The ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things
In a comment on one of my recent articles, The ego does not actually exist, but it seems to exist, and only so long as it seems to exist do all other things seem to exist, a friend called Salazar wrote, ‘Did anybody on this blog wonder who is perceiving the thoughts which come into awareness? That what is aware of thoughts cannot be the creator of these thoughts, because a thought is an object apart from that “observer”’. This article is written in reply to this comment and another one written by him.
Salazar, what Bhagavan means by the term ‘thought’ is a mental phenomenon of any kind whatsoever, and since according to his teachings all phenomena are mental phenomena, everything other than our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is pure self-awareness, is just a thought. This is why he says in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, ‘நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை’ (niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam-eṉḏṟōr poruḷ aṉṉiyamāy illai), ‘Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world’, and in the fourteenth paragraph, ‘ஜக மென்பது நினைவே’ (jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē), ‘What is called the world is only thought’.
Therefore when you write, ‘That what is aware of thoughts cannot be the creator of these thoughts’, that implies that what is aware of phenomena cannot be the creator of those phenomena, or what is aware of the world cannot be the creator of it, but is this what Bhagavan taught us? What did he teach us about creation? Did he teach that creation occurs prior to or independent of perception, which is what we all generally believe, and which is what is called sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda, the contention (vāda) that creation (sṛṣṭi) precedes and is the cause of perception (dṛṣṭi)?
No, he asked us to question whether anything other than ourself exists independent of our perception of it, and he taught us very explicitly and emphatically what is called dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, the contention that perception (dṛṣṭi) is the sole cause of creation (sṛṣṭi), or more precisely, that perception itself is creation. Phenomena seem to exist only because we perceive them, so our perception of them alone creates their seeming existence. In other words, we, the perceiver, create phenomena merely by perceiving them.
We can understand this by considering our experience in dream. In dream we perceive a world consisting of phenomena of various kinds, including people, just like the world that we now perceive, and just as we now perceive ourself as a person in this world, in dream we perceive ourself as a person in that world. Why does that dream world seem to exist? Only because we perceive it. It does not exist prior to our perception of it, nor independent of our perception of it. Why? Because it does not exist at all except in our perception. It appears only in our awareness, so it would not exist at all if we were not aware of it.
According to Bhagavan any state in which we are aware of phenomena is just a dream, so the world we now perceive is a dream world. This is why he says in Nāṉ Ār? and elsewhere that the world is nothing but thoughts. Do thoughts exist independent of our perception of them? No, they seem to exist only because we perceive them, so they are created only by our perceiving them.
Thinking is a process of forming thoughts and perceiving them, but the formation (creation) of thoughts and the perception of them are not two processes or even two parts of one process, but are one and the same process, because thoughts are formed in our awareness, so they are formed by our being aware of them. Our perception of them is itself the formation or creation of them. In other words, dṛṣṭi is itself sṛṣṭi. There is no creation (sṛṣṭi) other than perception (dṛṣṭi), because there is no existence (sat) other than awareness (cit).
What actually exists is only awareness, so whatever seems to exist seems to exist only because of awareness. Therefore it is only by awareness that anything is created. Without awareness there could be no creation.
Creation is not real but just an illusory appearance, and nothing can appear except in awareness. Appearance requires perception or awareness of it, because if it were not perceived, to whom or to what could it appear? Whatever appears seems to exist only because it is perceived. In other words, whatever seems to exist seems to exist only in awareness, only to awareness, only by awareness and only because of awareness.
2. The awareness in which and to which phenomena appear is not real awareness but only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa)
However, the awareness in which, to which, by which and because of which all things seem to exist is not real awareness (cit), but is only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa), because real awareness is never aware of anything other than itself. This semblance of awareness, in whose view alone all thoughts or phenomena seem to exist, is not real, because it arises and subsides (appears and disappears) along with all the phenomena of which it is aware, as Bhagavan says in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
3. This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is the ego or mind, which is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear
This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is what is otherwise called the ego or mind, and as Bhagavan says in the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
As he points out in verse 18 of Upadēśa Undiyār, the term ‘mind’ is used in two distinct senses. In a general sense it is a term that refers to the totality of all thoughts or mental phenomena, but since the root of all thoughts is the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’, what the mind essentially is is only the ego, and hence in a more specific sense ‘mind’ is a term that refers to the ego. The ego is the root of all other thoughts because it is the subject, the perceiving thought, whereas all other thoughts are objects perceived by it.
In the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, cited above, the term ‘mind’ refers to the ego, so when Bhagavan says that it ‘causes all thoughts to appear’ or ‘makes all thoughts appear’ he means that the ego (the subject or perceiver) is what causes all other thoughts to appear. However in the next two sentences, in which he says, ‘நினைவுகளை யெல்லாம் நீக்கிப் பார்க்கின்றபோது, தனியாய் மனமென் றோர் பொருளில்லை; ஆகையால் நினைவே மனதின் சொரூபம்’ (niṉaivugaḷai y-ellām nīkki-p pārkkiṉḏṟa-pōdu, taṉi-y-āy maṉam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ illai; āhaiyāl niṉaivē maṉadiṉ sorūpam), ‘When one looks, excluding [removing or putting aside] all thoughts, solitarily there is not any such thing as mind; therefore thought alone is the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or very nature] of the mind’, the term ‘mind’ refers to the totality of all thoughts, namely the ego and all phenomena perceived by it. Therefore whenever Bhagavan uses the term ‘mind’ we need to understand from the context whether he is using it to refer specifically to the ego or more generally to all thoughts.
What Bhagavan teaches us in the second sentence of this paragraph, namely that the mind (in the sense of ego) is what ‘causes all thoughts to appear’, is further emphasised by him later on in the same paragraph by means of an analogy:
4. The ego or mind causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear only from itself, so it alone is their source or origin
Since the ego or mind alone is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear, from where or from what does it cause them to appear? ‘தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து’ (taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu), ‘from itself’ or ‘from within itself’, says Bhagavan. Since the world is nothing but thoughts (mental phenomena of a particular kind, namely sensory perceptions), when he firstly says, ‘அது சகல நினைவுகளையும் தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது’ (adu sakala niṉaivugaḷaiyum tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu), ‘It [the mind] causes all thoughts to appear’, and subsequently says, ‘மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து’ (maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu), ‘the mind also causing the world to appear from within itself’, he clearly implies that the mind or ego causes all thoughts (or all phenomena) to appear from itself.
Therefore Bhagavan teaches us very clearly and unambiguously that the mind, which in this context means the ego, is the source or origin from which all thoughts or phenomena appear, and this accords perfectly with our own experience. From where else could our thoughts come if not from ourself? Thoughts or phenomena appear only in our perception and only because of our perception of them, so their source or origin is only ourself, this ego.
5. A cause and its effect can occur simultaneously, but logically the cause comes first and the effect comes only after it
In the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? he says:
In terms of chronological sequence, a cause must either precede its effect or be simultaneous with its effect, but even when it is simultaneous with its effect, in terms of causal sequence it precedes it, because a cause is what gives rise to an effect, so logically the cause comes first and its effect comes only after it. Consider the example of a moving billiard ball hitting a stationary one. The hit causes some of the momentum of the moving ball to be transferred to the stationary one, as a result of which it begins to move. The hit is the cause, and the movement of the stationary ball is the effect. Both occur simultaneously in time, but in terms of the causal sequence the cause comes first and the effect follows on from it. That is, the hitting comes first, and only after it occurs does the stationary ball begin to move.
It is in this sense that Bhagavan says: ‘நானென்னும் நினைவே முதல் நினைவு. இது எழுந்த பிறகே ஏனைய நினைவுகள் எழுகின்றன. தன்மை தோன்றிய பிறகே முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தோன்றுகின்றன; தன்மை யின்றி முன்னிலை படர்க்கைக ளிரா’ (nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē mudal niṉaivu. idu eṙunda piṟahē ēṉaiya niṉaivugaḷ eṙugiṉḏṟaṉa. taṉmai tōṉḏṟiya piṟahē muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tōṉḏṟugiṉḏṟaṉa; taṉmai y-iṉḏṟi muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ irā), ‘the thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought. Only after this arises do other thoughts arise. Only after the first person [the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist’. That is, though the ego (the thought called ‘I’) and other thoughts arise simultaneously, in the sequence of cause and effect the rising of the ego comes first, because it is the cause, and the rising of other thoughts comes only after that, because it is the effect.
In an earlier comment you wrote, ‘the ego and thoughts appear and disappear simultaneously. To imply that one of these concepts were there before the other one is rather fishy, I believe that the question what is first, the ego or a thought falls under the category of what is first, the chicken or the egg?’ but this seems to be fishy only if we fail to distinguish causal sequence from chronological sequence. Bhagavan did say (as in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu) that ego and other thoughts appear and disappear simultaneously, referring to chronological sequence, but he also said (as in the final four sentences of the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?) that the ego is the first thought and that only after it rises do other thoughts rise, referring to causal sequence.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that the ego (the first person, the thought called ‘I’) is the first thought to appear and that only after it appears do other thoughts (second and third persons) appear, he does not mean that there is any lapse of time between the appearance of the ego and the appearance of other thoughts or phenomena, but is merely emphasising that the appearance of the ego is the cause and the appearance of all other things is its effect. The ego is the first cause, the cause of all other causes, so all chains of cause and effect begin only after the ego has appeared.
The analogy of the chicken and egg that you mention is not appropriate in this context, because chickens and eggs are links in a long chain of cause and effect, whereas the ego is the beginning or origin of every chain of cause and effect. Like both a chicken and an egg, every cause (or potential cause) is an effect of another cause, except the ego, which is the only cause that is not an effect of any other cause. It is the causeless cause, the uncaused cause, because nothing precedes it, whereas it precedes everything.
A chicken is the cause of an egg, which is in turn the cause of another chicken, and so on ad infinitum, but all such chains of cause and effect seem to exist only in the view of the ego, so they can appear only when the ego has appeared, and they must disappear as soon as it disappears. Therefore the ego is the cause and origin of all other causes and effects. This is why Bhagavan says that it is the first thought, and that all other thoughts (including chickens and eggs and all other chains of cause and effect) arise only after it has arisen.
6. Since the ego has created all that it perceives, why does it have so little control over what it has created?
You conclude that earlier comment by writing, ‘Anyway, I do not think that any clarity of that topic can be found in Bhagavan’s texts, I still favor Robert’s comment and I believe that he is in unison with Bhagavan on this matter’, but there is actually abundant clarity on this topic that we can found in his texts if we know how to look for it. The fact that the ego alone is the root cause for the appearance of everything else is one of the fundamental principles of his teachings and is therefore emphasised by him unequivocally in so many ways in his original writings, particularly in Nāṉ Ār? and Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, and also in many of the records of his replies to questions that he was asked.
Earlier in the same comment you asked, ‘Now I am wondering, since the ego cannot control these thoughts which it is supposedly “creating” how can it be the creator of thereof?’ but why do you assume that the creator should necessarily be able to control what it has created? When we dream, is the creator of our dream anyone other than ourself, the dreamer, namely this mind or ego?
Since perception is itself creation, we who perceive a dream are the one who is thereby creating it, but are we able to control all that we perceive in a dream? No, we cannot, and the reason for this is simple: when we create a dream world, we create ourself as a person in that world, and it is only as that person that we perceive that world, so though we are the creator of that world, we experience ourself as a creature in it, and by being a small part of our creation we have to a large extent lost control over it. The same is the case with this world and all that we perceive in it, including all the thoughts that arise in the mind of the person whom we now seem to be.
You are creating this world from moment to moment, but since you experience yourself as a person called Salazar, and since Salazar is a creature in the world you have created, as Salazar you have lost control of most of your own creation. This is the wonderful power of māyā (self-deception or self-delusion), which according to Bhagavan is nothing other than the ego or mind. We have created this world, but we are deluded by our own creation, so we are unable to control this demon that we have conjured up.
This is why in Hindu mythology the first three divine functions, namely creation, sustenance and dissolution, are each attributed to a different deity. According to this allegorical way of expressing the truth, Brahma has created this world, but he is unable to control or sustain it, nor is he able to destroy it, so it is sustained by Vishnu and destroyed by Siva. Of these three forms of God, which two are most highly revered? Only Vishnu and Siva, because creation is not a worthy function, so Brahma, the creator, is not worshipped in any temple, but only in Vedic rituals that are performed for the fulfilment of desires.
Suppose we have an irrational fear or an obsessive desire. That fear or desire is just a thought and it is created only by us, but we have become so caught up in our own creation that we are carried away by it and seem to be unable to control it.
This is not to say that we have absolutely no control over what we think or over other phenomena. We may have some degree of control, but that degree is limited, and the more we are deluded by our own creation, the less control we have over it. However if we patiently and persistently practise self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), our viṣaya-vāsanās (outward-going inclinations, urges or desires) will be gradually weakened, and our mind will thereby be purified. To the extent that it is purified it will be clear, and the clearer it becomes the less dense will be its delusion, so the extent to which we are able to keep a tight rein on our viṣaya-vāsanās, which are the seeds that give rise to thoughts, will increase correspondingly.
7. Thoughts come only from ourself, the ego, the one who perceives them, so we alone are the root of all thoughts
In a later part of the comment whose first paragraph I quoted at the beginning of this article you wrote, ‘So where are thoughts coming from? If patiently investigated one will discover that they come out of nowhere and disappear into nowhere’, but how can anything come out of nowhere? Nowhere does not exist except as an idea or thought, so from where does the idea of nowhere arise? Something cannot come out of nothing, because nothing does not exist, so whatever appears must appear from something.
In the next paragraph of that comment you wrote, ‘it is absolutely clear that they [thoughts] cannot come from the observer of these thoughts’, but from where else could thoughts come if not from ourself, the one who perceives or observes them? Thoughts appear only in the mind, and the source from which they appear is the root thought, the ego (which is why Bhagavan calls it the mūlam, the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause of all other thoughts). The ego rises or appears only out of ātma-svarūpa (the real nature of oneself), and all other thoughts rise or appear only out of the ego, so the ego is the immediate source and foundation of all other thoughts, and ātma-svarūpa is their ultimate source and foundation.
From what does the illusion of a snake appear? It cannot appear from nowhere or nothing, so it appears from something that (in terms of this analogy) actually exists, namely a rope. However it could not appear from a rope without the intervening medium called ego or mind, because it appears to be a snake only in the view of the ego. Therefore the immediate cause for the appearance of the snake is the ego, in whose view alone it appears, and the ultimate cause of it is the rope, because without the rope there would be nothing to be seen as a snake.
This is just an analogy, so there is a limit to the extent to which it accurately represents the truth to which it is analogous, but what it is intended to illustrate here is that the ultimate source, substance and foundation of the ego and of all thoughts or phenomena perceived by the ego is only ātma-svarūpa, but that the immediate source, substance and foundation of all thoughts or phenomena is only the ego, because it is only in the view of the ego that everything else seems to exist.
Without the ego could any other thought or phenomenon appear? It could not, because the ego is that to which and from which all other thoughts or phenomena appear. Likewise, without ātma-svarūpa could the ego appear? It could not, because ātma-svarūpa is that from which (but not to which) the ego appears.
This is why in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? Bhagavan says, ‘மனம் ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தினின்று வெளிப்படும்போது ஜகம் தோன்றும்’ (maṉam ātma-sorūpattiṉiṉḏṟu veḷippaḍum-pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟum), ‘When the mind comes out from ātma-svarūpa, the world appears’, meaning that ātma-svarūpa is the source from which the mind or ego appears, and in the previous sentence said, ‘[…] அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது’ (appaḍiyē maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu), ‘[…] in that way the mind also causes the world to appear from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself’, meaning that the mind or ego is the source from which the world and all other thoughts appear.
If other thoughts or phenomena did not originate from the ego, that would mean that they originate from something else, in which case they would be able to exist independent of the ego, which is contrary to all that Bhagavan taught us. Why should we believe that anything exists independent of the ego, or that anything originates from any source other than the ego? Since everything is perceived only by the ego, we do not have any adequate reason to suppose that anything exists independent of it or comes from anything other than it. This is why Bhagavan repeatedly emphasised that the ego (which is what he often referred to as ‘the thought called I’) is the first thought and the root of all other thoughts.
8. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: everything depends for its seeming existence on the seeming existence of the ego, so when we investigate the ego keenly enough to see that it does not exist, that is giving up everything
Since the ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things, in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan wrote:
Since the ego seems to exist only so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, it will dissolve and cease to exist only when we try to be so keenly self-attentive that we are aware of nothing other than ourself. And since all other things seem to exist only in the view of the ego, if we keenly investigate this ego in order to see what we actually are, not only will the ego cease to exist but everything else will cease to exist along with it.
This is why he concludes this verse by saying: ‘ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்’ (ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr), ‘Therefore, know that investigating what this [the ego] is alone is giving up everything’.
This is the core and essence of his teachings, so it is essential for us to understand very clearly that the ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things (all thoughts or phenomena). Everything originates from the ego and depends upon the ego for its seeming existence, so if we eradicate the ego we thereby eradicate everything.
- According to dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, perception is not only the cause of creation but is itself creation
- The awareness in which and to which phenomena appear is not real awareness but only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa)
- This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is the ego or mind, which is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear
- The ego or mind causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear only from itself, so it alone is their source or origin
- A cause and its effect can occur simultaneously, but logically the cause comes first and the effect comes only after it
- Since the ego has created all that it perceives, why does it have so little control over what it has created?
- Thoughts come only from ourself, the ego, the one who perceives them, so we alone are the root of all thoughts
- Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: everything depends for its seeming existence on the seeming existence of the ego, so when we investigate the ego keenly enough to see that it does not exist, that is giving up everything
Salazar, what Bhagavan means by the term ‘thought’ is a mental phenomenon of any kind whatsoever, and since according to his teachings all phenomena are mental phenomena, everything other than our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is pure self-awareness, is just a thought. This is why he says in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, ‘நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை’ (niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam-eṉḏṟōr poruḷ aṉṉiyamāy illai), ‘Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world’, and in the fourteenth paragraph, ‘ஜக மென்பது நினைவே’ (jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē), ‘What is called the world is only thought’.
Therefore when you write, ‘That what is aware of thoughts cannot be the creator of these thoughts’, that implies that what is aware of phenomena cannot be the creator of those phenomena, or what is aware of the world cannot be the creator of it, but is this what Bhagavan taught us? What did he teach us about creation? Did he teach that creation occurs prior to or independent of perception, which is what we all generally believe, and which is what is called sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda, the contention (vāda) that creation (sṛṣṭi) precedes and is the cause of perception (dṛṣṭi)?
No, he asked us to question whether anything other than ourself exists independent of our perception of it, and he taught us very explicitly and emphatically what is called dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, the contention that perception (dṛṣṭi) is the sole cause of creation (sṛṣṭi), or more precisely, that perception itself is creation. Phenomena seem to exist only because we perceive them, so our perception of them alone creates their seeming existence. In other words, we, the perceiver, create phenomena merely by perceiving them.
We can understand this by considering our experience in dream. In dream we perceive a world consisting of phenomena of various kinds, including people, just like the world that we now perceive, and just as we now perceive ourself as a person in this world, in dream we perceive ourself as a person in that world. Why does that dream world seem to exist? Only because we perceive it. It does not exist prior to our perception of it, nor independent of our perception of it. Why? Because it does not exist at all except in our perception. It appears only in our awareness, so it would not exist at all if we were not aware of it.
According to Bhagavan any state in which we are aware of phenomena is just a dream, so the world we now perceive is a dream world. This is why he says in Nāṉ Ār? and elsewhere that the world is nothing but thoughts. Do thoughts exist independent of our perception of them? No, they seem to exist only because we perceive them, so they are created only by our perceiving them.
Thinking is a process of forming thoughts and perceiving them, but the formation (creation) of thoughts and the perception of them are not two processes or even two parts of one process, but are one and the same process, because thoughts are formed in our awareness, so they are formed by our being aware of them. Our perception of them is itself the formation or creation of them. In other words, dṛṣṭi is itself sṛṣṭi. There is no creation (sṛṣṭi) other than perception (dṛṣṭi), because there is no existence (sat) other than awareness (cit).
What actually exists is only awareness, so whatever seems to exist seems to exist only because of awareness. Therefore it is only by awareness that anything is created. Without awareness there could be no creation.
Creation is not real but just an illusory appearance, and nothing can appear except in awareness. Appearance requires perception or awareness of it, because if it were not perceived, to whom or to what could it appear? Whatever appears seems to exist only because it is perceived. In other words, whatever seems to exist seems to exist only in awareness, only to awareness, only by awareness and only because of awareness.
2. The awareness in which and to which phenomena appear is not real awareness but only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa)
However, the awareness in which, to which, by which and because of which all things seem to exist is not real awareness (cit), but is only a semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa), because real awareness is never aware of anything other than itself. This semblance of awareness, in whose view alone all thoughts or phenomena seem to exist, is not real, because it arises and subsides (appears and disappears) along with all the phenomena of which it is aware, as Bhagavan says in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:
உலகறிவு மொன்றா யுதித்தொடுங்கு மேனுThe world shines by this semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa), which appears and disappears, because it is perceived only by it and therefore seems to exist only in its view. Therefore though the world and this awareness appear and disappear simultaneously, it is only by this awareness that the world is created or brought into seeming existence. In other words, this awareness is the cause and the appearance of the world is its effect. Whenever this awareness appears, the world appears along with it and because of it, and whenever this awareness disappears, the world disappears along with and because of its disappearance.
முலகறிவு தன்னா லொளிரு — முலகறிவு
தோன்றிமறை தற்கிடனாய்த் தோன்றிமறை யாதொளிரும்
பூன்றமா மஃதே பொருள்.
ulahaṟivu moṉḏṟā yudittoḍuṅgu mēṉu
mulahaṟivu taṉṉā loḷiru — mulahaṟivu
tōṉḏṟimaṟai daṟkiḍaṉāyt tōṉḏṟimaṟai yādoḷirum
pūṉḏṟamā maḵdē poruḷ.
பதச்சேதம்: உலகு அறிவும் ஒன்றாய் உதித்து ஒடுங்கும் ஏனும், உலகு அறிவு தன்னால் ஒளிரும். உலகு அறிவு தோன்றி மறைதற்கு இடன் ஆய் தோன்றி மறையாது ஒளிரும் பூன்றம் ஆம் அஃதே பொருள்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ulahu aṟivum oṉḏṟāy udittu oḍuṅgum ēṉum, ulahu aṟivu-taṉṉāl oḷirum. ulahu aṟivu tōṉḏṟi maṟaidaṟku iḍaṉ-āy tōṉḏṟi maṟaiyādu oḷirum pūṉḏṟam ām aḵdē poruḷ.
அன்வயம்: உலகு அறிவும் ஒன்றாய் உதித்து ஒடுங்கும் ஏனும், உலகு அறிவு தன்னால் ஒளிரும். உலகு அறிவு தோன்றி மறைதற்கு இடன் ஆய் தோன்றி மறையாது ஒளிரும் அஃதே பூன்றம் ஆம் பொருள்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ulahu aṟivum oṉḏṟāy udittu oḍuṅgum ēṉum, ulahu aṟivu-taṉṉāl oḷirum. ulahu aṟivu tōṉḏṟi maṟaidaṟku iḍaṉ-āy tōṉḏṟi maṟaiyādu oḷirum aḵdē pūṉḏṟam ām poruḷ.
English translation: 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.
Explanatory paraphrase: Though the world and awareness [the awareness that perceives the world, namely the ego or mind] arise and subside simultaneously, the world shines by [that rising and subsiding] awareness [the mind]. Only that which shines without appearing or disappearing as the place [space, expanse, location, site or ground] for the appearing and disappearing of the world and [that] awareness is poruḷ [the real substance or vastu], which is pūṉḏṟam [the infinite whole or pūrṇa].
3. This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is the ego or mind, which is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear
This semblance of awareness (cidābhāsa) is what is otherwise called the ego or mind, and as Bhagavan says in the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
மன மென்பது ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தி லுள்ள ஓர் அதிசய சக்தி. அது சகல நினைவுகளையும் தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது.The verb that Bhagavan uses in the second of these two sentences is தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது (tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu), which is the third person singular present tense form of தோற்றுவி (tōṯṟuvi), which is the causative form of தோன்று (tōṉḏṟu), a verb that means to appear, rise, come into existence or seem to be, so தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது (tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu) literally means ‘it causes to appear’ or ‘it makes appear’, but in this context it is often translated as ‘it projects’ or ‘it creates’, which is what it implies. Therefore by saying that the mind ‘causes all thoughts to appear’ or ‘makes all thoughts appear’, he implies unequivocally that the mind is what creates the appearance of all thoughts.
maṉam eṉbadu ātma-sorūpattil uḷḷa ōr atiśaya śakti. adu sakala niṉaivugaḷaiyum tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu
What is called mind is an atiśaya śakti [an extraordinary power] that exists in ātma-svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself]. It makes all thoughts appear.
As he points out in verse 18 of Upadēśa Undiyār, the term ‘mind’ is used in two distinct senses. In a general sense it is a term that refers to the totality of all thoughts or mental phenomena, but since the root of all thoughts is the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’, what the mind essentially is is only the ego, and hence in a more specific sense ‘mind’ is a term that refers to the ego. The ego is the root of all other thoughts because it is the subject, the perceiving thought, whereas all other thoughts are objects perceived by it.
In the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, cited above, the term ‘mind’ refers to the ego, so when Bhagavan says that it ‘causes all thoughts to appear’ or ‘makes all thoughts appear’ he means that the ego (the subject or perceiver) is what causes all other thoughts to appear. However in the next two sentences, in which he says, ‘நினைவுகளை யெல்லாம் நீக்கிப் பார்க்கின்றபோது, தனியாய் மனமென் றோர் பொருளில்லை; ஆகையால் நினைவே மனதின் சொரூபம்’ (niṉaivugaḷai y-ellām nīkki-p pārkkiṉḏṟa-pōdu, taṉi-y-āy maṉam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ illai; āhaiyāl niṉaivē maṉadiṉ sorūpam), ‘When one looks, excluding [removing or putting aside] all thoughts, solitarily there is not any such thing as mind; therefore thought alone is the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or very nature] of the mind’, the term ‘mind’ refers to the totality of all thoughts, namely the ego and all phenomena perceived by it. Therefore whenever Bhagavan uses the term ‘mind’ we need to understand from the context whether he is using it to refer specifically to the ego or more generally to all thoughts.
What Bhagavan teaches us in the second sentence of this paragraph, namely that the mind (in the sense of ego) is what ‘causes all thoughts to appear’, is further emphasised by him later on in the same paragraph by means of an analogy:
நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை. தூக்கத்தில் நினைவுகளில்லை, ஜகமுமில்லை; ஜாக்ர சொப்பனங்களில் நினைவுகளுள, ஜகமும் உண்டு. சிலந்திப்பூச்சி எப்படித் தன்னிடமிருந்து வெளியில் நூலை நூற்று மறுபடியும் தன்னுள் இழுத்துக் கொள்ளுகிறதோ, அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது.Here again he uses the same causative verb, தோற்றுவி (tōṯṟuvi), which means ‘cause to appear’ or ‘make appear’ and which implies ‘project’ or ‘create’, saying ‘அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது’ (appaḍiyē maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu), ‘in that way the mind also causes the world to appear from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself’. Therefore in this paragraph Bhagavan emphasises very strongly and categorically that the mind or ego is what causes all other things (all thoughts or phenomena) to appear.
niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ aṉṉiyam-āy illai. tūkkattil niṉaivugaḷ illai, jagamum illai; jāgra-soppaṉaṅgaḷil niṉaivugaḷ uḷa, jagamum uṇḍu. silandi-p-pūcci eppaḍi-t taṉ-ṉ-iḍam-irundu veḷiyil nūlai nūṯṟu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉuḷ iṙuttu-k-koḷḷugiṟadō, appaḍiyē maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu.
Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world. In sleep there are no thoughts, and [consequently] there is also no world; in waking and dream there are thoughts, and [consequently] there is also a world. Just as a spider spins out thread from within itself and again draws it back into itself, so the mind also makes the world appear [or projects the world] from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself.
4. The ego or mind causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear only from itself, so it alone is their source or origin
Since the ego or mind alone is what causes all thoughts or phenomena to appear, from where or from what does it cause them to appear? ‘தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து’ (taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu), ‘from itself’ or ‘from within itself’, says Bhagavan. Since the world is nothing but thoughts (mental phenomena of a particular kind, namely sensory perceptions), when he firstly says, ‘அது சகல நினைவுகளையும் தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது’ (adu sakala niṉaivugaḷaiyum tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu), ‘It [the mind] causes all thoughts to appear’, and subsequently says, ‘மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து’ (maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu), ‘the mind also causing the world to appear from within itself’, he clearly implies that the mind or ego causes all thoughts (or all phenomena) to appear from itself.
Therefore Bhagavan teaches us very clearly and unambiguously that the mind, which in this context means the ego, is the source or origin from which all thoughts or phenomena appear, and this accords perfectly with our own experience. From where else could our thoughts come if not from ourself? Thoughts or phenomena appear only in our perception and only because of our perception of them, so their source or origin is only ourself, this ego.
5. A cause and its effect can occur simultaneously, but logically the cause comes first and the effect comes only after it
In the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? he says:
இந்தத் தேகத்தில் நான் என்று கிளம்புவது எதுவோ அஃதே மனமாம். […] மனதில் தோன்றும் நினைவுக ளெல்லாவற்றிற்கும் நானென்னும் நினைவே முதல் நினைவு. இது எழுந்த பிறகே ஏனைய நினைவுகள் எழுகின்றன. தன்மை தோன்றிய பிறகே முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தோன்றுகின்றன; தன்மை யின்றி முன்னிலை படர்க்கைக ளிரா.When Bhagavan says here that the thought called ‘I’ (the ego) is the first thought and that only after it rises do other thoughts arise, this may seem to contradict what he says in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, namely that the world and awareness (which in this context means the ego, the spurious awareness that appears and disappears) arise and subside simultaneously, but there is actually no contradiction here, because when he says that they arise simultaneously he means at the same time, whereas when he says that the ego is the first thought and that only after it rises do other thoughts arise he is not referring to a chronological sequence but to a causal sequence.
inda-t dēhattil nāṉ eṉḏṟu kiḷambuvadu edu-v-ō aḵdē maṉam-ām. […] maṉadil tōṉḏṟum niṉaivugaḷ ellāvaṯṟiṟkum nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē mudal niṉaivu. idu eṙunda piṟahē ēṉaiya niṉaivugaḷ eṙugiṉḏṟaṉa. taṉmai tōṉḏṟiya piṟahē muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tōṉḏṟugiṉḏṟaṉa; taṉmai y-iṉḏṟi muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ irā.
What rises in this body as ‘I’ [namely the ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’], that alone is the mind. […] Of all the thoughts that appear [or arise] in the mind, the thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought [the primal, basic, original or causal thought]. Only after this arises do other thoughts arise. Only after the first person [the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist.
In terms of chronological sequence, a cause must either precede its effect or be simultaneous with its effect, but even when it is simultaneous with its effect, in terms of causal sequence it precedes it, because a cause is what gives rise to an effect, so logically the cause comes first and its effect comes only after it. Consider the example of a moving billiard ball hitting a stationary one. The hit causes some of the momentum of the moving ball to be transferred to the stationary one, as a result of which it begins to move. The hit is the cause, and the movement of the stationary ball is the effect. Both occur simultaneously in time, but in terms of the causal sequence the cause comes first and the effect follows on from it. That is, the hitting comes first, and only after it occurs does the stationary ball begin to move.
It is in this sense that Bhagavan says: ‘நானென்னும் நினைவே முதல் நினைவு. இது எழுந்த பிறகே ஏனைய நினைவுகள் எழுகின்றன. தன்மை தோன்றிய பிறகே முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தோன்றுகின்றன; தன்மை யின்றி முன்னிலை படர்க்கைக ளிரா’ (nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē mudal niṉaivu. idu eṙunda piṟahē ēṉaiya niṉaivugaḷ eṙugiṉḏṟaṉa. taṉmai tōṉḏṟiya piṟahē muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tōṉḏṟugiṉḏṟaṉa; taṉmai y-iṉḏṟi muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ irā), ‘the thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought. Only after this arises do other thoughts arise. Only after the first person [the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist’. That is, though the ego (the thought called ‘I’) and other thoughts arise simultaneously, in the sequence of cause and effect the rising of the ego comes first, because it is the cause, and the rising of other thoughts comes only after that, because it is the effect.
In an earlier comment you wrote, ‘the ego and thoughts appear and disappear simultaneously. To imply that one of these concepts were there before the other one is rather fishy, I believe that the question what is first, the ego or a thought falls under the category of what is first, the chicken or the egg?’ but this seems to be fishy only if we fail to distinguish causal sequence from chronological sequence. Bhagavan did say (as in verse 7 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu) that ego and other thoughts appear and disappear simultaneously, referring to chronological sequence, but he also said (as in the final four sentences of the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?) that the ego is the first thought and that only after it rises do other thoughts rise, referring to causal sequence.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that the ego (the first person, the thought called ‘I’) is the first thought to appear and that only after it appears do other thoughts (second and third persons) appear, he does not mean that there is any lapse of time between the appearance of the ego and the appearance of other thoughts or phenomena, but is merely emphasising that the appearance of the ego is the cause and the appearance of all other things is its effect. The ego is the first cause, the cause of all other causes, so all chains of cause and effect begin only after the ego has appeared.
The analogy of the chicken and egg that you mention is not appropriate in this context, because chickens and eggs are links in a long chain of cause and effect, whereas the ego is the beginning or origin of every chain of cause and effect. Like both a chicken and an egg, every cause (or potential cause) is an effect of another cause, except the ego, which is the only cause that is not an effect of any other cause. It is the causeless cause, the uncaused cause, because nothing precedes it, whereas it precedes everything.
A chicken is the cause of an egg, which is in turn the cause of another chicken, and so on ad infinitum, but all such chains of cause and effect seem to exist only in the view of the ego, so they can appear only when the ego has appeared, and they must disappear as soon as it disappears. Therefore the ego is the cause and origin of all other causes and effects. This is why Bhagavan says that it is the first thought, and that all other thoughts (including chickens and eggs and all other chains of cause and effect) arise only after it has arisen.
6. Since the ego has created all that it perceives, why does it have so little control over what it has created?
You conclude that earlier comment by writing, ‘Anyway, I do not think that any clarity of that topic can be found in Bhagavan’s texts, I still favor Robert’s comment and I believe that he is in unison with Bhagavan on this matter’, but there is actually abundant clarity on this topic that we can found in his texts if we know how to look for it. The fact that the ego alone is the root cause for the appearance of everything else is one of the fundamental principles of his teachings and is therefore emphasised by him unequivocally in so many ways in his original writings, particularly in Nāṉ Ār? and Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, and also in many of the records of his replies to questions that he was asked.
Earlier in the same comment you asked, ‘Now I am wondering, since the ego cannot control these thoughts which it is supposedly “creating” how can it be the creator of thereof?’ but why do you assume that the creator should necessarily be able to control what it has created? When we dream, is the creator of our dream anyone other than ourself, the dreamer, namely this mind or ego?
Since perception is itself creation, we who perceive a dream are the one who is thereby creating it, but are we able to control all that we perceive in a dream? No, we cannot, and the reason for this is simple: when we create a dream world, we create ourself as a person in that world, and it is only as that person that we perceive that world, so though we are the creator of that world, we experience ourself as a creature in it, and by being a small part of our creation we have to a large extent lost control over it. The same is the case with this world and all that we perceive in it, including all the thoughts that arise in the mind of the person whom we now seem to be.
You are creating this world from moment to moment, but since you experience yourself as a person called Salazar, and since Salazar is a creature in the world you have created, as Salazar you have lost control of most of your own creation. This is the wonderful power of māyā (self-deception or self-delusion), which according to Bhagavan is nothing other than the ego or mind. We have created this world, but we are deluded by our own creation, so we are unable to control this demon that we have conjured up.
This is why in Hindu mythology the first three divine functions, namely creation, sustenance and dissolution, are each attributed to a different deity. According to this allegorical way of expressing the truth, Brahma has created this world, but he is unable to control or sustain it, nor is he able to destroy it, so it is sustained by Vishnu and destroyed by Siva. Of these three forms of God, which two are most highly revered? Only Vishnu and Siva, because creation is not a worthy function, so Brahma, the creator, is not worshipped in any temple, but only in Vedic rituals that are performed for the fulfilment of desires.
Suppose we have an irrational fear or an obsessive desire. That fear or desire is just a thought and it is created only by us, but we have become so caught up in our own creation that we are carried away by it and seem to be unable to control it.
This is not to say that we have absolutely no control over what we think or over other phenomena. We may have some degree of control, but that degree is limited, and the more we are deluded by our own creation, the less control we have over it. However if we patiently and persistently practise self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), our viṣaya-vāsanās (outward-going inclinations, urges or desires) will be gradually weakened, and our mind will thereby be purified. To the extent that it is purified it will be clear, and the clearer it becomes the less dense will be its delusion, so the extent to which we are able to keep a tight rein on our viṣaya-vāsanās, which are the seeds that give rise to thoughts, will increase correspondingly.
7. Thoughts come only from ourself, the ego, the one who perceives them, so we alone are the root of all thoughts
In a later part of the comment whose first paragraph I quoted at the beginning of this article you wrote, ‘So where are thoughts coming from? If patiently investigated one will discover that they come out of nowhere and disappear into nowhere’, but how can anything come out of nowhere? Nowhere does not exist except as an idea or thought, so from where does the idea of nowhere arise? Something cannot come out of nothing, because nothing does not exist, so whatever appears must appear from something.
In the next paragraph of that comment you wrote, ‘it is absolutely clear that they [thoughts] cannot come from the observer of these thoughts’, but from where else could thoughts come if not from ourself, the one who perceives or observes them? Thoughts appear only in the mind, and the source from which they appear is the root thought, the ego (which is why Bhagavan calls it the mūlam, the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause of all other thoughts). The ego rises or appears only out of ātma-svarūpa (the real nature of oneself), and all other thoughts rise or appear only out of the ego, so the ego is the immediate source and foundation of all other thoughts, and ātma-svarūpa is their ultimate source and foundation.
From what does the illusion of a snake appear? It cannot appear from nowhere or nothing, so it appears from something that (in terms of this analogy) actually exists, namely a rope. However it could not appear from a rope without the intervening medium called ego or mind, because it appears to be a snake only in the view of the ego. Therefore the immediate cause for the appearance of the snake is the ego, in whose view alone it appears, and the ultimate cause of it is the rope, because without the rope there would be nothing to be seen as a snake.
This is just an analogy, so there is a limit to the extent to which it accurately represents the truth to which it is analogous, but what it is intended to illustrate here is that the ultimate source, substance and foundation of the ego and of all thoughts or phenomena perceived by the ego is only ātma-svarūpa, but that the immediate source, substance and foundation of all thoughts or phenomena is only the ego, because it is only in the view of the ego that everything else seems to exist.
Without the ego could any other thought or phenomenon appear? It could not, because the ego is that to which and from which all other thoughts or phenomena appear. Likewise, without ātma-svarūpa could the ego appear? It could not, because ātma-svarūpa is that from which (but not to which) the ego appears.
This is why in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār? Bhagavan says, ‘மனம் ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தினின்று வெளிப்படும்போது ஜகம் தோன்றும்’ (maṉam ātma-sorūpattiṉiṉḏṟu veḷippaḍum-pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟum), ‘When the mind comes out from ātma-svarūpa, the world appears’, meaning that ātma-svarūpa is the source from which the mind or ego appears, and in the previous sentence said, ‘[…] அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது’ (appaḍiyē maṉamum taṉ-ṉ-iḍattil-irundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu), ‘[…] in that way the mind also causes the world to appear from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself’, meaning that the mind or ego is the source from which the world and all other thoughts appear.
If other thoughts or phenomena did not originate from the ego, that would mean that they originate from something else, in which case they would be able to exist independent of the ego, which is contrary to all that Bhagavan taught us. Why should we believe that anything exists independent of the ego, or that anything originates from any source other than the ego? Since everything is perceived only by the ego, we do not have any adequate reason to suppose that anything exists independent of it or comes from anything other than it. This is why Bhagavan repeatedly emphasised that the ego (which is what he often referred to as ‘the thought called I’) is the first thought and the root of all other thoughts.
8. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: everything depends for its seeming existence on the seeming existence of the ego, so when we investigate the ego keenly enough to see that it does not exist, that is giving up everything
Since the ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things, in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan wrote:
அகந்தையுண் டாயி னனைத்துமுண் டாகுIn the kaliveṇbā version of this verse Bhagavan extended the first sentence of this verse by adding a relative clause to describe the ego, namely ‘கருவாம்’ (karu-v-ām), which means ‘which is the embryo [womb, efficient cause, inner substance or foundation]’ and which therefore implies that the ego is the embryo that develops into everything else, the womb from which everything is born, the efficient cause (nimitta kāraṇa) that creates or produces everything, the inner substance of all phenomena, and the foundation on which they all appear.
மகந்தையின் றேலின் றனைத்து — மகந்தையே
யாவுமா மாதலால் யாதிதென்று நாடலே
யோவுதல் யாவுமென வோர்.
ahandaiyuṇ ḍāyi ṉaṉaittumuṇ ḍāhu
mahandaiyiṉ ḏṟēliṉ ḏṟaṉaittu — mahandaiyē
yāvumā mādalāl yādideṉḏṟu nādalē
yōvudal yāvumeṉa vōr.
பதச்சேதம்: அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும். அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum. ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr.
அன்வயம்: அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், அனைத்தும் இன்று. யாவும் அகந்தையே ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே யாவும் ஓவுதல் என ஓர்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, aṉaittum iṉḏṟu. yāvum ahandai-y-ē ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē yāvum ōvudal eṉa ōr.
English translation: 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.
Explanatory paraphrase: If the ego comes into existence, everything [all phenomena, everything that appears and disappears, everything other than our pure, fundamental, unchanging and immutable self-awareness] comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist [because nothing other than pure self-awareness actually exists, so everything else seems to exist only in the view of the ego, and hence it cannot seem to exist unless the ego seems to exist]. [Therefore] the ego itself is everything [because it is the original seed or embryo, which alone is what expands as everything else]. Therefore, know that investigating what this [the ego] is alone is giving up everything [because the ego will cease to exist if it investigates itself keenly enough, and when it ceases to exist everything else will cease to exist along with it].
Since the ego seems to exist only so long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, it will dissolve and cease to exist only when we try to be so keenly self-attentive that we are aware of nothing other than ourself. And since all other things seem to exist only in the view of the ego, if we keenly investigate this ego in order to see what we actually are, not only will the ego cease to exist but everything else will cease to exist along with it.
This is why he concludes this verse by saying: ‘ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்’ (ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr), ‘Therefore, know that investigating what this [the ego] is alone is giving up everything’.
This is the core and essence of his teachings, so it is essential for us to understand very clearly that the ego is the sole cause, creator, source, substance and foundation of all other things (all thoughts or phenomena). Everything originates from the ego and depends upon the ego for its seeming existence, so if we eradicate the ego we thereby eradicate everything.
Posts
1,176 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 1176 Newer› Newest»Mano-Nigraha, yes, it should have Siva-kshetras. Thanks.
Sri Arunachala Navamanimalai - verse 9
Having borne and tended me in the world in the form of (my) mother and father, before I fell and drown in the deep ocean of that worldly illusion (maha-maya) you entered my mind, pulled (me) and established (me) at your feet (or in your state). O Arunachala, who is of the nature of consciousness (chinmaya)! What a wonder of your Grace (this is)!
Reflections: Yes, Bhagavan is our mother and father combined in one. We have come (risen) from Bhagavan (pure awareness), so Bhagavan is our mother. Bhagavan is our mother also because his love is a thousand times more than any earthly mother. Bhagavan is our father because like our earthly father, he takes care of all our worldly needs. In fact, he has been taking care of us from life after life after life…
We certainly will drown in the worldly illusion (maha-maya) if we do not turn to Bhagavan and take refuge in him. Bhagavan’s grace is ever available to us. He is our nearest and the dearest – that is, he exists in us as our very existence. Can he be more gracious? No, it is not possible. His grace is like the river ganga - it is ever flowing.
As we progress on our spiritual journey, why do the wrong quality or excess quantity of food affect us so much?
It is because as our mind gets more and more sattvic (pure), whatever type of food we eat clearly stands out in our relatively sattvic mind. That is, if the food we eat is tamasic (foods that are stale) or rajasic (foods that excite passion), we will immediately feel their effect. As our mind becomes relatively clearer and purer, these sorts of food immediately make us feel uncomfortable.
For example, even a bit of dirt stands out in otherwise clean and pure water. The wrong type of food is like this dirt. If we consume such foods, these will stand out in our awareness.
If we consume an excess of spices, salt, garlic, tea, coffee, chillies, onions and so on, their effect may immediately be apparent to us. There may be a burning sensation in our stomach or our mind may lose its usual composure. So we should be careful and avoid such irritants as much as possible.
Likewise, if we consume food in excess quantity, it will again give us trouble. We may feel rotten after such a heavy meal. It is because it disturbs our inner sattvik state. That is, we will feel more tamasic (lethargic or sleepy), and such a mental state stands out more clearly in our usually calmer mind.
Bhagavan teaches us the paragraph 9 of Nan Yar?:
By mita sāttvika āhāra-niyama [the restraint of consuming only a moderate quantity of sattva-conducive food], which is the best among all restrictions, the sattva-guṇa [the quality of ‘being-ness’, calmness and clarity] of the mind will increase and [thereby] help will arise for self-investigation.
So sattvic food is the best aid to our self-investigation. In fact, this is an indispensable aid, according to Bhagavan.
Sanjay Lohia,
relating to your reflections about Sri Arunachala Navamanimalai - verse 8,
when you say "Bhagavan (or Arunachala) has appeared before us ..." which evidence is there to support the thesis that Bhagavan is the same as Arunachala ?
Sanjay Lohia,
regarding Sri Arunachala Navamanimalai - verse 9
"before I fell and drown in the deep ocean of that worldly illusion (maha-maya)..."
Because "drown" is just the infinitive form of this verb, instead of "drown" it should be correct..."drowned" or "was drowned".
Sada-Apramada, Bhagavan has himself repeatedly said and implied that Bhagavan (God), Arunachala and self are interchangeable terms. This should be very clear if one reads his direct and recorded teachings.
I just saw a YouTube video titled: Sri Ramana Maharshi – JNANI 2018. It is worth a watch. Michael also features in this video along with other devotees. Its link is:
Sri Ramana Maharshi – JNANI 2018
Sanjay Lohia, thank you for drawing my attention to that video of 2016.
As you said it was worth to watch that video. However, following my instincts I would never consider Mooji as a true Ramana devotee or teacher.
Michael: In order to experience what ‘I’ actually is, we have to investigate it. In order to investigate what this ‘I’, we have to turn our attention within, towards ‘I’. The only way to isolate ‘I’ from everything else is to focus our attention exclusively on ‘I’.
So the more we focus our attention only on ‘I’, the more we try to experience nothing other than ‘I’ alone, the more other things will be excluded from our awareness. It is only when we experience ‘I’ in complete isolation from everything else, will we experience it clearly as it really is.
Edited extract from a YouTube video: Sri Ramana Maharshi – JNANI 2018
Michael: Bhagavan used to say that words are just pointers; his real teaching is silence – absolute mental silence.
People were attracted to Bhagavan because he had something to offer which is very unique. It is pointing to something that we all experience but we are all confused about - ‘I’.
Edited extract from a YouTube video: Sri Ramana Maharshi – JNANI 2018
sada-apramada:
Your last comment was interesting.
How does one define a true Ramana devotee or teacher?
Why does Mooji not fall into that category?
ashamed.ego,
as I said "following my instincts". However, I developed some kind of allergy to people who behave guru-like although they can not at all convince me of their right knowledge.
Perhaps I have a sixth sense for that. But of course my intuition and instincts are not free of error or without faults.
Sanjay Lohia,
"...Bhagavan (God), Arunachala and self are interchangeable terms. This should be very clear if one reads his direct and recorded teachings."
Thank you for referring me to Bhagavan's recorded teachings. Because I missed to study his teachings in detail would you please quote one passage of text in which Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi documented his own identity with god or Arunachala or the self ?
To my knowledge Bhagavan only stated that the holy hill Arunachala/Annamalai was his guru.
Sada-Apramada, it is recorded in the book The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi by Arthur Osborne (Fifth Edition: 1979), under the chapter, Arunachala Ramana:
[In reply to one Amritananda’s question, Bhagavan said] In the recesses of the lotus-shaped hearts of all, beginning with Vishnu, there shines as pure intellect (Absolute Consciousness) the Paramatman who is the same as Arunachala Ramana. When the mind melts with love of Him, and reaches the inmost recess of the Heart wherein He dwells as the Beloved, the subtle eye of pure intellect opens and He reveals Himself as Pure Consciousness.
Does it not imply what I wrote, namely that ‘Bhagavan (God), Arunachala and self are interchangeable terms'. God exists in us as ourself (‘I’). Bhagavan teaches this, for example, in verse 22 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Consider, except by, turning the mind back within, completely immersing it in God, who shines within that mind giving light to the mind, how to fathom God by the mind?
The same God is, of course, also our guru.
Incidentally, whenever you type a question, you put the question mark leaving a gap after the last word of the question. As per the usual practice, it should be put just after the last word, without any gap. Example: How are you?
This is in reference to the discussion between ashamed.ego and sada-apramada. The discussion was about, how does one define a true Ramana devotee or teacher? Simply put, this should not be our concern, because our concern should only be: am I a true devotee of Bhagavan? If I claim to be one, am I then practising what he has asked us to practice?
However, since these days there are many trying to explain Bhagavan’s teachings, we may need to distinguish the true disciples (or ‘teachers’) of Bhagavan from the ones from whom we should try and stay away. One, a true disciple or devotee of Bhagavan will not be too egoistic. If one is practising self-investigation, one is constantly trying to undermine one’s ego. Therefore true practitioners of Bhagavan path should be outwardly more humble.
Moreover, true devotees of Bhagavan would try to live quite a normal outward life, and therefore they may not be that easily distinguishable from others. They usually will not dress is a particular way, or wear beaded strings around their necks, or decorate themselves in some other way. Bhagavan says that we should not consider our body as ourself, but those that seem to be giving undue importance to their body’s outward dress and so on are going against the very essence of Bhagavan’s teachings.
Bhagavan asks us to ignore our body. Why should one decorate it in any way? If we do so, aren’t such acts reinforcing our ‘I am this body’ idea? So I think a true devotee of Bhagavan will avoid all unnecessary attention to his or her outward appearance. Our job is to stay in-turned, by ignoring everything which is outside. And according to Bhagavan, even our mental chatter is outside ourself, and thus even these thoughts should be totally ignored.
sada-apramada: So the judgement is questionable even to your own intellect, since you yourself cannot depend upon your instincts. Which raises the question about the reason the judgement was needed in the first place.
Sanjay Lohia: Your statements are quite absurd and self-contradictory. They miss the nature of vichara and of enlightenment.
What you just described is the other extreme of "I am the body" idea, and so is equally invalid. I can be a Dutch prostitute, be a devotee, be enlightened, and be a teacher, all while still earning my livelihood as a prostitute.
It is amusing to find that your list, on what one needs to avoid, is precisely worthy of a bullet point on that same list (i.e. on itself.)
Sanjay, greetings
With all due respect, I found that what you said in your last comment, all those "should and shouldn'ts”, are the seed of what it is called “institutionalized religion” which humanity has been suffering from ages. Unfortunately, I see that in seed state also regarding Bhagavan’s teachings. How should one has to behave or “be”, dress, eat, etc..(or not) in order to be a true devotee…
I think that is your imaginary picture of what a true devotee should look like or behave as to fit the description.
Bhagavan was, and is much much more open minded than you think…
Externally, it is a play of characters, the way they dress, eat, or perform their script is really irrelevant once one understand one’s true nature.
As for “true teachers”, everybody is one to one another, even our worst enemy could be the best teacher. It all depends how we process our experience with the “other”...
Opinions or “intuitions” about others, even with the best of intentions, are at best, just ego confused vision of what is real or not.
Sanjay Lohia,
thank you for the given beautiful example of Bhagavan's statements about his own essential identity. I don't want to strain your patience but could you additionally explain the meaning of the clause "beginning with Vishnu" ?
Thanks also for giving the reminder of verse 22 UN.
Regarding the gap after the question, I simply think that any question deserves a gap as a time to think before setting the question mark - comparable with the gap between thoughts:). But I do not mean any disrespect to the "usual practice" of writing. Can you bear that deviationism calmly ?
ashamed.ego,
do not care about my comment.
Do you care if I certainly do not depend upon my intellect - neither upon my judgements nor my instincts ?
Mouna,
greetings, what you say "Opinions or “intuitions” about others, even with the best of intentions, are at best, just ego confused vision of what is real or not." applies to all our opinions ...even to the most recent :)
sada-apramada wrote:
"Do you care if I certainly do not depend upon my intellect - neither upon my judgements nor my instincts ?"
I can't count the number of negatives in here - double, triple, quadruple?.
You did indeed say "following my instincts", and then turned about and declared those very instincts as faulty.
I absolutely do not care about what your mental process is.
But any symptomatic inconsistency in it does not go unnoticed.
I am more interested in knowing two things, which you involved in your comments earlier:
(1) The definition of a true Ramana devotee or teacher, and
(2) The reason Mooji is not a true Ramana devotee or teacher.
Since you instinctively believe that Mooji (or anybody else for this matter) is not a true Ramana devotee/teacher, I want to know the reasons, beyond the ones that you mentioned (i.e. beyond your inability to understand his teachings, beyond the allergy or the 6th sense.)
Since I do not possess a 6th sense, your input will at least help me understand the criteria which need to be followed to judge such Gurus.
Moreover, vichara and enlightenment are quite technical in nature, and beyond all senses (including the 6th). Hence, the ability to discover enlightenment (or its lack thereof) through the senses is quite interesting to me.
An enlightened prostitute is a humbling example of the true nature of God, and of enlightenment, devoid of the baggage of unnecessary religious morality. (It should be noted here that Buddhism emerged (about 2600 years ago) during a time when the moral fabric of the Hindu religion and society had deteriorated, possibly due to the abuse of the caste system.)
She may be unfortunate enough to have been the one upon whom this role has been thrust.
But, if she completely abides in the Self during her role, then, the desires, the pleasure and the pain move around within the mind/body complex, without anybody 'inside' to pay attention to them, to experience them.
The desirer, the doer, the experiencer are all limited to the mind/body complex;
the Self does not get involved at all. They are reduced to mere biological/chemical/electrical signals and events, orphaned of any significance due to lack of their interpreter, the ego.
The desires, the experiences, the activity as a whole, and the mind/body
instruments through which it is performed - all are 'jad'/dead. To someone who abides in the Self, they are indeed 'jad'/dead/non-existent in /real/ experience.
There could be few more examples than this to describe "I am not the body" idea with a deafening boom. The outward appearance would scream of materialism and sensuality, while absolute silence would prevail inside.
It would be interesting to know about the reactions of people who entertain specific ideas of a true devotee of Bhagavan, after they are told that she hung and worshiped Bhagavan's photo on a wall at her workplace where she serviced her clients.
ashamed.ego,
sorry about the "symptomatic inconsistency" you had to notice.
My instinct has developed from the framework of my personal experience and as such naturally it is used only by me as a person. So I am not able to direct anyone to follow my instinct.
I am not a holder of a chair for the requested definition. A true Ramana devotee tries to overcome the snares set by the ego. And as a true Ramana teacher can someone be considered who conveys the precise picture of having given up susceptibility to the ego's ploys. The reason why I am not exactly fond of Mooji is that he did simply not make a good/strong impression on me when I saw him in the year 2000 in Tiruvannamalai.
On the other hand I was and am impressed much more by other people.
So regrettably I cannot comply with your wish to impart the criteria of recognizing or even "looking through" a serious teacher. Of course the "ability to discover enlightenment or its lack thereof" will always correspond with one's own expectations and maturity.
sada-apramada wrote:
"sorry about the "symptomatic inconsistency" you had to notice."
No worries.
sada-apramada wrote:
"My instinct has developed from the framework of my personal experience and as such naturally it is used only by me as a person. So I am not able to direct anyone to follow my instinct."
Hope it guides you to the right path.
"I am not a holder of a chair for the requested definition."
And I did not imply that you were.
sada-apramada wrote:
"A true Ramana devotee tries to overcome the snares set by the ego. And as a true Ramana teacher can someone be considered who conveys the precise picture of having given up susceptibility to the ego's ploys. "
Understood.
sada-apramada wrote:
"The reason why I am not exactly fond of Mooji is that he did simply not make a good/strong impression on me when I saw him in the year 2000 in Tiruvannamalai.
On the other hand I was and am impressed much more by other people."
Understood.
Thanks.
Sada-Apramada, Bhagavan or pure awareness exists in the heart of each sentient being. So when Bhagavan said that he exists in each one of us ‘beginning with Vishnu’, he was stating this truth. He exists equally in all as our essential self. He is our substratum and the only real substance.
Mouna, I do not disagree with your comment entirely, but I have my own views on this. I agree when you say, ‘Opinions or “intuitions” about others, even with the best of intentions, are at best, just ego confused vision of what is real or not’. However, as long as we are turned towards the world, we will have our likes and dislikes and therefore will have our opinions and intuitions about others.
I think you are a painter. I believe, you probably like some of your paintings more than others. You must be also having your likes and dislikes in food and other such matters. As long as we exist as this ego, such likes and dislikes are inevitable.
Likewise, we may like certain ‘teachers’ or ‘gurus’ more than others. Of course, this is our subjective opinion. I was trying to convey this point in my comment under discussion. I was not trying to judge the devotion of these ‘teachers’ or ‘gurus’ but was trying to say why I am more attracted to some ‘teachers’ over others.
Bhagavan has asked us to act humbly in all situations for our own good. He has also said at places that we should not make a show of our spiritually – that is, we should practise self-investigation without attracting much attention. So I believe I look for such qualities even in the ones who try to guide us in Bhagavan’s path.
Why am I attracted more to Michael and not so much to Mooji or David Godman or Nome or Nochur, even though all of them are also trying to explain or expand on Bhagavan’s teachings in their own way? Obviously, I find more affinity to Michael due to one reason or other. Among other reasons, I admire his humbleness and his normal outward life. He doesn’t make an unnecessary show of spirituality by acting or dressing in a particular way.
This is not to doubt the devotion of other ‘teachers’ or even their usefulness. Others may find Mooji or David or Nome or Nochur more helpful, and this is understandable. We have a right to chose and decide our 'teacher' or guide. Have I made myself clearer?
Insisting on spiritual non-materialism is spiritual materialism.
Devotee: I think our prayers are our best line of communication with God. What do you think?
Michael: The most effective communication with God is silence, and the only way that we can keep that silent communication open is by turning within.
We do not even need a channel of communication (such as verbal prayers) with God, because when we turn within there is no twoness, no otherness. When there are two things you need a channel of communication. When the two becomes one – that is, when the meditator himself becomes what is meditated upon – that is opening the door itself. That is going right into the heart, going directly within.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 11th July 2015
Reflections: Our practice of self-investigation is the highest prayer, because at such times we are wholeheartedly pleading with God to take us in him, to make us one with him. Such prayers are the best mode of communication with God. As Michael says, ‘That is going right into the heart, going directly within’.
Sanjay Lohia,
for the most part I agree with that what you write to Mouna.
Let us choose our 'teacher' according our inner aerial/antenna.
Sanjay Lohia, thank you for your reply.
But may I ask you again what "beginning with Vishnu" means, because I cannot look contented with what you explained above. But I do not want burden you with extra trouble, time and effort.
Sanjay Lohia,
indeed a very good statement: "When the two becomes one – that is, when the meditator himself becomes what is meditated upon – that is opening the door itself. That is going right into the heart, going directly within."
ashamed.ego,
you wrote "Hope it guides you to the right path."
Thanks for your benevolent hope which may come true.
I too pray that all human beings may be guided to the right path - sooner or later.
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya !
It is again ego’s delusion to think that one chooses one’s guru, either by intuitive feelings or by reasoning, no matter how corrupt or saintly he/she might be. Certain things need to happen in the illusory play called the dream of life and characters and events will make that happen in order for the script to unfold as it must, sometimes creating happy endings sometimes creating tragedy.
Our likes, dislikes, “intuitions” and feelings about anything are just conditionings created within the person as it’s psychological structure (in conjunction with the physical body) so he/she will fit the role that is supposed to fit in the big scheme of things (in other words, ego’s projection of the so called reality).
As long as we know that those likes and dislikes are fictitious and we are aware that we are swimming in pratibashika waters we can always discuss our preferences in food, clothing, art, etc as a pass time without being identified with “our” views. There seems to be no harm in talking about those things and showing our preferences. The moment they become “my” view, the apparent veil has thickened threefold.
So to summarize, like and dislikes seem to be inevitable, pretty much as the appearance of phenomena, but believing in them as real reinforces the “feeling” of being a person, and in consequence, ego’s illusory and unreal grip.
Best option then, as in many occasions, but specifically talking about likes and dislikes regarding “others” or other gurus (which is very different than talking about clothing preferences), is to remain quiet.
Sada-Apramada, Bhagavan says, ‘In the recesses of the lotus-shaped hearts of all, beginning with Vishnu, there shines as pure intellect (Absolute Consciousness) the Paramatman who is the same as Arunachala Ramana’.
Suppose if we visit a government office, and come to know that everybody is corrupt here. That is, without taking a bribe, no work gets done in this office. Suppose the highest post in this office is that of a Commissioner, and the lowest post is that of a clerk. So we can say that ‘Everybody in this office, starting from the Commissioner to a clerk, is corrupt here’. However, it is the same corruption we are talking about.
Likewise, Vishnu is said to be one of the Gods in Hindu mythology, and its function is to take care of or sustain this world. Therefore, we can say that Vishnu is the highest being, because he is the supreme ruling power of this world. So when Bhagavan says that pure consciousness shines in all beginning with Vishnu, it is just like saying that 'in this government office, starting from the Commissioner, everyone is corrupt’.
What Bhagavan implies is that pure consciousness exists in the heart of all, whether this being is the so-called highest being (Vishnu) or the so-called lowest being (an ant). However, such distinctions of the highest and lowest beings are metaphorical, and therefore not real. There is only one consciousness, and this shines in every sentient being as ‘I’.
Sanjay Lohia,
many thanks for your explanation. Now I see what is meant with the mentioned saying.
Mouna, greetings,
as long as we experience us as a person we are deceived, even when we are aware of "swimming in pratibhasika waters" and do not consider the appearance of phenomena as real.
sada-apramada,
swimming in pratibashika waters is the person...
Mouna,
yes, because only the person can be (aware of) swimming in pratibhasika waters I did not contradict you. :)
Michael,
how did you become so firmly convinced by that what you write so convincingly ?
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 1
By sat-sanga, the association (with the objects) will be removed. When that association is removed, the attachment of the mind will be destroyed. Those who are thus devoid of mental attachment will perish in that which is motionless. Thus they attain jivanmukti. Cherish their association.
Note by Sri Sadhu Om: This verse was adapted by Sri Bhagavan from verse 9 of Sri Adi Sankara’s Moha Mudgara. Sri Bhagavan used to say, ‘sat-sanga means association with the reality (sat). The reality is self.
My notes: As indicated by Sri Sadhu Om, Bhagavan has given us a strict definition of sat-sanga. Sat-sanga means association with the reality, and the reality exists only within us as our real self. Of course, the association with the jnani is also a sort of sat-sanga, but even this association is less efficacious that turning within and associating with the reality within.
We overvalue the need of our association with the jnani. Though if we are able to associate with someone like Bhagavan, it will definitely purify our mind, but this purified mind will be of little use to us if we do not then turn within. Sadguru appears before us just to give us his teachings. Once he does so, his job is over.
Therefore if we are attuned to our guru’s teachings and try to practise it to the best of our ability, we do not need any other type of sat-sanga. Those who teach that a physical guru is necessary to give us liberation have totally misunderstood Bhagavan’s teachings. Bhagavan is in us, as us. What more do we need?
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 2
That supreme state which is praised (by the scriptures) and which is attained here by the clear vichara which arises in the heart when one gains association with a sage is impossible to attain by listening to preachers, by studying and learning the meaning of the scriptures, by virtuous deeds or by any other means.
Reflections: As this verse indicates, the supreme state can only be attained by atma-vichara. To attain this, we need the association with a genuine sadguru like Bhagavan.
However, this association is of very little use to us if we treat Bhagavan just as a God, who is here just to fulfil our worldly desires. We need to put his teachings into practice. Otherwise, he is not our guru in its real sense.
Sanjay Lohia,
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 1
you say in "my notes":
1. "Of course, the association with the jnani is also a sort of sat-sanga, but even this association is less efficacious that turning within and associating with the reality within."
You meant to say: ...this association is less efficiacious than turning within ...
I don't agree with your statement that real association with a jnani would have limited efficaciousness, because real sat-sanga means association with the reality (sat) which is never not "efficacious".
2. "We overvalue the need of our association with the jnani. Though if we are able to associate with someone like Bhagavan, it will definitely purify our mind, but this purified mind will be of little use to us if we do not then turn within. Sadguru appears before us just to give us his teachings. Once he does so, his job is over."
A purified mind is never of little use to us, because purification would automatically lead the mind to turn within.
Because "Sadguru" is always present as our real awareness, he/it does neither appear nor disappear.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 3
If one gains association with sadhus (sages), of what use are all these observances (niyamas)? When the excellent cool southern breeze itself is blowing, say, what is the use of holding a hand-fan?
Note by Sri Sadhu Om: Just as a hand-fan may be put aside when the cool breeze is blowing, so all niyamas such as fasting, performing worship, doing japa, practising meditation and so on, may be discarded when one has gained association with a sage.
Refer to Day by Day with Bhagavan, 9-3-1946, where Sri Bhagavan explains that mental association with a jnani is best, […]
My notes: Bhagavan says in the paragraph 11 of Nan Yar?:
If one clings fast to uninterrupted svarūpa-smaraṇa [self-remembrance] until one attains svarūpa [one’s own actual self], that alone [will be] sufficient.
We just need this simple practice of self-attentiveness and need do nothing else. In fact, we have to ultimately discard everything else (all our other spiritual practices and all our worldly desires and attachments), and be interested only in self-attentiveness.
In fact, self-attentiveness is a full-time job. It is not something we do for a few minutes in the morning or evening. We cannot gain liberation by our half-hearted efforts. Bhagavan used to say that liberation is not our birthright. We need to turn our attention within again and again and again and again... until we lose his mind forever. No mind means all our worries and problems gone forever!
I wrote: ‘We need to turn our attention within again and again and again and again... until we lose his mind forever’.
Sorry, it should have been: ‘We need to turn our attention within again and again and again and again... until we lose our mind forever’. Bhagavan’s mind has already been lost forever. Now it is our turn to lose our mind and rest in him.
Sanjay Lohia said:
"In fact, we have to ultimately discard everything else (all our other spiritual practices and all our worldly desires ..."
Why?
Sanjay Lohia,
remaining mindless and free of desires must be the heaven.
However, the mind will not move out the heart without a bitter fight.
"Bhagavan used to say that liberation is not our birthright."
Nevertheless, it is said that pure self-awareness is our real nature.
So why should we not insist on being what we always have been and really are ?
Ashamed.Ego, I wrote, ‘In fact, we have to ultimately discard everything else (all our other spiritual practices and all our worldly desires ...’. Your simple question was: why?
As long as we are engaging in any spiritual practice which is not self-investigation, we are performing some action, and actions can never give us liberation. Bhagavan teaches us this in verse 2 of Upadesa Undiyar:
The fruit of action having perished, as seed it causes to fall into the ocean of action. It is not giving liberation.
In the Sanskrit version of this verse, Bhagavan makes this even more emphatic by saying that ‘actions will obstruct liberation'. Likewise, all our worldly desires prompt us to act by body, speech and mind, and all such actions keep us bound. Therefore, we have to ditch all our actions if we want to be liberated.
The only practice which is not an action is self-investigation, and only this is a direct means of liberation. As long as we are engaging in any sort of actions, we are experiencing ourself as this ego, and as this ego, we are limiting ourself in so many ways. This limitation is the root cause of all our unhappiness and dissatisfaction.
Our real nature is infinite and pure awareness, and therefore any sort of limitation suffocates us, and this suffocation prompts us to regain our primal state of infinite and pure awareness. In order to regain this primal state, we have to give up all our outward direct actions, whether such actions are spiritual or worldly and turn within in order to experience ourself as we actually are.
Sanjay Lohia said...
"As long as we are engaging in any spiritual practice which is not self-investigation,"
There are 4 conditions:
(1) I do not engage in any spiritual practice.
(2) I engage in spiritual practices other than vichara.
(3) I engage in vichara, but no other spiritual practice.
(4) I engage in vichara and other spiritual practices.
Your reply speaks about (2), but your original statement was "In fact, we have to ultimately discard everything else (all our other spiritual practices and all our worldly desires and attachments), and be interested only in self-attentiveness." which is insisting on observing (3).
My question was more about (4):
If I am self-attentive, can my mind/body not go on doing japa or fulfilling worldly desires and performing all sorts of actions?
I wonder how those, who hold Romantic views about all of this, who impose their conditions of virtuousness and piousness on the worldly conditions of a guru/teacher/devotee, (i.e. who judge a book by its cover), would react if that woman offered herself to lead a satsang and teach about vichara and enlightenment.
She is no 'Michael' or 'Ramana', but she is indeed Bhagavan if she is enlightened.
We hope that being enlightened is more than sufficient for 'someone like' her to be accepted as a guru. I would listen to an amoeba, if only it had a mouth to speak. And, it is my own fault that I am unable to learn from it as it naturally is, as it is enlightened because it (probably :D) has no ego.
Now, to carry out the satsang successfully, she would need the attention of those who, at least for a few hours, can look past her worldly situation and focus on what she really is and on her words. It is also likely that she may use her own work experiences in order to teach, and that would probably wreak havoc on those poor egos.
I can imagine people avoiding her, not because of her worldly condition (but that is what they would probably say outwardly, as that would be 'socially' acceptable), but because they must get so entangled in their own desires, which are directed towards or against her or anything else that they are reminded of while they are with her, that they completely miss the teachings.
So, a guru is forced to appear to the devotees in the manner they prefer, so that they can progress far enough (to at least go past this one hurdle) to realize that the outward appearances are of no consequence, are 'maya'.
I, as a devotee (if that is what I can call myself), am obviously quite far behind, because I want a talking amoeba as my guru.
Ashamed.Ego, you ask, ‘If I am self-attentive, can my mind/body not go on doing japa or fulfilling worldly desires and performing all sorts of actions?’ Yes, why not, if we want we can be partially self-attentive and with the other part of our attention we can go on acting by our body and mind. In fact, initially, this is how we try to practice self-attentiveness. However, our aim should be to be aware of ourself alone, to the exclusion of everything else. It is like reading an extremely interesting book. We may become so interested in this book that we may not be aware of our surroundings.
So our aim is to be so totally and wholly self-attentive that we completely forget our body and mind, including this world, not just for one moment but for eternity. Our goal is to experience ourself as we actually are, and if manage to do so we will forget all these adjuncts - body, mind and world - forever. Bhagavan teaches us this in the 3rd paragraph of Nan Yar?:
If the mind, which is the cause of all [objective] knowledge and of all activity, subsides, jagad-dṛṣṭi [perception of the world] will cease. Just as knowledge of the rope, which is the base [that underlies and supports the imaginary appearance of a snake], will not arise unless knowledge of the imaginary snake ceases, svarūpa-darśana [true experiential knowledge of our own actual nature or real self], which is the base [that underlies and supports the imaginary appearance of this world], will not arise unless perception of the world, which is an imagination [or fabrication], ceases.
So we have to take our pick. Do we want this so-called beautiful world, or do we want svarupa-darsana (true experiential knowledge of our own real self)? We cannot have both together. We cannot eat our cake and have it too!
@Sanjay Lohia:
Can I not be totally and wholly self-attentive, where I have completely forgotten about my mind/body, and still let my mind/body fulfill their worldly desires?
@Sanjay Lohia:
Negatives trouble me always.
Please read my question as:
"Can I be totally and wholly self-attentive, where I have completely forgotten about my mind/body, and still let my mind/body fulfill their worldly desires?"
Ashamed.Ego, if we are totally and wholly self-attentive to such an extent that we do not even experience our mind and body, where is our mind and body to fulfil their worldly desires? How can a non-existent entity have any desires? It is only when we rise as this ego that we can try to fulfil our desires.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 4
Heat will be removed by the cool moon, poverty by the celestial wish-fulfilling tree (kalpaka-taru), and sin by the ganga. All these three beginning with heat will be removed merely by the great sight (darsanam) of incomparable sadhus.
Sri Sadhu Om: The word ‘heat’ (tapam) may here be taken to mean not only physical heat but also the heat of mental anguish.
My Notes: Even a mere glance of a jnani has a purifying effect. Our encounter with him may stop our mental movements in its tracks. It is like if we suddenly face bright sunlight in our eyes, we are bound to close our eyes. An encounter with a sage may make us turn towards ourself, even if it is for a moment.
However, we can read a deeper meaning in this verse. The sight of a sadhu can be taken to mean the sight of our true nature (svarupa-darsana). If we have svarupa-darsana even for a split second, we will be permanently established in it. As a result of this, all our mental anguish, sins, desires, wants and so on will vanish forever. If our ego goes, everything else goes along with it. Such a simple message!
Sanjay Lohia,
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 4,
you reflect: "If our ego goes, everything else goes along with it. Such a simple message!"
The message is simple, but as we see daily - carrying out the destruction of the ego and thus remaining in our real state is not at all done easily. So will we ever derive benefit from our Master's teaching ?
@Sanjay Lohia:
If we are totally and wholly self-attentive to such an extent that we do not even experience our mind and body, does the mind and body disappear at the level of maya?
If that were the case, Ramana (and every other enlightened being) would have instantly disappeared from amongst us. Not only that, no one would have ever known about the reason for that disappearance, and no one existing at the level of maya would ever know about enlightenment, because not a single enlightened entity would remain in existence (even on this level of maya).
Even after his enlightenment, 'Ramana' did fulfill his prarabdha as a sage, for mere mortals who were his devotees. I am sure there are other sages who are reclusive and whose mind and body go about fulfilling the prarabdha but in quite an empty manner.
@Sanjay Lohia:
I think you should also have a look at King Janaka, who was enlightened, but enjoyed a king's life.
Now, the question arises as to the identity of the entity which ran the kingdom and which enjoyed a king's life. This was exactly my point when I had asked you the question about being totally self-attentive and still have my mind/body fulfill its worldly desires/actions.
The actions that entity performed were binding only to that entity - the Self was not bound at all, since Janaka, all through his years, remained as the Self while letting his mind/body go on fulfilling its prarabdha (or whatever it is that is leftover at this level of maya called), while remaining a mere witness or even less.
I doubt anybody would oppose to the fact that, to run a kingdom, the mind and the body are a necessity, even though the kingdom, the mind and the body are all part of maya.
ashamed.ego,
how can an enlightened being disappear at all ? At best in the view of the limited ego.
How can you be sure that there are other sages who are reclusive and whose mind and body go about fulfilling the prarabdha but in quite an empty manner.
Living as a reclusive and fulfilling one's prarabdha do not necessary make a sage.
ashamed.ego,
"...even though the kingdom, the mind and the body are all part of maya."
Finally, all our ego's views are only maya.
@Rahula
"how can an enlightened being disappear at all?"
That was exactly my point. They do not.
"How can you be sure that there are other sages who are reclusive and whose mind and body go about fulfilling the prarabdha but in quite an empty manner."
Then what do you say is the nature of enlightenment? Do you think all enlightened beings become sages? What about King Janaka? Do you think an amoeba is not enlightened?
"Living as a reclusive and fulfilling one's prarabdha do not necessary make a sage."
I did not say that living as a reclusive makes one a sage. I said that a sage might live a reclusive life. Please improve your comprehension.
What actually exists is only one, so it doesn’t actually require an understanding. To understand this world we need a lot of understanding. We need to study physics, biology, chemistry, politics, arts, sociology and other such things. But however much we study these things, we will not understand them fully. We may understand little aspects of it but not fully.
So understanding is a function of the intellect. But whose intellect is it? It is the ego’s intellect. So understanding, will, intellect, all these are functions of the ego.
Edited extract from Michael’s latest video dated 2nd June 2018
Reflections: What actually exists is one, and this one is directly experienced as ourself. So, as Michael says, this one doesn’t require an understanding, because it is directly experienced. However, when we rise as this ego, all multiplicity also arises along with it, and this multiplicity requires understanding and knowledge.
ashamed.ego,
speculations about enlightenment and the state of a sage avail nothing.
@Rahul
Why do you think what I say is a mere speculation? Do you honestly believe that there's no sage who won't be a recluse? I understand that from the sage's point of view that means nothing, but from the ego's point of view, he does indeed live a life. Otherwise, you would have been deprived of Ramana's teachings.
I think you people like to read books, form opinions and then go about talking with people who are speaking from their experiences. Granted the experiences are not as vast as your knowledge about the teachings, but in the end, the experiences matter more than the knowledge.
If you think speculation about sages avail nothing, why does speculation about what a good devotee/teacher/guru hold so much value to you guys?
Sanjay Lohia,
that only one absolute reality which is said to be dwelling in our heart is regrettably not consciously recognized by ajnanis.
ashamed.ego,
why cultivating the ego's or the mind's creation ?
Seek the self which is the source of both knowledge and ignorance.
@Rahula said:
"why cultivating the ego's or the mind's creation ?
Seek the self which is the source of both knowledge and ignorance."
Right. This blog is an ego's creation, so is the book from where you find the material to paste here :D. The difference is that I am not either Sanjay or Michael.
Why bother about me or others? What rustled your jimmies so much?
All that is said about jivanmukta - the state of jivanmukti - is only in our view. Because when the ego is destroyed by the fire of jnana, the body and the world are destroyed along with it. Jivanmukta implies that the jnani is still living in a body, but in whose view is he living? He is living only in our view. Therefore, the actual state of the jnani is better described as videhamukti, which means ‘without body’.
Generally it is believed that if a person attains jnana while in his body, he lives as a jivanmukta and only when he dies he attains videhamukti. But the jnani leaves the body when he leaves the ego. The ego is the only connection we have with the body.
So actually the term ‘self-realised person’ is a contradiction in terms. Because if we are a person, we do not know what we actually are, and when we know what we actually are, we will no longer experience ourself as a person.
Edited extract from Michael’s latest video dated 2nd June 2018
Reflection: So there is no jivanmukti but only vidahamukti.
ashamed.ego,
as you seem to imply: the true nature of the illusory world and plurality will be revealed not by speculation but in actual experience.
@Rahula said:
"as you seem to imply: the true nature of the illusory world and plurality will be revealed not by speculation but in actual experience."
That does not prevent us from talking about the experiences. The term speculation is your own judgement, turned by me upon statements that you and others made, to show you your own hypocrisy. It did not originate from me.
Your logic is thus:
(1) "If someone like ashamed.ego speaks about their experiences, they must be speculating".
(2) "If someone is speculating, let ME correct them and show them the TRUE path."
Your conclusions only follow if you take the antecedent of (1) as true. But it is not. The assumption that someone who speaks about their experiences is speculating is not true.
Again, why bother about me and others so much? Since your own message is about realizing the Self, why not spend this time carrying out vichara and let my ego drown into samsara?
ashamed.ego,
you are right, the ego reaps what it has sown. By losing memory of its true nature and acquiring false notions it hoaxes itself. So it starts its samsaric career. Only by undertaking an investigation into its real nature it will shed its identification with the body and become free from its previous illusions. So let us dive deep into ourself right now and practice mental silence.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 5
Tirthas (sacred bathing places), which are composed of water, and daivas (images of deities), which are stone and earth, cannot be comparable to those great souls (mahatmas). Ah (what a wonder)! they (the tirthas and daivas) bestow purity after countless days, whereas such purity is instantly bestowed upon one as soon as sadhus see one by their eyes. Know thus.
Sri Sadhu Om: Since the power of holy waters and of images of deities is derived from and dependent upon the intensity of the devotees’ faith, devotion and bhava, they can bestow purity upon immature souls only very gradually. But just as fire will burn even those who do not believe it, so the self-luminous power of the gracious glance of the jnani, who abides as the real self, will transform even the hearts of those who have no faith in him.
Reflection: A God in flesh and blood cannot be compared to a God which is just stone and earth.
The spiritual path is like a childbirth; it’s a painful process
We all have to fight our own battles. The ego that was born as Venkataraman had been through all this. That is why he was able to understand our struggle. That is why he was able to compose such wonderful poetry like Arunachala Aksaramanamalai, where he takes the bhava of a bride praying to her bridegroom to embrace her and to take her in union with him. Such intense passion and feeling are there in those beautiful verses of Aksaramanamalai.
Bhagavan was beyond all these things. He had no need to compose these, to pray to Arunachala for all these things. Why he did so? It is because he had been through this process, and by the divine grace he was prompted to express all those feelings, which we all have to pass through.
We have built up all these desires and attachments through countless lives. That is why Bhagavan says in Nan Yar?, ‘Vishaya-vasanas which come from time immemorial’. So letting go of these desires, attachments, fears, likes, dislikes and so on is no easy task. But let go we must, because these are what is obstructing our true happiness.
It is like childbirth. Childbirth is a painful process, isn’t it? But even after going through this process, women go back to having more and more children. Why? It is because the result is worth the pain. So also the spiritual path is like the childbirth. It is a painful process – giving up all these desires and attachments and separating ourselves from all these things is no easy task.
But slowly-slowly-slowly, by persevering it is possible. We should welcome even the pain, because that is also part of the process.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 2nd June 2018
Reflections: Spiritual practices bring with it all the mental turmoil, all these pains and struggles. It brings with it many heart-wrenching moments. This is how it is always, as Bhagavan has indicated by his heart-melting prayers to Arunachala. However, as Michael says, ‘we should welcome even the pain, because that is also part of the process.
To again take Michael’s example, how can a woman give birth to a child without the pain of the childbirth? Likewise, how can we experience ourself as we actually are, without the extreme pain of being separated from all our strong desires and attachments?
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 5,
Sri Sadhu Om's remark: "But just as fire will burn even those who do not believe it, so the self-luminous power of the gracious glance of the jnani, who abides as the real self, will transform even the hearts of those who have no faith in him."
Reflection about this remark:
Therefore let us go urgently to the next jnani, wheresoever such one might be.
Is not the next jnani in the innermost heart-cave of everyone ?
Sanjay Lohia,
thank you again for making extracts from Michael's discussion videos, Sri Ramana Teachings, recently from Sri Ramana Center, Houston, Texas, on Ulladu Narpadu, verse 17
Nam, all thanks to Bhagavan and of course Michael. I think Bhagavan is making me transcribe portions of these videos to keep me occupied with the thought of Bhagavan and his teachings. If I was not made to do these, I would have been just wasting my time doing unnecessary things or just being lazy doing nothing. So all thanks to Bhagavan.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 6
The disciple: ‘Who is God?’ The Guru: ‘Who knows the mind?’ The disciple: ‘My mind is known by me, the soul’. The Guru: ‘Therefore since the scriptures (srutis) declare that God is one, you are God’.
Reflections: We need to consider this verse in the light of Bhagavan’s real teachings. Here Guru seems to be saying that God is the one who knows the mind. However, actually, God is the presence within which the mind seems to appear. So what know the mind (or the ego) is only the same mind (or ego), because in God’s non-dual and infinite view there is only itself, and hence there is no mind.
The guru says that since the scriptures declare ‘God is one’, we cannot be another than God. Because if we were other than God then we would thereby limit God – that is, there will be something which is other than God. So if God is one without a second, we have to be an indivisible part of God. In fact, there are no parts of God, so we and God are absolutely one, without any bheda (differentiation).
Sanjay Lohia,
you seem to be born under a luky star. As you say - all thanks to Bhagavan Sri Ramana and of course Michael, both beacons of our spirituality. So let us discover the 'I am' in each individual life.
Sanjay Lohia,
we all are lucky because the one self is the sole reality which alone exists eternally.
That reality is said to be at once being and consciousness. To destroy the ego and to be thereby (aware of) the self is therefore the supreme attainment.
Nam, yes, we all are born under a lucky star. Bhagavan Ramana is our Guru and Michael is there is clarify and expand on his teachings. Can we get luckier than this? I do not think so!
Sanjay Lohia,
and yet, the highest luck is certainly to be aware of that eternal here and now and thus to know the absolute truth of the infinite self. We call it usually true knowledge or self-realization.
Sanjay Lohia,
you say: "In fact, there are no parts of God, so we and God are absolutely one, without any bheda (differentiation)."
Yes, we are taught that there is only the one self and the self is one. But, why are we not aware of that our true state, the changeless infinite primal consciousness ?
Because first the sense of 'I am the body' has come to an end. Its subsidence is said to be managed by persistent self-investigation. Then we can find our real nature of inherent happiness and indescribable bliss of the imperishable self. So self-knowledge is unique in that the knowing self is itself the known self.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 7
Guru: ‘What is the light for you?’ The disciple: ‘For me, in day-time the sun, and in darkness a lamp’. Guru: ‘What is the light which knows those lights?’ Disciple: ‘The eye’. Guru: ‘What is the light which knows it (the eye)?’ Disciple: ‘The light is the mind’. Guru: ‘What is the light which knows the mind?’ Disciple: ‘It is I’. Guru: ‘Therefore you are the light of lights ’. When the Guru declared thus, the disciple realised ‘I am only that’.
Note: This verse is a translation of Sri Adi Sankara’s Eka Sloki.
Reflections: We are the light that lights up all the other lights and everything else – that is, we are the consciousness which makes everything else shine. We (atma-svarupa) are the subtlest form of light, and this light lights up everything gross. We are like the sunlight. The sunlight illumines the moon, and this moon is helpful to see things in the night. Our mind is like this moon. This moon like mind-light is helpful to perceive the phenomena that appear and disappear in front of us.
The moon does not have its own light but borrows its light from the sunlight. So moonlight is just a reflected light. However, like the moon is useful only in the night - in darkness - our mind is useful to see things only when we are enveloped by the darkness of self-ignorance. Also, like the moon is no more required when the sun rises, our mind is no more required when the sun of pure self-experience rises.
In this context, we may consider verse 22 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Consider, except by, turning the mind back within, completely immersing it in God, who shines within that mind giving light to the mind, how to fathom God by the mind?
So what Bhagavan teaches us here is a simpler way of saying what Sri Sankara is trying to teach is verse 7 of Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham. God shines within us as our own light and this light lights up our mind, and this mind is what enables us to see things other than ourself. Therefore, if we want to experience God as it really is, we need to turn within and experience ourself as we really are. There is no other way to 'see' God.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 39
O son, always experience non-duality (advaita) in the heart, but do not at any time put non-duality in action. Non-duality is fit to be expressed even with the three Gods, Brahma, Vishnu and Siva in their three worlds, but know that non–duality is not fit with the Guru.
Sri Sadhu Om: This verse composed by Sri Bhagavan is a translation of verse 87 of Sri Adi Sankara’s Tattvopadesa.
Michael spoke about this verse in his latest video dated 2nd June 2018:
All the three worlds means Brahmaloka, Vaikunta and Kailasa. You can go to Brahmaloka and tell Brahma, ‘I and you are one’. You can go to Vaikunta and tell Vishnu, ‘you and I are one’. And you can to Sivaloka and tell to Siva, ‘you and I are one’.
Actually, it is Bhagavan alone who appears are the three murtis, but when he appears as the guru, the function of the guru is above the function of all the three murtis. It is because these Gods have specific functions of creation, sustenance and destruction respectively, but the function of the guru is nothing to do with the world.
Guru has come to destroy the ego, which is the real cause of the creation, sustenance and destruction of this world. So the function of guru is incomparable and beyond the functions of all the Gods.
Reflections: Guru’s position or status is above all positions. If both God and guru appear before us, whom should we do pranams first? Kabir has talked about this in one of his verses:
Guru and God both are here
to whom should I first bow
All glory be unto the guru
the path to God who did bestow
Obviously, God and guru are actually one, but without Guru’s guidance we cannot merge in God, and to merge in God is our ultimate aim.
Meditation on ourself is the most purifying of all, because it is going directly against our vishaya-vasanas.
Supposing we are practising dualistic devotion - we love Krishna – we get intoxicated with Krishna bhakti. That’s all good, because slowly-slowly all the other vasanas of desire and fear and so on are being replaced by the vasana of Krishna-bhakti. The more we love Krishna, the more we will trust him, the less we have to fear. So slowly-slowly that bhakti brings us to the path of surrender.
So that way by strengthening our bhakti-vasana, our devotional tendencies, we are replacing one type of vasana by a better type of vasana, a more favourable type of vasana - the vasana where we are focussing on one thing.
And then we think, ‘O Krishna has taught us Bhagavad Gita’, and so we read the Gita to see what Krishna teaches us there. He says, ‘slowly-slowly take your mind away from other things and turn it within, because ‘aham atma, Gudakesha (I am atma shining in the heart of all)’.
So slowly-slowly from our Krishna bhakti we come to svatma-bhakti, which is the best of all – the most purifying of all. In fact, it is the only practice which will make us absolutely pure.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 2nd June 2018
Sanjay Lohia,
you say "...like the moon is no more required when the sun rises, our mind is no more required when the sun of pure self-experience rises."
This comparison with the sun is at most applicable only in a metaphorical sense, because the sun (of pure self-experience) actually does neither rise nor set. For the ever unchanging reality is said to be the one infinite consciousness, having neither rising nor setting. However, the mind and the world has risings and settings, because they arise and set together as inseparable pair.
Original Arivu, yes, I agree. Pure self-experience has neither rising nor setting in actual terms. However, poetically we can say that when the moon-like mind sets, the sun-like self rises. But this is a metaphorical way of putting things. Pure self-awareness is the infinite, immutable and unbroken reality, and it is as it is. It cannot move or change or rise or set.
Sanjay Lohia,
you see me nodding in agreement.
Sanjay Lohia,
may I suggest something to you ?
When in future you make a transcription of a particular portion of a video-extract I would be glad if I could find also the time of the transcribed video passage (seen on the left of the lower line of the screen)- for a better look up/check and comprehension.
Nam, OK, in future, whenever I make a transcript of Michael’s videos, I will try to give the time reference of the transcripts. I may sometimes forget to do this, so I hope you will bear with me.
According to Michael, verses 25 and 26 of Ulladu Narpadu contain the very core or cream of Bhagavan’s teachings. As he often says, if we understand the full implications of these two verses, we should have no difficulty in understanding the other principles of Bhagavan’s teachings. These verses are:
Grasping form the formless phantom-ego comes into existence; grasping form it stands; grasping and feeding on form it grows abundantly; leaving form, it grasps form. If it seeks, it will take flight. Investigate.
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.
I think these two verses give us the answers to most of our questions. For example:
1) What is this ego? How does it come into existence? The ego is a formless phantom which comes into existence only when it grasps forms. A form in this context means any phenomena – whether mental or physical.
2) How to destroy this ego? We can kill this ego if we are able to starve it of the forms it grasps unceasingly. However, the most import point is, we need to investigate the ego to find out what is it? If we do so it will cease not exist. Since it is just a formless phantom, it cannot exist without the forms it grasps in order to stay alive.
3) How does this world come into existence? It comes into seeming existence only we rise as this ego and imagine a world in front of us. If there is no ego, there is no world.
4) So is this world like a dream? Absolutely. If what Bhagavan teaches us is true, this world is just another dream, and not merely like a dream.
5) How to get rid of all our worldly problems and miseries, all our desires and attachments and so on? Simple, we need to just get rid of our ego. If the ego goes, the very seed of this samsara (world) is destroyed, and without a world how can any problems exist?
So as we can see, the correct understanding of these two verses will answer many of our most fundamental metaphysical questions and doubts.
This is one of the places where ego's perversion about spiritual matters is not only excused by dressing it up in pseudo-profundity, but is actively used to make one's ego look lofty or humble (but mostly humble because "that's what the guru says"), depending on what it demands.
Depending on the situation, ego is either presented as an entity to be improved upon on the path to salvation (one of the major themes on this blog), or excused as being 'correct' because of its nature in situations where it feels the need to defend itself (e.g. going out shopping for gurus.)
When ego is presented as an entity to be improved upon, that's usually something related to the interpretation of scriptures or teachings. In this situation, the ego, backed by the scriptures, feels safe. It can allow itself to be punched by a minor blow, to be made into an imperfect entity which needs to be improved upon, precisely because it knows that that results in its image being improved in the public view by association with the scriptures which are obviously highly regarded.
Such allowances create all kinds of light-as-a-feather to heavy-weight-industrial-strength perversions, which are then excused by utilizing the other principle, that of helplessness in front of the ego's nature. One can ask about who it actually is that is helpless in the presence of the ego, and the answer shows that ego is helpless in front of ego!
The passages about how to select an ideal guru and why one chose Michael/someone over others reeks of pseudo-profundity and defensiveness. What's worse is that such attitude is not exceptional, and is considered largely acceptable as the 'proof' of one's 'spiritual maturity'.
We say we need an external guru, but the definition of a guru is clothed in the aforementioned cycles of perversions.
Even at the level of ego, there's only teachings, no matter where they come from. Seeing a rock has the ability to enlighten me, if only I learn to receive its 'teaching' in the 'right' place. Seeing the rock has to remind us of what it actually is, and that, by association, 'should' remind us of what we actually are. But, do we REALLY know what a rock is?
We like to wear, as merit badges, the states of being so 'clean', so 'educated', so 'humble', so 'deep', so 'profound', so 'devoted', so 'charitable', so 'understanding', so 'plain', so 'simple', so 'add-your-goody-here'.
The reason we do that is that we do not like to wear the opposite extremes of each goody listed above, and that (i.e. not liking) is another goody on the list above.
The way out lies, not in trying to find the correct item to wear, but in not wearing anything.
To know if we are wearing merit badges, ask ourselves if we are being anal-retentive about the path and the teachings, if we dislike/hate being ajnanis so much we prefer spinning in the cycles of perversions and obsessions. One of the subtle hurdles to pass will be being anal-retentive about not being anal-retentive, or desiring not to desire. Hence, the middle-way, etc.
The sheer amount of words being pasted, in the defense and the uplift of the ego, when its shiny surface is scratched a bit, are like a ton of gooey, sticky, slimy ejaculatum released after endlessly mentally masturbating to the scriptures/teachings.
One imperfect view of an ajnani, born out of a few seconds of real experience, is far more valuable than the pedagogically perfect, clean-cut views born out of years of minute interpretation of scriptures/teachings without practical experience to back it.
Good luck to you all. There's no bloody need for this lingual monstrosity, an ode to the Ego.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 8
In the centre of the cave which is the heart, the one (non-dual) brahman alone shines directly in the form of self as ‘I am I’. Enter the heart (by the mind) sinking scrutinising self, or by the mind sinking along with the breath, and be one who abides in self.
Sri Sadhu Om: One day in 1915 a devotee named Jagadiswara Sastri started to compose a Sanskrit verse beginning with the words. ‘Hridaya-kuhara-madhye’, (In the centre of the heart cave), but finding that he was unable to proceed any further to express in verse form the idea which he had in mind, he implored Sri Bhagavan to complete the verse for him. Sri Bhagavan accordingly completed the verse and wrote underneath ‘Jagadisan’, thereby indicating that the ideas in the verse were those of Jagadiswara Sastri and not his own.
Reflections: Bhagavan became Jagadiswara Sastri while composing this verse. As Michael once said, Bhagavan is practically a non-entity. He is like a mirror which reflects whatever comes before him.
Bhagavan seems to be saying in this verse that mind can subside as a result of breath-control, but this was Jagadiswara’s idea. Bhagavan always maintained that the mind can subside by breath-control, but such subsidence is only temporary. Our aim is permanent subsidence of our mind, and for this breath-control is not the right method. Only self-investigation can bring about mano-nasa (permanent destruction of the mind).
Someone so-called “ashamed-ego” wrote:
“The way out lies, not in trying to find the correct item to wear, but in not wearing anything.”
How about discarding the secure feeling of “wearing” a fictitious name in the blog, use your “real” one and seeing what happens internally, bro (or sis!)? How would that feel?
I’ll tell you how, that would definitely feel like wearing nothing... to hide us from us.
One thing on your comment I agree with: to walk the talk is much harder than to talk the walk...
(Note just in case, if you are going to say I use a fictitious name also, go to the blogger info, there you’ll have all the info necessary about the “real” Mouna)
Why Bhagavan talks about leaving everything in the hands of God? If we have this attitude that ‘God will take care of everything’ – if we have this faith and trust – that will make it so much easier to turn within. But do any of us really trust God?
If we really trust God, we wouldn’t worry about any of these things. We have our worries because we don’t have faith in God, or we have a little bit but grossly inadequate faith.
By trying to investigate ourself, we will purify our mind – get clarity of the mind and heart – in which faith in God will automatically blossom. So there is no easier or better way than self-investigation. Investigating ourself is not opposed to faith in God. It is the way to gain real deep, abiding faith in God.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 12th September 2015 (2:08 to 2:12 approx.)
@Mouna:
Really? That's a bait, and it presumes to know the words which I have not spoken yet (contrary to those spoken/pasted to show how to improve and what to shop for.)
The best response here is your name, Mouna.
Given that my name has nothing to do with my salvation (I think you agree here), it is unnecessary for me to plunge it into this spiritual spunk, just because a drop landed on it at a time when I was already on my way out of the orgy.
As any ajnani would, I would wash that drop off, and continue heading for the door (I think we disagree here, but only because you are a 'better' ajnani than I am.)
You really missed your chance, Mouna. From your last minute attempt at establishing the communication, you do seem desperate. Chin up! There are a lot of ajnanis around.
Albert Einstein, My Credo...extract...August 1932
I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer’s words: ‘Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,’ accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper.
Greetings from Europe, I have not much access to an internet connection and also have no access to my Google account, thus the 'black' Salazar.
I planned to post comments when I'm back to the States, however looking at the recent comments of ashamed.ego I feel like commenting now:
ashamed.ego's comments have become more belligerent lately and picking up on Mouna's hunch I wonder if an already known individual is hiding behind that moniker like old pal, Roger Isaacs.
In any case, I am not sure what a.ego's intentions are but I find his comments increasingly annoying.
That's it, no smart retort or lengthy argument. Time for the ego to become ashamed again rather to be a smart ass, hint hint...
Mouna and the rest of the gang, I hope you are doing well.
"Oh! What A Tangled Web We Weave When First We Practice To Deceive"
'black' Sal... whatssup?
hope you are also doing well.
no much access to an internet connection and no access to Google?
Sounds like Paradise!!!
hope to see/read you soon at these lands...
M
Salazar
I kept wondering what happened to you…just fell off the radar and disappeared. Then I thought you might be somewhere in the Himalayas in deep meditation. :)
No gargoyle, I presume Salazar is in Assisi again...recharging his spiritual batteries.
We really don't know from which musty crypt ashamed.ego did escape and spreades his annoying exhausts.
ashamed.ego did indeed escape and went to san francesco
What is required is chitta-suddhi, which is taken to mean the ‘purity of mind’. But chittam actually means the ‘will’. It is the will element of the mind. Manas-bhuddhi-chitta-ahankaram, they are all actually the same thing. But the gross aspect is the mind – the thoughts, the intellect is what distinguishes, but more important than intellect is the chittam.
The will is operating in every aspect of our life. So the problem lies in the chittam. What is the impurity of the chittam? It is our vishaya-vasanas - our liking to go outwards. That is what needs to be purified.
What is the difference between kamya-karmas and niskamya-karmas? The actions are the same, but the will behind it is different. Ramakrishna Paramhamsa worshipped Kali. What was special about his worship? Whereas other people worship Kali because they want to pass the exam or get a promotion or earn more money and so on, Ramakrishna prayed only for love.
So the actions are the same, but the love behind it is different. That is the chittam - the will aspect. That is why Bhagavan said that bhakti is the mother of jnana.Bhakti is the aspect of the will. So it is all a matter of what do we want. Why does self-investigation seem difficult? It is because we don’t want it enough, or we want other things too much.
So it is a matter of rectifying our will. Our will is what determines the choices we make. The basic choice we have at every moment is, do we attend to phenomena or do we attend to ourself, the one who is aware of phenomena?
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 9th June 2018 (1:25 onwards)
Sanjay Lohia,
"...bhakti is the mother of jnana. Bhakti is the aspect of the will. So it is all a matter of what do we want. Why does self-investigation seem difficult? It is because we don’t want it enough, or we want other things too much."
Having sufficient bhakti or will to purity of mind is he crux of the matter.
Having the required chitta-suddhi is evidently developed only by maturity of our mind.
Without that jewel of maturity we can at most turn a somersault or loop the loop.
Many thanks for inserting the corresponding video-time in your comment.( More exact is from 1:25:00 onwards to 1:28:16).
Sanjay Lohia,
"If we have this attitude that ‘God will take care of everything’ – if we have this faith and trust – that will make it so much easier to turn within. But do any of us really trust God?"
"Investigating ourself is not opposed to faith in God. It is the way to gain real deep, abiding faith in God."
In most of us the required full trust and faith in God will obviously not rise up out of suddenness but can develop only slowly because the ego is rarely eradicated instantly.
(Thanks for mention the current video-time.)
By the way, may I point something out to the Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: can we not contribute for a better sound quality of the microphones used at the video recording ?
Devotee: Bhagavan often said that self-investigation is the only way to realise our true self. Do you think Buddha practised this before he attained nirvana?
Michael: Yes, I believe so. Sooner or later everyone has to follow this path in order to attain that. It is logical. If our aim is to know ourself as we actually are, how can we know ourself if we do not look at ourself? How can one see the sun if one does not look at it? So Buddha must have practised self-investigation, at least in the final stages of his sadhana, and not only that, he probably also taught this path.
But unfortunately, unlike Bhagavan, Buddha didn’t write his teachings. In fact, the earliest record of his teachings is several hundred years after he left his body. It was recorded in Pali. But there were other oral traditions that were passed down through other channels at about the same time or soon after, and these recorded variations of those teachings in other languages.
Buddha didn’t even compose verses. So the oral tradition was a prose tradition. When things are conveyed through prose, they easily get distorted. I tell you something, what you understand you tell to someone else, and they, in turn, understand it in their own way and pass it to others and so on. So what the original teachings of Buddha were, we really don’t know.
But fortunately for us, Bhagavan himself wrote the core principles of his teachings, sometimes in prose like in Nan Yar? but more often in poetry. Poetry is the best way of preserving spiritual teachings.
So Bhagavan is special in so many ways – very-very special. It is because Bhagavan presented things in an extremely simple way which can easily be understood. Bhagavan is very clear in what he teaches. He has closed all the loopholes which we may find after studying the traditional advaita philosophy. Old teachings were correct, but they were misunderstood, and so they were misinterpreted.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 2nd June 2018 (1:59 to 2:04)
Reflections: Michael has explained a good point, namely that poetry is the best way of preserving spiritual teachings. I think that is why Indian Spiritual literature is extremely rich is poetry. Ramayana, Bhagavatam, Gita and other such works are all in poetry, and so are the works of countless poet-saints like Kabir, Mirabai, Surdas and others.
We can give up our ego only by turning within, but even when we are choosing to engage with the world, we should be careful not to feed our likes and dislikes – to develop an attitude of surrender, an attitude of yielding everything to God, an attitude of vairagya.
What does it matter if I have a little bit of less money or a little bit of more money? I am not going to take it with me anyway. It is not going to last me very long. I used money as an example. Our mind goes out towards so many things. The body itself is not going to last a few more years, so what is the use of all these achievements? So many things we may achieve in this world, but nothing is going to come with us.
The only thing that will come with us is our love for Bhagavan – our love for following what Bhagavan has taught us. So that is what we need to cultivate.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 9th June 2018 (1:31 to 1:33)
Reflections: We ignore Bhagavan’s wealth – which is, in fact, our own wealth – and go after maya’s wealth. Bhagavan’s wealth is the infinite happiness, and we can experience this only by turning within. Maya’s wealth is unceasing misery, which we experience when we desire the things of this world.
So the choice is ours: do we want Bhagavan’s wealth or do we want maya’s wealth? If we want Bhagavan’s wealth, we need to subside within and become one with him. This is the only way to reclaim our ‘lost’ treasure. In fact, this treasure is buried in our own backyard, so it is already ours. We just have to dig the earth where it is buried, and reclaim it and enjoy it forever.
Devotee: I have a 6-year-old and he frequently asks questions about God and death and such things. How should I respond to him?
Michael: It is a good sign if a child is asking about these things, because it has some curiosity that there is something beyond this material world. Death is a taboo subject. It is a subject which most people prefer not to think about, not to talk about, and most people will feel inappropriate talking to children about death. Children may see death, so why should we hide it from them?
Death helps us to see life in proportion. When we think of death, what is the use of all our worldly accumulations? What is the use of social status, wealth, possessions and all these things? If I earn a billion dollars, what will it do for me when I am dying? Even the best of doctors cannot avert death when it comes. So I cannot take away even a penny out of my billions, can I?
So if we want to cultivate vairagya, if we want to reduce the intensity of our desires, it is good to remember death, to remember that life is a transient thing. So to talk to a child about death is not necessarily a bad thing. Some children may not like to talk about death, so we need not force it on them.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 9th June 2018 (0:48 to 0:57)
Reflections: We may try to imagine that we are about to die – perhaps we know that we have a day or two to live. How will all our possessions and other things help us in those moments? We will have to live everything behind. So why not try and develop vairagya here and now, which anyway is a necessary prerequisite if we want to turn within and experience ourself as we actually are.
We will have to leave everything behind.
Sanjay Lohia,
instead of "Indian Spiritual literature is extremely rich is poetry" let us read ... rich in poetry. As you know I do mention that only for practice purposes :)
Aham-Spurippu, I thank you for pointing out my typo. I welcome such corrections.
Who is the kindest of all people who had ever walked on the face of this world? Is there anyone kinder than Bhagavan? When Bhagavan was once walking on the northern side of the hill, his thigh brushed against a bush in which there was a hornets’ nest. He stood there patiently and let the hornets sting him, because he felt deep remorse even for an action which he didn’t do intentionally.
So he was kind and compassionate to those hornets, even though they were stinging him and causing him so much pain. He just stood there until the hornets were fully satisfied. Why did Bhagavan have such supreme kindness and compassion? It is because he saw himself in those hornets. The same self-awareness that is shining in you and me is shining in those hornets also. And according to Bhagavan, he is that self-awareness shining in the heart of all beings from Vishnu down to the smallest ant or hornet or anything. So he saw himself in those hornets and therefore felt their pain.
Bhagavan has no desires or attachments, but sometimes when people used to come to Bhagavan and tell of the calamities which had befallen them – their husband or wife had passed away or their child had passed away - Bhagavan would be sometimes shedding tears listening to those stories. Because he is like a mirror, he felt what all the other people feel.
[A devotee seemed moved by this story. Michael responded to this devotee by saying:]
The fact that we are moved by an act of compassion itself shows that Bhagavan has planted the seed of compassion in our heart. We may not be able to do what Bhagavan did. If we are stung by hornets we will run a mile, because we don’t have that supreme vairagya that Bhagavan had or the supreme compassion that Bhagavan had.
There are many people in the world who would think, ‘O what a silly story’. They won’t be moved by it, because they won’t understand the love and compassion with which Bhagavan did it.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 2nd June 2018 (1:47 to 1:59)
That above described compassion with the hornets is indeed scarcely conceivable and was possible only by unparalleled deep sympathy with the hornets.
Presumably that occurrence took place on the most steep slope/rock wall either on the north-west or north-east face of Arunachala near the summit.
Chitta-suddhi, I am trying to locate a conversation with Maharishi Ramana where he says words to the effect that - "if neither disturbing the hornet's nest, NOR letting the hornets sting was his action, then what must be the nature of his mind?" Ramana would go along with any interpretation that people chose for his actions and it just does not seem right to me to attribute maudlin motives to a jnani's actions. Surely, to claim ownership of an accidental movement, to feel "remorse" for the results, to prescribe and then "punish" oneself is a sign of mental sickness in anyone?
It is like trying to "interpret" a force of nature. All IMHO, of course.
The story of the hornets nest is only relevant for us who take the body for real. It was as much real or unreal as is our daily appetite for food.
In all reality (from the viewpoint of Bhagavan), Self disturbed Self and Self stung Self. With whom was Bhagavan compassionate?
With no one. ☺
What knowledge is the form of the pure and motionless ‘I’ in the heart-lotus – know that, that knowledge which is ‘I’ alone will bestow liberation, self, by destroying ‘I’ (the ego).
Reflections: Bhagavan has a one-track mind. He wants us to be concerned only with knowing or experiencing ‘I’ as it is, because until the ego ‘I’ remains, we will remain bound and therefore will always be unhappy and dissatisfied. Where is our real ‘I’? It resides in and as our heart.
Therefore, we need to look at this ‘I’ by ignoring everything else so completely that we experience ‘I’ and only ‘I’. Until this happens, we should not give up our practice of self-investigation. So Bhagavan is relentless: only knowing ‘I’ as it really is will bestow liberation.
The verse mentioned in my previous comment is verse 9 of Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham. The verse is:
What knowledge is the form of the pure and motionless ‘I’ in the heart-lotus – know that, that knowledge which is ‘I’ alone will bestow liberation, self, by destroying ‘I’ (the ego).
Anonymous,
having compassion with the hornets and feeling remorseful for disturbing the hornets (and along with feeling that he has to be punished for that offence) is resulting immediately from the non-dual self-awareness of Bhagavan.
There is no need giving our thoughts about whether disturbing the hornet's nest and letting the hornets sting has to be considered as Bhagavan's action and then summarizing what the nature of his mind must have been. For we should not mix together our ajnani's view with the view of a jnani.
Generally we need to look after signs of our own mental sickness.
Salazar,
"Self disturbed Self and Self stung Self. With whom was Bhagavan compassionate?
With no one. ☺"
Arunachala, the self is only aware of itself and perhaps of his form as a mountain. In the view of jnana therefore it would have been aware neither of a mountain climbing Ramana, neither any hornets, neither any disturbance of a hornet's nest nor of any sting attack nor of any compassion.
But at most in joke are ajnanis authorized to advocate the jnani's view.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 10
The body (deham) is insentient like an earthen pot; since the consciousness ‘I’ does not exist for it and since our existence is experienced daily in sleep, where the body does not exist, it is not ‘I’ (naham). Within the heart-cave of those who abide having known ‘Who is ego-person and where is he?’, Arunagiri-Siva, the omnipresent (vibhu), will shine forth spontaneously as the sphurana ‘He is I’ (soham).
Sri Sadhu Om: Thus Bhagavan teaches that ‘the body is not I’ (deham naham) is the initial viveka understanding with which the practice is to be commenced, that ‘Who am I?’ (koham) is the actual method of practice, and that ‘He is I’ (soham) is only the final experience and not the method of practice, as it is often mistaken to be.
Reflections: Why do we require the initial understanding that ‘the body is not I’? It is because if we do not understand that ‘the body is not I’, we may try and investigate the body if we are told by Bhagavan ‘investigate what you actually are?’ Since according to our current understanding this body is ‘I’, we need to understand that this body cannot be the real ‘I’ because we exist without any body in sleep.
If ‘I’ and ‘body’ were identical, we wouldn’t have experienced ourself without experiencing this body. But we experience ourself in sleep without experiencing this body. So it should be clear that the body is not I? So ‘who am I?’ This is how we embark on our self-investigation?
Chitta-suddhi and Salazar, thank you for your very interesting responses.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 11
Who is born? Know that he alone is (truly) born, who is born in his own source, brahman, by scrutinising ‘Where was I born?’; he is eternal; he, the Lord of sages, is ever new and fresh.
Reflections: We will die a thousand deaths if we identify with our body. However, we can transcend death by subsiding in our source and by becoming one with it. Once we are able to do so, we will experience ourself as the eternal reality whom death cannot touch.
The sage is ever new and fresh. The body can become old and worn-out, but since the sage is not the body, he is ever new and ever fresh.
Chitta-suddhi, we "should" not do a lot, and yet we do it. That's our nature as long as we identify with a body and the actions are determined by prarabdha.
Frankly, Arunachala is a mountain, whatever is associated with it is a production of mind including the name. It is an idol, not more and not less. I do not share this Indian style of worship of this mountain - even though Bhagavan had declared it as his guru.
Before people cry heretic, 😇, I can respect other viewpoints about it as long as they are not seen as a dogma as some may do on this blog.
To mouna and gargoyle, I'll respond when I am back in the States.
Heretic!!!
:)
This is a such a brilliant articulation of the most basic and pernicious Maya humanity suffers from, "otherness" - that it deserves to be read.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/06/15/how-the-corporate-media-enslave-us-to-a-world-of-illusions/
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 12
Give up thinking the wretched body to be ‘I’. Know the self, which is ever-unending bliss. Trying to know the self and at the same time cherishing the perishable body, is like taking hold of a crocodile in order to cross a river.
Reflections: It is entrenched deep within us that this wretched body is ourself. It is difficult to give us this habit. However, when we come to Bhagavan he teaches us that we cannot be this body or for that matter any body, because we exist in our sleep without experiencing ourself as any body.
If we take ourself to be this body, time and death will swallow us. But are we this body? If we are not, who am I? We can read verse 16 of Ulladu Narpadu in this context:
When we investigate, except we, where is time, where is place? If we are a body, we will be ensnared in time and place. Are we a body? Since we are the one, now, then and always, the one in place, here, there and everywhere, there is we, we. Time and place do not exist.
Bhagavan says that time and place do not exist, but it does exist for us now, because we take ourself to be this body. So if want to regain our timeless and spaceless existence, we have to give us the wrong idea that this body is ‘I’, and we can do so only by investigating ourself and thereby by experiencing our real nature.
Bhagavan really became well known only in the 1930s and 40s. When he was living in Skandasramam, it was just a handful of people - very-very few people. And even those who were with Bhagavan, I don’t know how many really understood Bhagavan’s greatness.
Sadhu Om used to say, ‘If we really understood the greatness of Bhagavan, we wouldn’t be able to say anything – we wouldn’t be able to ask any questions or anything’.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 23rd April 2016 (1:21 to 1:23)
Reflections: Since we still have so many questions and doubts, we clearly have not understood him quite well. However, the more we understand him, the more his greatness is revealed to us.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 13
Know that destroying the feeling ‘I am the body’ (dehatma-bhava) is charity (dana), asceticism (tapas), oblation (yaga), righteousness (dharma), union (yoga), devotion (bhakti), heaven (swarga) and bliss (ananda).
Reflections: In short, our practice of self-investigation gives us the benefits of all such observances and practices – that is, it gives us the benefits of charity, asceticism, oblation, righteousness, union, devotion and so on.
Our self-investigation will eventually take us to ‘heaven’, which as Jesus says is only within us, and establish us there. What is the uniqueness of this heaven? It is a place of unending enjoyment unmixed with any unhappiness. It is a place of absolute bliss.
It is a place from where we can never return. So if we are too attached to our little life in this world we should not go to this heaven, because if we do so we can never come back and enjoy our possessions, relations and so on. We need to be clearly aware of the 'dangers' of self-investigation.
Salazar,
you say "Frankly, Arunachala is a mountain, whatever is associated with it is a production of mind including the name. It is an idol, not more and not less. I do not share this Indian style of worship of this mountain - even though Bhagavan had declared it as his guru."
Well. Of course the real self is said to be the infinite formless consciousness.
But should we not remember that our mind is just an outgrowth of our primary ignorance ?
Because therefore the mind has no light/power of vision of its own, we should not place much reliance upon the mind's opinion particularly when we judge conditions which are assumed to be beyond the mind. So our mind's picture about Arunachala may give only an incomplete rendering of the facts. Certainly we must admit that the mind is possibly not fully informed.
Sanjay Lohia,
"Sadhu Om used to say, ‘If we really understood the greatness of Bhagavan, we wouldn’t be able to say anything – we wouldn’t be able to ask any questions or anything’."
A similar experience I had last February. As soon as I entered the office of Sri Ramanasramam in order to register with the reception I could hardly speak - for a long felt minute.
Chitta-suddhi, it appears you have not understood me because I consider the mind for irrelevant and only good for one thing, to induce vichara.
You said "should we not remember that the mind is an outgrowth...".
The "we" is the mind (without going into unnecessary conceptual details), I am certain you agree. However the mind cannot police itself in the way you are suggesting it should do. That is a waste of time, because it can't.
All these "shoulds" are a game of mind. It would be wise to drop that. I believe I must have mentioned that quite a few times on this blog.
That what creates the problem (mind) can never fix it with a subject-object relationship. And everything is a subject-object relationship but vichara/surrender.
Salazar,
your observations about the mind - repeatedly maintained/emphasized by you - may be correct.
But my particular point was to state that we cannot appreciate the real and complete significance of Arunachala with the inadequate tool of the unreliable mind. As we all (should) know, the self alone really exists. Therefore the mind imagined as separated from the self does not exist at all. Because Arunachala is the self existing in us itself, it cannot be considered as a creation of the ego.
I simply do not think that I thus cling to an unreal Fata Morgana.
Arunachala, the name, and the object as mountain are very certainly a creation of mind as is every other object. (Arunachala does not get a free pass that would be ridiculous.)
How do you know that Arunachala is Self? You don't! To postulate one cannot "appreciate" the magical Arunachala because the mind is flawed is illogical and false because it is ONLY the mind which is even acknowledging that object (Arunachala) and which in addition IMAGINES that Arunachala is Self. Your premise is flawed and confused from the very beginning!
To BE - no clinging (or imagination of objects like Arunachala) is necessary.
Now I respect your relationship with that mountain, but do not tell me that it is not an idol as is the figure of Jesus Christ which hangs in Christian churches.
You can "make" Arunachala only Self with your mind, is that so hard to accept?
Salazar,
because I mentioned the flaws of the mind you claim that I made an illogical and false assertion. As objective reasons for your claim you give that it is only the mind that even acknowledges the object Arunachala and which additionally imagines Arunachala as being self.
Further you postulate that to be is necessary instead of clinging to imagined objects like Arunachala.
Finally you expect me to accept that I made Arunachala as self only "with my mind".
Indeed my mind feels challenged by your comment.
In order to scrutinize your stated arguments I must dive deep in my heart and start searching keenly for Arunachala's real essence and sole presence.
For family reasons I unfortunately can do it not immediately but only after the next few days.
Chitta-suddhi, you can be at peace because I do not expect anything from you.
Bhagavan says:
The ego functions as the knot between self, which is pure consciousness, and the physical body, which is inert and insentient. The ego is therefore called the chit-jada granthi. In your investigation into the source of aham-vritti, you take the essential chit aspect of the ego; and for this reason, the investigation must lead to the realisation of pure consciousness of self.
Reflections: This is one of the more important sayings of Bhagavan. The ego functions as a knot between ourself and all its jada (insentient) adjuncts. A knot can be made up by tying the loose ends of two threads. However, this knot has no substantial existence, and if we therefore untie these strings, the knot will cease to exist.
Likewise, though our ego takes on the properties of both the chit and jada, it is neither of these two, and therefore it will cease to exist if we can separate the chit from all its jada adjuncts.
So when we practise self-investigation, we try to attend to the chit aspect of the ego, and the more we are able to attend to it, the more all its jada adjuncts starts falling off. Eventually, what will remain is just pure self-awareness. This is our goal.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 14
Enquiring to whom are these, karma, vibhakti, viyoga and ajnana is itself karma, bhakti, yoga and jnana. When one enquiries, without ‘I’ they never exist. Remaining as the self alone is the truth.
Reflections: All our defects exist because we do not experience ourself as we actually are, and they will all go when we experience ourself as we really are. It is such a simple and practical teaching.
Salazar,
quite right !, no expectation - no reply - no becoming under pressure[of time].
So I will do the anyway required deep investigation exclusively for myself.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 15
The buffoonery of the madmen who, not knowing the manner in which they function by (atma) sakti, engage in activities saying, ‘We shall obtain all occult powers (siddhis)’, is like the story of the cripple who said, ‘If someone helps me to stand, what are these enemies?’
Sri Sadhu Om: People who make efforts to attain sakti and siddhis do so only because of their ignorance of the truth that all the actions of their mind, speech and body are functioning only due to the power of the presence of self.
Reflections: We say ‘I, I, I …’: I do this; I do that, I can achieve this; I can achieve that; I am rich; I am fat and so on. Bhagavan says, ‘there is only one ‘I’ and that ‘I’ is me. So how can you claim that you are ‘I’? Even what you take to be ‘I’ cannot move but by the power of my presence. So why not just stay quiet instead of saying ‘I, I, I,…’.
Sanjay Lohia,
as Bhagavan taught us that the only one siddhi which is worth to gain is being aware of our real nature.
Absurdly enough, even (our) ignorance functions only due the power of the presence of self.
Is there any other reason why we instead of just staying quiet are constantly saying 'I, I, I,…' than our ignorance ?
Sanjay Lohia,
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 14
"Remaining as the self alone is the truth."
"...Reflections: All our defects exist because we do not experience ourself as we actually are..."
Why do we let this wrong experience do as it likes ?
Why do we allow ourself to live in a fool's paradise ?
Why do we continue to act crazy like a madman ?
Why do we not apply an effective remedy for that fooling about ?
So let us be bright and cheerful and enquiry to whom our ignorance exists or at least appears (to exist).
Devotee: How do you describe moksha? Many things are written about it in Hindu scriptures.
Michael: Hinduism in not one religion. It is a whole set of believes. All agree moksha is the ultimate end, but each have a different understanding of it. Moksha means liberation; moksha means freedom. Bondage is nothing but the ego. Bhagavan described what ego is in verse 24 of Ulladu Narpadu:
The body does not say ‘I’. Sat-chit dos not rise. But in between these two rises an ‘I’, and this ‘I’ can be described as the ego, soul, subtle body, bandham (bondage), chit-jada-granthi and mind.
These are all different descriptions of the ego. One of the things he says is that this ego is bandham (bondage), because all bondage starts from the ego. So long as the ego exists there is no liberation. Freeing ourself from the ego is moksha (liberation).
So the state of complete egolessness is moksha.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 24th April 2016 (morning): 0:50 onwards
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 16
Since peace of mind (chitta-santi) alone is liberation (mukti), which is always attained, say, how can those who set their mind upon occult powers (siddhis), which cannot be attained without activity of the mind, immerse in the bliss of liberation, which is devoid of all turbulence of mind?
Reflections: Our aim is not merely peace of mind, but it is the destruction on the mind. We can attain absolute chitta-shanti only when our mind is destroyed, because as long as our chitta, which is a totality of our desires, exists, we cannot attain the stillness which Bhagavan wants us to aim for.
Yes, many are after powers. Some hope to acquire worldly power, and some aim to acquire so-called spiritual powers. Some may even succeed in acquiring these powers; nevertheless, such lust for power will surely agitate their mind and make it turbulent. Hence, it is foolishness to try to attain any sort of power, worldly, spiritual or whatever.
Bhagavan used to say that shanti itself is shakti. That is, peace itself is power. So absolute mouna (silence), in which the ego does not rise even in the least, is absolute power.
Sanjay Lohia,
"Reflections: Our aim is not merely peace of mind, but it is the destruction on the mind."
Only for exercise:correct is "...destruction of the mind."
The supreme greatness of Arunachala Hill is certainly beyond intellectual comprehension.
Sanjay Lohia,
"Freeing ourself from the ego is moksha (liberation).
So the state of complete egolessness is moksha."
How to get free from the ego ?
On the one hand I want to be free from the ego.
On the other hand this ego wants to get satisfied its wishes and desires.
Obviously I am still not worth to drink the nectar of supreme realisation.
Arunachala, you awe-inspiring hill, would you not be inclined and ready to bring that
terrible disaster to a happy conclusion ?
Does a 35MM camera have "awareness"? Certainly, it can photograph this rose that I am "aware of". So how can the rose be "a product of my awareness" if it can be photographed via an automatic shutter (independently of an "I" or for that matter an "eye" looking at it. The camera has not "mind" and does not have "thoughts of the rose". Yet as light enters the aperture and exposes film the rose is "here now". Which is "real" my awareness of this rose or the photograph of the rose? Is there a cognitive awareness and a photographic awareness? Does a 35MM camera have Buddha Nature?
Anonymous above, I take it you are not convinced by drishti-srishti-vada?
Anonymous,
who is looking at the photograph ?
Who is aware of the assumed "photographic awareness" ?
Are you not creating the rose by seeing it ?
"Are you not creating the rose by seeing it?"
Yes, same with the photograph of the rose, thus it doesn't matter at all if that seemingly detour of a "photograph" is taken.
Bhagavan was very clear about that, of course we stay fooled by our addiction of a subject-object relationship or suttarivu.
Can the mind ever understand and follow the idea that creation of the world happens simultaneously by perception of it ?
As we know this ego alone is the one what perceives all phenomena. In the absence of the ego no phenomena are perceived and therefore do not exist. According Michael James, as he wrote somewhere in an article perhaps two years ago, we do not have any adequate reason to suppose that anything exists independent of our perception of it. Therefore we have no adequate reason to suppose that any phenomena exist except when we rise as this ego to perceive them. We only habitually assume that all the physical phenomena we perceive around us exist even when we do not perceive them. Since all phenomena are perceived only by the ego - when we rise and stand as this ego - , they do not exist independent of it. When we do not mistake ourself to be this ego all the physical phenomena which are called "the world" do not exist at all.
Who has created this world?
The world has been created by nothing, and whatever it has seemingly created is also an extension of the same nothing. So this world is also nothing. However, even though the creator the world is nothing, it feels that it is something, and therefore it feels that whatever it experiences is also something. Isn’t all this beyond our wildest imagination? Isn’t all this Theatre of the Absurd?
So the more useful to ask is 'Does this world actually exist?'
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 17
See, when God is bearing the burden of the world, the pseudo soul bearing that burden is a mockery like the form of a gopuram-tangi (a sculptured figure which seems to support the top of a temple-tower). Whose fault is it if someone who is travelling in a train, which is bearing a great burden, undergoes suffering by bearing the burden on the head instead of placing it on the train?
Sri Sadhu Om: Just as the gopuram-tangi does not in fact support even a small portion of the tower, but is itself supported by the tower, so the individual soul, who is a spurious and unreal entity, does not in fact sustain even a small part of the world’s burden, but is himself sustained only by God. The word gopuram-tangi literally means ‘tower-bearer’ and is a name given to the sculptured figures which stand near the top of a south Indian temple-tower and which seem to be making strenuous efforts to support the upper portion of the tower; by extension, the word gopuram-tangi is commonly used to mean a person who has an immoderate sense of self-importance and who believes that on himself alone everything depends.
Reflections: Do we not see many gopuram-tangis around us? All these politicians, philanthropists, social-reformers, religious preachers are huge gopuram-tangis, because they assume that they are supporting and helping this world in so many ways. Of course, we also come in the same category, even though we may be relatively small gopuram-tangis.
As Bhagavan teaches us through this verse, God is bearing the burden of this world. If we assume that we can change or help this world in any way, we are definitely living in a fool’s paradise. We ourselves cannot move even an inch without the support of the power of God, so how can we imagine that we can move the world (that is, we can change the world or change the conditions of other people) in any way?
So it is best to remain silent and let God do whatever it wants to do to change or reform this world? He is the train carrying the burden of this entire world.
Sanjay Lohia,
"...useful to ask is 'Does this world actually exist? "
The answer is yes, but only in the limited view of the ego and its idea "I am this body".
Sanjay Lohia,
"All these politicians, philanthropists, social-reformers, religious preachers are huge gopuram-tangis, because they assume that they are supporting and helping this world in so many ways."
There is no necessity to disparage the sincere dedication and efforts of honest people to reduce the harm, suffering and sorrows of mankind. To make carelessly fun of them rather shows one's inadequate understanding of the feeling of unity with all (human) beings or of belonging together.
Even when "God is bearing the burden of this world" he never did forbid to use one's strength for justice. On the contrary behaving in apathic indifference towards our fellow human beings on the grounds that God's will is anyway omnipresent is mere hypocrisy.
sada-apramada, you are forgetting two things in your last comment, a) if someone is helping or not helping is entirely dependent on prarabdha, and more importantly b), in believing that one is capable "using one's strength" one is seeing oneself as a do-er and has therefore succumbed to suttarivu and remains in delusion.
Sanjay Lohia's comment, in my humble judgment (and I could be wrong of course), was not intended to disparage "others" sincere dedication but to emphasize what is really important and that is vichara. Because vichara leads to realization and that has a Trillion times higher positive effect to all jivas than so-called "help".
By the way, even "sincere" dedication to help others is misled if done with a sense of doer-ship, therefore one rather focuses on vichara and leaves others be. There is no need to be concerned about "others", in fact that concern is in many cases most likely based on some selfish desire disguised as a "noble" act because a mature seeker leaves those things to the Divine or Ishwara.
If someone's prarabdha is to help someone else that is very fine but it is wise to leave it at that. To judge that as "positive" and "admirable" is missing the main point of Bhagavan's teaching.
P.S. The "black" Salazar is gone and that means I am back in the States. More later.
Salazar,
you obviously made a travel through Europe. What was your deepest impression if any ?
Salazar,
I always admire someone who claims to have understood "the main point of Bhagavan's teaching."
One can only marvel at it, I am flabbergasted when I hear it.
cafe violinist, what is so mysterious about Bhagavan's main point? If you have not understood that (assuming you have been a devotee for awhile) then I am rather flabbergasted :)
Michael and Sanjay Lohia have been talking (in the form of articles and comments) extensively about the "main point" and if that has eluded you then I certainly won't change that fact with another comment.
So in fact, your comment doesn't make a lot of sense. Most on this blog, if not all, should have grasped Bhagavan's main point by now. If not then they make things way too complicated.
*****************
Diogenes, I am settling my impressions and will post later something about my trip when the time feels ripe.
Mouna, I looked at your profile and I can't help it but you look a bit like Salvador Dali (his beard though was more stylish). I hope that is not an insult :)
Hahaha White Salazar! Not an insult of course! Dali once said that the only difference between a madman and himself was that he wasn’t mad... it really defined his compulsive creativity!
Welcome back.
Sada-apramada said:
There is no necessity to disparage the sincere dedication and efforts of honest people to reduce the harm, suffering and sorrows of mankind. To make carelessly fun of them rather shows one's inadequate understanding of the feeling of unity with all (human) beings or of belonging together.
Even when "God is bearing the burden of this world" he never did forbid to use one's strength for justice. On the contrary behaving in apathetic indifference towards our fellow human beings on the grounds that God's will is anyway omnipresent is mere hypocrisy.
I feel this is one of the best sentiments expressed on this blog...it perfectly reflects what Maharshi Ramana said --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our business is to keep quiet. If we enter into all these [political activities], people will naturally ask, and justifiably, ‘Why is he interfering in all these instead of keeping quiet?’ Similarly if Mahatma Gandhi keeps quiet leaving aside all his activities, they will ask, ‘Why is he keeping quiet instead of engaging in all these activities?’ He must do what he has come for. We must do what we have come for.
Day by Day with Bhagavan, 2nd February, 1946
-------------------------------------------------
"This means that political action is impossible, doesn't it?"
Not at all. The comprehension of total action surely does not prevent political, educational or religious activity. These are not separate activities, they are all part of a unitary process which will express itself in different directions. What is important is this unitary process, and not a separate political action, however apparently beneficial.
"I think I see what you mean. If I have this total understanding of man, or of myself, my attention may be turned in different directions, as necessary, but all my actions will be in direct relation to the whole. Action which is separative, departmentalized can only produce chaotic results, as I am beginning to realize. Seeing all this, not as a politician, but as a human being, my outlook on life utterly changes; I am no longer of any country, of any party, of any particular religion. I need to know God, as I need to have food, clothing and shelter; but if I seek the one apart from the other, my search will only lead to various forms of disaster and confusion. Yes, I see this is so, politics, religion and education are all intimately related to each other."
J Krishnamurti Commentaries on Living, Third series "Psychological Revolution"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Example of this, Michael's blog, videos, etc, doing what he has come to do, heh, heh.
blue Salazar,
okay, take your time.
The more I read certain excerpts by JK posted on this blog the more I realize my disinterest in what he has to say, Jnani or not.
Bhagavan is all what we need. To add other teachers from different paths can only create confusion. IMHO
Anonymous,
thanks for correcting my spelling mistake and replacing "apathic" by "apathetic".
Salazar,
according to Bhagavan the perceiving ego is itself a false/illusory appearance because it comes into existence and stands only by grasping a form (a body) as itself. Therefore it is able to perceive only forms and phenomena.
vastu-upalabdhi, I concur. Now I am not sure why you are directing this particular comment at me?
Salazar,
I was relating to your statement: "Bhagavan is all what we need. To add other teachers from different paths can only create confusion." So I was directing my comment in relation to your mentioning the phenomenon of different teachings.
Since all phenomena are perceived only by the ego - when we rise and stand as this ego - , they do not exist independent of it. When we do not mistake ourself to be this ego all the physical phenomena which are called "the world" do not exist at all.
Pure self-awareness is infinite and hence formless, therefore it is not a phenomenon, and it cannot be aware of any phenomena. All it is ever aware of is only itself.
So my comment was given only to remind you of being actually pure self-awareness.
However, as you seem to presume: that reminder should be directed generally to all of us.
Interview with Michael James on Conscious TV
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVfk1gKO0AQ
vastu-upalabdhi, I find it funny when on this blog people give reminder of "what we really are" and I probably did that too in one form or another. It feels kind of redundant, isn't that so?
To say "you are pure self-awareness" is kindergarten spirituality (IMO) because it is not believed. Some (possibly neo-advaitans) may tell themselves that they do but that is not really the case. So we DO mistake ourselves with the ego and no conceptual mind games can change that.
Anyway, to mix Bhagavan's teachings with other (not related) teachings is a bad idea. JK belongs to the group of unrelated teachings and I have no interest whatsoever what he had to say.
Salazar says, ‘to mix Bhagavan's teachings with other (not related) teachings is a bad idea’. I agree. Just like we need to be faithful towards our spouse or partner, we need to be faithful to our guru’s teachings. We should reject the teaching which is contrary to our guru’s teachings. However, if we read our guru’s teachings in the teachings of other guru’s, we should have no problem in accepting it.
To give a few examples, Sri Ramakrishna once said we can experience God only by knowing the true nature of ‘I’. This is also the central point of Bhagavan’s teachings. So we should wholeheartedly accept the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna. However, when Nisargadatta says that we should observe our thoughts as part of our spiritual practice, we should completely reject this part of his teachings, because it totally contradicts Bhagavan’s core teachings.
So fidelity to our guru’s teachings is perhaps more important than even the fidelity towards our spouse or partner. It is only such fidelity which will help us cross the ocean of samsara (worldly existence). Bhagavan’s teachings are a complete package, and so even if we want, we cannot add or subtract something from his core teachings.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verses 18 and 19:
Between the two breasts, below the chest and above the stomach there are six things of many colours. Among these, one thing which resembles a lily bud and which is within, two digits to the right (from the centre of the chest), is the heart.
Its mouth is closed; in the tiny hole which is inside it, there exists the dense darkness of ignorance together with desire (anger, greed, delusion, pride, jealousy), and so on; all the major nerves (nadis) are connected with it; it is the abode of the breath, the mind and the light (of consciousness).
Sri Sadhu Om: The above two verses are translated from the Malayalam version of Ashtanga Hridayam, a standard work on ayurvedic medicine in Sanskrit and Malayalam.
It is to be noted that the description of the spiritual heart given in these two verses is not the absolute truth, but is true only from the standpoint of ignorance (ajnana), in which the body and world are taken to be real. In Upadesa Manjari, chapter two, in answer to the ninth question, ‘What is the nature of the heart?’, Sri Bhagavan says, ‘Although the scriptures (srutis) which describe the nature of the heart say thus (quoting the above two verses), in absolute truth it is neither inside or outside the body’.
In Maharshi’s Gospel, Book Two, chapter four, Sri Bhagavan explains that the heart is in truth pure consciousness which has no form, no ‘within’ or ‘without’, no ‘right’ or ‘left’, and that from this absolute standpoint no place can be assigned to it in the body. But he then goes on to say, ‘But people do not understand this. They cannot help thinking in terms of the physical body and the world…..It is by coming down to this level of ordinary understanding that a place is assigned to the heart in the physical body’.
That is to say, so long as the body is felt to be ‘I’, a place can be experienced in the body as the rising place of the mind or ego, the feeling ‘I am the body’, and that place is ‘two digits to the right from the centre of the chest’.
Reflections: Once somebody asked Bhagavan to the effect, ‘Should I meditate on the heart which is said to be two digits to the right from the centre of the chest’? Bhagavan said, ‘No, you should meditate on ‘I’ and not to the right or left from the centre of your chest’. Therefore, the place two digits right from the centre of our chest has no real spiritual significance. Whenever Bhagavan talks about the heart, 99% of the time he is talking about the spiritual heart, which is what we actually are. It is neither within nor without, neither on the right or left.
In fact, the body seems to exist within the heart, so how can we assign a particular place to the heart inside our body? Our heart (what we actually are) seems to be within our body as long as we experience ourself as this ego. However, this is only from the perspective of our ego. When our ego is destroyed, we will come to know that the heart is the only thing which exists and that our body and everything else was merely our imagination.
Salazar,
regarding funny reminder, as you see I sometimes am ready for a laugh. Hope you have a sense of humour for that kind of redundancy and do not put on a hurt expression.
Sanjay Lohia,
you say "When our ego is destroyed, we will come to know that the heart is the only thing which exists and that our body and everything else was merely our imagination."
Because (my) ego is far away from being destroyed I have simply the desire to see a person whose ego is completely destroyed. Have you seen such one in present India or do you know where else one is to find ? But please do not tell me that pure self-awareness is easily to find in the innermost core of my own heart.
vastu-upalabdhi, I am always game for a good laugh :)
Salazar,
when you reply "you are forgetting two things in your last comment, a) if someone is helping or not helping is entirely dependent on prarabdha, and more importantly b), in believing that one is capable "using one's strength" one is seeing oneself as a do-er and has therefore succumbed to suttarivu and remains in delusion."
ad a): you seem to overlook the important role of free will. But I don't want to discuss this matter again.
ad b): using one's strength does not necessarily or absolutely mean to see oneself as the doer. But I don't want to discuss this matter further and again.
Good evening!
sada-apramada, why even respond if you do not want to discuss this matter further again? LOL
To a} - there is free will, but that only applies to our inner mental world, not to outward actions, but feel free to cling at what you like to believe.
To b) - the phrase "using one's strength" is implying very clearly a do-er, and that is expressed with the word "one" [as THE individual] in that phrase. As long as there is an identification with being an individual who is doing something then there is absolutely a do-er. Bhagavan was not a do-er past 16 years old, you and we certainly are. The notion one could not see oneself as a do-er without Jnana is simply nonsense!
It seems we had that talk previously, I keep forgetting (with these countless Indian monikers which keep showing up here) who is pushing what kind of belief on this blog.
P.S. If you spout out the same nonsense a few weeks down the road I very likely will respond again. I do not like when people distort Bhagavan's teaching.
Vastu Upalabdhi,
Would you approve of the following word change bolded in your earlier comment
-----------------
Since all phenomena are perceived only by the ego - when we rise and stand as this ego - , they do not exist independent of it. When we do not mistake ourself to be this ego all the mental phenomena which are called "the world" do not exist at all.
------------------
And to continue in the vein of your comment, in addition to the perceiving ego, please do not neglect the ashamed ego, the traveling ego, the virtue signalling ego, and above all, the cunning ego.
Best regards.
Clear Shining of 'I', even if we meet a person whose ego has been destroyed, how can we judge this accurately? Outwardly, he or she will be just like us. However, Michael could be the one whose has ego been destroyed. I say this because of the clarity with which he explains or expands on Bhagavan’s teachings. However, even if he is not one it should make little difference, because whatever he writes or speaks is of great value in itself.
If you a desire to see a person whose ego has been destroyed, why not try seeing yourself? This is the only way to see a ‘person’ whose ego has been destroyed. However, once your ego is destroyed, you will no longer experience yourself as a person. Therefore, your desire of seeing a person whose ego has been destroyed, sadly, can never be fulfilled.
We can say that Bhagavan’s ego was destroyed, but that is just an idea in my mind. When we see Bhagavan as a body, we are making him into an ajnani. It is because a jnani is not the body but jnana itself. He appears with a body only in our ignorant outlook. In his view, he is just pure self-awareness. He teaches us this in verse 13 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Oneself, who is jñāna [knowledge or awareness], alone is real. Awareness that is manifold [namely the mind, whose root, the ego, is the awareness that sees the one as many] is ajñāna [ignorance].
Sorry, there was a typo in my previous comment. It should have been:
However, Michael could be the one whose ego has been destroyed.
We are convinced by what we immediately experience. This is the power of the mind. Whatever the mind directly experiences at that moment, seems to be real. While we are dreaming the dream seems to be real, but now we understand that it wasn’t real.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 17th July 2016
Reflections: Our senses and mind will always cheat us; they will always make us see or experience things which are not as they appear to be. Bhagavan says that what exists is only atma-svarupa, but don’t we see all these endless phenomena? These phenomena, which appear and disappear, are unreal - in fact, they are just not there. However, when we are experiencing them we take them to be real, don’t we? It is all the power of the mind, and the mind is the root of maya.
Salazar,
you ask "why even respond if you do not want to discuss this matter further again? LOL".
I used my free will to respond to your instruction given to me with your comment of the day before yesterday about having "forgotten two things".
There you also spouted the problematic remarks "There is no need to be concerned about "others"..."because a mature seeker leaves those things to the Divine or Ishwara".
Huh!
Presumably you live in a single household - only for you alone and nobody could hear your LOL.
To a): Free will also can applied very well to outward actions albeit only in the prevailing conditions and circumstances of prarabdha.
What you write to b) I admit is generally rather correct. However, we can of course do any action completely free of the sense of own doership albeit only in little steps. Try it and you will see it.
Yes we had that talk about those subjects previously. That is the reason why I do not want to discuss this matter further.
But feel free to keep Bhagavan's teaching free of supposed or actual distortions.
We may possibly learn from that. As you say IMHO.
Anonymous,
I would approvingly nod if it is true what we assume that the world and all phenomena are (ultimately) only a mental imagination.
Of course we can include in your list all the delusive facets and cunning aspects of the ego.
Kind regards.
Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham - verse 20
The Lord who shines as ‘I’ in the cave of the heart-lotus, is indeed he who is adored as Guhesan. If, by the strength of constant practice of the meditation ‘He is I’ (soham bhavana) in the form ‘That Guhesan is I’, you abide as that Lord as firmly as ‘I’ is now established in your body, then the ignorance ‘I am this perishable body’ will perish like darkness in front of the red sun.
Sri Sadhu Om: In this verse, Sri Bhagavan reveals how the practice of such soham bhavana, if correctly understood and applied, can lead to the experience of self-knowledge. That is, if by the strength of the conviction ‘I am I’ gained through the constant remembrance ‘The reality which shines in the heart as ‘I’ alone is ‘I’, one abides as that reality, which is the mere existence-consciousness ‘I am’, instead of rising as a separate individual in the form of the feeling ‘I am this body’, then the sun of jnana will shine forth swallowing the darkness of ajnana, which is the attachment to the perishable body as ‘I’.
Reflections: The ignorance ‘I am this body’ has to go before we can hope to achieve anything worthwhile, and this ignorance will go only when we investigate the ego which has this ignorance. However, even while we experience ourself as the body, it is useful to constantly remind ourself that we cannot be this body or mind, which we now seem to be, because we exist without any body or mind in sleep. If we were this body or mind, we can never separate ourselves from these. Therefore, the fact that we experience only self-awareness in sleep clearly establishes the fact that we cannot be this body or mind.
However, mere repetition of ‘He is I’ or any such repetition will not destroy our ego. Who is repeating such formulas? It is our ego. So how can the ego be destroyed by such repetitions? As Bhagavan has indicated, such repetitions can be an aid in the preliminary stages of one’s sadhana, but if we continue with such practices beyond a point, it which show our lack of viveka (true discrimination).
If ‘I am brahmam’, then ‘who am I?’ Because if we know ‘I’ as it actually is, we will automatically know what brahman is. So self-investigation is the only way to experience ourself as brahman or God or whatever.
Sanjay Lohia,
Michael denies to be a jnani. Because of the clarity of his explanations I would like to have my doubts about that his statement.
Admittingly my desire is a bit silly. But I was in this mood to express my wish.
Clear Shining of 'I', a real jnani will never admit or say that he is a jnani. If he says so, it will show that he still distinguishes himself from others – ‘I am a jnani and therefore all of you are ajnanis’. A true jnani can never have such bheda bhavana (an attitude of differentiation), because in his view what exists is only himself. That is, there are no ‘others’ for him.
So we can never know with certainty whether Michael or anyone else for that matter is the jnani or not, and frankly, we should not be concerned about such matters. All such speculations are anatma-vichara. We need to practise only atma-vichara (who am I?).
sada-apramada, you keep saying you do not want to discuss the matter further and yet you do, LOL! Because you do not have free will in that regard (as I mentioned before) but it seems you are a knucklehead :) and therefore only time will give you the correct insights.
If you'd actually practice correctly (and stop giving advises "to try" to others) then you'd realize that you could be the head of a household of 20 people and still leave the responsibility to the Divine. The sickness of your child, your wife going into bed with another man, trying to pay bills etc.
What "you" will be doing at that household is already determined by prarabdha at the birth of your body. That you believe that you actually make a decision to punch the guy who sleeps with your wife is due to the erroneous identification with your body and mind.
If you keep believing in that responsibility or need to care for your loved ones then you will never attain moksha. That is an absolute fact! I suggest to re-examine your beliefs, there are currently rather immature. Of course you won't like hearing that.
Your comments deserve to be ignored because people will pick up a very bad reflection of Bhagavan's teaching.
Sanjay Lohia, I am not a Jnani - hahahahahaha
Sorry, couldn't resist.
David Godman said that there is currently no public known Jnani alive. Now we can say what does he know .... but then why indulge in the imagination of the possibility of Michael being a Jnani? I don't believe he is but what does that matter?
When Annamalai Swami was asked if he has realized Self he answered "yes". And there is nothing wrong with that - there is no rule that they cannot say that even if technically that individual cannot be (as an individual) enlightened.
It is totally up to prarabdha how a Jnani will act (taken from Padamalai), if he has a saintly life like Bhagavan or if he acts like a crazy person, if he prefers solitude or if he is running a kingdom.
It is advised to take certain concepts more casual with a certain fluidity.
Sanjay Lohia,
you say "When we see Bhagavan as a body, we are making him into an ajnani. It is because a jnani is not the body but jnana itself."
I think it is more accurate to say: when we mistake Bhagavan's identity as a body we are not making him into an ajnani but we prove to be ajnanis.
Salazar,
how could be a crazy person considered as a jnani ? Is that your recommended way of looking at "certain concepts more casual with a certain fluidity" ?
clear shining of "I", that's how it is and that is not from me but out of Padamalai, I suggest reading it, it may prevent unnecessary belligerent questions.
Will the jnani ever say ‘I am a jnani? If he says so, it will be a ground for ridicule. Why? Bhagavan answers this in verse 33 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Saying [either] ‘I do not know myself’ [or] ‘I have known myself’ is ground for ridicule. Why? To make oneself viṣaya [an object, something known as other than oneself, the knower], are there two selves [a knowing self and a known self]? Because being one is the truth, [as is known by] the experience of everyone. [That is, since we always experience ourself as one, we are never not aware of ourself, so ātma-jñāna (self-knowledge or self-awareness) is not something that we are yet to attain but is our very nature, and hence what is called the attainment of ātma-jñāna is actually not a gain of anything but a loss of everything along with its root, the ego, which is merely a false awareness of ourself (an awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are), and when the ego is lost there is no one left to say ‘I have known myself’, because what remains is only our real nature, which is pure, infinite, eternal and immutable self-awareness.]
If we say ‘I do not know myself’, it will be a meaningless statement. How can ‘I’ not know ‘I’? Who says, ‘I do not know myself’? The ‘I’ that says so is the very ‘I’ about which we say ‘I do not know myself’. In fact, if we do not know ‘I', how can we know anything else? If I say ‘I see you’, I first confirm my awareness of myself as ‘I’ before I confirm your existence as 'you'. So 'I' is always aware of itself as 'I'.
Likewise, when we are able to experience ourself as we really are, there will be no one left to say ‘I have known myself’. When our ego is lost we will not be able to produce any thoughts, and without the aid of thoughts how can we say, ‘I have known myself’? Bhagavan clearly implies this in verse 33 of Ulladu Narpadu.
Salazar,
your warning "Your comments deserve to be ignored because people will pick up a very bad reflection of Bhagavan's teaching." will fall on deaf ears because according your viewpoint all is entirely dependent on prarabdha. In that case that "people will pick up a very bad reflection ..." only those people's prarabdha is necessarily carried out and they will have not had any possibility of prevention.
By the way, raising one's homespun ideologies and beliefs in the rank of "an absolute fact" is quite original but shows exaggerated confidence in the ego's repertoire of ploys.
However, I cannot and don't claim that my beliefs are not be re-examined.
When we think of God so many other thoughts come to our mind. Our meditation is often interrupted by other thoughts. How can we meditate on God without interruption? We can do so only if we have an all-consuming love for God.
When we think of other things in the middle of our meditation, it is because we are more concerned about those other things - we are more concerned about our little worldly problems, about our family problems, about our work problems, all these things. So other thoughts come. Where our mind goes is what interests us, what concerns us, what we think contributes to our happiness.
So the more we love God, the easier it is to think of God without interruption.
Edited extract from Michael’s video dated 7th August 2016 (0:11 onwards)
Diogenes, you asked about my trip to Europe. I had to go there for a family related matter and was mostly confined to one location. I was not sure if I even could go because of my health issues, I made arrangements in March for the trip in June and for awhile it looked like I had to cancel the trip.
Looking back Bhagavan orchestrated everything perfectly to push my attachments and in order to have piece of mind I had to fall back to more and more vichara. It is said that Bhagavan has great compassion and I am wondering how people understand that term. Mostly one assumes great empathy with the struggles of people with the wish that people “do well”.
That's what we, mostly habitually, do – we tell the people we like “have a good one” or “I hope things are well for you”. But what does that really mean? I.e. somebody struggles with a disease or pain and of course that somebody wants that disease or pain to subside or go away. Friends share that notion and give their well wishes. And that could be compassion too.
But is it really? I am not so sure the last few months where I wanted to go back to my comfort zone and be “healthy” again. But it never ends and the next ailment is just around the corner and that is the classic attachment to ones body and the pleasant sense perceptions we are so strongly attached to. The solution is NOT to fix the problem (besides that is taken care by prarabdha) but to transcend it and that works only when one can give up the desire for health and accepts disease and pain as it is. No preference for “feeling good” and no preference for “feeling bad”.... only then one may overcome one of the obstacles of being attached to this body.
So Bhagavan's compassion is not that we are “doing great” in the common sense but that we, through the pain, fear and trials of disease go beyond the body and that won't happen if everything is hunky dory. A serious disease is not bad karma but Bhagavan's greatest gift and compassion to lead one to Self.
Nothing really new but it is most certainly different if one idly contemplates about it (as I did many years ago) and then actually is faced with that very situation. It also shows how much BS the mind tells itself in being on a spiritual path. Once actually confronted the mind quickly panics and only Bhagavan's vichara can help us with that.
---------------------------------------
I didn't get a chance to go to Assisi (I didn't plan to do so) what is fine. I have no desire to go to any specific place in the world, not even Arunachala. If my prarabdha brings me there (or any other place), fine - if not, equally fine.
Salazar, thank you for this comment that feels it comes directly from the heart of experience rather than fully from the intellect.
Somehow I realized also that Bhagavan bends but not breaks... unless the situation really requires a radical and "past due" change of perspective.
Let us not forget that healthy times, or when everything seems to happen according to "our wishes" are also hard tests for us to keep abiding. Sometimes even harder than painful ones, when the body "wants" to return to its naturality.
Salazar, thank you for your detailed reply to my inquiry.
Your account about your painful experiences and particularly your spiritual views about them make a stronger impression on me than your philosophical opinions. Certainly these experiences made a mature man of you. Nevertheless, I wish you the best and quick recovery.
When you write "...in order to have piece of mind" presumably you mean "peace of mind".
May I ask you - out of sheer curiosity - from which part of Europe you and/or your family are descended from ?
Mouna,
greetings,
you write "Let us not forget that healthy times, or when everything seems to happen according to "our wishes" are also hard tests for us to keep abiding. Sometimes even harder than painful ones, when the body "wants" to return to its naturality."
There is something true in your statement.
Sanjay Lohia,
"How can we meditate on God without interruption? We can do so only if we have an all-consuming love for God."
So first we have to develop such all-consuming love for God.
Post a Comment