illness, we still want the doctors to treat us, so that we can live for some more days.

We have to weaken this desire. Who is responsible for these desires? We are, because we have cultivated this liking to be aware of things other than ourself, by constantly experiencing more and more things.

In order to overcome that liking, which we have cultivated through so many janmas, we have to begin turning in the opposite direction – turn back towards ourself slowly-slowly. We need to cultivate the liking just to be as we really are (which is called sat-vasana or svatma-bhakti), not to be aware of other things.

~^~ Slighty modified extract from the video: 2016-12-10 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu maṅgalam verse 1; 19 December 2017 at 13:12
maravadu said...: Sanjay Lohia,
if Bhagavan does not see any difference between waking and dream this is certainly owing to his extraordinary foresight and exceptional depth of experience. He obviously considers even all our sense-perceptions in waking and dream as just mental projections. With it the term "mental projection" seems from the beginning to indicate the falseness/wrongness/illusory nature of that projecting.
Surely mental projections are as true or untrue as the projecting subject, the mind.
However, Bhagavan leaned himself on sense-perceptions when he for instance undertook in the year 1896 the travel from Madurai to Tiruvannamalai to which place he felt drawn.
Of course I do not seriously dare to contradict to Bhagavan and therefore I am readily willing to accept at least tentatively what he taught us. Actually this world could be only a "dream", but it is a fact that we do experience or are aware of that dream. Nevertheless, neither Bhagavan nor Michael did really define exactly the term "dream". That the world is perceived and known only by sense-perceptions/impressions through our five senses is an indisputable fact. But we do not know for sure if such a sense-perception has any reality in the absolute sense of it.
Regarding Michael's question to Alasdair about differences between dream and waking: In dream I rarely or never am able to use all my strength and will power whereas in waking I can indeed do it. In dream one has to let the appearances/occurrences wash over one whereas in waking I nearly always have or at least seem to have the possibility to stop any unwanted occurrence.
In dream I can fly over the landscape and even feel the wind and even get out of the way of telegraph wires and posts whereas in waking I must use an aeroplane in order to fly to Tiruvannamalai via Chennai.
If we call our experience as waking or dream does not matter. But as long as we experience us as a separate body-mind-bounded being our sensory experience
of our "life" seems to be also relatively real to us. What your dream teacher told you about the Wright Brothers is possibly true also in the view of waking albeit only in the relative sense of our sense-perceptions. Finally we could ask the descendants of the Wright Brothers or of any contemporary witness whether they have actually directed an aeroplane in those early days of American aeronautics.
Of course, once we wake up to our true nature we may coming to the point of knowing what really is…
.; 19 December 2017 at 14:01
sundar said...: As we all know, we should focus on who actually we are. Or, Just Be.

This is to be done without using the mind or the sense organs. Feel the Self in the heart. But, we know only how to use the sense organs and the mind.

Asking the question 'who am I' and not getting an answer from the mind and thereby quietening the mind temporarily is one way and it is called self enquiry.

Why don't we brain storm other ways of going about this and leave out all other discussions? If we succeed, we would have attained moksa and we will have no further questions.

Thank you.; 19 December 2017 at 22:41
maravadu said...: Sundar,
you say "Why don't we brain storm other ways of going about this ...?
What can/do you recommend me ?; 19 December 2017 at 23:26
Sanjay Lohia said...: Maravadu, you say, ‘However, Bhagavan leaned himself on sense-perceptions when he for instance undertook in the year 1896 the travel from Madurai to Tiruvannamalai to which place he felt drawn’. Did Bhagavan have a body in his view? Although Bhagavan seemed to be a name and form in our view, but Bhagavan has himself clarified that a jnani is ever without a body. If he experiences himself as a body, he is not a jnani.

So without a body can the senses function? No, if the idea ‘I am this body’ is no more there, how can such a one have any sense-perceptions? Therefore, contrary to what you claim, Bhagavan never leaned himself on sense-perceptions when he undertook his journey from Madurai to Tiruvannamalai. Bhagavan says in the verse 31 of Ulladu Narpadu:

For those who are happiness composed of that, which rose destroying themself, what one exists for doing? They do not know anything other than themself; who can conceive their state as ‘like this’?

As Bhagavan clarifies, a jnani doesn’t know anything other than himself. Therefore, he or she is not aware of any body, mind, senses or whatever. As long as we experience ourself as a body, we cannot fully comprehend the state of a jnani. Michael wrote in one of his articles:

In the clear, undefiled experience of a jñāni, nothing exists other than self, so there is no mind, body or world, and therefore nothing to do any action. This is a truth that Bhagavan repeatedly emphasised not only in his own writings but also in many of the conversations with him that have been recorded by others, […]; 20 December 2017 at 06:47
Sanjay Lohia said...: Sunder, as you seem to imply, ultimately we have to abandon all our verbal or written discussions, because our questions and answers are unending, and these will not give us the ‘ultimate answer’ we all are seeking. What is the ‘ultimate answer’ we all are seeking? It is not some answer in words, but the answer in the form of our experience of undefiled happiness. We are all seeking, knowingly or unknowingly, happiness which is without any misery.

We can experience this unending happiness only when we experience ourself as we actually are. However, as long as we experience ourself as this ego, our discussions around Bhagavan‘s teachings have tremendous value – especially if it is done in the spirit of trying to deepen our understanding of his teachings. These discussions motivate us to put the theory into practice, by repeatedly trying to turn within.

The real answer to all our questions is hidden deep within the questioner (that is, deep within our ego). So ultimately we have to burrow down deep within ourself, until we find the fresh spring of clear water of pure self-awareness: who am I, who has so many doubts?

Therefore the only valid and relevant question is: who or what am I? If we experience ourself as we really are, all our doubts will surely come to an end. We are the absolute clarity of pure self-awareness. If we experience pure self-awareness, it will not only dissolve all our doubts, but more importantly will dissolve the doubter. Thereafter we can have no further doubts.; 20 December 2017 at 11:25
Sanjay Lohia said...: Michael implies in his article Why is it so necessary for us to accept without reservation the fundamental principles of Bhagavan’s teachings?:

Bhagavan is the very form of love. Therefore, in order to merge in Bhagavan we need to have tremendous love for him and his teachings, because only love can merge in love. Only ice can melt in water, because both are ultimately only water.

Bhagavan continues to be manifest among us in the form of his clear and simple teachings. His written teachings are he himself in the form of words. We must accept Bhagavan fully and in every way. Full acceptance of the guru by the disciple entails complete and unreserved acceptance of his teachings.

He will do everything for us, and in return all he asks us to do for ourself is to wholeheartedly and unreservedly follow the path that he has shown us.; 20 December 2017 at 12:01
Sanjay Lohia said...: Devotee: Could you please explain the concept ‘we are not the doer'?

Michael: Actions are done by three instruments: body, speech and mind. If we are the body, the actions of the body are our actions, the actions of the speech are our actions. If we are the mind, the actions of the mind – thinking, perceiving and everything – is our doing. That is our experience now, because we experience ourself as the body and mind, we have a sense of doership.

By this practice of vichara we experience this ‘I’ more and more clearly. We will be more and more clearly aware of the distinctness of ‘I’ – that is, how it is actually separate from these things. These things come, cover it and go. So by experiencing ‘I’ more and more clearly, we become more and more detached from the body and mind - we have less and less strong sense of doership.

The other side of the sense of doership is the sense of experiencership. Just like we have a sense ‘I am sitting here’ and ‘I am doing this’, if a thorn pricks me we feel ‘I am experiencing this thorn pricking me’. So the doership and experiencership are just two sides which are inseparable from the identification of ‘I’ with body and mind.

So the only way to separate from these things is to try to attend to ‘I’. For most of us it’s a slow process; it takes time. Slowly-slowly we have to cultivate this love to attend to ‘I’. Eventually we are able to experience the full clarity of self-awareness, which will completely destroy the mind and all the products of the mind – the world, body and everything else. Until then we will continue, at least to some extent, to experience this body and mind as ‘I’.

So the sense of doership and sense of experiencership will remain so long as the ego is there. Only when the ego is destroyed by the perfect clarity of self-awareness (which is called atma-jnana or self-knowledge), will these completely come to an end.

/*/ Slightly modified extract from the video: 2014-05-10 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on self-investigation; 20 December 2017 at 16:07
maravadu said...: Sanjay Lohia,
From our limited view it is not relevant if Bhagavan was aware of a body or not.
Obviously in August 1896 his body was able to enter the trains in direction to Villupuram, Tirukovilur and finally Tiruvannamalai. Without using (his)sight in the early morning of 1 st September 1896 he would not even find the way from the railway station to the big temple of Arunachaleswara. So we can quite impartially assume that this body used his five senses to reach his final destination. Otherwise you seem to funny suppose that Venkataraman's travelling body was somehow remote-controlled.
Admittedly, of course we cannot discuss the clear view of a jnani which we cannot comprehend as long as our awareness is only that of an ajnani.; 20 December 2017 at 18:25
maravadu said...: Sanjay Lohia,
as you say thereafter, thereafter, thereafter...; 20 December 2017 at 18:30
maravadu said...: Sanjay Lohia,
"Eventually we are able to experience the full clarity of self-awareness, which will completely destroy the mind and all the products of the mind – the world, body and everything else. Until then we will continue, at least to some extent, to experience this body and mind as 'I'."

Eventually means at some time or other. Experiencing the full clarity of self-awareness sounds really full of promise/auspiciously. I too long burningly to experience that peaceful clarity because nothing else will satisfy me. This is certain. But this ego puffs itself up and seems to fill in all the ditches in which lie embedded the paths of easy walking along.

"So the sense of doership and sense of experiencership will remain so long as the ego is there. Only when the ego is destroyed by the perfect clarity of self-awareness (which is called atma-jnana or self-knowledge), will these completely come to an end."

The perfect clarity of self-awareness is said to be always present in the innermost heart, here and now. But the overcast and dubious cloud of the ego seems to cover it. Therefore this ego must be dispersed completely by cultivating the love of attending tenaciously to 'I' alone.; 20 December 2017 at 20:43
Sundar said...: Maravadu,
I have heard and I practice observing thoughts as they arise, when the thought stream slows down and stops. But, another thought starts. Ditto. I have somehow not kept at this long enough to say whether it finally results in completely quietening the mind and the Just Be to prevail. I end up feverishly hunting for the thoughts as they arise so I can observe and stop their continuation. This ends up being another endless mental activity.

To answer your question, I am looking for ideas from people.

Again, I think this is what we should focus on, because if we succeed in this, we will have no more questions.

Sanjay Lohia,
"..So ultimately we have to burrow down deep within ourself,"
The 'how to' part for this is what I had asked. I am sorry, you did not address it.

I really hope to hear more on this 'final step'.

sundar; 20 December 2017 at 22:27
maravadu said...: Sundar,
search for that "place" from where the 'I'-thought seems to arise and if found then try to make it vanish "there".; 21 December 2017 at 00:02
Sundar said...: Thanks, Maravadu.

Both (searching and vanishing) appear slippery - the second more than the first. But, I will keep trying. I understand what you mean. But, elaborate more if you don't mind.

More suggestions welcome.

Sundar; 21 December 2017 at 14:01
Sanjay Lohia said...: Sundar, you say, ‘I practice observing thoughts as they arise’, but if you are trying to practise Bhagavan’s teachings, which I believe you are, then you should be trying to ignore all your thoughts and not be observing them. This we can do most effectively by turning our attention towards the thinker. Our aim is to experience ourself as we really are, and if we manage do so, all our thoughts will automatically stop. This is beautifully described by Bhagavan in verse 16 of Upadesa Undiyar:

Leaving aside external visayas [phenomena], the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness [true knowledge or knowledge of reality].

As to how can we burrow deep down within ourself, we all have to find our own way in. When Bhagavan was asked similar questions, he used to say: The way is subjective and not objective, so it need not and cannot be shown by another. Do you need to be shown the way inside your own home?

So all we have to do is to turn our mind within and let it rest calmly and peacefully in or on ‘I’. We have to learn to practice correctly by trying to practise repeatedly. Bhagavan often used to say that no one has succeeded on this path without perseverance and patience. Bhagavan has assured us that sincere efforts will never go in vain.; 21 December 2017 at 16:27
Sanjay Lohia said...: Sundar, you may find the following extracts from Michael’s video dated 7th October, 2017 helpful:

There is only one way: turning deeper within, turning more and more towards ourself alone. Awareness ‘I’ is the scent. If we want to reach Bhagavan, we have to follow the scent. By following this scent diligently we will reach the source from which this scent has come. That source is Bhagavan; that source is our real nature. Bhagavan wants us to focus all our attention on ourself, not on anything else.

So we have to be very-very-very one pointed in this practice. We must constantly keep our focus on ourself. Anything else is a distraction, a diversion. Why we study Bhagavan’s teachings? It’s to constantly remind us of this, otherwise we will get into diversions.

Extreme one-pointedness is required. That’s why in Upadesa Saram, in verse 14 of Sanskrit version, Bhagavan uses the word ‘eka-chintana. People think that that is thought of any one. When Bhagavan talks of eka-chintana, he is talking of the one. The one is the ego. What is this ego? Investigating the ego is eka-chintana. That’s what Bhagavan calls atma-chintana - thinking of ourself, attending to ourself, not to anything else.

It is only by turning our attention back to ourself that all our problems can be solved. That’s why Bhagavan is supremely compassionate. His greatest kindness is that he has come to us and said, ‘You are that. See yourself and you will find that infinite happiness in your real nature’.; 21 December 2017 at 16:57
maravadu said...: Sundar,
no matter how slippery it may appear, continue to try going always deeper.
Regrettably I cannot elaborate more because it's not long since I started to practise self-investigation with more persistence, perseverance, vigour, patience and thoroughness.; 21 December 2017 at 23:22
Sundar said...: Sanjay,
"This we can do most effectively by turning our attention towards the thinker."
This is the self enquiry method. When thoughts arise, ask 'to whom are these thoughts coming'. The answer is 'to me. Then ask 'who am I?'. I reach a blank, as I do not know who I am.

I guess I am supposed to feel the I awareness at this point. I can not deny my existence. But, I can not exclusively be conscious of the existence.

The observing of thought is the other method that I follow. By observing the thought, the thought stream stops.. I had explained this already.

"the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness"
Not clear what is meant by' its own form of light'.

"Do you need to be shown the way inside your own home?"
I feel this question is condescending somewhat. We all will accept knowing oneself is not as easy as knowing how to go inside one's home. If it were that easy, there will be no need for this blog site.

"no one has succeeded on this path without perseverance and patience"
I agree. But, we have to make sure all the nuances are addressed. Perseverance on an erroneous procedure will not yield results.

"Awareness ‘I’ is the scent."
This is another condescending statement. If I awareness is as clear to notice as a scent, we would all be Gnanis in a jiffy.

"His greatest kindness is that he has come to us and said, ‘You are that. See yourself "
I think You are that is in Maha vakya itself. Sri Ramana's kindness is in answering the thousands of questions posed to him. Not in him pointing out 'you are that'.

Sorry, if I appear to be challenging a number of your statements. I just want to say I am still looking for my answer.

It IS a subjective process. But, we need more clear pointers for making progress.

Barring this, perhaps, some miraculous grace will come to the poor persevering soul one day.

Mind (thinking) or the sense organs or great intellect are not of use in exclusively being conscious of oneself as one actually is. If the three listed above are not of use, what else do we have that we can use?

Sundar; 22 December 2017 at 01:27
maravadu said...: Sundar,
you say "Mind (thinking) or the sense organs or great intellect are not of use in exclusively being conscious of oneself as one actually is. If the three listed above are not of use, what else do we have that we can use? "
According to Bhagavan and Michael James exclusive attention only to our 'I' is the best weapon against (remaining in) ignorance. Persistent self-attention/self-investigation is neither using mind, sense organs nor intellect. If the clouds of ignorance are removed by that scrupulous self-scrutiny we shall see the bright light of the sun of pure self-awareness. No one other than we ourselves must carry out that task.; 22 December 2017 at 12:31
Sundar said...: Maravadu,

"..exclusive attention only to our 'I' is the best weapon against (remaining in) ignorance. Persistent self-attention/self-investigation is neither using mind, sense organs nor intellect. If the clouds of ignorance are removed by that scrupulous self-scrutiny"

".. If the three listed above are not of use, what else do we have that we can use? ".."

This question is still not answered.

Thanks.

Sundar; 22 December 2017 at 12:46
maravadu said...: Sundar,
when I wrote "Persistent self-attention/self-investigation is neither using mind, sense organs nor intellect." I indeed answered your question.
Of course we use the mind to start self-investigation.
After reaching some sufficient depth the mind will be pushed/recede into the background.
Then self-investigation is not anymore mind-driven but will pass action-free by awareness only.; 22 December 2017 at 13:59
Sundar said...: Maravadu,
At some unknown point, a miraculous power takes over and pushes the mind into the background, perhaps. Until then we have no way of knowing if sufficient depth has been reached by the mind’s efforts.

When the mind finds that nothing is happening, it usually gives up and moves on to watching a YouTube comedy. I guess you are saying that mind should be pushed to keep at it.

Sundar; 22 December 2017 at 15:19
Sanjay Lohia said...: Sundar, you ask what is meant by ‘the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness’. Our mind is an entangled mixture of self-awareness and all its imaginary adjuncts - body and mind. However, mind is essentially only pure self-awareness, since all its adjuncts are illusory superimposition of the screen of pure self-awareness. So mind's own form of light is just this pure and uncontaminated self-awareness.

Bhagavan says in verse 7 of Ulladu Narpadu:

Though the world and awareness arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by awareness. Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the place for the appearing and disappearing of the world and awareness is the substance, which is the whole.

Mind’s own form of light is ‘Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the place for the appearing and disappearing of the world and awareness is the substance, which is the whole’.; 22 December 2017 at 15:20
Mouna said...: Sundar, greetings

If I may interject some thoughts since you asked for “other options”...

Let go...
whatever that could mean right now right here, just let go...

Questions, searches, efforts, “perseverances”, etc.. let’s let go of everything, for just one second ... or two, like breathing a cup of fresh air after being under water for some time...

Letting go in the moment is that dimension of surrendering that “cleans” the moment from the dust of doubts, heavy emotions, unwanted thoughts...
all those will come back, for certain, but at least we gave the moment some space to just be, even for a split second... and we might regain some strength to continue whatever we thing might work.

Strip yourself into that nakedness which is a door leading to something else that doesn’t need words, or answers.

Let’s stop everything, right now right here, for a second... and let’s let go...

It might not be a clear intellectual answer, but who cares?! for a split second, all is well, and calm, and silent...

...

Be well,
m; 22 December 2017 at 15:32
Sanjay Lohia said...: When we meditate we get freedom from mental chatter, but they are only one variety of thought. According to Bhagavan, the whole universe is your own thought. It’s all a mental projection, and the root of the whole world is the ego. So it’s only by investigating the root that we can get rid of all other thoughts.

The root thought is not real, but unlike other thoughts this root thought has an element of reality – that is awareness. No other thought is aware of itself. Only I am aware of myself, and I am also aware of other things. So who is this ‘I’ who is aware of all these things?

So the ultimate science has to be para-vidya - the practice of self-investigation, the science thought by Bhagavan. You are the one brahman, and you are the one ego. Investigate the ego and you will find that there is no ego but only brahman. Bhagavan was relentless in his teachings, constantly pointing us back to ourself.

If we want to express gratitude to what Bhagavan has given us, we should follow what he has shown us. So if we have real love for Bhagavan, we must follow the way that he has shown us.

The fire of jnana is there in our heart, so all we have to do is to turn within, and he will melt us in him.

~^~ Modified extract from Michael’s video dated October 7, 2017; 22 December 2017 at 15:54
asat said...: Sanjay Lohia,
let's read ...science "taught" by Bhagavan... not thought...
(past participle of the verb teach is taught); 22 December 2017 at 18:47
maravadu said...: Sundar,
not a "miraculous power" pushes the mind into the background but your one-pointedness. You do quite well note if sufficient depth of contemplation is reached. On that point you must go further beyond the mind's assessments and expectations. You should gradually learn to overcome the mind's tendency to giving up/retirement in favour of consuming any entertainment.
That ability we call perseverance. Do not renounce to use your power of persistence. Do not make any concessions to the arch enemy, the ego-mind, at least try it repeatedly - again and again.
As Bhagavan assures us: "...if sought it takes flight" !; 22 December 2017 at 20:32
tannai vidadiruttal said...: Mouna,
greetings, you recommend: "Let’s stop everything, right now right here, for a second... and let’s let go...".
Well said, one should really try it...
You tried it apparently because you seem to sustain yourself on the memory of that moment. Therefore you presumably try to repeat that moment of just silently being.; 22 December 2017 at 23:51
maravadu said...: Sanjay Lohia,
you state "The fire of jnana is there in our heart, so all we have to do is to turn within, and he will melt us in him."
Turning the mind within into the heart we succeed only by having developed sufficient love to get absorbed in and by that flame of real knowledge.; 23 December 2017 at 00:49
Sanjay Lohia said...: Asat, thanks. The corrected sentence should read, ‘So the ultimate science has to be para-vidya - the practice of self-investigation, the science taught by Bhagavan’.; 23 December 2017 at 07:41
Sanjay Lohia said...: So long as we are thinking of anything other than ourself we are grasping form, and thus are sustaining and nourishing our ego. In order to surrender our ego we need to cease grasping things other than ourself. This way the ego will have nothing to grasp, and so it will subside back into ourself. In fact, the practice is to try to grasp only oneself.

Why do all our cares, duties and responsibilities seem to be real? It is because when we rise as this ego, we cannot do so without taking a body to ourself, and this body or person invariably has unending cares, concerns, duties and responsibilities? Even a person living in a cave is concerned about how he would arrange for his next meal. So nobody is without any care or concern.

If we want to give up all our cares and concerns, the only way to do so is to stop identifying ourself with the person which we now seem to be, and the only way we can do so is by destroying our ego. The only way we can destroy our ego is by looking at it very-very-very closely. Since the ego is just a formless phantom, it will cease to exist if it closely investigated. No ego -> no person -> no cares and concerns. It is a very simple and straightforward logic.

So it is only as this limited ego that we seem to have all these cares and responsibilities. Though our ego and all its duties and problems are not real, but as long as experience ourself as the ego and consequently as a person, our ego, the person we seem to be and all our cares and duties, all seem quite real.

However, are any of these things actually real? We need to investigate our ego and find this out for ourself.

*-* My above reflections are based on Michael’s article: Why should we rely on Bhagavan to carry all our burdens, both material and spiritual?; 23 December 2017 at 11:39
Sanjay Lohia said...: Bhagavan says, ‘Even though one places whatever amount of burden upon God, the entire amount he will bear’. However, God doesn’t even see our ego and all its burdens, because these don’t exist in God’s non-dual view. Then how can God bear all our burdens?

Bearing them is no burden for God, because God doesn’t experience any ego or any of its burdens. So bearing them is no burden for God, because in his view he is bearing nothing. As Bhagavan says in verse 9 of Ari Arunachala Padikam, ‘for you who bear everything, what is a burden?’

Why does Bhagavan bear all our burdens most willing and without complaining? Why is he not indifferent to our pitiable condition? It is because God is limitless love. Since he doesn’t experience us as apart from himself, he loves us as himself. So just by his pure and infinite love, God is taking more than perfect care of all of us. So why should we foolishly carry all our cares, duties and responsibilities on our head? Why not let God take care of everything, which he is anyway doing.

If we rise to think anything, it shows we are not having sufficient trust in Bhagavan to take care of all our concerns and responsibilities. We cannot change our prarabdha, and things will happen as they are meant to happen. We cannot change anything in our outward life, so why try to do so?

Bhagavan used to say that your effort to do something or not to do something is itself bondage. We should just remain as we actually are, and let out outward life go on according to the will of Bhagavan.

*!* My above reflections are based on Michael’s article: Why should we rely on Bhagavan to carry all our burdens, both material and spiritual?; 23 December 2017 at 12:26
nan nan said...: Sanjay Lohia,
you say "We cannot change our prarabdha, and things will happen as they are meant to happen. We cannot change anything in our outward life, so why try to do so?"
Only by own experience can we get certainty that we cannot change prarabdha. That is the reason why we try to change our fate.; 23 December 2017 at 13:41
Sundar said...: Thank you, Mouna, with your perspective on 'Let go'.

The easiest sounding action is the most difficult to perform, it seems.

Why do we call the I as I, when that I can not know right away what it is!

I agree persistence is the key.

Wishing all to crack this code at least in 2018.

Sundar; 23 December 2017 at 13:57
maravadu said...: Sundar,
why, why , why...because the ego never wants to die.; 23 December 2017 at 14:52
Sanjay Lohia said...: Nan Nan, why do we try to change our fate? The reason is very simple: it is because we think that we can change it by our effort. It is because we feel that if we try to change things this way or that way, we will be happier. As long as we identify ourself with a person, we will have a sense of doership – that is, we will feel that the actions of our body, speech and mind can change things in this world.

We sometime seem to succeed to change things by our efforts, but we also fail to do many times. When we seem to succeed, it is because this was already part of our destiny, and if we don’t succeed then the result was not part of our destiny.

When we read Bhagavan’s teachings we come to know that our outward life is going on according to our destiny, and that we are powerless to change even a small event. We may try doing so, but we will fail to do anything which is contrary to our destiny. However, this is just a superficial understanding, and we need to put Bhagavan’s teachings into practice to convert this superficial understanding into our direct experience.

If we look back at our lives, we will see that so much water has passed under the bridge. So many things have happened, and many of the incidents seemed quite troublesome or worrisome when they happened, but they are now completely out of our mental radar. We now come to understand that whatever happened was in our best interest in all ways.

We can clearly see a divine plan working in our life. We now understand that it was beyond our limited capacity to make so many things happen and that too with such perfect planning and execution. So definitely our mind and body were being used by a higher power to carry out its plans.

However, it is only when our ego is destroyed by self-investigation that we will come to know that we were never this body and mind, and therefore we never had any fate or destiny, because these belong to us only so long as we experience ourself as a body.; 23 December 2017 at 15:45
nan nan said...: Sanjay Lohia,
yes, we read Bhagavan's teachings with enthusiasm but sometimes or even many times we disagree with him here and there because his infinite experience does not tally with our finite view of ajnana. Because we simply do not know our destiny we naturally try to change our life although "our mind and body were being used by a higher power to carry out its plans."
Only by reading Bhagavan's instructions we do not become "initiated" in jnana, because we cannot shake down experiencing ourself as a separate body-mind-consciousness. I categorically or emphatically reject the attitude that we are only helpless puppets/marionettes of our prarabdha. Such a belief may easily lead to total numbing of our free will and lethargy.
Nevertheless, in order to find out our real nature we can and should use the outstanding weapon of keen self-investigation.; 23 December 2017 at 19:24
nirvisesa said...: Sanjay Lohia,
you write "However, this is just a superficial understanding, and we need to put Bhagavan’s teachings into practice to convert this superficial understanding into our direct experience."
I think you wanted to express the necessary conversion/transformation of a mere superficial understanding (of Bhagavan's teachings) into a deep one.; 23 December 2017 at 19:49
Sanjay Lohia said...: The path of prayer that Bhagavan exemplified in Aksaramanamalai and other hymns of Arunachala Stuti Panchakam is all prayer about turning within. Bhagavan asks in verse 7 of Navamanimalai, ‘Do whatever you want, only give me increasing love for your two feet’. What better thing to ask for than pure love for Bhagavan? How can our love for Bhagavan be pure? Only when we see Bhagavan as ourself, and turn our attention back within.

So such prayers are beneficial. By these we are channeling our love for Bhagavan. We are reminding ourself that only our love for him can save us. We should pray for that which we can change. We cannot change anything in the external world. What is destined to happen is going to happen, whether we like it or not. We cannot change that one iota. We cannot add it one iota; we cannot subtract from it one iota.

Bhagavan says prarabdha affects the outward facing mind, not the inward facing mind. So prarabdha can never prevent us from turning our attention within. When we turn our attention outward we have to experience prarabdha, but even while experiencing prarabdha we can turn our attention within.

Bhagavan says, ‘Let it go on or stop, it is not other than you’. That means, all this prarabdha, all this world, let it all go on or stop. It is not apart from you. If we turn our attention within, we don’t have to be concerned about prarabdha or free-will at all.

Praying for love to turn within is meaningful, because we are always free to turn within. Even when we pray for any changes in the external world, any changes in our external life, at least then our attention is turned towards God. So to that extent it may be purifying our mind, because we are thinking about that which is infinitely pure, even though our understanding of it may not be pure. But the most beneficial prayer, what we should be praying for, is that love to turn within.

~*~ My above reflections are based on Michael’s video dated 10th June 2017; 24 December 2017 at 13:27
Sanjay Lohia said...: Bhagavan appeared in the name and form of a human being in Tiruvannamalai, lived there for 54 years, but what we see as Bhagavan, that person, that is not what Bhagavan really is. Through that person Bhagavan was shining, but Bhagavan is the one infinite reality that is shining in the heart of everyone as arivu - as that awareness, self-awareness, that is ‘I’.
So by turning our attention within to investigate this ego, we are actually attending to Bhagavan himself in his true svarupa.

^ Slightly modified extract from Michael’s video dated 23rd October, 2016; 24 December 2017 at 16:47
Sanjay Lohia said...: Merry Christmas!

Bhagavan used to often quote the Biblical statement: I am that I am. He used to say that this statement is more direct and accurate than even the four mahavakyas of the Upanishads, namely ‘I am brahman’ or ‘pure-consciousness is brahman’ and so on. It is because these mahavakyas may take our attention away from ourself towards the concept of brahman, whereas the statement I am that I am doesn’t allow our attention to move away from ourself. So Bhagavan was fond of quoting this statement.

‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ is the ego, whereas ‘I [am] I’ is what we actually are. Bhagavan used to often describe our true nature as ‘I [am] I’ or ‘I am nothing but I’. How can ‘I’ be something other than ‘I’? This mixture of ‘I’ with 'this' or 'that' is the ego, whereas logically ‘I’ cannot be anything other than ‘I’.; 25 December 2017 at 07:20
tannai vidadiruttal said...: Sanjay Lohia,
it is said that the mixture of 'I' and any adjunct appears only in the limited view of this ego. Therefore we need "only" to refrain from being mixed up with that adjunct.
Merry Christmas !; 25 December 2017 at 09:32
nan nan said...: Sanjay Lohia,
"But the most beneficial prayer, what we should be praying for, is that love to turn within."
That fundamental love to turn within we cannot produce out of a hat.
Even to pray for that love presupposes a purified mind to some minimal degree.; 25 December 2017 at 12:11
Sanjay Lohia said...: Bhagavan taught us eka-jiva-vada (the contention that there is only one jiva or ego). Who is this one jiva? If we ask Bhagavan, he will always say ‘You are that’. It is because though we can never be sure whether or not anybody is experiencing anything, we are surely aware of ourself and are also aware of things other than ourself. So ‘I’ must be that one jiva.

This eka-jiva-vada is implied in so many of his teachings. For example, in verse 26 of Ulladu Narpadu Bhagavan says:

If the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist. The ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this is alone is giving up everything.

Therefore, if this one ego is destroyed, everything else will also be destroyed along with it, and this everything else also includes all the other seeming egos. So in the above verse we can clearly read that there is only ego. All the phenomena vanish along with the ego. What then remains will be beginningless, infinite and unbroken, being, awareness and bliss.

When we experience ourself as we really are, there will remain no one to experience anything. No one will remain to experience either nothingness or fullness. Thereafter we will exist as only pure self-awareness. Thus there will be no to say ‘I have seen’ or ‘I have not seen’.

There is a saying in Tamil, Kandavar Vindillai; Vindavar Kandillai, which means ‘those who have seen do not say [or open their mouth]; those who say [or open their mouth] have not seen’. Bhagavan explains this in verse 33 of Ulladu Narpadu:

Saying ‘I do not know myself’, ‘I have known myself’, is ground for ridicule. Why? To make oneself an object, are there two selves? Because being one is the truth, the experience of everyone.

Referring to this verse, Michael says, ‘Therefore we should be very skeptical about anyone who claims ‘I have known myself’ or ‘I have experienced what remains after the ego is annihilated’. One will not make such egoistical statements after one experiences oneself as one really is. Who will remain apart from oneself to whom we can make such statements? If we make such statements, it will be a ground for ridicule.

+ The above points are taken from Michael’s article: There is only one ego, and even that does not actually exist; 25 December 2017 at 16:20
maravadu said...: Sanjay Lohia,
"When we experience ourself as we really are, there will remain no one to experience anything. No one will remain to experience either nothingness or fullness. Thereafter we will exist as only pure self-awareness..."

Actually we exist not only thereafter, but even now only as pure self-awareness.

By the way, when you write "Thus there will be no to say ‘I have seen’ ....". ...we should read "no one"...; 25 December 2017 at 20:09
tannai vidadiruttal said...: Sanjay Lohia,
"...So ‘I’ must be that one jiva."

Can we compare this one ego with a big cloud between heaven and earth ?

Can every person try to destroy this one ego ?; 26 December 2017 at 12:33
tanmaya-nishtha said...: Sanjay Lohia,
"...All the phenomena vanish along with the ego. What then remains will be beginningless, infinite and unbroken, being, awareness and bliss"
After destroying of the ego the remaining is evidently the same as the already previously and ever existing beginningless, infinite and unbroken, being, awareness and bliss. So the ego seems to exist only in its own delusive view.; 26 December 2017 at 13:01
Sanjay Lohia said...: Tannai Vidadiruttal, yes, metaphorically we can say that this one ego is a big cloud between heaven and earth. In this context heaven is what we actually are – that is, atma-svarupa, and earth is all the jada (insentient) adjuncts which seems to be associated with ourself. We can say that this cloud (the ego) is what appears in between the heaven (ourself) and the earth (all our jada adjuncts).

Yes, everyone can destroy their egos if they want to. As Bhagavan teaches us in verse 17 of Upadesa Undiyar:

When one investigates [examines or scrutinises] the form of the mind without neglecting [forgetting, abandoning, giving up or ceasing], anything called ‘mind’ will not exist. This is the direct [straight or appropriate] path for everyone whomsoever.

Therefore if we try to investigate ourself keenly enough, we will come to know that anything called ‘mind’ never existed in the first place. This is so called destruction of the ego. As Bhagavan says in the above quoted verse, self-investigation is the direct path for all – that is, self-investigation is the direct path to destroy our seeming ego.; 26 December 2017 at 15:31
tannai vidadiruttal said...: Sanjay Lohia,
thank you for your answer("Yes, everyone can destroy their egos if they want") but I asked if every person can try to destroy this one single ego.; 26 December 2017 at 16:25
Sanjay Lohia said...: Tannai Vidadiruttal, you ask, ‘if every person can destroy this one single ego?’ To understand this correctly we have to closely consider our experience in dream. We see many persons in our dream, but how many egos are experiencing this dream? Obviously only one ego is experiencing this dream, in which it experiences many persons.

Likewise Bhagavan says this waking state is another dream. So in this state also there can be only one ego projecting and experiencing all phenomena (all the persons and everything else). So Tannai Vidadiruttal, Sanjay and all other persons are projections of this one ego. Who is this one ego? Bhagavan would always say ‘You are that’. The one awareness (ego) which takes Tannai Vidadiruttal as itself is the one ego.

So if you investigate your one ego, you will find that this ego doesn’t exist, and therefore all its projections will also cease to exist. So to answer your question more directly, every person cannot destroy this one ego, but this one ego can destroy all the persons, and it can do so only by destroying itself.

We may not grasp these things fully, but this should not bother us. If we look closely at our ego and find it to be not existent, we will surely solve all our doubts about everything under the sun. Bhagavan does not merely teach us theories, but more importantly teaches us the practical means to verify these theories for ourself.; 27 December 2017 at 06:41
Sanjay Lohia said...: Reflections… on Michael’s article: If we chose to do any harmful actions, should we consider them to be done according to destiny (prarabdha)?:

1) Both fate and free will is operating at every moment of our ego’s seeming existence. We are free to turn within at every moment, if we want to.

2) The ego is the false awareness ‘I am this body’, in which ‘this body’ is the body which we currently mistake ourself to be. This ‘I am this body’ idea is merely an illusory superimposition of our pure self-awareness.

3) For every vishaya-vasana there is a corresponding karma-vasana, and vice versa. If we are inclined to experience a particular phenomenon, we are also inclined to do whatever it takes to experience that phenomenon.

4) Fate may expose us to situations in which particular vasana may rise to the surface, but whether or not we allow ourself to be swayed by that vasana is decided by our free will.

5) To the extent we allow our mind to face outwards, to that extent we will be doing agamya of one kind or another, because if we are facing outwards we will be always wander under the sway of our vasanas. We may try not to get carried away by our vasanas and we even succeed to some extent, but it is virtually impossible not to swayed our vasanas if we are facing outwards.

6) The cause of our bondage is not fate but only vasanas, over which fate has no jurisdiction.

7) Free will alone is the cause of our bondage and also of our liberation. We are bound because we regularly attend to objects by our free will, and we can be liberated at this very moment, if we are able to focus our entire attention on ourself here and now. So our liberation is in our hands.

8) Even the choices and efforts that have been predetermined are likely to coincide with the choices and efforts that we anyway happen to make by our free will. So if we eat meat it must be our destiny to do so, but it is highly likely that we also desire to eat meat. So our eating meat is impelled by two forces: fate and free will. We have a choice to curb our liking to eat meat, but if it our destiny to do we may still continue eating it.

However, as long as we are eating meat we have to assume that it is our free will that is making us do so, because our desire to eat meat is anyway present in us.; 27 December 2017 at 07:25
Sanjay Lohia said...: When we practise self-investigation, we are building up a bank account. It won’t go to waste. It’s a bank account that can’t be squandered. If you do a lot of good karmas, and you are enjoying its fruits, but while enjoying it you may also do many bad karmas. So you can squander all your gains. So there is debit and credit in your karma account, and you can squander all your credit.

But self-investigation is not a karma. It’s a non-karma - akarma. It’s turning within and just trying to be. So the credit we build up here is in the form of love to experience ourself, and in the form of detachment from experiencing anything else. This will never go to waste.

So we just have to continue working at it patiently. Every little effort we make is worth it. Whether to get to our goal in this life time or hundred life times hence, it shouldn’t bother us. Whether it happens now in the next few minutes, or a thousand births ahead doesn’t matter, because it is all ultimately a dream. What matters is our attempt to practise self-investigation from moment to moment.

# Slightly modified extract from Michael’s video dated 12th September, 2015; 27 December 2017 at 12:55
tannai vidadiruttal said...: Sanjay Lohia,
thanks again for your reply.
However, in my dream there seems to be only this my person as the experiencer of this dream. Therefore from closely considering this dream experience I cannot conclude the existence of only one (big) ego.
But as you say more important than the (difficult) understanding of Bhagavan's theories are the practical means he gave us.; 27 December 2017 at 15:01
tanmaya-nishtha said...: Sanjay Lohia,
"6) The cause of our bondage is not fate but only vasanas, over which fate has no jurisdiction."
Nevertheless the amount of vasanas which we find oursef facing or are faced/confronted with or have work off is apparently preordained by fate or God.; 27 December 2017 at 19:59
nan nan said...: Sanjay Lohia,
regarding your above listed remarks:
"7) Free will alone is the cause of our bondage and also of our liberation. We are bound because we regularly attend to objects by our free will, and we can be liberated at this very moment, if we are able to focus our entire attention on ourself here and now. So our liberation is in our hands."
That we evidently are not able to focus our entire attention on ourself here and now is certainly dependent on our destiny. So in contrast with your statement our liberation is not in our hands. We can only strive for or try to obtain it.; 27 December 2017 at 20:19
Sanjay Lohia said...: Tannai Vidadiruttal, you say, ‘However, in my dream there seems to be only this my person as the experiencer of this dream’. When you write this, you are confusing the person, Tannai, with the ego, which is the experiencer of this dream. Our ego and the person we take ourself to be are entirely different. However, I was also confused in a similar way as you are now, but Michael clarified the differences between the ego and a person through a serious of comments. I will reproduce some of the extracts from Michael’s comments on this topic:

[…] though we as this ego always experience ourself as a person, we do not experience ourself as the same person. Now we experience ourself as a person called ‘Sanjay’ or ‘Michael’, but before the birth of this person we would have experienced ourself as some other person, and if our ego is not destroyed by self-knowledge, after the death of this person we will experience ourself as yet another person.

If the person we currently experience as ourself were identical with our ego, the death of this person would have been the death of our ego, and hence all our problems would be over. However, they will not be over, because this ego can project any number of persons one after another to experience as itself.

The ego is a tricky fellow who poses as one person at one time and another person at another time. A person is a seeming mixture of pure self-awareness and a particular body, whereas the ego is a seeming mixture of pure self-awareness and any body, not just a particular one.

[…] the ‘subject’ [the ego] refers specifically to ‘I’ as the experiencer, perceiver or knower – the one who is aware of all objects – whereas the body or person is not aware of anything and is therefore not an actual experiencer or perceiver.

(I will continue this reply in my next comment); 28 December 2017 at 07:08
Sanjay Lohia said...: In continuation of my previous comment in reply to Tannai:

What is a person? It is a set of phenomena centred around a particular body, and it has both physical and mental features. Though its physical and mental features change over time, however extreme those changes may be we identify it as the same person because it is the same body that displays those features.

Other people see me as a person called Michael, who is someone with certain outwardly visible physical and mental characteristics, but they can never see or experience my ego. If I behave in an egotistical manner, they can say that they see my egotism, but though my egotism is an effect of my ego, it is not my ego itself but only its outward symptom or manifestation. My experience of my ego is entirely private or subjective in the sense that only I can experience it, whereas the person I experience as myself is public or subjective in the sense that he can be seen by anyone.

In your present dream Sanjay is as much a projection as any other person, so it cannot be Sanjay who has projected all this. The creator of a dream is not any person in that dream, not even the person the dreamer experiences as itself, but is only the dreamer, who is our ego.

When Bhagavan advises us that we should vigilantly investigate or observe our ego, the one who experiences this entire dream, he does not mean that we should observe the person who seems to be ourself in this dream, but only that we should observe the one who is aware of that person as if that person was itself. The person we experience as ourself is drsya, an object experienced by us (this ego), whereas we are drs, the experiencer of this and all other objects, so we need to distinguish ourself (this experiencing ego) from everything else that we experience, including the person that we currently seem to be.

Tannai, are things clearer now?; 28 December 2017 at 07:12
Sanjay Lohia said...: Tanmaya-Nishtha, no, the number of vasanas which we have is never preordained by God, as you seem to suggest. What is preordained are all the experiences we have to go through in this or in any other birth. What is also preordained are the actions we need to do by our body, speech and mind to experience these preordained experiences (which are the fruits of our actions done in our previous lives).

However, our vasanas come under the jurisdiction of our free will. That is, we are free to act or not to act of our vasanas, whenever these rise to our surface mind. Michael explains this in his article, If we choose to do any harmful actions, should we consider them to be done according to destiny (prārabdha)?:

The domain over which free will (mati) has jurisdiction is our desires, wishes, hopes, attachments, likes, dislikes, fears, aversions and so on, and consequently whatever efforts we make to achieve, hold on to or avoid whatever we desire, want, like, dislike, fear or feel aversion for. Since such efforts are what is called āgāmya, whatever āgāmya we may do belongs entirely to the domain of free will and not to the domain of fate. Since vāsanās are propensities, inclinations or urges, the formation, cultivation, modification, restraint, control and eradication of all kinds of vāsanās likewise belong only to the domain of free will and not to the domain of fate.; 28 December 2017 at 07:40
Sanjay Lohia said...: Nan Nan, you say, ‘That we evidently are not able to focus our entire attention on ourself here and now is certainly dependent on our destiny’. This is not correct. We are always free to turn our entire attention on ourself and to thereby dissolve our ego. That is, even while we are experiencing our prarabdha, we are entirely free not to experience our prarabdha by the practice of self-investigation.; 28 December 2017 at 08:10
nan nan said...: Sanjay Lohia,
to be theoretically "free to turn our entire attention on ourself and to thereby dissolve our ego." is not the same as to be "able to focus our entire attention on ourself here and now" as I wrote. Therefore already the quality of our practice of self-investigation seems to be dependent on (or be made conditional upon) our prarabdha.; 28 December 2017 at 10:27
tanmaya-nishtha said...: Sanjay Lohia,
I did not speak about the number of vasanas. I used the noun "amount" in the sense of quantity.
How much power is available to us to overcome of all kinds of vasanas is certainly influenced by our fate.; 28 December 2017 at 10:41
tannai vidadiruttal said...: Sanjay Lohia,
thanks again for your response and giving more explanatory remarks.
The distinction between the (our) experiencing ego and a person [as an object like an final stage or final product or final adjunct experienced by us (this ego)] makes the things not much clearer to me than before.
As you say we now in so-called waking state experience ourself as a person so-and-so. In dream the same person experiences "his" dream also as the same person so-and-so albeit in a more subtle dream-body. Before and after death we may experience us as another person with another body.
In any case we have to leave any 'I'-thought in whatever form/figure/adjunct/character which seem to veil/hide or conceal our pure self-awareness by keen investigation.; 28 December 2017 at 11:22
Sanjay Lohia said...: Michael has explained verse 24 of Ulladu Narpadu in his video dated 22nd April 2017 (morning) as follows (slightly modified):

The insentient body does not say ‘I’; being-awareness does not rise; in between one thing, ‘I’, rises as the extent of the body. Know that this is the awareness-insentience-knot, bondage, the soul, the subtle body, the ego, this wandering and the mind.

Michael: The insentient body does not say ‘I’, and the existing-awareness (sat-chit) does not rise. So the real awareness doesn’t rise. In the next sentence, Bhagavan says that in between the body and sat-chit one ‘I’ rises as the extent of the body – that means limited to the body an ‘I’ arises rises. It is the ‘I’ that feels ‘I am this body’.

The ego is nothing but the false awareness ‘I am this body’. The real self-awareness is aware of itself as ‘I’ or ‘I am’ or ‘I am I’, but the ‘I’ that rises to say ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ is the ego, and it never rises without grasping the body as itself.

Then in the next sentence he says ‘know that this is chit-jada-granthi’. Chit is the real awareness, jada is the insentient body or non-conscious body, and granthi means the knot. That is, when awareness becomes entangled with a body and forms a knot, that knot is the ego. So the ego is always the combination of ‘I am’ and ‘this body’.

Then the next word he says is bandham, which means ‘bondage’. Why the ego is bondage? For whom is the bondage? Bondage is only for the ego. The sat-chit has no bondage. The ego limits itself as a body and that is bondage. So the ego itself is bondage, and it is what is bound. The next word is jiva, which is the individual life or soul. The next word he uses is ‘subtle-body’, and then he uses ahandai, which means the ego.

(I will continue this in my next comment); 28 December 2017 at 16:38
Sanjay Lohia said...: In continuation of my previous comment:

Then he says samsara. Samsara is a Sanskrit word, and it comes from the verbal root which means to 'move about, revolve or wander'. So what samsara basically implies is constant, restless activity. So long as we rise as this ‘I’, we can never keep quiet. We may sit in silence, but are we really silent?

Bhagavan ends this list by describing the ego as manam. The term ‘mind’ can be used in two senses. Bhagavan says in verse 18 of Upadesa Undiyar:

Thoughts alone are mind. Of all, the thought called ‘I’ alone is the root. What is called mind is ‘I’.

Bhagavan says here that thoughts alone are the mind. Of all these thoughts the thought called ‘I’ is the root, it is the ego. Why is it the root? It is because what is it that thinks thoughts? What is it that is aware of thoughts? It is only the ego, the thought called ‘I’. So without this thought called ‘I’, no other thought can rise or be experienced.

Bhagavan refers to the ego as thought, because it is not pure chit. It is a mixture of chit and jada. The jada portion is a thought. So the combination of chit and jada is itself a thought. But it’s unlike all other thoughts, because no other thought is aware of itself or of anything else. The only thought which is aware of anything is the ego. Bhagavan ends by saying that what is called ‘mind’ is the ‘I’.

No other thought is permanent. Other thoughts come and go, but so long as any thought is there, the first thought ‘I’ is always there as the thinker and as the experiencer of that thought. So generally when Bhagavan talks of mind he is referring to the ego, but in some contexts he will be referring to other thoughts.; 28 December 2017 at 16:41
Arjuna said...: "Practise, practise, practise".
Only inner personal experience may raise oneself to a higher level of being.
May divine grace be vouchsafed to us - on the pre-condition that we are true devotees.; 28 December 2017 at 16:43
Arjuna said...: Sanjay Lohia,
in the last paragraph of your recent comment you say that the first thought (called) 'I' is permanent and always there as the thinker and experiencer of that thought.
But is it not said that in deep sleep there is only pure self-awareness ?; 28 December 2017 at 17:14
Sanjay Lohia said...: Arjuna, what Michael said was:

No other thought is permanent. Other thoughts come and go, but so long as any thought is there, the first thought ‘I’ is always there as the thinker and as the experiencer of that thought. So generally when Bhagavan talks of mind he is referring to the ego, but in some contexts he will be referring to other thoughts.

So Michael didn’t say ‘first thought (called) 'I' is permanent and always there […]’, but he said, ‘Other thoughts come and go, but so long as any thought is there, the first thought ‘I’ is always there as the thinker and as the experiencer of that thought’.

Yes, according to Bhagavan, ‘in deep sleep there is only pure self-awareness', but when we rise as this ego we simultaneously project and experience thoughts, because without projecting thoughts our ego cannot rise.; 28 December 2017 at 17:44
Arjuna said...: Sanjay,
thanks, I agree.; 28 December 2017 at 18:13
All is within me said...: According the Article Archive in the year 2012 no article was posted by Michael James.
It seems that we must prepare ourself again for a year 2018 without his articles and comments.
It would be no wonder if Michael grew tired to correct our ignorant views.
In any case, we owe Michael James a great debt of gratitude for having written tirelessly numerous articles, comments, translations and explanations in order to convey a clearer and deeper understanding of Bhagavan's teachings.
(Michael set up this forum with the article of Wednesday, 27 December 2006 "Your questions and comments are welcome" for open discussion.)

In grateful recognition, I thank you gratefully.
One of the many participants as a reader and commentator.; 28 December 2017 at 22:04
Michael James said...: Ādhāra, I have replied to your first comment above in a separate article: Our existence is self-evident, because we shine by our own light of pure self-awareness.; 28 February 2018 at 16:56
adhara said...: Michael,
thank you for writing the mentioned article with your considerations about my ego's outpouring which was of course given not from the viewpoint of seeing or knowing what we actually are.; 15 March 2018 at 16:45

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 687 of 687 Newer› Newest»

Sri Ramana Teachings

Friday, 20 October 2017

Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: Tamil text, transliteration and translation

687 comments:

The Philosophy and Practice of the Spiritual Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana

Contents of this sidebar

Translations of the writings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana

Copyright notice

Search this blog

Contents of this blog

Article Archive

Index of Topics

Videos and Audios

Sri Ramana Teachings

Friday, 20 October 2017

Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: Tamil text, transliteration and translation

687 comments:

The Philosophy and Practice of the Spiritual Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana

Contents of this sidebar

Translations of the writings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana

Copyright notice

Search this blog

Contents of this blog

Article Archive

Index of Topics

Videos and Audios

Subscribe to Posts and Comments