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 801 – 1000 of 1176 Newer› Newest»A Friend: I have been practising self-investigation for a very long time, but the same thoughts and conflicts keep repeating. Nothing seems to change.
Michael: I have been practising this for 40 years, but there are same desires and attachments, albeit in a slightly different form as the time goes on. We have to live with the same ego and its same desires and attachments until we get rid of them. So to follow this path, we need to have great patience. But Bhagavan said that every little effort we make will not go in vain. Every time we try to turn within, we are getting one step closer to our goal.
As our mind becomes purer and purer all its shortcomings, desires and attachments come into greater focus – we are more painfully aware of them. As our mind becomes purer, even the smallest impurity will seem to us to be very big. Really bad people don’t feel that they are bad. However, when we become aware of our own defects, we are closer to getting rid of them.
So by becoming aware of how imperfect we are, we are getting closer to our goal of surrendering ourself completely.
Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 22 July 2018 (1:41 - :48)
Reflections: Our fight is against our vishaya-vasanas and karma-vasanas which are hidden deep-deep within us. Some of these vasanas are extremely hard to overcome even after 25 – 30 years of struggle against them. These vasanas are elements of our will and our will is our subtlest covering, and therefore these will not disappear that easily. Some of these vasanas will be our unwelcome companion until the very last moment of our final surrender.
However, Bhagavan has given us the most powerful weapon to fight these vasanas - he has given us the bramhastra of atma-vichara. Our vasanas stand no chance, at least in the long run, if we use this weapon to its full potential. This brahmastra, if used correctly, inflicts heavy causality in the enemy camp – the enemy camp being all the elements of our will which make us repeatedly turn away from ourself.
In this context, let us read what Bhagavan says in the paragraphs 10 and 11 of Nan Yar?:
Even though viṣaya-vāsanās [inclinations or desires to experience things other than oneself], which come from time immemorial, rise [as thoughts] in countless numbers like ocean-waves, they will all be destroyed when svarūpa-dhyāna [self-attentiveness] increases and increases.
As long as viṣaya-vāsanās exist in the mind, so long the investigation who am I is necessary. As and when thoughts arise, then and there it is necessary to annihilate them all by vicāraṇā [investigation or vigilant self-attentiveness] in the very place from which they arise.
So this fight against our vasanas is never going to be easy, because these are powerful asuric-shaktis (demonic powers). However, there is no other battle which is as worthwhile as fighting against these demonic powers. As Bhagavan teaches us, all these vasanas will be destroyed when our self-attentiveness increases and increases. Our victory is a foregone conclusion if we don't slacken our practice.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 15
Self, that pure brahman which is itself the monosyllable, shining as the heart of all beings and things, is the excellent and sweet benediction to this Collection of the Guru’s Sayings, which removes the delusion of ignorant ones.
Sadhu Om: It is worth referring here to one stray verse of Sri Bhagavan Ramana: ‘One syllable shines forever in the heart as self; who can write it down?’ The one syllable mentioned in both cases is ‘I’ (aham) or self, which is unwritable, being beyond thought, word or expression.
Reflections: We cannot experience ourself as we really are through thoughts or words. That is why Bhagavan used to say that silence was his highest teaching. Our true nature is silence, which means we are that which is devoid of both the thinker and its thoughts. So the one syllable – ourself – cannot be conveyed or explained adequately through words. The only way to teach it or to learn it is in silence.
It is because of this that Sri Dakshinamurti had to eventually resort to silence in order to impart brama-vidya to his four ripe disciples. Bhagavan used to say that silence is uninterrupted eloquence, and thoughts and words are a disturbance to this eloquence.
So Bhagavan’s words are mere pointers, but these pointers are powerless if we do not follow his advice and try to turn within and remain quiet.
Ekatma Panchakam verse 1
Know that one’s formerly forgetting self, thinking a body alone to be oneself, taking countless births, and finally knowing self and being self, is only like one’s waking up from a dream of wandering about the world.
Michael talked about this verse in his video filmed on 20 May 2017 (31:00 – 33:00). He said:
No analogy is perfect. This analogy is useful to a limited extent, but actually, when we wake up we will know we never dreamt at all. Because for whom is the dream? The dream is for the ego. We wake up only when we find that there was never any such thing as the ego. So in the absence of any ego, there could never have been any dream.
Thayumanavar's wise advice is uplifting. Doubtless he was above mind.
However, Thayumanavar did actually not sing while getting annoyed by the harrasment of a cheeky neighbour:)
Who might consider himself being on an equal footing with poet-sage Thayumanavar ?
Begone presumption !
Nevertheless, we all know in which field of life rational mind has its useful place. There's much to much discussion about that.
Sanjay Lohia,
when you refer to the supreme weapon given to us by Bhagavan you mean correctly 'brahmastra', not bramhastra.
Sanjay Lohia,
"We wake up only when we find that there was never any such thing as the ego. So in the absence of any ego, there could never have been any dream."
I would say it in reverse order: Only when we find that there was never any such thing as the ego we are waking up...
Salazar said:
"It is my strong conviction that Bhagavan never ever approved or disapproved of anything after his 16th birthday, whatever was seen is a projection of mind."
Instead of Ramana's 16th birthday on 30th December 1895 more accurately Salazar would refer to "after his deep "death-experience"/self-investigation in the middle of July 1896 (in Madurai).
Regrettably Blogger does not prevent commercial break like such one on 27 July 2018 at 08:34(Gulai...) and Michael has not time to delete them instantly.
Salazar,
taking up your statement "The reality is not this phenomenal world but Self/Jnana, and that is our "reference point", not the other way around. There is no reason to limit us (mentally) to all of these ideas (like ajnani etc.), we are already handicapped enough with our vasanas, why also adding more limitation on a conceptual level affirming to be anything but Self?
As Sadhu Om said, Bhagavan was a visionary who (contrary to most traditions) always maintained that we are Self and not some poor creature who has to reach somehow that illusive Self. And again, we have to take that as our reference.....".
Your comment reminds me of repeating like a mantra 'I am brahman, I am brahman, I am brahman.....? But is this a useful/purposeful sadhana ?
Salazar, is affirmation of being Self as still the ego's effort necessary ?
Is not the self already and always realized ?
On the one hand it is scarcely conceivable that we ourself are "self" or "the Self" which is said to be the only one common and undivided consciousness.
On the other hand, how can one forget that and not realize that we are that self ?
Is it for instance possible to forget one's own head ?
There must have been a big destructive occurrence like the impact of a comet or similar celestial body on earth which possibly destroyed the right awareness of people.
Unfortunately I did not study all the philosophic ideas of all the confessions and religions about that mysterious occurrence.
To me it seems rather strange that the self did not intervene in the process of forgetting our real origin. There must be any possibility to bring us back from that comatose state to the actual state of our self-awareness.
From time immemorial, we can easily forget our head: When a heterosexual man encounters a beautiful woman wearing a blouse with a wide cleavage (not uncommon in Europe and even the States) then all of the attention will be on her breasts and one's head will be forgotten. Same goes for a car enthusiast who sees a Porsche or Ferrari.
Why was Self forgotten? Religions have stories but those are just stories. The sage Sri Ramana suggested to not waste one's time to wonder why we have forgotten Self. There is no need to study the philosophies and religions, it could be an obstacle.
The Self does not intervene because in order to do so there must be a Self and another object like a person. But that is not the case. I do not want to go into the details but it might be a good idea to conceptually get the idea what Self really is and Bhagavan's Nan-Yar has a section which describes what Self is not. That can give one an idea what it could be.
Salazar, thank you for your hint to Ramana's Nan Yar?.
If there is only one Self and no persons who then has forgotten that we are the self ?
Regarding wide cleavage: My question if one can forget one's head I meant not figuratively but literally/word-for-word.
Rukmani, yes, it should have been brahmastra. Thanks.
From Time Immemorial, we, that is, our real, do not forget ourself even for a moment. We are aware of ourself whether or not we are aware of things other than ourself. So our ‘right awareness’ is never destroyed, as you seem to assume.
So we do not need to come back to our actual state of self-awareness. What we need to do is just give us our false awareness, which is the awareness ‘I am this body’. If we are able to do so, what will remain is only our actual and permanent awareness. It is like, we do not have to create a rope. We just need to remove our deluded belief that there is a snake on top of that rope.
So if we investigate ourself keenly and vigilantly enough, we will discover that we were never this ego, and therefore that we had never ever forgotten ourself. So we were never in a ‘comatose state’. We are the eternal and undying reality, so how can we be in any such state ‘comatose state'? We are the one substance who is ever awake, ever living.
from time immemorial, "who" has forgotten? Exactly!
If we investigate that according to Bhagavan and with his vichara we'll find that this forgetfulness is a mirage, an imagination.
Sanjay Lohia also made a helpful comment about that topic.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 16
The experience of our own existence, which is the supreme reality, jnana itself, shines as the mystic silence and is the true Self behind the fictitious first person ‘I’. May that absolute supreme self, the feet, be upon our heads.
Bhagavan clarifies 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].
So we are eternal jnanis. That being so, isn’t it surprising that we go around the world looking for jnanis or guru?. We just need to turn within, and we will directly experience jnana in and as ourself. So-so simple, but we are still not convinced. So we again go here and there looking for an ‘enlightened being’ to guide us. What foolishness!
According to Oxford Dictionary, one of the meanings of enlightenment is ‘spiritually aware’. Is there any spiritual awareness outside ourself? No, as Bhagavan says in verse 13 of Ulladu Narpadu, ‘Awareness that is manifold [namely the mind, whose root, the ego, is the awareness that sees the one as many] is ajñāna [ignorance]’.
Therefore everything worthwhile is only within ourself. What is outside is just ignorance. So we should try and live within.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 17
For those who turn within, the perfect asset is the grace of guru Ramana, whose true form is the sleepless-sleep (turiya); it is the sweet fruit whose juice is the supremely pure bliss that creates in the aspirant an ever-increasing taste, free from aversion, and it is the beautiful lamp which, without need of kindling, leads one to the heart.
Sadhu Om: Grace is here shown to be the same as turiya, the true form of guru Ramana, which shines eternally as ‘I am I’, the self-luminous heart and is therefore called the lamp which needs no kindling.
Reflections: What keeps us at our practice of self-attentiveness? It is the ‘ever-increasing taste’ of peace and happiness we experience when we turn within. Without such a taste, we would not stick to this practice? So once we start practising self-investigation, we cannot leave it mid-way. It is because our inherent happiness will pull us more and more towards itself until finally, we will drown in that ocean of bliss.
Bhagavan sings in verse 101 Sri Arunachala Aksharamanamalai:
Arunachala, like ice in water, lovingly melt me as love in you, the form of love.
So Bhagavan or Arunachala is that pure love and happiness, and who is not looking for love and happiness. So we are sticking to this path of vichara because of our own selfish reasons. That is, we want more and more love, and we want more and more happiness, and since these exist only within, we cannot help but repeatedly try turning within.
Sanjay Lohia,
thanks for your reply.
Possibly in your comment of today at 12:34 there are two inaccuracies:
when you write "we, that is, our real" you obviously mean "our real awareness".
Presumably instead of "give us our false awareness" you meant "give up...".
The statement "We are aware of ourself whether or not we are aware of things other than ourself. So our ‘right awareness’ is never destroyed..." seems to be a bit bizarre:
If all is okay with our ‘right awareness’ so what then is the problem or disadvantage when we are additionally aware of things other than ourself?
A Friend: What happens to the ego when the body dies?
Michael: In verse 26 of Ulladu Narpadu Bhagavan says, ‘If the ego come into existence everything else comes into existence, if the ego doesn’t exist everything doesn’t exist, so ego itself is everything’.
So when the ego doesn’t rise, nothing happens all. When it rises, it rises by grasping a form of a body as itself. So if you ask, ‘What happens to the ego in sleep?’ Well, nothing happens, because in sleep the ego doesn’t exist. It is only in waking and dream that the ego seems to exist. It doesn’t exist even in waking and dream, but it seems to exist, and because it seems to exist everything else seems to exist.
Ok, what happens to the ego in sleep or in death? It merges back into its source, if you want to accept that there is an ego. But when it merges back into its source the ego doesn’t exist at all. Then people ask, ‘How does the ego rise again?’ In whose view does it rise again? It rises in its own view.
In the view of what we actually are, the only state which exists is sleep. The real ‘we’ exist in one of the three states which we now call sleep. The only defect in sleep is that we come out it again. But in whose do we come out again? We come out only in our own view.
So it is all a matter of perceptive. So long as we experience ourself as this ego, all these three states will be alternating. When we see ourself as we actually are, there will be only one state, which is sleep – the base from which waking and dream appear.
Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 20 May 2017 (1:00 – 1:04)
Salazar,
you seemingly refer to the truth that our real self is never aware of anything other than itself.
Perhaps you consider in this respect the extreme theory of ajata vada.
But for our practical purposes we cannot well apply it though according to Sri Ramana it is the ultimate truth.
In any case I thank you for your communication.
From Time Immemorial, I thank you for pointing out my various typos. Like a small child (and even some grown-up adults) cannot eat without dropping some food outside their plate, it seems that I cannot type anything without a few typos.
You ask, ‘If all is okay with our ‘right awareness’ so what then is the problem or disadvantage when we are additionally aware of things other than ourself?’ Our aim is to experience ourself as we actually are. Since we are bereft of all otherness, ‘when we are additionally aware of things other than ourself’, we are not aware of ourself as we actually are.
Why should we try to be aware of ourself as we actually are? It is because without experiencing ourself as we actually are, we cannot experience pure happiness, which is our true nature. Since all of us aspire to experience happiness without even a tinge of misery, we are knowingly or unknowingly trying to experience our true nature, which is happiness. We may be looking in the wrong direction, but nevertheless, our aim is to experience happiness in its absoluteness.
It will be worth reflecting on the 1st paragraph of Nan Yar? in this context:
Since all living beings desire to be always happy without what is called misery, since for everyone the greatest love is only for oneself, and since happiness alone is the cause of love, [in order] to attain that happiness, which is one’s own [true] nature that is experienced daily in [dreamless] sleep, which is devoid of the mind, oneself knowing oneself is necessary. For that, jñāna-vicāra [knowledge-investigation] ‘who am I’ alone is the principal means.
Thank you Sanjay Lohia for your clearing explanation.
Now I recognize roughly what is meant by the terms 'real nature' and 'pure happiness'.
from time immemorial, ajata is not an extreme theory. How can that be? Also it is not a theory but reality according to Bhagavan. However a theory is that something or anything has to be "applied". What has to be applied? That is an imagination and an unproven theory.
In any case, please follow Sanjay Lohia's concepts since they seem to be more palatable to your mind than mine. In fact, you should have addressed him in the first place and left me out.
In fact, people should only address me when they are mainly agreeing with my interpretation of Bhagavan's teachings. I am not interested in arguing about it. I may discuss the finer points with people like Mouna, venkat, Wittgenstein, etc. but that would be just to satisfy my mind.
Sanjay Lohia,
regarding your recent transcription-extract of Michael's video of 20 May 2017(Houston-Texas),
"Ok, what happens to the ego in sleep or in death? It merges back into its source, if you want to accept that there is an ego. But when it merges back into its source the ego doesn’t exist at all."
How shall one connect the above explanation with Bhagavan's statement that there is only one ego ? Does that mean that the only one ego is connected on the one hand only with the waking and dreaming people (namely not with sleeping people) and on the other hand only with the living human beings (namely not with people who have died) ?
"When we see ourself as we actually are, there will be only one state, which is sleep – the base from which waking and dream appear."
Everybody sleeps every night and sees himself as he actually is, but nobody knows anything about that state. Is that not highly paradoxical ?
Thanks Salazar, let the good times role.
from time immemorial, also you stated that you had not the time to study the philosophies and religions but then you throw around the concept of ajata? Huh?
It seems you are just regurgitating other comments you have read here without knowing what you are talking about. It's strange, there so many people here who start with simple and basic questions and then when the dialogs progresses they suddenly reveal all kind of concepts they have accumulated and not only that, suddenly the innocent questioner became the knower of the truth and argues about the correctness of interpretations. LOL
That happened here quite often with different monikers. Is that the Indian way of communication? It looks quite deceptive for me.
Salazar, it should be...the good times roll.
Do not worry about innocent questioners; they belong to your prarabdha:)
By the way, what do you have against the Indian way of communication ? I am not Indian.
What a BS answer. Playing your green fiddle again? :)
Sorry Salazar, your pitiful vocabulary does not fit here. Leave me out.
On the contrary, it is very fitting. Let's call a spade a spade.
Just out of sheer curiosity: What means playing a green fiddle ?
a queer fish: first distributing "blessings" and then after harvesting not just some blandishment comes an outcry of an oversensitive mimosa.
This is my last word.
I mentioned in a previous comment that Gandhiji was killed because he had killed before in a previous life and that it was his prarabdha catching up with him.
Naturally certain doubters, not having comprehended prarabdha, asked me how I could know.
I'd like to refer to the events when thieves invaded Bhagavan's ashram and he was beaten by one of them. Later Bhagavan said that he was beaten by this thief because he had beaten him in a previous life.
From that it is easy to conclude that every action which is happening to us is just a reflection of the same actions we have done to others in a previous life. Another incentive to break out of this samsara and instead to increase karma (by reacting to it) to step out of it in surrender and dispassion.
An extreme example, all of the atrocities committed on this planet, the slaughter of the American natives, the Jews and others in Poland 1942-1945, the Ukrainians in the 1930s, the Rohonga in Burma, the Armenians in Turkey in the 1920s, Indians in 1919, and many more examples must be an echo of previous atrocities committed by exactly those people who were then the victim. They switched from being a perpetrator in a previous life to a victim in that life.
If one reflects long enough about that one must conclude that these whole perpetrator/victim scenarios are an endless cycle and it is wise to take a step back and to not take any sides but remain neutral. Vichara is perfect for that.
Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt...
I do not write comments to remove doubts, that is not in my power anyway. The only one who can remove doubts is Bhagavan. I also do not write comments to generate a certain image, people will perceive me as they must and if they think I am a fool I cannot and certainly do not want to change that. What do I gain that people think I am the greatest and smartest in the world? It can only have a negative impact for a sadhaka.
In fact, the more people are adverse towards me the more I can benefit from it. So do I seek then adversity? No - because that would be as crazy as trying to remove the doubts of someone, I leave that to prarabdha.
To remain silent is a good idea, however posting comments does not mean one is not in silence. One can write and post a comment and be silent at the same time [I am not claiming that I do].
Ezhuttu, you have asked two questions, but since your first question is not very clear, I will just try to answer your second question, which is, ‘Everybody sleeps every night and sees himself as he actually is, but nobody knows anything about that state. Is that not highly paradoxical?’
When you rise up from sleep, we clearly know that we were asleep a few moments ago. We may say, ‘Oh, I slept like a log yesterday night’, or ‘I am so refreshed after this sleep’ and so forth? So we know that we have a state called ‘sleep’ which is quite different from our other two states of waking and dream. In sleep, we are just aware, without being aware of any phenomena, but we are nevertheless aware of ourself.
However, when we get up and start dreaming (this waking is also a dream), we cannot recollect the pure awareness of sleep as it really is, because we now experience ourself as this ego, and as this ego we are not able to form a correct picture about our sleep. We view our sleep through the prism called the ego, and this ego always distorts things - that is, it does not let us know the real nature of things. Our ego is an illusory self-awareness, so as this illusory self-awareness we can only see illusory things. In this context, we can read verse 4 of Ulladu Narpadu:
If oneself is a form, the world and God will be likewise; if oneself is not a form, who can see their forms? How? Can the seen be otherwise than the eye? The eye is oneself, the infinite eye.
So as this ego, which is a form or an idea called 'I am this body', we can only see other names and forms, and since sleep is a formless state, we as this ego can't recollect sleep as it really is.
We may feel that our sleep is a state of blackness or unconsciousness or darkness of self-ignorance or whatever. However, this is not the case. Bhagavan says in the first chapter of Maharshi’s Gospel (2002 edition, page 9):
Sleep is not ignorance, it is one’s pure state; wakefulness is not knowledge, it is ignorance. There is full awareness in sleep and total ignorance in waking.
So according to Bhagavan, sleep is our pure state in which we are fully aware of ourself, so it is not a state of ignorance or blankness. In fact, our aim is to get back to sleep, but not just a temporary sleep but an eternal sleep. This eternal sleep is called jagrat-shusupti (waking-sleep). In such a sleep, we are eternally awake to what is real and at the same time asleep to everything unreal.
Salazar,
Bhagavan / vedanta talks about everything being pre-destined according to prarabdha, and that even the raising of my arm at a particular is similarly predestined. And, as you note the assassination of Gandhi, may also be due to 'his' killing of someone in a previous life.
But my discomfort with this is if everything is predestined, Gandhi's killing of someone in a previous life was not his doing either, so why should he 'suffer' a similar fate in this life?
If we are saying that everything is predestined by the Self, including atma vichara and realisation (a point of view for which I have some empathy for), then we must come to the conclusion that the Self has created a dream and a full dream script which is being enacted, in which the ennui / suffering of life is self-inflicted (literally!). So Self, in the form of Bhagavan, is teaching 'us' to do atma vichara, to end the suffering script that it itself has imposed. That doesn't seem to be a particularly compassionate Self?
I haven't figured out an answer to this - but would welcome your / others' views.
Talk 368.
A young girl of 9 or 10, whose mother is a Research Scholar in Sanskrit in the University of Madras, accompanied by Mr. Maurice Frydman met Sri Bhagavan in Palakothu at about 12 noon. Sri Bhagavan, as usual with Him, kindly smiled on her. She asked Sri Bhagavan: “Why is there misery on earth?”
M.: Due to Karma.
D.: Who makes Karma bear fruits?
M.: God.
D.: God makes us do Karma and gives bad fruits for bad Karma. Is it fair?
Sri Bhagavan almost laughed and was very pleased with her. Later he was coaxing her to read something on returning to the hall. Since then He is watching her.
Sanjay Lohia,
thanky for your plausible explanation of sleep and waking-sleep(correct spelt: jagrat-sushupti) which is called also the forth state which is said to be actually our one real state.
Now I understand why we do not and cannot recognize that truth by our own empirical experience as an ego but only with the help or by the advice of a sage.
Relating to my first question about the seeming existence of only one ego: You quote Michael saying that in both sleep and death the ego merges back into its source. So my inquiry regards to the assumption that the only one ego naturally serves exclusively the living people no matter whether they are waking or dreaming. Because that would entail that death people in their next world would have no ego at all - which circumstance I do not even assume as correct.
venkat,
the practical significance of karma theory is widely overvalued/overrated. Moreover the mind cannot grasp fully the way that mechanism operates. Because we are not Ishwara himself there is no need to understand this cryptic and unfathomable mode of action.
Sat-vasana, I couldn't agree more strongly with you...
http://baharna.com/karma/mystknow.htm#Problems_in_the_Theory_of_Karma
"Bhagavan / vedanta talks about everything being pre-destined according to prarabdha, and that even the raising of my arm at a particular (time) is similarly predestined."
Who believes this words becomes blessed.
Who does not believe that comes also in the heaven:-)
I consider that karma theory in the above example of predestined arm-raising is tremendously overworked.
In any case Bhagavan did generally give not great importance of karma theory.
That even so humdrum actions like raising an arm or putting a cup of tea on the table would be done not voluntarily but predestined by the "law of karma" is at least for my mind not easily understood if not completely incomprehensible because it contradicts my experience of life.
If that rather spectacular answers of Bhagavan were actually given and are correctly recorded I presume they have a special background:
Only in response to some particularly simple-minded visitors who put a question to Bhagavan on the significance of karma, Bhagavan gave them the mentioned somehow incredible answers.
Regarding "But my discomfort with this is if everything is predestined, Gandhi's killing of someone in a previous life was not his doing either, so why should he 'suffer' a similar fate in this life?" : Because I consider the ego as a subject not interrupted by birth and death even through the period of many lives it seems to me not illogical when one has to get the fruits of previous deeds.
venkat, of course when Gandhiji killed that person it must have been his agyama what then changed to parabdha. Same with the other examples. If Gandhijis original killing would have been prarabdha then it would have not created any karma and he'd not have been killed in a later life. Is that so hard to understand?
I never mentioned that agyama doesn't exist we just don't know when it is created, but people get so excited with their fixed ideas and concepts that they come up with all kinds of rationalizations as I can see with sat-vasana and especially Guhesa's recent comments.
An [not complete] explanation of agyama/prarabdha: If you kill somebody it is very likely creates agyama because even though your body acts based on prarabdha your MIND is thinking and intending to kill that person and that mind involvement creates agyama. It could be prarabdha too if the mind's attitude is different. However we do not know.
But no matter what, agyama or prarabdha, the BODY is ALWAYS governed by prarabdha and it is the attitude of mind which makes it to agyama or leaves it as prarabdha! Again, vichara/surrender is an excellent solution to that. NOT to try to change the circumstances, that idea is based on ignorance.
Guhesa's conclusions are simply nonsense - "it is not his experience". Well, pure consciousness is also not his experience, with the same logic suttarivu is then reality and Bhagavan's comments about Self must have been overrated :)
Anyway, I am not trying to decipher the mystery of karma but it is certainly helpful in order to explain why certain actions happen in this phenomenal world and that can help with surrender. It does for me.
If people like to imagine something else, I have no problem with that. But at least they should make some more pointed comments then just some vague and squishy rationalizations. I cannot respect that. Best would be if they would not say anything at all and that is not addressed to you, venkat.
If one talks about the Sanskrit term 'agamya' karma one should spell at least correctly 'agamya' and not "agyama".
There is nothing but pure consciousness. Not even a schoolmasterish lecturer can plausibly deprive someone of experiencing pure consciousness:-)
Only Ishwara himself must know how "to explain why certain actions happen in this phenomenal world". So why trying to play the role of Ishwara ?
Sanjay Lohia,
please read "fourth" state instead of forth...
Anonymous,
Talk 368
"D.: God makes us do Karma and gives bad fruits for bad Karma. Is it fair?"
Does really God make us do karma ? Are not rather we as the ego making karma ?
Guhesa, it is not me who is depriving you from pure consciousness but it is your mind.
Your platitude "There is nothing but pure consciousness" is just an empty conceptual imagination, it is of course not your direct experience. But feel free to claim that in your next inane comment.
You guys are quite ridiculous, especially those spelling Nazis who keep pestering Sanjay Lohia and now one simple-minded guy had to find some ammunition and here we go, I misspelled a word. You guys are pathetic.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 18
My master Sri Ramana has taken possession of me, destroying the miseries caused by my inattention to self; his beauty is his oneness with jnana and his true form lies beyond both attachment and detachment. His feet are the perfect example of all precepts of the truth.
Reflections: All our miseries are caused by our inattention to ourself. This inattention is called pramada or avichara. Why is pramada a problem? It is because such self-negligence detaches us from our real nature, which is infinite happiness. So we become dissatisfied and miserable in so many ways
It is said in texts such as Sanatsujatiya that pramada is death. That is, if we are inattentive to ourself we in effect kill our true self, because self-ignorance causes us to take a body to be ourself, so we do not experience ourself as really are. When we experience ourself as a body, the body brings with it all sorts of problems and limitations.
So the only way to become perfectly happy is to always attend to ourself. This will restore us to original deathless nature.
Sanjay Lohia,
one might entrust all of us and particularly Salazar with your reflections: "All our miseries are caused by our inattention to ourself...such self-negligence detaches us from our real nature, which is infinite happiness. So we become dissatisfied and miserable in so many ways."
To consider the words "There is nothing but pure consciousness" as "a platitude and just an empty conceptual imagination" shows one's abysmal ignorance. Regrettably.
In a comment on one of my recent videos, 2018-07-14 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 8, a friend wrote:
‘Michael, a dear relative of mine is addicted to alcohol. Can he resign himself to his fate as an alcoholic or can he do something about it? Is it just his prarabdha? I have been pondering this question for some time and I can’t seem to find an answer. Some of us are born with an addictive personality. Others have the type of temperament that allows them to lead a healthy life eating the right diet and getting enough exercise. The rest of us spiral out of control into apparent self-destruction. Aren’t our temperaments also given to us by destiny/God. Makes me think we have no will at all. You have spoken about this but it's still not clear in my mind’.
Since many of the comments on this article and my previous two articles have been discussing this subject of will and destiny, what I replied to this comment may be of some interest:
I am sorry to hear about your relative, but he can do something about his alcohol addiction if he wants to.
Fate or destiny (prārabdha) determines what we are to experience in each life, whereas our will determines what we want to experience. In order to experience whatever we are destined to experience we need to do certain actions by mind, speech and body, so such actions are driven by prārabdha, but because we desire to experience many things that we may or may not be destined to experience, and because we also desire to avoid experiencing many things that we likewise may or may not be destined to experience, many of the actions of our mind, speech and body are driven by such desires. Therefore will and fate are the two forces that drive our actions, and often they are both driving them in the same direction, but often in different directions.
Whatever we do by our will cannot change even an iota of what we are destined to experience, but nevertheless we do it or at least try to do it, because it is what we want to do. Therefore if a person is destined to suffer from an addiction, they can give up that addiction only if they are destined to do so, but destiny does not prevent them wanting to give it up and trying to do so.
However destiny is tailor-made to suit our present level of spiritual development, so if a person sincerely wants to and tries to give up an addiction, it is quite likely that they are already destined to give up it, as if as a result of their current desire and effort to do so. Therefore, since we do not know what our destiny will be until we experience it, we should not conclude that we are destined to remain an addict, but should try to give it up, knowing that it is not good for us. Even if we are not able to give it up, because we are not destined to do so, our wanting to give it and trying to do so is good for us in the sense that it will help our spiritual development.
The last paragraph of Michael's comment is an important point re. destiny and it reflects of course Bhagavan who suggested to slightly resist desire and that slight resistance eventually will yield results.
Of course that all still happens in imagination but heck, if Bhagavan suggests that it is worthwhile to remember and apply.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 19
As cause alone is seen as its effect, and since consciousness (brahman), which is the cause, is as clearly true as an amalaka fruit on one’s palm, this vast universe, its effect, which is described in the scriptures as mere names and forms, may also be called true.
Reflections: I was not able to understand the correct meaning of this verse, so I wrote to Michael asking for clarification. I will reproduce below a copy of our exchange on this topic:
Sanjay: As you must have observed (on your blog), I am writing my reflections on each verse of Guru Vachaka Kovai. However, I am slightly confused about verse 19, which is as follows: [The verse is typed above]
The verse says that consciousness (brahman) is the cause of this vast universe. However, Bhagavan has clearly said that only our ego is the cause of this universe or for that matter of any universe we may see. So in what sense does Muruganar say that brahman is the cause of this universe? It is not quite clear to me, so could you please clarify.
Michael: There are said to be three kinds of cause, namely material cause (upādāna kāraṇa), efficient cause (nimitta kāraṇa) and auxiliary or instrumental cause (called tuṇai-k-kāraṇam in Tamil). Consider a table, for example: its upādāna kāraṇa is wood, its nimitta kāraṇa is a carpenter, and its instrumental cause is the carpenter's tools.
The ego is the nimitta kāraṇa of all phenomena, whereas brahman is the upādāna kāraṇa of both. Therefore when Bhagavan says that cause alone is seen as its effect, he is referring to the upādāna kāraṇa.
Does this make the meaning clear to you.
Sanjay: Yes, it is clear now.
For example, we can ask ‘what was cause for the appearance of an illusory snake on top of a rope?’ The answer is, our ego (seer) was the efficient cause (nimitta karana), because only this ego created this snake by misperceiving the rope as a snake. What was the instrumental cause? It was the ego’s attention on the snake (or rope) which was the instrumental cause. What was the substantial cause (upadana karana) of this snake? It was the rope.
So we can say that the rope, which was the substantial cause, was itself seen as the effect in the form of a snake. In other words, there was no difference between the cause and effect, because both were only the rope.
For those interested in widen their mental landscape, one of the best talks on Free Will (or its absence/illusion) by one of the foremost thinkers of our time, Sam Harris.
https://youtu.be/_FanhvXO9Pk
Forgot to say the actual talk starts at minute 6
"But how can one change the stubborn prejudices of ignorant people? I am afraid they lack the qualities to be a sadhaka :)"
Since Salazar did not exclude himself from "ignorant people" we are able to go home with our mind set at ease :-)
Why did I say that Sam Harris is one of the foremost thinkers of our time?
Not only because he is one the most articulate speakers and writers (even when he goes “live” in his debates and podcasts) but also because he was a seeker for long time. His talks' range covers politics, science, moral ethics, philosophy (graduated in philosophy), religion (he is an atheist), neurology/brain functions (he also graduated as a neuro-physicist) but most importantly consciousness studies and meditation. He went full circle in his “seeking” and holds Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism as one of the foremost philosophies that make more (or any) sense.
I know, I know, this blog is not about “personality” cults (although sometimes it feels like it) but people like Sam Harris actually help develop critical thinking when it comes discussing ideas and concepts (which this blog is actually what is about…)
My two cents.
This is in reference to the link http://www.electricalspirituality.com/sam-harris-on-waking-up/. The author of that article Mr. L Ron Gardner considers Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi as the only Jnani ever who realized his Self in the 20th and 21st century from his actual death experience when his jiva died.
Ron Gardner says there has been not been a single Jnani after Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi. He says there has not been a single person who is a jnani because to be Jnanai or jivanmukta one has to the cut the Heart knot of desires in the subtle body enabling the causal or seed body to die. As per Ron Gardner the jiva has to actually die so it will not be reborn again in another body. Ron Gardner is a follower of Kashmir Shaivism.
Sorry for the typo in the previous comment. Correction made for Jnanai to be Jnani. Lol!
This is what L.Ron Gardner says about Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi and cutting of the heart knot.
Quote.
Harris deserves credit for at least being a serious spiritual seeker—but, unfortunately, he is not a finder. He describes his journey to the East and his encounters with his two “gurus” after he attempted to move beyond Burmese master U Pandita Sayadaw’s Vipassana meditation instructions. His first guru was H.W.L Poonja (1910-1997), commonly known as Papaji (see my two-star Amazon review of his book Truth Is). Because Harris lacks spiritual discrimination, he mistakenly considered Papaji to have been as Enlightened as his guru, Sri Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950). Unlike Papaji, Ramana Maharshi truly “cracked the spiritual code” (see my five-star reviews of Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Sri Ramana Gita, and Sat Darshana Bhashya).
If Sam had read and grokked Ramana Maharshi, he’d be a step ahead of his fellow brain scientists, because he’d realize that the root locus of consciousness (where it intersects a human being) before it “crystallizes” as thought-forms (or mind) in the brain is the spiritual Heart-center (Hridayam in Hinduism, Tathagatagarbha in Buddhism), located two digits to the right of the center of one’s chest. The human soul-matrix, one’s “storehouse consciousness” (alaya-vijnana in Yogacara), or complex of psychical seed tendencies, is located here relative to an incarnated human vehicle. But Sam has nothing to say about the Heart-center, the root-locus of citta, and its relation to the mind and brain.
If Harris understood the En-Light-enment project, he would also know that it is only through the descent of the Shakti, or Sambhogakaya (which is literally sucked into the Hridayam, along with the mind, the “crystallized” outflow of psychical seed tendencies), that one can Awaken. It is the Shakti, or Stream, that precipitates the “Heart-release,” which grants Nirvana. Nirvana, or Self-realization, is achieved when the Heart-knot is cut (which Ramana Maharshi describes in his esoteric teachings). When the Heart-knot is cut, universal (timeless, spaceless) Consciousness radiates ceaselessly through the “Heart-hole” to Infinity. This Consciousness, or Awareness, is the One Mind, described by the great Zen master Huang Po (see my five-star review of the The Zen Teaching of Huang Po); but Harris, a pompous and deluded pontificator, assures us that there is no such thing as the One Mind.
Quote.
"Only vichara/surrender can result into realization and Sahaja Samadhi. There is nothing else what could do that!"
Yes, provided one is mature enough to put it into practice in the right manner.
This is in continuation on my comment of 30 July 2018 17:24:
In reply to my email, Michael wrote another email to me on the topic of efficient cause, instrumental cause and substantial cause. It is as follows:
Yes, but an instrumental cause is not always necessary, so though we could say that the perceiver's attention is the instrumental cause, I do not think it is necessary to do so.
The threefold analysis of cause is useful in some cases, but not in all cases. In the case of the rope-snake and brahman-world a two-fold analysis is sufficient (just an upādāna and a nimitta kāraṇa), and in other cases we need not even look for an upādāna kāraṇa. For example, if a moving billiard ball hits a stationary one, that causes the stationary one to move, so it is sufficient just to say that the moving billiard ball or its momentum is the nimitta kāraṇa. Generally identifying an upādāna kāraṇa is necessary only when something is produced from something else, such as a snake from a rope, a pot from clay, a table from wood, a necklace from gold or names and forms from sat-cit-ananda.
In continuation of the comment I wrote here yesterday, the same friend wrote another comment in reply to my reply, saying, ‘I just wanted to add that even his wanting to quit seems to not be in his control. One week he does and the next he doesn’t. It’s as though even the desire to do and not to do, isn't upto us’, to which I replied:
Each like, dislike, desire, fear, hope, attachment and so on is an element of our will, and often the elements of our will are in conflict with one another. We want to do something, such as drinking alcohol, but we consider it to be bad for us, so we also want to give up wanting to do so. Our wanting to do it and our wanting to give up wanting to do it are obviously in conflict with one another, so whichever desire is stronger will win most of the time. This seems to be what is happening in the case of your relative.
Though we know that trying to satisfy a certain desire is not good for us, our desire to give up that desire is not yet strong enough. So in such cases we have to work hard to cultivate the desire to give up and to weaken the desire that we consider bad. This is what spiritual practice is all about: cultivating the better elements of our will and thereby weakening the worse elements, until we reach the point where our one desire is to give up all desires, which we can do only by eradicating their root, the ego, which is the sole aim and purpose of the practice of self-investigation and self-surrender, the path that Bhagavan taught us.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 20
When viewed from the standpoint of the eternally self-existent cause, even the three, seven or twenty-one worlds will appear to be real. But when one sees only the names and forms of the world as real, then even brahman, their cause, will appear to be absolutely non-existent or void (sunya).
Reflections: In this context, we may read verse 18 of Ulladu Narpadu:
For those who do not have knowledge, for those who have, the world is real. For those who do not know, reality is the extent of the world; for those who have known, reality pervades devoid of form as the support for the world. This is the difference between them. Consider.
So this world is real for all. In the sense that to a person who does not have knowledge, only the names and forms of this world is real, and to a person who does have knowledge, the reality is only the adhara (support, foundation or container) of this world. In other words, what we see as this world is seen as brahman by the jnani, and therefore there is nothing unreal for a jnani.
It is a subtle point. What Bhagavan implies is what exists is only the infinite, unchangeable and formless reality, and therefore if all at there is anything called a ‘world’, it cannot be other than this infinite reality. However, this world is made of up forms, but the reality is formless, so how can any forms exist in something which is formless? So the final conclusion has to be, this world is utterly unreal and non-existent. It has never come into existence.
The world exists in whose view? It exists in our ego’s view. However, Bhagavan says that this ego is a formless phantom which will take flight if we investigate it. So if it takes flight, where is the world? Who can see any world without the ego? Therefore even when this world seems to exist, it does not really exist. We have to come to this conclusion.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 21
For the sake of those who take the world, which appears before them, as real and enjoyable (it became necessary for the scriptures to say that) it is God’s creation. But for those who have obtained unobstructed knowledge of self, the world is seen merely as a bondage-causing mental imagination.
Reflections: When we are spirituality immature, we can understand only srsti-drsti vada. That is, the contention that this world is real - it is there since time immemorial. Srsti-drsti vada means that we see the world only because there is a solid world out there for us to see.
However, Bhagavan teaches us dsrti-srsti vada. That is, the contention that this world seems to exist only when we project and experience a world in front of us. In other words, this world is our own mental creation, and therefore it does not exist when we do not perceive it. We need some spiritual maturity even to tentatively accept this.
Dsrti-srsti vada is too much for many of the devotees of Bhagavan. It is because of such radical teachings that many stay away from Bhagavan’s core teachings contained in Upadesa Undiyar, Ulladu Narpadu and Nan Yar. These devotees are comfortable with their devotion to Arunachala. They may sing devotional hymns by Bhagavan, like Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam and so on but try to maintain a safe distance from Upadesa Undiyar, Ulladu Narpadu and Nan Yar.
Sanjay Lohia,
"Therefore even when this world seems to exist, it does not really exist. We have to come to this conclusion."
However, such a mental/intellectual conclusion is only made by the mind. If it is not empirically and consciously experienced by awareness one should not attach much value to it. Much more estimable is therefore the clear awareness of that which is actual reality because knowledge of brahman alone is the goal to be attained.
Michael,
"Each like, dislike, desire, fear, hope, attachment and so on is an element of our will,...".
I understand this elements only as indirect factors/components of our will.
Atmabodha, what is the benefit of accepting that ‘even when this world seems to exist, it does not really exist?’ It may just be an intellectual understanding, but such understanding is essential or at least extremely beneficial if we want to turn away from this world.
If this world is real, why should we turn away from it and dive within in order to experience ourself as we actually are? However, if we understand that this world could be our mental creation, it will make it much easier for us to ignore this world. As Bhagavan says in the 11th paragraph of Nan Yar?:
Just as a pearl-diver, tying a stone to his waist and submerging, picks up a pearl which lies in the bottom of the ocean, so each person, submerging [beneath the surface activity of their mind] and sinking [deep] within themself with vairāgya [freedom from desire to experience anything other than self], can attain the pearl of self.
Immediately after saying the above, in the next sentence Bhagavan says:
If one clings fast to uninterrupted svarūpa-smaraṇa [self-remembrance] until one attains svarūpa [one’s own actual self], that alone [will be] sufficient.
What Bhagavan clearly implies (through the sequence of these two sentences) is that in order to cling to uninterrupted self-remembrance, we need extreme vairagya. Thus any intellectual understanding that cultivates vairagya in us is extremely useful.
Sanjay Lohia,
your reflections on verse 21 GVK,
of course you wanted to explain 'drsti-srsti-vada', not as misspelled dsrti-...
Regarding devotees who content themselves with singing devotional hymns...
Can anyone understand more than what is enabled or provided by the mind's capability/faculties/talents ?
sivatva, I do not believe that maturity is a required to do vichara "in the right manner". Very likely a maturity is required to have the desire to do vichara.
Vichara is learned by simply doing it. It cannot be learned through someone else. Even Bhagavan didn't teach "how to do" vichara because it can't be put into words. Michael and Sadhu Om went very much into the specifics and there is an great article by Michael (maybe from 2008) where he goes into the details as much as one can go.
But that cannot be a substitute for actually doing it.
Sanjay Lohia,
"Thus any intellectual understanding that cultivates vairagya in us is extremely useful."
May I express my doubts that intellectual understanding (alone) would/could ever cultivate vairagya ?
Salazar,
you are right in saying that maturity is required to have the desire to do vichara.
But in doing vichara quite well it is easily possible to lose one's way and stray from the straight and narrow. That at least is my impression when I read some comments of people who claim doing vichara.
I agree with you that vichara is learned by simply doing it and cannot be learned through someone else. Thanks also for your hint and suggestion to read an old relevant and detailed article of Michael. It must be always time to keep one's eye on not going astray.:-)
Salazar,
vichara as such let the mind flow towards the self. Therefore vichara must finally just change the whole behaviour of any sadhaka.
How can self-realization result without virtue ?
Salazar,
of course I mean the inner conduct/behaviour.
The "flow of the mind" has to be considered metaphorically because the self is nothing to attain but actually experienced uninterruptedly.
Salazar,
in better English I should say that the self is not something to be attained because it is ever experienced by all as 'I-I'.
Is not the self revealed in deep sleep, without body-mind-ego ? Even now despite of the limitations of waking and dream states - due to identification of the 'I'-thought with the body and other adjuncts - , what is experienced as 'I' is Brahman only.
Micheal James' quote:
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.
End Quote.
To
Sri Michael James,
So according to you as Michael James and the drsti-srsti-vada logic, I am the Self or Brahman and not the finite imaginary person or 'eka jiva". Same rule applies to every apparent "eka jiva" as well. Let me know if you have the time. Thanks.
By
ajnani
Sri Micheal James,
I cannot distinguish between awareness and cidabhasha or semblance of awareness you have also mentioned. That is why I posted the previous comment. Thanks.
By
ajnani
Salazar,
you are correctly implying that the self is clearly recognized and has to be experienced only in the state of nirvikalpa samadhi.
I remember having read in a book about Shankara:
The knowledge of the self is clear as crystal to those who are pure of heart, but hidden from those whose mind are contaminated by attachment and aversion.
Thanks for being in contact with me.
Ekanta, in the comment you wrote yesterday you quote my previous comment, in which I wrote, ‘Each like, dislike, desire, fear, hope, attachment and so on is an element of our will’, and you remark, ‘I understand this elements only as indirect factors/components of our will’. What do you mean by ‘indirect factors/components of our will’? In what way or what sense do you consider them to be ‘indirect’?
What is our will if not made up solely of elements, components or factors such as likes, dislikes, desires, fears, hopes and attachments?
Anonymous, I am not sure which previous comment of yours you refer to in your latest comment, but can you not distinguish the awareness you experience in sleep, in which you are not aware of any phenomena, from the awareness of phenomena that you experience in waking and dream? The awareness you experience in sleep is real awareness, which is awareness of nothing other than yourself, whereas your current awareness of phenomena is what is called cidābhāsa, the ‘semblance [likeness or reflection] of awareness’.
However, though we now experience this semblance of awareness, which is what is also called ego or mind, we have not ceased to experience real awareness, because we could not be aware of phenomena if we were not really aware. Real awareness is what we actually are, so it is eternal and uninterrupted, and hence it is the background or foundation on which awareness of phenomena appears and disappears, just like a cinema screen on which pictures appear and disappear.
Sivatva, it can be confusing and the choice of words is important. Even though I like to express my understanding of Bhagavan's teaching it is, compared to Michael's understanding, less refined. So he would be always a good source for questions, alas, since he's busy he has only limited time.
One thing I'd like to add, as Michael said in the last paragraph of his previous comment on August 1, 13:28, "Real awareness is what we actually are, so it is eternal and uninterrupted, [...]" and I, of course, agree.
However as I mentioned in a previous comment to you, even though awareness is uninterrupted and eternal, we do not experience that awareness uninterrupted since we usually get sidetracked by all of these adjuncts and that seemingly interrupts that awareness; but in fact it is also that awareness which is aware of the adjuncts, so in that regard it is uninterrupted.
However according to Bhagavan, since we are more attached to these adjuncts than to that awareness itself, we ought to drop our interest/attention to the adjuncts and keep our attention solely to that what we really are. Once we could let have gone of all of these adjuncts it will become clear that we are not only that underlying background but also all of these adjuncts which appear and disappear.
Anyway, I hope I could have been a bit helpful and not created any confusion :)
Michael, thank you for responding.
because I understand 'will' primarily in the sense of wish, will power, strength of will, Willigness, self-discipline,mental faculty of the mind, determination to do or to avoid something I considered the mentioned elements like, dislike, desire, fear, hope, attachment and so on only as triggering, causing, provoking, evoking factors of the formulation of will.
But when I read your question "What is our will if not made up solely of elements, components or factors such as likes, dislikes, desires, fears, hopes and attachments?" you make it clear to me what you mean.
Salazar,
as you say "...since we usually get sidetracked by all of these adjuncts and that seemingly interrupts that awareness; but in fact it is also that awareness which is aware of the adjuncts, so in that regard it is uninterrupted."
That is also the reason why I insisted to take to heart the Upanishadic assertion/claim 'I alone am, Brahman alone am I'.
However, I do not understand your final conclusion "Once we could let have gone of all of these adjuncts it will become clear that we are not only that underlying background but also all of these adjuncts which appear and disappear."
Why should we be "also all of these adjuncts which appear and disappear" ?
Salazar,
when you say "because the adjuncts get their reality from Self and they are not separate from Self."
It seems to me that the reason you gave above is no objectively based evidence to support your thesis. From which other reason do you (seriously) attribute any reality to unreal adjuncts ?
Salazar,
as you propose, our sadhana should be mainly focussing on vichara/surrender.
If we attend to 'I' keenly enough, we will thereby separate ourself from all adjuncts.
So instead of shining as the adjunct-mixed ego our self-awareness will shine clearly as 'I am just I'.(Free according Sadhu Om, as recorded by Michael James, The Paramount Importance of Self Attention, Part Twenty Six, in Mountain Path July-September 2018).
Michael,
sorry, please read "willingness" instead of "Willigness".
Even Michael can do only one thing after the other. So we must exercise patience.
Sadhu Om - such a rare gem. It is up to us to benefit from his diamond clarity and brilliance.
sivatva
The point about unreal adjuncts being real could be interpreted as follows.
Advaita says that the we perceive-interpret the world, in terms of subject - object dichotomy, I/mine vs other, is the fundamental illusion. Hence to enable us to see this, it teaches viveka, to discriminate the I (the real) from what is not I (the unreal) - and thereby wean us away, through careful investigation, from the instinctive (but illusory) attachment / identification with our property, our family and ultimately our body - mind - thoughts - feelings. Once this detachment / disidentification is complete (the ego is dead), then all there is, is the Self, reality.
As Sankara is reported to have written:
The world is illusion.
Brahman alone is real.
Brahman is the world.
venkat,
if Sankara has consciously experienced that logically inconsistent four-leaved text-compendium as essentially correct and consistent perfect harmonic truth one can hardly object against it.
On the other hand - what you say in your last sentence: "Once this detachment / disidentification is complete (the ego is dead), then all there is, is the Self, reality." - sheds equally clarifying light on the subject of discussion.
Thanks for your illuminating comment.
In a comment on one of my videos, 2017-03-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on life as a dream, a friend wrote ‘But the waking dreams are of a long duration of suffering than enjoyment. Dreams of night are not the same kind of ordeal and suffering as the waking dreams. That is the huge difference. Even if the waking state is realistically unreal the effect of suffering is very real’, to which I replied:
It may seem to be so, but remember you are speaking from the perspective of your present dream, which now seems to be waking, and you might have written the same comment in any other dream, because whatever dream we are currently experiencing always seems to be waking. The fact that our current dream seems to be waking, whereas we recognise all past dreams as being dreams, distorts our perspective when we compare this dream with others.
The reason why our current dream always seems to be real, and other dreams are seen to be unreal, is simple. What is actually real is only ourself, but in any dream we always experience ourself as if we were a body, so our current body always seems to be real, and since any such body is part of a world, that whole world seems to be equally real. In other words, we superimpose our own reality on whatever body we currently experience as ourself, and thereby we superimpose it on whatever world that body is a part of.
While dreaming any dream, we experience a body in that dream as ourself, so for the duration of that dream that body and world seem to be real, but as soon as we leave one dream and start another dream, our identification with the body of the previous dream is severed, so it no longer seems to be real, and hence in retrospect we immediately see that it was just a dream, and our new dream seems to be waking.
Therefore our current dream always seems to be more real than any of our other dreams, and hence whatever joys or sufferings we experience in our current dream seem to be more real than those that we experienced in other dreams. Such is the delusive nature of māyā.
Michael,
yes, what you say is certainly correct.
But is it not also certain that we have to do our duty or stand up for ourself even in this maya-world ?
Michael,
"Even if the waking state is realistically unreal the effect of suffering is very real’, to which I replied:
It may seem to be so, but remember you are speaking from the perspective of your present dream, which now seems to be waking, and ...... The fact that our current dream seems to be waking, whereas we recognise all past dreams as being dreams, distorts our perspective when we compare this dream with others."
Are you seriously assuming that the suffering is only a seeming one and that the actual suffering is a case of distorted perspective or of a comparison of past dreams with current ones ?
The deeper and deeper we go into this investigation, the clearer the way will become. But when it becomes completely clear, we will understand that what seemed to be the way, the path, was actually nothing, because what exists is only ourself, the pure self-awareness. In other words, we will find that we never were any ego at all. There never were any problems. There never was any self-ignorance. There was never a moment when we were not aware of ourself as we really are.
But that will all become clear at the end of the journey. At the end of the journey, we will find that we are where we always have been. Bhagavan said that waking up to the state of self-knowledge is like waking up from a dream of wandering or travelling all over the world. When we wake up, we find that we never travelled at all. But while we were dreaming we seemed to be travelling.
So now we seem to be travelling on the spiritual path, this path of self-investigation and self-surrender, but when we reach our destination, we will find that we have never travelled anywhere. We will find that we have always been what we always were – nothing has changed, and nothing has happened. But we have to get there first to see that.
Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 29 July 2018 (2:00 onwards)
Reflections: That is, our final experience will be that of ajata, which means ‘non-born’. It means that our final experience will be that nothing has ever been created, or nothing has ever come into existence even as a seeming reality.
We seem to be making all these efforts to return to our source, to return to our real nature. But if we have never actually left our source, how can we return to our source? If the ego which is making all these efforts is nothing but an illusion, how can any of this ego’s efforts, problems, miseries, desires, attachments and fears be real? All these are just part of our ego’s web of illusions.
So nothing has ever happened. This, according to Bhagavan, will be our ultimate experience.
"...we will find that we never were any ego at all. There never were any problems. There never was any self-ignorance. There was never a moment when we were not aware of ourself as we really are.
But that will all become clear at the end of the journey. At the end of the journey, we will find that we are where we always have been.
When we wake up, we find that we never travelled at all.
...but when we reach our destination, we will find that we have never travelled anywhere. We will find that we have always been what we always were – nothing has changed, and nothing has happened.
But we have to get there first to see that."
Therefore we have to bow to the inevitable and to go through all the ego's problems caused by its ignorance.
- Although there was never a moment when we were not aware of ourself as we really are.
- Although at the end of the journey, we will find that we are where we always have been.
- Although we (will) find that we never travelled at all.
- Although we will find that we have never travelled anywhere.
- Although we will find that we have always been what we always were – nothing has changed, and nothing has happened.
Because we just have to get there first to see that.
Are there any further questions ?
The more we attend to ourself, the weaker our vishaya-vasanas will become. It is because these vasanas (our desires) have no strength of their own. What gives them the power is the attention we pay to them. So if we attend to thoughts those thoughts will become stronger, but instead if we attend to ourself those thoughts will lose their strength. Some people have obsession or phobias. It is because of their giving excessive attention to whatever they are obsessed about or afraid of.
Most of us don’t have such problems, but even if we observe ourselves, we have certain patterns of thinking. If we think about our problems again and again, they become bigger and bigger. But if we are following the path of self-surrender, we will think, ‘This is not my problem. This is God’s problem, so let him take care of it’. So by cultivating such an attitude, we withdraw our attention from our worries and problems.
What happens in the path of self-surrender, the same thing happens in the path of self-investigation, because they are the same. So whenever any worry arises in our mind, we try and turn our attention back to ourself by investigating ‘who has this worry?’ So this way we ignore our worries, and thus they become weaker and weaker. This is the practical method Bhagavan has given us to avoid being troubled by unpleasant thoughts.
However, some thoughts seem to be quite pleasant. We have happy memories of the past. But we should deal with our peasant thoughts as we deal with our troublesome thoughts, because however pleasant our current situation may be, this is not going to last forever.
Our beloved ones are going to pass away. We are going to pass away one day. So none of the pleasant things we experience in our life is lasting. So rather than attaching too much importance to these pleasures, we should try to turn our attention slowly-slowly back to ourself. Who is feeling happy? Who has good memories of the past? Who is attached to his or her relatives? It is ‘I’, so who is this ‘I’? This is the beauty of this path.
Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 29 July 2018 (0:40 onwards)
Even if [one] remains thinking ‘I, I’, it will take and leave [one] in that place. (Nāṉ Yār?)
Even if one unceasingly remembers that divine name ‘I-I’, it will safely lead one to the source from which thoughts rise, thereby destroying the body-rooted ego. (GVK v716)
Sri Ramana Maharshi's core practice for aspirants is to cling to the first person subject and ignore the second and third person objects, [to cling to second or third persons, sustains the first person ego; refer verse 25 Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu].
But in the two quotes above Sri Ramana Maharshi sanctions clinging to a second person object; in this case the thought I-I-I-I-I. Stating, "it will safely lead one to the source from which thoughts rise, thereby destroying the body-rooted ego."
This contradicts the assertion that when the first person subject clings to a second person object, the ego "grows abundantly" [refer verse 25 Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu].
Secondly, if we are to accept that the first person subject can cling to a second person object (in this case the thought I-I-I-I-I), and thereby, "it will safely lead one to the source from which thoughts rise, thereby destroying the body-rooted ego", then logically other sadhana's involving a first person subject clinging to or examining a second person object, have the possibility of doing the same; given one false object (the thought "I-I-I-I-I") cannot be superior to another false object (a different thought or multiple thoughts).
Disclosure: I only practice vichara and am not looking to change my practice. However I wanted to better understand the points raised above and so decided to post them here.
Anonymous, a few thoughts which came up spontaneously while reading your comment: Firstly, vichara is not repeating “I, I”, that has nothing at all to do with vichara. Secondly, a second person object is not “I-I-I-I-I”, from where or how do you get that idea? It is a very odd statement.
And finally the two statements in bold are incorrect, there is no contradiction and I've read several times your comment and still cannot find where there should be a contradiction by Bhagavan. And with that your logical conclusion of the second bold statement is incorrect too since it is based on the false premise of a non-existing contradiction.
I was wondering what the real motivation is behind your comment and it might be to justify, deduce, declare that other sadhanas than vichara could/would do the same but that is not the case. Since you claim to do vichara, why bother considering other sadhanas or even discuss them? There is nothing to gain by that, they are irrelevant for a devotee of Bhagavan.
By the way, Bhagavan did not sanction clinging to second person objects in those quotes or ever, you do not comprehend from where Bhagavan is coming from Roger.
I say Roger because it was him who made many comments like that obsessing about the statement that vichara is the only practice which can lead to Self-realization. He did not like that at all.
And here again, same topic, just new undigested quotations to apparently reveal a contradiction by Bhagavan. Give it a rest, buddy :)
You may be partly conscious under general anesthesia
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322375.php
Clear implication that Consciousness persists in deep sleep too, as Bhagavan said.
Great link, Sam...thanks.
Anonymous, Bhagavan teaches us in paragraph 5 of Nan Yar?:
What rises in this body as ‘I’, that alone is the mind. If [one] investigates in what place the thought called ‘I’ rises at first in the body, [one] will come to know that [it rises] in the heart [the innermost core of oneself, which is what one essentially is]. That alone is the birthplace of the mind. Even if [one] remains thinking ‘I, I’, it will take and leave [one] in that place.
Why did Bhagavan say, ‘Even if [one] remains thinking ‘I, I’, it will take and leave [one] in that place?’ It is true that the thought ‘I’ is the second person, and therefore attending to the ‘I, I’ like a mantra cannot directly take us to our heart.
However, Bhagavan asks us to repeat this mantra only if we are not able to understand what self-attention is? Many used to ask Bhagavan, ‘Bhagavan, where is the ‘I’ that I should attend to? I have tried but I am not able to do it’, or something to this effect. Bhagavan used to patiently explain to them that self-investigation means turning one’s attention within to face the ever-present ‘I’. However, if people were still confused, he used to say, ‘Ok, just go on repeating ‘I, I, I’, it will do its work’.
Why did he say so? Michael has explained this. It is because if we say ‘apple’, immediately an image of an apple comes to our mind. Likewise, if we repeat ‘I, I’ it will automatically draw our attention towards ourself, because ‘I’ is only within. However, as you rightly imply, by repeating ‘I, I’ we can merge back within. So once we have repeated this for some time, we should try and let go of such repetition by trying to cling to our inner consciousness, our real thoughtless ‘I’. So repeating ‘I, I’ can take and leave us in our heart in an indirect way, but, nevertheless, such repetition may be useful for some, at least in the initial stages.
Moreover, many are used to repeating some mantra, like ‘Rama, Rama, Rama’, or some other such mantra. Bhagavan didn’t discourage this, but if someone asked him ‘what is the best and most effective mantra?’, Bhagavan would say ‘repeat I, I,…’. It is because such repetition does not allow our mind to move far away from ourself. Suppose if we repeat ‘Rama, Rama’, our attention moves away towards the name or form of Rama, and Rama is something other than ‘I’.
So if we are not capable to directly attending to ‘I’, we can repeat ‘I, I, I’, because it is better than attending to any other second and third person objects. However, we have to leave even this repetition and turn within to find out, as Bhagavan says, ‘in what place the thought called ‘I’ rises at first in the body’. Only such self-investigation will enable us to reach our destination.
Typo:
However, as you rightly imply, by repeating ‘I, I’ we cannot merge back within.
In a long comment on one of my videos, 2018-07-14 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 8, a friend argued against dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda and ēka-jīva-vāda, saying that they make absolutely no sense at all because ‘All of you as Michael James, the earth, the world and the infinite Universe have existed all along, will exist and will continue to exist and does not depend a hoot on my coming into existence’ and ‘If I die now all of you as sentient beings will still continue to exist in this world and will not disappear from the world because of my death’, to which I replied:
When you dream you see a world filled with countless people, other creatures, planets, stars and so on, just like the world you see now, and while you are dreaming it seems to you to be just as real as this world now seems to be. What happens to all those people, other creatures, planets and stars when you cease dreaming that dream? Do they continue to exist independent of your perception of them?
If our present state is just a dream, then this vast universe with all the people, other creatures, planets and stars that it contains do not exist independent of our perception of them. This is the meaning of dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda (the contention that perception is the sole cause of creation).
In a dream there are many people and other sentient beings, but how many perceivers are there? All those other people and sentient beings seem to be perceivers so long as we are dreaming, but when we wake up we recognise that we, the dreamer, were the only one perceiving that dream world and those dream people and other sentient beings. Likewise, if our present state is just a dream of ours, then we are the only one who actually perceives anything. This is the meaning of ēka-jīva-vāda (solipsism or the contention that there is only one perceiver).
Thank you for your reply Sanjay.
Yes, as you rightly point out, repeating I-I-I-I-I is an approach for those unable or unwilling to undertake vichara.
Sri Ramana Maharshi's quotes in my first post are also an admission that attention to a second person object, in this case I-I-I-I-I, will resolve itself into the first person subject, and ultimately Self; "it will safely lead one to the source from which thoughts rise, thereby destroying the body-rooted ego."
As stated in my first post, this then raises the question that if one false object (the thought "I-I-I-I-I") can resolve into the first person, then feasibly other false objects (a different thought or multiple thoughts) can also. To this you reply, "if we repeat ‘Rama, Rama’, our attention moves away towards the name or form of Rama, and Rama is something other than ‘I’ ".
Perhaps you are right clinging only to the second person I-I-I-I-I can resolve into the first person. Clinging to all other second person objects lead one astray. I do not know!
Nevertheless, I concede that ultimately all must come to cling to the first person, as stated by Maharshi. And the aspirant either clings directly to that first person, or indirectly via a second person (for example, I-I-I-I-I). But what that second person need be is contentious.
In reply to 3 August 2018 at 10:39
Michael, I am convinced of your answer and also of the other articles that deal with this subject, but every time I have something that holds me back from accepting it completely.
I say to myself since I read this article I must be the creator of all the people who come on this blog, all the answers that are made by you and so something in me can not manage to join. And I'm sure everyone says the same thing.
I can not (even if I have total confidence in what Ramana says) tell me that I am the only creator of all this mess.
And of course I am aware that to have the answer is to do the investigation (atma-vicara).
The paradox of all is that I will never have the answer, because once in the state of the complete destruction of the ego (manonasa) there will be no one to really say what happened .. .
Alas these thoughts come every day to put a little doubt ....
And as I had written to you once if I seem to exist other people can also seem to exist and your answer was satisfactory but the doubt is always there .... until the moment of manonasa ......
Jacques Franck
Continuing from my previous post (3 August 2018 at 11:23),
"But what that second person need be is contentious."
Sanjay wrote:
Suppose if we repeat ‘Rama, Rama’, our attention moves away towards the name or form of Rama, and Rama is something other than ‘I’.
Sri Ramana Maharshi has unequivocally stated that attention to the second person, that is through the repetition of I-I-I-I-I, the aspirant can resolve into first person absorption (refer post, 3 August 2018 at 03:44).
And in verse 659 of GVK (Om and James), Maharshi again sanctions clinging to second person objects, this time not via repeating I-I-I-I-I, but via worshiping the "form of their beloved God"; perhaps the 'Rama, Rama' referred to by Sanjay.
In so doing the aspirant "will gradually lose their delusion [towards names and forms and action]" (presumably via resolving into first person absorption) and "finally attain the Supreme Self".
Again, if the aspirant is able, directly hold the first person. But for those who are unable, or whom even declare that Maharshi's vichara is not the only way, actually Maharshi admits that clinging to second person objects (some objects at least), will resolve into the first person subject, and ultimately Self.
Let those who have become a prey to the delusion of action [karma], being unable to follow the original path of the light of Self, existence-consciousness, worship the form of their beloved God. Then they will gradually lose their delusion [towards names and forms and action] and finally [by the Grace of God or Guru] attain the Supreme Self. (GVK v659)
Anonymous, Bhagavan has unequivocally taught us that we should try to cling only to the first person, which is our ego, until the very last trace of our ego is destroyed. If this first person vanishes, all the second and third persons and everything else will vanish along with it. However, if for some reason we are not able to hold on to the first person, we should try to hold on to those second and third person objects which remind us of the first person (or to be more accurate, which remind us of the reality of the first person).
So I think there are three objects which we can safely hold on to if the need so arises. These three objects are the word or thought ‘I’, the name'Ramana' and the name 'Arunachala'. Bhagavan has explicitly approved the japa of ‘I, I’ and of Arunachala, and since Bhagavan is our guru, we can do the japa of his name if and when we feel like doing so.
Bhagavan once told Amritanatha Yati that Arunachala Ramana is nothing but the absolute consciousness which shines in the heart of all jivas. Bhagavan also explained that in order to reach Arunachala Ramana, one should melt in love for him by diving within the inmost recess of one’s heart. If we do so, Arunachala Ramana will reveal its true nature to us, and its true nature is nothing but pure consciousness.
Therefore whether we repeat ‘I, I’ or ‘Ramana, Ramana’ or ‘Arunchala, Arunachala’, we should try to remember that these names represent ourself - our pure consciousness. In other words, to make full use of such repetitions, we should try to keep a part of our attention on ourself, the real form of Bhagavan.
However, it should be obvious to us that no amount of japa of even the name of Bhagavan will enable us to experience ourself as we actually are, because the real Bhagavan is beyond all names and forms. He is the aadhara, the foundation, of all the names and forms. So in order to experience him as he really is, we have to turn within leaving our attachment to all names and forms.
According to Sadhu Om, when Bhagavan said to "think of I,I" he meant "to attend to the source where I,I shines" what is the practice of vichara.
When Bhagavan said that repeating the word "I" mentally will lead to Self then that was in the same category when he said that many other practices will lead to Self. However, at the end it must be vichara what will finalize that realization and NO OTHER practice. Nothing else can do that!
Eventually that has to be accepted Roger/Anonymous.
Thank you for your reply Sanjay. It seems that you and I are fairly well on the same page.
Salazar, friend, you are actually preaching to the converted but do not realise it.
To summarise my three posts:
[1] clinging to the first person subject is the only "doorway" to SELF.
Sri Ramana Maharshi called this practice vichara. Other traditions use other names, Zen's shikantaza is a good example.
(*incidentally Michael has posted an entry on the subject of shikantaza click here)
[2] Sri Ramana Maharshi sanctions at least some forms of second person absorption, conceding that this second person absorption can resolve into first person absorption.
[3] Given Point 2, this begs the question, "what other second person absorptions resolve into first person absorption?" Perhaps there are other practices within other traditions, perhaps there are none!
I am not invested in a need for there to be. Rather, my 3 previous post have been an exercise in my own critical thinking, as applied to the exceptional Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi.
June 10, 1962
Questioner: When there is no `I', what is it that looks and listens?
Krishnamurti: You see, this becomes a theoretical question. When you die to everything you have known, when all your yesterdays and all your tomorrows are gone, and also the present in the sense of psychological time, then what is there? How can I answer you? Verbally I can say there is something immense, something tremendously alive; but that will have no meaning at all. I think the question really is: is it possible to eliminate the `I'? If you go deeply into that, you will answer your own question.
Questioner: I am contaminated by society. How am I to be free of that contamination?
Krishnamurti: Surely, the question is not how to be free of that contamination, for then you merely create another conflict, another problem. The `I' is not contaminated by society; it is the contamination. The `I' is a thing that has been put together through conflict, through envy, through ambition and the desire for power, through agony, guilt, despair. And is it possible for that `I' to dissolve itself without conflict?
These are not theoretical or theological questions. If one is at all serious about understanding oneself one sees that any effort to dissolve the `I' has a motive; it is the result of a reaction, and therefore still part of the `I'. So what is to be done? One can see the fact and not do a thing about it. The fact is that every thought, every feeling is the result of society with its ambitions, its envies, its greeds; and this whole process is the `I'. The very act of seeing this process in its entirety, is its dissipation; you do not have to make an effort to dissipate it. To see something poisonous is to leave it alone.
Anonymous,
Apropos the following statement from your comment with the timestamp 03 August 2018 at 11:39:
Sri Ramana Maharshi's quotes in my first post are also an admission that attention to a second person object, in this case I-I-I-I-I, will resolve itself into the first person subject, and ultimately Self; "it will safely lead one to the source from which thoughts rise, thereby destroying the body-rooted ego."
The translation of that section from para 5 of Nan Yar has been clarified by Michael as meaning 'I am I' instead of the ambiguous 'I-I' (the 'am' is implicit in the Tamil 'Nan-Nan'). 'I am I' is a thought that encourages us to experience with more clarity the consciousness of our own being implicit in our awareness of phenomena; 'I-I' seems like a mantra to be repeated mentally/verbally.
This being the case, it follows that thinking 'I am I' is the same as attending to the consciousness of our own being. Therefore, the Maharishi has not sanctioned attention to a second person object as a means to destroy the body-rooted ego, but has actually repeated (in different words) that atma vichara is the means to destroy the body-rooted ego.
Apropos point 2 of your comment with the timestamp 04 August 2018 at 01:03:
[2] Sri Ramana Maharshi sanctions at least some forms of second person absorption, conceding that this second person absorption can resolve into first person absorption.
It is not the second person absorption, but the extent of one-pointedness in our attention to a particular second person that facilitates atma-vichara. As per para 9 of Nan Yar: "For the mind which has gained one-pointedness when thoughts shrink and shrink [that is, which has gained one-pointedness due to the progressive reduction of its thoughts] and which has thereby gained strength, ātma-vicāra [self-investigation, which is the state of self-attentive being] will be easily accomplished."
Further, not all second person absorption resolve into atma vichara, as you rightly doubted:
[3] Given Point 2, this begs the question, "what other second person absorptions resolve into first person absorption?" Perhaps there are other practices within other traditions, perhaps there are none!
The Maharishi states in Updesha Undiyar that action (whether through mind, speech or body) done for the love of God and offering its fruits to God, will purify the mind and show the way to liberation. He further grades actions according to their efficacy in purifying our minds in the same poem.
Attention is like a tool, and the mind is the wielder of this tool. Second person absorption develops our capacity of one-pointed attention. One-pointed attention is like a sharp tool. The purer the mind, the more will it use this sharp tool to experience what it really is.
To summarise, it is the purity/clarity of mind developed consequent upon second person attention performed with devotion/love, that directs our capacity of one-pointed attention into first person absorption.
Thank you for your reply Aseem. We are mostly in agreeance it seems.
Accept that thinking is never "attending to the consciousness of our own being".
"This being the case, it follows that thinking 'I am I' is the same as attending to the consciousness of our own being. Therefore, the Maharishi has not sanctioned attention to a second person object as a means to destroy the body-rooted ego, but has actually repeated (in different words) that atma vichara is the means to destroy the body-rooted ego."
Thus, to advise one to think "I am I" is to sanction a form of second person absorption. And it is conceded that this second person absorption can resolve into first person absorption; "....it will safely lead one to the source from which thoughts rise, thereby destroying the body-rooted ego." (GVK v716)
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 22
This world of empty names and forms, which are the imagination of the five senses and an appearance in the pure supreme self, should be understood to be the mysterious play of maya, the mind, which rises as if real from self, sat-chit.
Reflections: Bhagavan has explained this point in verse 6 of Ulladu Narpadu:
The world is a form of five sense-impressions, not anything else. Those five sense-impressions are impressions to the five sense organs. Since the mind alone perceives the world by way of the five sense organs, say, is there a world besides the mind?
Anonymous,
In the paragraph previous to the one that you have quoted, I had qualified " thinking 'I am I' " and contrasted it with the mantra-like 'I-I' as follows: 'I am I' is a thought that encourages us to experience with more clarity the consciousness of our own being implicit in our awareness of phenomena; 'I-I' seems like a mantra to be repeated mentally/verbally.
It was only in this context that I wrote "thinking 'I am I' is the same as attending to the consciousness of our own being". That statement did not mean nor imply that thinking 'I am I' is a direct means to destroy the ego, but stated explicitly that thinking 'I am I' encourages us to practice the means to destroy the ego.
Re GVK v716, "unceasingly remember that divine name ‘I am I’" can either mean literally trying to remember and repeat 'I am I' as a divine name, or can mean unceasingly remembering what 'I am I' denotes - i.e, unceasingly trying to bring our attention back to the consciousness of our own being. Only the latter practice "will safely lead one to the source from which thoughts rise, thereby destroying the body-rooted ego"; the former practice may be an aid to self-attention and may purify and quieten our minds. A pure mind may subsequently direct its attention back onto itself. So it is only in this sense that second person absorption can resolve into first person absorption.
I-I-I-I-I resonates eternally within the Heart, not I am I.
As such, I strongly doubt Sri Ramana Maharshi ever spoke or implied repeat 'I am I'; despite that one can construe this from Tamil, as you claim.
On Being Still
http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.com/2008/06/yes-but-what-do-i-do.html
While scrolling down David Godman’s blog, I found the following on the topic of being still.
Here is a Thayumanavar verse (‘Udal Poyyuravu’, verse 52) on this topic that Bhagavan was fond of quoting:
Bliss will arise if you remain still.
Why, little sir, this involvement still
with yoga, whose nature is delusion?
Will [this bliss] arise
through your own objective knowledge?
You need not reply,
you who are addicted to ‘doing’!
You little baby, you!
Reflections: I think this a very a powerful reminder to remain still. As Bhagavan once said, ‘Your duty is to be, not to be this or that’. One may ask, ‘Is there any difference between being still and practising self-investigation?’ The answer is ‘No, there is no difference’. These are just two ways to describe the same practice of being still.
Now, let us reflect on what Thayumanavar says in the verse quoted above. I will take one sentence of the verse at a time and try to reflect on it:
Bliss will arise if you remain still.
What is real bliss or happiness? It is our true nature, and we can experience our true nature if and when we are able to remain still, and if we are absolutely still we will drown in bliss.
Why, little sir, this involvement still with yoga, whose nature is delusion?>
We should remain still without even a little stir – that is, we should try to go deeper and deeper into the ocean of self in order to experience our innate innermost stillness. Why does Thayumanavar imply that we should not get involved in practices such as yoga? It is because yoga means union, but if there is only one without the other, where is the question of any union? So sages like Bhagavan and Thayumanavar say that practices other than being still is a delusion.
Will [this bliss] arise through your own objective knowledge?
Bliss can only arise if we turn towards our subject, leaving behind all our objective knowledge. Bhagavan has unequivocally said that all objective knowledge in ignorance. Why? It is because such objective knowledge is for the ego, and since this ego is self-ignorance, whatever this ego projects and experiences is also nothing but an extension of ignorance.
You need not reply, you who are addicted to ‘doing’! You little baby, you!
If we are addicted to doing, which most of us sadly are, we are like little babies in the spiritual context. As Bhagavan says in Upadesa Undiyar, no action can ever give us liberation. In fact, actions compel us to do similar actions again and again, and thus we are pushed deeper and deeper into this samsara (the endless cycle of birth and death).
So 'Bliss will arise if you remain still' - there can be no doubt about this.
UG Krishnamurti on Ramana Maharshi
(from the book The Mystique of Enlightenment -
http://remembering-ug.blogspot.com/2012/01/january-27th-2012.html)
You see, there are so many flowers there -- look at them! Each flower is unique in its own way. Nature's purpose seems to be (I cannot make any definitive statement) to create flowers like that, human flowers like that.
We have only a handful of flowers, which you can count on your fingers: Ramana Maharshi in recent times, Sri Ramakrishna, some other people. Not the claimants we have in our midst today, not the gurus -- I am not talking about them. It is amazing -- that man who sat there at Tiruvannamalai [Ramana Maharshi] -- his impact on the West is much more than all these gurus put together -- very strange, you understand? He has had a tremendous impact on the totality of human consciousness -- that man living in one corner, you understand?
I visited an industrialist in Paris. He is not at all interested in religious matters, much less in India; he is anti-Indian. (Laughs) So, I saw his [Ramana Maharshi's] photo there -- "Why do you have this photo?" He said "I like the face. I don't know anything about him. I'm not even interested in reading his books. I like the photo, so it's there. I'm not interested in anything about him."
Maybe such an individual can (I can't say 'can') help himself and help the world. Maybe.
Thank you for the link D Samarender Reddy.
All start with "doing stillness". Years later we realise that our very nature is Stillness, we need no longer do stillness, simply remain as you are, adding nothing....and all vasanas are washed off.
But typically we ask "Who am I?" or try clinging to 'I' for years first.
Is is it the consensus at this website that Talks with Ramana Maharshi was not verified and approved by the Maharshi?
I ask because V.Ganesan assures us, on page 211 of Ramana Periya Puranam, that it was verified and approved by Bhagavan himself.
"Munagala kept a record of whatever he interpreted. He would then take the notebook to Bhagavan, who would edit or correct what had been written. That is how we have Talks with Ramana Maharshi. I have seen the original manuscript myself, in the form of note books, with Bhagavan's corrections. I also had the honour of typing some of those handwritten manuscripts along with devotees like Typist Kittu and Ramamani."
Nishta, ‘doing stillness’ may not be an accurate term to describe our practice of trying to be still. Yes, we do need effort to remain still, but such trying is ‘being still’ and not ‘doing still’. ‘Doing’ means an action – it means a movement of our attention away from ourself. However, ‘stillness’ means cessation of our mental activities.
As Bhagavan has taught us, we can be still only by attending to ourself. It is only by self-attentiveness that we (that is, our mind or ego) can remain still.
Bhagavan’s teachings are like the sparks from the fire of jnana…
Bhagavan used to say that Arunachala is the fire jnana. That is if we stay near the hill, or regularly go around it, or even think of it from afar, it will start burning our ego. That means, our proximity to Arunachala will start destroying our vishaya-vasanas, and we may not even be consciously aware of it. Such closeness with the hill will give us an inner clarity, as Michael often tells us. We need not necessarily have faith in the power of Arunachala. Like a fire will burn us if we go near it, likewise, Arunachala will do its work even if we do not have faith in it.
Bhagavan’s teachings are also like the sparks from this fire of jnana. If we go on reading and reflecting on his teachings, it will start destroying our vishaya-vasanas. The more we read and reflect on his teachings, the more inner clarity we will develop. Such clarity will give us more and more love to turn within and put Bhagavan’s teachings to practice.
Our reading (even listening to Michael’s videos) and reflecting on Bhagavan’s teachings is akin to a moth going round and round a flame. We may not yet have sufficient love to go very near the flame to be burnt by it. But at least by going round and round, we are preparing ourself for our final surrender. We are being tested by Bhagavan. We can pass his test only if we muster up enough courage and go right into the flame and thereby be burnt by it.
Bhagavan is the huge fire of jnana, and he exists in our heart as pure-awareness. One wholehearted step towards this flame, and our ego will disappear forever and become one with this fire. Until then, at least, we should go round and round this flame by reading and reflecting on Bhagavan’s teachings.
According to Michael, if we are able to understand verse 25 of Ulladu Narpadu, we can understand the entire advaita-vedanta. If we can understand and assimilate all the implications of this verse, not only Bhagavan’s teachings but the entire vedanta will be on our fingertips. Bhagavan teaches us in this verse:
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.
When Bhagavan says, ‘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’, what does Bhagavan mean by the term ‘form’? When we begin to understand Bhagavan’s teachings, we take the word ‘form’ to mean the form of our body. However, the word ‘form’ does not just refer to our body, it refers to all types of forms. Michael has made this clear in the following extract taken from his video filmed on 3 June 2017 (0:44 to 0:46):
That which is unlimited can see only that which is unlimited. Every form is a limitation, so every form has an extent. There is no such thing as an infinite form. The meaning of the term implies ‘form’ implies something that is in some way limited. So form can be a physical form or a mental form or an emotional form. Every form is something within limits.
(end of the extract)
So in the context of Bhagavan’s teachings, the term ‘form’ does not mean just a physical form, even though the body is the first form we grasp. The term ‘form’ includes all phenomena, it includes anything that appears and disappears. As Michael says, a form could be physical or mental or emotion or whatever. Our every idea, every emotion and every thought is a form, because they exist within a certain extent of time and within a certain extent of our mental space. All forms have a beginning and an end. What is formless is only ourself, because we are the infinite awareness.
So when we rise as this ego, we do so by grasping a body as ourself. But we do not stop there. Through the form of this body, we unceasingly grasp other physical, mental and emotional forms, and such non-stop grasping keeps our ego in business.
But how does our ego grasps forms? It grasps them by being aware of them. It grasps them by projecting and being aware of them, and such projection and being aware of them happen simultaneously. So we can understand the principle of drsti-srsti vada if we understand verse 25 (and also verse 26) of Ulladu Narpadu.
We create and experience all forms only within our mind. So nothing exists when we are not experiencing them. I think this is the essence of advaita-vedanta. So if we do not rise and project forms, there will be no forms for us to experience. So when our ego is destroyed, our final experience will be that of advaita (infinite, limitless and eternal oneness).
Michael,
your comment of 3 August 2018 at 10:39,
did you leave out intentionally the last paragraph of your video-reply to the friend (Cristoval J.A.) who argued against dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda and ēka-jīva-vāda, saying that they make absolutely no sense at all because ‘All of you as Michael James, the earth, the world and the infinite Universe have existed all along, will exist and will continue to exist and does not depend a hoot on my coming into existence’ ...in your comment ?
That paragraph was as follows:
"Therefore the questions we need to consider are: Is this state a dream or not? Does anything we perceive exist independent of our perception of it? How can we know for certain that anything we perceive exists independent of our perception of it? We each have to find our own answers to these questions, because the testimony or beliefs of other people cannot help us to answer them, since if nothing perceived exists independent of our perception of it, those other people and their testimony and beliefs do not exist independent of our perception of them."
Salazar,
thanks for your reply of 2 August 2018 at 15:52.
Hopefully the wild fires in your residential area could have been under control and your lung condition did not deteriorate. I will keep my fingers crossed for you.
Actually placing your trust unconditionally in Bhagavan set a good example of vichara/surrender.
Would you please describe what the significance of "Bhagavan" is for you ?
When the ego looks in the direction of the so-called jnani, it tends to expect a "certain" personality and behaviour to come with Self-realisation. But in fact personality and behaviour are scripted and are unrelated to jnana.
As such personality and behaviour are no measure of who is or isn’t a jnani, nor are they a measure of your own unfolding.
If God is the infinite whole and if he is love, there cannot be any love other than God. So all the manifestations of love we see in this world are emanating from the love which is God. We love our family, we love our friends, we love material objects which seem to give us pleasure, but that feeling of love in us is not love in its pure form. It is the limited expression of the love that exists within us. These are impure forms of love, which obviously are not God in its pure form.
Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 3 June 2017 (0:23 onwards)
Reflections: In other words, we love or desire things because our very nature is love. As we cannot stop being our true nature, so also we cannot stop loving or desiring things. However, if we love things other than ourself, that is a limited expression of our true nature. Why? It is because we are infinite love, but when we love a person or a thing, we are limiting our love to that person or thing.
So in order to experience pure and infinite love, we need to merge back into our true self. Then we will become one with love, and infinite love is also infinite happiness.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 23
The realised who do not know anything as being other than self, which is absolute consciousness, will not say that the world, which has no existence in the view of the supreme brahman, is real.
Reflections: However, when we rise as the ego and project a world, we also imagine a God which is other than ourself and other than this world. Such a God is called Ishvara (the supreme ruling power). Though in the view of brahman there is no world, in the view of Ishvara we have to assume that there is a world and there are also many jivas. Thus in the view of the jiva there is a Ishvara and a world, and in the view of Ishvara there are many jivas and a world.
When we pray to God – like Bhagavan prayed to Arunachala – it is implied that there is a God which is listening to our prayers, otherwise why should we pray to a God who cannot listen to anything? Likewise, when God seems to fulfil our prayers, it is again implied that God can see and listen to us, otherwise how can he fulfil our wishes?
Once someone asked Bhagavan to the effect, ‘Bhagavan, can we to talk to God?’ Bhagavan replied ‘Why not? If we can talk to each other, why can’t we talk to God? Is God deaf?’ However, Bhagavan also clarified that in order to talk to God we need purity of heart and mind. It is said that sages like Sri Ramakrishna talked to God as if God was right there in front of those sages.
However, if we do not rise as this ego there is no God or world apart from us. When we do not rise as the ego, we are one with the ever-existing God. Bhagavan makes this clear in verse 25 of Upadesa Undiyar:
Knowing [or being aware of] oneself leaving aside adjuncts is itself knowing God, because [he] shines as oneself.
hearing Muruganar, GVK verse 23,
"The realised who do not know anything as being other than self, which is absolute consciousness, will not say that the world, which has no existence in the view of the supreme brahman, is real."
Because I am actually not in the position to maintain that I do not know anything as being other than self, which is absolute consciousness, I would urgently like to press/shake such a realised one's hand - and become with this enthusiastic and ecstatic.
Is that possible for me, being a rather ignorant stray dog roaming across the fields ?
Salazar,
it is indeed an odd question, and more specific: I thought Bhagavan is the well-known master or guru Ramana Maharishi of Tiruvannamalai or Arunachala Hill (1879-1950).
Reading some comments of this blog I somehow have the impression that the sphere of influence of "Bhagavan" cannot be restricted to the South Indian area. So who and what else is Bhagavan ? If you are not interested to answer my quite unsophisticated question I do not take that amiss.
tattva darsanam, greetings
If I may jump in to your question (Salazar, with your permission…)
"So who and what else is Bhagavan ?”
• For many many many people Bhagavan simply doesn't mean anything. They never heard that name, or seen any image of him.
• For many many people Bhagavan is just a person born in India, usually related with an old photograph of a kind old man, a middle age half-naked man or an intense gazing young boy staring at the camera.
• For many people He is a saint to be revered with daily pujas, repeating his name and/or worshiping his image.
• For some people He is a teacher of Vedanta, and for others is a teacher of Advaita Vedanta, who taught by example through the means of compassionate actions, talks, writings, poems, songs but most important, silence.
• For a few, Bhagavan is the dream figure that embodying the Self, gives us dreamers the opportunity to wake up. The lion that wakes up the elephant from his dream.
• For "I" He is "I". Oneself. Brahman.
The different "Bhagavans" relate to us in the same way we see and experience ourselves in relation to our own body, mind and self.
A body sees only bodies, worlds, objects of different kind.
A mind feels emotions, sees thoughts and concepts, day-dreams and dreams with dream-bodies, dream-worlds, dream-objets and dream-thoughts of different kinds.
Self only knows Self.
Which Bhagavan do I relate most?…
Carlos Grasso,
greetings, hope your place is not again affected by the present California forest fires.
Many thanks for your beautiful six-storey list of different "Bhagavans".
As you say it depends entirely on our point of view or frame of mind what we see in Bhagavan. It is obviously impossible to separate "Bhagavan" from the supreme self or Lord Siva-Arunachala himself.
Salazar,
thank you for your explanation of your view of Bhagavan's true feet which are beyond his bodily feet.
Are we not fortunate to bow to the radiance of his universal pure grace ?
Salazar, while referring to a young Indian whom you met on a flight to London and who was not aware of Sri Ramana Maharshi, you wrote: ‘[…] for some reason I assumed that most if not all in Tamil Nadu would know of Bhagavan. Like as anybody knows of Jesus Christ in the Western world’.
We in India are extremely fortunate because we are the centre of spirituality. I think the best of spirituality has emanated from the Indian subcontinent. We have had in our midst Bhagavan Ramana, Bhagavan Ramakrishna, Gautama Buddha, Sri Sankara and so on. We have Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, Brahma-sutras and such sublime texts. We have had countless poet-saints in the past and these may be still there scattered here and there.
However, in spite of such an unmatched legacy, there are few to here who want to wholeheartedly follow these saints and texts. So it is no wonder that that young man was not aware of Bhagavan Ramana even though he was from Chennai. By the way, Chennai is the largest big city near Tiruvannamalai.
Presently in our midst, there are countless of ‘swamis’, ‘gurus’ and the self-proclaimed ‘enlightened beings’. So even if people come to know about Bhagavan, they think that he is just like one of these ‘swamis’. Thus very few are able to understand Bhagavan’s uniqueness and greatness. He is para-brahman itself who has appeared before us as if simply to tell us:
Enough, you have had enough of this world, and now the time has come to return to your home. So turn within, go to your true residing place and be in eternal rest. What have you gained by all your wanderings in this world except miseries, dissatisfaction and unhappiness? So leave everything and follow me, and I will take you to a place from where there is no return to this miserable world.
I think very few are listening to Bhagavan, at least here in India. I do not know the scene outside India, but I believe there will be very takers for his pure teachings even there. His teachings are extremely simple but at the same time extremely radical, and therefore very few will be attracted to it. However, those who have understood Bhagavan and his teachings, even to a limited extent, will not look beyond his teachings. This is for sure.
Friend: In Jainism you can commit suicide in a ritualistic way. I think this can be practised only if they become very old and they will die anyway. I believe friends gather around them and are there with the person who is dying (I think they fast till death) to share the experience. It is a loving experience.
Michael: Well, the culprit is not the body. When we are committing suicide, the body is dying – it is the body that we are killing. However, the body is innocent. If you have done something to hurt me, I should come and beat you and not beat your chair. So Bhagavan said punishing the body is like punishing the chair on which the criminal is sitting.
Friend: But Jains are not punishing the body.
Michael: But they are still separating themselves from the body. One day we will all die when we will be separated from our body, but the body is not the root of the problem. When one body dies – that is, when one dream comes to an end, we begin to dream another dream. So whatever body we take to be ourself is just a mental projection.
Who is it that projects this body and says, ‘this body is I’? That is the ego. That is what we have to kill. The body is going to come to an end one day. We should let it go in its own time. Bhagavan’s whole teaching focuses on one thing and one thing alone, which is the ego. The root of all problems is the ego. That is what we should concentrate on dealing with. That is what we need to kill.
How to kill the ego? Bhagavan says that first, we need to see whether there is an ego in the first place. If we look for it, it disappears – that is, we find that there is no such thing as the ego. If we look at ourself to see what we actually are, we will see that we are infinite pure-awareness and that we never were this ego. Then in effect, that ego is dead – actually, it is known that it never existed in the first place.
The ego is nothing but a wrong awareness of ourself, a mistaken awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are. When we are aware of ourself as we actually are, then there is no ego and there never was actually an ego.
Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 10 June 2017 (0:42 – 0:51)
Sanjay Lohia,
even in Tiruvannamalai once (probably at my first visit in the year 2000) I was asked on the street by an middle-aged man (Indian from the state of Andhra Pradesh) : Why are so many foreigners here in Tiruvannamalai ? I told him quite proudly that I for instance came because of Ramana Maharshi and that I particularly intensely feel the powerful vibration of the Arunachala Hill. The questioner shaked his head somehow uncomprehendingly. Astonished I continued walking in direction of Arunachaleshwarar Temple...
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 24
O man, like a parrot waiting expectantly for the silk-cotton fruit to ripen, you persist in your sufferings, believing this world appearance to be real and enjoyable; if the world is real simply because it appears to your senses, then a mirage would be water.
Note: The fruit of a silk-cotton tree always remains green, not turning colour even after ripening; the parrot meanwhile waits expectantly, hoping to eat it when it changes colour, but is finally disappointed when it bursts, scattering its hairy seeds.
Reflections: Bhagavan has made it clear in Nan Yar? and other places that what is real is only atma-svarupa, and that the ego, world and God are mere appearances in atma-svarupa. These appearances are like water in a mirage. That is, when we see water in a mirage, it is just an optical illusion. There is no water there – in fact, there never was any water there. Likewise, anything called 'world' simply does not exist, even though it may seem to exist in our present deluded view.
We can take another example. When we look up at the sky, we see that the sky is blue. However, the sky is just an empty space, and therefore the blueness we see is another optical illusion. Likewise, our dream world seems to be solid and real as long as we are dreaming, but when we wake up we realise that the dream world was just our mental projection.
Bhagavan says that this current world is nothing but another dream. That is, there is nothing solid or physical about this seemingly physical world. Everything is just our mental projection. Who projects this world? It is our ego, but when we look at this ego to see what it is, it is nowhere to be found. If our ego is ‘killed’, all our mental projections will also stop, and we will experience ourself as we actually are.
Amai Parai, those of us who are practising some sort of spiritual discipline may consider worldly people we around us as fools. Likewise, in the view of these worldly people, we may be fools. However, as long as we experience ourself as this ego, we are all fools. That is, there is no essential difference between so-called ‘worldly-people’ and so-called ‘spiritual people’. As long as we take ourself to be a body, we are all sailing in the same boat.
Sanjay Lohia,
as you say, as long as we take ourself to be a body and experience ourself as this ego, we are all fools sailing in the same fool's ship. Ship ahoy !
Sanjay Lohia,
"How to kill the ego? Bhagavan says that first, we need to see whether there is an ego in the first place. If we look for it, it disappears – that is, we find that there is no such thing as the ego."
If I look for the ego it does not at all disappear. Quite the contrary it continues to be present very vividly. Presumably my 'looking' goes fundamentally wrong or weak.
Nadutal, in order to make our ego disappear, we need to look at it long enough and hard enough. It is an extremely stubborn fellow. It will not leave us that easily. We need to try and focus our entire attention on our ego and that too very-very keenly. Just a cursory glance will not work.
Sanjay Lohia,
it seems that the ego itself undermines my readiness to focus my entire attention on the ego. Therefore my attempts "to look at it long enough and hard enough" are not sufficiently focussed. So the ego is not attacked and weakened decisively enough.
Regrettably at present I have not the power to remove all the obstacles/obstructions to be fully aware of being Brahma svarupa. Apparently my willingness is too low-powered.
Exercising patience and surrender to Bhagavan seems to be my last resort.
Sanjay Lohia,
"...the ego is an extremely stubborn fellow. It will not leave us that easily."
I am surprised that an actually non-existent ego can (seem to) be at all
"an extremely stubborn fellow."
From which source does come its obvious power of thousandfold deception ?
Amai Parai, it is we ourselves who do not allow this stubborn fellow – our ego – to leave us. It is only because we ignore to investigate it. As long as we are looking at things other than ourself this ego will seem to exist, but if we begin to scrutinise it, it will sense trouble and take to its heels. So it is our avichara (non-investigation), which is also called pramada (self-negligence), which feeds and sustains this ego.
Therefore, there is no power outside of us which is forcing us to remain as this ego. This ego is there only because we are too attached to things other than ourself, and the real solution is detachment from these objects. However, the more we practise self-investigation the more detached we will become, and the more detached we become the weaker our ego will become.
Eventually, one final dive within and the game is over – the ego is gone.
Sanjay Lohia,
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 24,
"...if the world is real simply because it appears to your senses, then a mirage would be water."
"...Likewise, anything called 'world' simply does not exist, even though it may seem to exist in our present deluded view."
Assuming you would lose your head by a sword's cut would you - now by means of your subtle body - also give us the same hint to your present deluded view?
Sanjay Lohia,
"it is we ourselves who do not allow this stubborn fellow – our ego – to leave us."
Let us consider the terms used more keenly:
1. You seem to differentiate between "we ourselves" and "the ego" as different subjects.
2. If you actually do not distinguish between "we ourselves" and "the ego" you are implying that either
2a. "we ourselves" are just (the same as) "the ego" and inversely or
2b. "we ourselves" are (actually) just never (the same as) "the ego".
3. Regarding point 2a.: How can "we ourselves (as the ego)" leave "us ourselves (as the ego)" ?
4. Regarding point 2b.: If we ourself are actually nothing but only atma svarupa there is no need of discussion about that.
Salazar,
when Sanjay said"...even though it may seem to exist in our present deluded view." can you be sure that he did exclude his own view from "our present deluded view" ?
It takes a lot of courage to seriously suppose that losing one's head by a sword's cut is nothing but the loss of the mind's creation/imagination losing that body/head.
I believe that theory only one can produce proof in support of it. So you may try out the truth of that theory and would report me thereafter about the proof of truth :-).
Admittedly I am quite a doubting Thomas and do not believe anything what is not immediately and actually experienced by me.
It is easy to take over Bhagavan's experience and say that "nothing really has changed".
Amai Parai, yes, we need to clearly understand the intended meaning of the terms we use. When I wrote, ‘it is we ourselves who do not allow this stubborn fellow – our ego – to leave us’, who is this ‘we ourselves’? Is it the same as ‘the ego’? Yes, ‘we ourselves’ and ‘the ego’ refer to the same thing. Ourself as we actually are (atma-svarupa) is not even aware of the ego, so how can it allow or not allow the ego to leave? It is totally unconcerned as it were.
When we rise as this ego, we cling to one form after another due to our unending desires and attachments, and such clinging keeps our ego intact. However, ultimately we cannot even blame our desires and attachments, because who has these desires and attachments? It is this ego. We (the ego) give strength to these desires and attachments by our constant attention to them. So it is the ego which is the cause of its own bondage.
If the ego chooses to face away from itself, it is the cause of its own existence, and it chooses to turn within to know what it actually is, it itself will be the cause of its own liberation. So it is upon this ego, it can choose to stay alive or it can choose to die. It is free to do choose whatever it prefers.
Salazar, thanks for your shaking comment.
I do not doubt Bhagavan's radical experience. Of course due to my delusional outlook and my adjunct-mixed self-awareness in all honesty I cannot reinforce Bhagavan's absolute view even I would like to can.
You are certainly right in saying: You have to get rid of the doubter. Doubt will be a companion until realization.
(Sometimes the mind has something to grumble about):-)
Salazar,
thank you for giving me a reminder to keep and be just quiet.
Sanjay Lohia,
"So it is upon this ego, it can choose to stay alive or it can choose to die. It is free to do choose whatever it prefers."
Only when the ego makes out the hopelessness/senselessness or pointlessness of individual selfish desires (which lead finally always to its sufficient dissatisfaction) made an indelible impression on it, it will be able to choose its own annihilation.
To those who are interested, Michael has recently uploaded another video on his YouTube channel. You can click the link below to watch the video:
2018-08-04 Kensington Gardens: Michael James discusses verses 21 to 25 of Upadēśa Undiyār
It has been shot in natural surroundings, so it is a visual delight. We can hear the chirping of birds in the background - it is like sweet music to the ears. This adds to the overall viewing experience.
Who is this ‘I’ which is aware of all these things?
In order to be aware of ourself as we actually are, we need to withdraw our attention from everything else and focus it only on ourself. What is it that is aware of all these things? Who is this ‘I’ which perceives all these things?
When we start out, our power of attention is relatively gross, so we are able to perceive only relatively gross things. What we are is something infinitely subtle, so our attention has to become subtle in order to attend to our subtle self. So by turning our attention within we are refining our power of attention - making is more and more subtle. In one verse of Arunachala Astakam Bhagavan says that when the stone called mind is polished on the mind – that is polished on itself… That means when we turn out attention on ourself, we are polishing and refining our power of attention until we are able to see what we actually are.
Our self-awareness is now mixed with various mental and physical adjuncts, so when we first look at ourself, we are looking at this adjunct-mixed self-awareness. But by trying to look more and more keenly at ourself – ‘who is it that is aware of all these things – our focus on ourself is getting sharper and sharper. We can only separate ourself from all our adjuncts by isolating our awareness.
In science, they may have various instruments and techniques to isolate a particular ingredient from other compounds, but we do not have any such instruments which will help isolate ourself. The only instrument we have is our power of attention. It is our attention which has given rise to this world. It is only because we allow our attention to go out that we perceive all phenomena. So attention is the key.
So now we have to use the same attention – we need to turn our attention back to ourself to find out ‘Who is aware of all these things? Who is aware of all these phenomena? Who am I?’ It is an extremely subtle process, but this is the only process to experience ourself as we actually are.
Edited extract from Michael’s video filmed on 10 June 2017 (1:01 onwards)
Sanjay Lohia,
thanks again for your transcription.
1. "In order to be aware of ourself as we actually are, we need to withdraw our attention from everything else and focus it only on ourself. What is it that is aware of all these things? Who is this 'I' which perceives all these things?"
ad 1. When I try to do so I only see
that the ego is aware of all these things and
that this ego is the 'I' which perceives all these things.
So I cannot even recognize that this sadhana is anyhow useful for me.
2. "So now we have to use the same attention – we need to turn our attention back to ourself to find out ‘Who is aware of all these things? Who is aware of all these phenomena? Who am I?’ It is an extremely subtle process, but this is the only process to experience ourself as we actually are."
ad 2. When I try to investigate this ego-'I' more keenly I do not come further.
3. "It is an extremely subtle process, but this is the only process to experience ourself as we actually are."
ad 3. That extremely subtle process does not become accessible to me - regrettably.
4. "It is only because we allow our attention to go out that we perceive all phenomena. So attention is the key."
ad 4. The reason of that permission is obviously that attention to inner subtle processes do seldom grant my longings to be fully happy.
5. When you write "That means when we turn out attention on ourself..." it presumably should mean "turn our attention"...
My Recollections of Bhagavan Sri Ramana
Devaraja Mudaliar.
Pg 92
--------
One summer afternoon I was sitting opposite Bhagavan in the old hall, with a fan in my hand and said to him: "I can understand that the outstanding events in a man's life, such as his country, nationality, family, career or profession, marriage, death, etc., are all predetermined by his karma, but can it be that all the details of his life, down to the minutest, have already been determined? Now, for instance, I put the fan that is in my hand down on the floor here. Can it be that it was already decided that on such and such a day, at such and such an hour, I shall move the fan like this and put it down here?''
Bhagavan replied "Certainly''. He continued: "Whatever this body is to do and whatever experiences it is to pass through was already decided when it came into existence.''
---------
Ergo, all volition is ignorance...summa iru.
Drik, I thank you for pointing out my typo.
We have unending questions, but ultimately only one question is important – Who am I? If we know ourself as we actually are, all our questions and answers will resolve in the fire of atma-jnana. So let us seek jnana with single-minded focus.
Bhagavan says in verse 1 of Upadesa Undiyar:
Karma [action] giving fruit is by the ordainment of God [the kartā or ordainer]. Since karma is jaḍa[devoid of consciousness], can karma be God?
This verse clearly implies that we are free to do actions by our freedom of will; otherwise, the question ‘action giving fruit is by the ordainment of God’ will be redundant. If we are not capable to do anything by our will, why is God required to give us fruits of our karmas?
So contrary to what people believe and infer from Bhagavan’s various recorded statements (which may not always be correct recordings), Bhagavan clearly implies in the above verse that we do have freedom of will. Yes, whatever we are to experience is according to Bhagavan’s will, but we have our will and this will is free to want and to try to change whatever Bhagavan has ordained for us.
In addition, we can draw this same inference after reading verse 38 of Ulladu Narpadu:
If we are the doer of action, we will experience the resulting fruit. When one knows oneself by investigating who is the doer of action, doership will depart and all the three actions will slip off. The state of liberation, which is eternal.
What are the three actions which will slip off? Bhagavan again implies here that we do have freedom of will, because if we do not have such freedom, why is Bhagavan talking about the three actions which will slip of. The three actions which will slip off are prarabdha, agamya and sanchita, and agamya means actions done by our will.
Further, we can also draw the same inference from the note that Bhagavan wrote for his mother. That is, we can read in this note that though we are free to desire and to act according to our will, we cannot change our pre-ordained destiny.
Therefore Bhagavan never meant that we have no free-will.
Anonymous,
"Ergo, all volition is ignorance...summa iru."
That is certainly not Bhagavan's general recommendation but your own home-grown conclusion. Predetermination is only the one side of the medal. Bhagavan also gave us many hints to use our free will and act of our own volition.
Just the given example of putting down the fan on the floor to an certain moment shows clearly that Devaraja Mudaliar was not at all forced to put down the fan on the floor but fairly free to do so in order to illustrate his question.
One should never be induced to derive from the given answer that there is no free will at all. That would be full humbug. Predetermination leaves enough space to think and act voluntarily/of one's own accord. Thus we are free to use our free will to do actions or not.
The next question could be: if Devaraja Mudaliar was predetermined to ask his question he was also predetermined to get that answer of Bhagavan. Was then also Bhagavan predestined to give that answer ? We would quickly reply 'no' because Bhagavan did not act as an ego.
Sanjay Lohia,
"So let us seek jnana with single-minded focus."
I gave up seeking jnana because it is always shining brilliantly.
Why seeking what is always there self-effulgent? :-)
KM. Jivrajani: In the early stages would it not be a help to man to seek solitude and give up his outer duties in life?
Bhagavan: Renunciation is always in the mind, not in going to forests or solitary places or giving up one’s duties.
The main thing is to see that the mind does not turn outward but inward. It does not really rest with a man whether he
goes to this place or that or whether he gives up his duties or not. All that happens according to destiny. All the activities
that the body is to go through are determined when it first comes into existence. It does not rest with you to accept or reject them. The only freedom you have is to turn your mind inward and renounce activities there.
Anonymous,
"The only freedom you have is to turn your mind inward and renounce activities there."
Turning the mind inward is actually a big amount of freedom. Why strive for still more freedom ?
Nimitta,
"Was then also Bhagavan predestined to give that answer ? We would quickly reply 'no' because Bhagavan did not act as an ego."
Bhagavan's body-mind was destined to give that answer. Not his ego because there was no such thing.
Yes, his intellect did work, he read, wrote, talked, added, subtracted, multiplied, etc.
Ramana had karma to fulfill with respect to Devaraja Mudaliar, that lucky man.
"The only freedom you have is to turn your mind inward and renounce activities there."
Yes, that is how our free will works. It cannot EVER change the actions of out body in this life! That will be eventually understood even by Sanjay Lohia.
Sanjay, we can use our free will to wish, hope, struggle, against any actions of our body, and that will create new karma of course, however what the body actually does was determined by birth and cannot be altered at all. The mind has no power whatsoever to alter the actions of ones body. Not in this life.
If you do not agree with that then you must be confused because you stated the same in a few comments of yours but I am afraid that these comments are just copy and paste jobs and not really completely digested by your mind.
You seem to be able to quote verses from Ulladu Narpadu and Nan Yar? but it seems that your strong bias let you be blind to certain aspects of Bhagavan's teaching. Just my observation.
What do you say about the recent post that the Talks were reviewed by Bhagavan according to V. Ganesan? How inconvenient or is there now another rationalization why the Talks are taboo on this forum?
My point it is not necessary to try to understand the complete karma theory but what is immensely helpful is the notion that all actions of our bodies are predetermined by birth. Who cares why and how as long as Bhagavan (and other sages) have stated that quite clearly. That clarity is lost by egos like Sanjay's who don't have the humility to accept that their power is limited in turning within. (What is actually all we need).
Not accepting prarabdha as described above is the refusal to surrender, it is as simple as that! It is a defilement by mind.
Salazar,
”...however what the body actually does was determined by birth and cannot be altered at all.”
Just to clarify my thinking of what you wrote, when you say “body”, are you referring to the gross, subtle or causal? Or all of the above together as one?...
On the same vein, are you considering the five sheaths together or separate?
Mouna, I do not think much about the 5 sheaths. I have no idea if prarabdha affects all 5 sheaths, it affects at least the gross body, however since these 5 sheaths are supposed to be interconnected it may be all of them.
When I talk about body I usually mean all 5 sheaths, I find it unimportant to go into much detail about these bodies and their apparent role and functioning.
The body is not real, nor are the five sheaths, so why giving it importance but for the satisfaction of the mind to have an "explanation".
In regards to the five sheaths I need only to know one thing stated by Bhagavan and that is that all 5 sheaths get "destroyed" simultaneously with vichara, they have not to be destroyed one by one. So in that regard it is most prudent to see them as one body only. Why looking for branches in the Fata Morgana of a tree?
Salazar,
I asked because if we consider “body” as “body/mind” then what you said before: "what the body actually does was determined by birth and cannot be altered at all” takes a different meaning than if we consider only the gross body not conected with the intellect or the feelings.
I think the whole discussion is already flawed from the beginning if we give the ego doership (what Sanjay does in his statements) by stating that ego has “freedom of will” (I never heard that phrase before nowhere, but I am philosophically and scholarly challenged, no doubt). We certainly have the "illusion of choice" in front of us when time and space are coordinates of our illusory existence as ego, but that doesn’t mean we control the only choice that will come out from that “freedom of choice”.
What is a fact is that we keep talking about the snake, instead of asking the question if there is one to start with. In this sense, I always liked the extreme non-dual descriptive (not prescriptive) fundamentalism of a Tony Parsons (yes, you heard me right) who cuts the crap and goes directly to the heart of the matter: "there is only what is, which it isn’t at the same time”. It really matches the ultimate teachings of Bhagavan. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Salazar, you seem to be saying that our mind is free to wish, hope, and struggle against any actions of our body, but our body is not free to do anything which is not in its destiny. However, as Mouna’s comment prompted me to think, Bhagavan says in verse five of Ulladu Narpadu:
The body is a form of five sheaths. Therefore all five are included in the term ‘body’.
Therefore all these five sheaths arise together and likewise subside together. In other words, all these five sheaths operate as one unit. Since this is the case, how can our mental sheath have the freedom to wish, hope and struggle, but at the same time our physical sheath have no freedom to act on this wish, hope and struggle? By saying that our mental sheath has freedom but our physical sheath has no freedom, you are separating our mental sheath from our physical sheath and making them into two separate entities, are you not?
I think if our mental sheath has the freedom to wish, hope and so on, our intellectual sheath and our physical sheath should also logically have the same freedom to act on this wish, hope and so on. Yes, the freedom of these sheaths is limited, because the destiny always has the upper hand and it has the right of first use of our body and mind. Therefore, as I understand, our physical, mental and intellectual sheaths have the same degree of freedom or bondage.
You write, ‘Yes, that is how our free will works. It cannot EVER change the actions of out body in this life! That will be eventually understood even by Sanjay Lohia’. I cannot comment anything on this, but one this I am sure – that is, we will eventually understand that we never had any destiny or will. It is because our destiny and will are only for the ego, but when we find there never was any ego in the first place, we will also discover that we never had any destiny or will. All these three – the ego, its destiny and its will – rise together and subside together.
You also wrote, ‘If you do not agree with that then you must be confused’. Yes, I agree, as this ego, I cannot but be confused. Our ego is a confused mixture of our awareness and all its insentient adjuncts, so as long as it exists it will remain confused. All our confusions will be removed only when we experience ourself as we really are because we are infinite clarity. As long as we experience ourself as this ego, our understanding and power are limited, no one can deny this.
However, to bring a closure of our discussion on destiny and free-will, let us give the final word to the ‘supreme court’ – Bhagavan Ramana. He teaches us in verse 19 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Only for those who do not have discernment of the root of fate and will is there dispute about which prevails, fate or will. Those who have known themself, who is the one origin for fate and will, have discarded them. Say, will they thereafter be associated with them?
So we need to know the root of fate and will in order to end all disputes on this matter. If we investigate our ego and see that it does not exist, all our concepts of destiny and will will also be destroyed along with it. This is the clear message in the verse quoted above.
Sanjay Lohia,
"So we need to know the root of fate and will in order to end all disputes on this matter. If we investigate our ego and see that it does not exist, all our concepts of destiny and will will also be destroyed along with it. This is the clear message in the verse quoted above."
I agree fully with you on this statement.
Discussions in a bit smart-alleck way does not even satisfy the inquisitive mind.
"So we need to know the root of fate and will in order to end all disputes on this matter."
I agree, nonetheless you suggest to try to change the habit of checking one's cell phone (and other things like diet), thus you state that we could do that. With that you have violated the statement above, because you have not gone to the root of fate and will what is transcendence but you have remained within the dyads what is delusional.
You used the statement above in vain. Also it is quite convenient to blame your ego, but is it learning anything? No, it just regurgitates and quotes the "holy" scripture undigested.
nimitta karana, you should not make comments like smart aleck when you are obviously have no clue and are as biased and confused as Sanjay. You guys are using quotes without having them properly digested and you are switching like schizophrenics from the absolute viewpoint to the ego-viewpoint without the maturity to navigate in these treacherous waters.
This forum a la Sanjay is like Bible study where confused people are seeking for meaning without the appropriate maturity but with the arrogance to not conceit where it is appropriate. Who can quote the best Bhagavan's texts? LOL
***********************
Mouna, I concur including the Parsons comment, however I do not concur with Parsons notion that any sadhana is not necessary. Is he Self-realized? I highly doubt it.
"Our ego is a confused mixture of our awareness and all its insentient adjuncts, so as long as it exists it will remain confused. All our confusions will be removed only when we experience ourself as we really are because we are infinite clarity. As long as we experience ourself as this ego, our understanding and power are limited, no one can deny this."
We are taught that we really are infinite clarity.
My self-awareness did never share that infinite clarity but only yield my longing for that infinite clarity. If it would help I would like to howl and weep with rage and pain.
It is undisputed that we have to be always grateful to get navigated safely by our captain Salazar in his widely known mature way through the treacherous waters of schizophrenia - thus negotiating every dangerous obstacle successfully.:-)
Sanjay uvach: "Karma [action] giving fruit is by the ordainment of God [the kartā or ordainer]. Since karma is jaḍa[devoid of consciousness], can karma be God?
This verse clearly implies that we are free to do actions by our freedom of will; otherwise, the question ‘action giving fruit is by the ordainment of God’ will be redundant. If we are not capable to do anything by our will, why is God required to give us fruits of our karmas? "
Freedom of will is an illusion. Feeling that "we are free to do actions by our will" is also an illusion. We need god to give us fruits of our karmas because that is how we make sense of the karma. You yourselves deduced that free will is as illusory as the ego is, but you did that only after your arguments were challenged. How can a pandit like yourself fail to separate reality and maya?
Sanjay uvach: "So contrary to what people believe and infer from Bhagavan’s various recorded statements (which may not always be correct recordings), ..."
So..., what makes your inferences true? How are you different from those you just patronized? Lohia, itna hawaa mein udata hai..., zameen pe aake baat kar...
/-/
Please, re. Sanjay Lohia, he cannot be possibly patronizing. He just has the direct connection the the supreme court of Bhagavan. :)
Salazar said:
"Not accepting prarabdha as described above is the refusal to surrender, it is as simple as that! It is a defilement by mind."
Exactly right.
Traditionally, there are at least 2 ways to accept prarabdha..
1) Jnani marga
2) Bhakti marga
Many a gas bag labours under the delusion that he is on path 1) when he is actually on path 2). Hagiographical outpouring clearly is path 2).
Anonymous, these "free will" advocates as in "I am the one who is controlling and directing my arms and legs etc." are immature seekers who show their immaturity with that belief. They belong into the lower or lowest class of seekers according to Sadhu Om.
Amazing how they rationalize clear statements by Bhagavan and others, what better example of the power of maya than that!
Eventually they will learn that the surrender of one's so-called will is the secret to Self-realization. They must even confuse vichara because vichara is the same thing. Vichara and the idea one can control the movement of one's arm are incompatible, they exclude each other, thus those "free will" advocates as explained above are quite confused about the true meaning of vichara/surrender and what it entails.
One cannot have free will [as in I control my arm] and also do [properly] vichara, that is impossible but for confused minds.
Following up on Nishta's comment about Ramana Periyapuranam, download here.
https://m.facebook.com/notes/the-teachings-of-ramana-maharshi/ramana-periya-puranam-inner-journey-of-75-old-devotees-by-v-ganesan/10153706852496294
Salazar, I agree with you when you say:
"One cannot have free will [as in I control my arm] and also do [properly] vichara, that is impossible but for confused minds."
That is why the word/notion of "vichara" should not be bandied about casually.
Sure, one can make a beginning, but apart from Ramana I can't think of anyone who "completed" vichara.
Vichara is the question without an answer because all answers are false. The question must dissolve itself and that cannot happen as long as there is "free will" or "ego".
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 25
Forgetting self, which gives you light to see, and being confused, do not run after this appearance. The appearance will disappear and is hence not real, but self, the source of you can never disappear, so know that alone is real.
Reflections: As we were discussing yesterday, when we forget our real nature and experience ourself as this ego, we will always be confused. As this ego, we are confused and deluded, and therefore we run after all these fleeting appearances. We do not realise that there is no happiness in things external to ourself, because these things are all asat (unreal) and jada (insentient) and hence devoid of happiness.
However, our real nature is sat (what is real) and sentient, and we are happiness. Thus we should try and turn away from all unreal appearances and investigate ourself. Eventually, this process will result in the destruction of our ego. Once this happens we will recapture our own fort which seems to be with our enemy at present.
The king of our enemy is our ego, and the soldiers of this king are our vishaya-vasanas. Our aim is to kill the king because if we are able to do so, his soldiers will automatically surrender to us. However, to make this king weak we need to kill his soldiers one by one as they attack us. This is akin to destroying our vishaya-vasanas as and when they rise by vigilant and keen self-investigation.
Since in this battle Bhagavan is our charioteer – like Sri Krishna was for Arjuna – our victory is assured. It is only a matter of time. However, as Sri Krishna advised Arjuna, we should fight this battle without attachment. What is preventing us from turning within a full 100%? It is our desires and attachments. So we need to surrender all our desires and attachments to Bhagavan and investigate ourself without care and concern for anything external.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 26
Is the word ‘real’ befitting to this world, which is seen only by the illusory and changeful mind, but not by self, the source of the mind? As self knows itself alone to be, any imagination such as this world is entirely non-existent to it and thus is never seen by it.
Reflections: This world is unreal – it is nothing but another dream. Like our other dreams, this present so-called ‘waking state’ is also just a creation of our mind and is seen only by this mind. It is important to state this fact over and over again in order to impress this on our mind. This is because if we take this world to be real, it will be difficult to turn away from it.
So if this world is unreal, what is real? The underlying base or aadhara of this world is real. This aadara is ourself as we actually are. In fact, there is nothing called an unreal world, because this world simply does not even exist. What exists is only one non-dual self, which is infinite and eternal self-awareness. Bhagavan says in the second half of verse 18 of Ulladu Narpadu:
For those who do not know, the reality is the extent of the world; for those who have known, reality pervades devoid of form as the support for the world. This is the difference between them. Consider.
Most of the spiritual and religious teachings prompt us to turn away from ourself towards this world and an outside God. It is because these teachings are based on the premise that this world is real. Conversely, Bhagavan's teachings are a powerful reminder of the fact that this world is utterly unreal, and therefore we should know what is real. What is real is only ourself, so we can know what is real only by knowing ourself, and to know ourself we need to turn within.
JaiHind,
It is called the "ahankara' of the pandits. We have couple of self-styled pundits here with huge ahankar because they feel they are more qualified to lecture others. They refuse to step down from their pedestals. Such is the nature of the ego. Let them have their fun at the expense of those they feel should be patronized. After all "Bhagawan" said that there are no "others" but only the Self or Brahman or whatever other name by which you may wish to call the Nameless.
An interesting thought experiment.
We still think about free will or the absence of it in linear/temporal terms. Another point of view will be to consider this whole dreamlike ego projection as a whole. I like the Tao Te King description of it as “the uncarved block.” All possibilities are already there ready to be actualized in and by our spatial/temporal illusory framework.
In that regard, and since everything has/is/will take place what it seems to us being the cause of a future action (free will / doership in the form of a thought) may well be the “effect of a cause in the future”, because in order that that action be actualized, other actions (or thoughts) need to precede it.
From this point of view, pre-determination goes beyond the simple idea of cause/effect since a cause can well be effect and viceversa.
Practically speaking, sometimes we have the feeling that certain thoughts “appear” in a bizarre way without connecting with a past tendency, specially when they are creative or “out of the box”, and intuitively feel they are necessary components for events to come, which may well have created those thoughts in the past!
Just an interesting thought experiment within the non dual dream...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7xjJm8bUEA
we just dream on
Michael rightly said that that are we "I" who should find out if this is all a dream, are w e ready to see the world go down ? The problem is in " We", am I ready?
https://youtu.be/SHSLt8W0hME
https://youtu.be/WqMWFhtx5d0
Last minute conclusion....
The ego is the ultimate cause of everything, but it is through its will that the ego causes everything else to appear
Bhagavan refers to anandamaya kosa as irul (darkness), because anandamaya kosa is actually the will. When the ego functions as the willing entity, it is called the chittam, and chittam is the storehouse of our all our desires, likes, dislikes and so on. So this ananyamaya kosa or chttam is the ego’s subtlest sheath. However, the ego is not a sheath.
Anandamaya kosa is also called the karana sarira (causal body), because everything is caused by our desires. When we rise as this ego we have all these desires, and these desires are the cause of this world and everything else. So in this sense anadamaya kosa is the karana sarira. But who is it who likes to rise and experience so many things? It is the ego. So the ego is the ultimate cause, but it is through its will that the ego causes everything else to appear.
We can have desires for the things other than ourself only in the darkness of self-ignorance. If we were aware of ourself as we actually are we will be perfectly satisfied, because our real nature is happiness. As a finite person what we experience is always finite, so it is always imperfect. So the very nature of the ego is dissatisfaction. So we seek all these objects of this world – all the physical, mental and intellectual pleasures – because we are dissatisfied. But actually, there is no happiness in any of the things we desire. Happiness is only within us.
In fact, our desires do not have any awareness of their own. It is we who are aware, and it is we who desire. Not only are all our desires jada but they are also asat. That is, they do not really exist, even though they may seem to exist. They seem to exist only when we rise as this ego, but when we subside back into our source, as we do every day in sleep, they no longer exist. So they do not really exist - they are mere appearance.
Only we, who are sat and chit, actually exist, and none of the things we take to be ourselves actually exist. They are all asat and jada.
Edited extract from Michael's video: 2018-08-04 Kensington Gardens: Michael James discusses verses 21 to 25 of Upadēśa Undiyār (0:20 onwards)
Reflections: Buddha said that the desires are the root of all our problems. However, Bhagavan goes deeper - he teaches us that the ego is the root of even our desires. Though these desires are the basic problem for the ego, the ego itself is its most fundamental problem. If we can prevent our ego from rising, no desire can ever come into play. So ultimately we need to get rid of the ego to get rid of all our desires.
As Michael says our desires are jada and asat, and hence they have no existence of their own. It is only when we attend to them that these are fed and nourished. So in order to give up our desires and attachments, we need to ignore them and instead attend to ourself. This is by far the quickest and most effective way to give up all our desires and attachments.
Sanjay uvach: [...This is because if we take this world to be real, it will be difficult to turn away from it...]
Is that so? Around 800,000 people, who kill themselves every year, disagree.
Sanjay uvach: [Most of the spiritual and religious teachings prompt us to turn away from ourself towards this world and an outside God. It is because these teachings are based on the premise that this world is real.]
What are these "most" that were brought up? Care to name some? Without evidence, this is, at best, an incorrect generalization.
Sanjay uvach: [Buddha said that the desires are the root of all our problems. However, Bhagavan goes deeper - he teaches us that the ego is the root of even our desires.]
Another one? Why is one compelled to paint RM in a good light? Is that the meaning of devotion?
In the same condescending tone, one can say that Buddha went one step ahead of RM, and said there's no Self at all - nothing at all (Anatta). But that's perhaps just a semantic difference in their teachings. Would Lohia's ego not like to see what is beyond the Self? If you are willing to be judgmental, why then not go after someone who claims an even deeper realization of nothingness?
Mumukshu uvach: [It is called the "ahankara' of the pandits. We have couple of self-styled pundits here with huge ahankar because they feel they are more qualified to lecture others. They refuse to step down from their pedestals. Such is the nature of the ego.]
True. When talking with a foreigner, Buddhism was called upon like a pawn in support of India's spiritual legacy, but little did the poor, unsuspecting, innocent BuddhaPawn know that he was soon to be sacrificed in another post...
"Nobody should be shinier than RM".
Religions, gods, teachings, books, spirituality, my ego, your ego, other mukta beings - these are all chess pieces to play with, so that the "king", RM, is exalted above everyone else. RM standing shoulder to shoulder with any other lineage is a sin. "He has to be #1. I need HIM to be #1, GAWWWWWDDAMMIT!!! I ALWAYS CHOOSE #1..."
Salazar uvach: [Please, re. Sanjay Lohia, he cannot be possibly patronizing. He just has the direct connection the the supreme court of Bhagavan. :)]
(To Lohia:)
Oh la-di-da, pardon me Panditji! I am just a 'gutter ka keeda' (a worm who lives and dies in the gutter). Thanks for the patronage, Sir. I know that
all of this is boosting your ego: "Look at me! I can take crap."
. . .
(Sheepishly scurries back into the rusted pipes.)
/-/
The pure self-awareness which shines as ‘I’ is the real import of the word ‘I’
Verse 21 of Upadesa Undiyar:
That [the one infinite whole that appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’ where the ego merges] is at all times the substance [or true import] of the word called ‘I’, because of the exclusion of our non-existence even in sleep, which is devoid of ‘I’ [the ego].
The real import of the word ‘I’ is only the pure self-awareness which shines within us as ‘I’. When I say, ‘I am Michael’, that person is not what ‘I’ actually am. I am only ‘I am’ in that ‘I am Michael’, and this ‘I am’ is the true import of the word ‘I’. If I was not self-aware, I would not be aware of myself as Michael. So even when ‘I’ rise as the ego and experience myself as ‘I am Michael’, I am aware of the underlying self-awareness.
The ego appears against the background of self-awareness. The ego is a mistaken self-awareness, a confused self-awareness, an awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are. So what the word ‘I’ refers to is only that self-awareness. ‘I am’ must precede, logically, ‘I am Michael’. There can be no awareness of ourself as anything without the basic self-awareness. That basic awareness of ourself, according to Bhagavan, is the true import of the word ‘I’.
Then Bhagavan gives a logical reason for this. It is because we exist in sleep when this ego does not exist, the real import of the word ‘I’ is only that self-awareness. This real ‘I’ shines in all our three states – waking, dream and sleep. We say ‘I am awake’, ‘I slept’ or ‘I dreamt’ – so there is an ‘I’ underlying all these three states.
‘I’ plus the ego and phenomena are waking and dream; ‘I’ without the ego and phenomena is sleep. But our real nature does not merely exist in all our three states, but it clearly shines in all the three states. Even now what we are aware of as ‘I’ is nothing but pure self-awareness. It just happens to be seemingly concealed in the view of the ego, because the ego takes itself as ‘I am this’, ‘I am Michael’.
‘I’ is the centre of our whole life – I want this; I want that; I hope this; I fear that… Thus our whole life is centred around this ‘I’. However, the ‘I’ around which our life is centred is the ego. What underlies this ego is the real import of the word ‘I’.
Edited extract from Michael's video: 2018-08-04 Kensington Gardens: Michael James discusses verses 21 to 25 of Upadēśa Undiyār (0:08 – 0:16)
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 27
Fear not on seeing this empty world, which appears as a dream in the sleep of self-forgetfulness. This imaginary and bondage-causing world-picture, (projected on the background) of the dark, dense mind, will not stand in the light of supreme knowledge, sat-chit-ananda.
Reflections: Bhagavan has always maintained that this world can appear only in the sleep of self-forgetfulness. He conveys this message beautifully in verse one of Ekatma Panchakam:
Know that one’s formerly forgetting self, thinking a body alone to be oneself, taking countless births, and finally knowing self and being self, is only waking up from a dream of wandering about the world.
As this person, we live in fear and die in fear. We are always apprehensive and fearful about the unknown tomorrow, and, simultaneously, we have many regrets about our past. What is our greatest fear? It is perhaps the fear of death. Thus we hardly live in the present. Bhagavan knows this weakness of ours, so he has written in verse 15 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Past and future stand holding the present. While occurring, they too are actually the present. The present is the only one. Not knowing the reality of now, trying to know the past or future is trying to count without one.
So we need to live in the present and, eventually, merge in the eternal present. Only then will all our fear vanish forever.
Jaihindji: Please remember this blog is meant only for Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi's teachings. No disrespect is intended toward Buddha or any other spiritual teacher or sage here. Bloggers here will naturally extol Sri Ramana Maharshi since they are his die-hard devotees. Why are you upset about it? There will always be a few scholars in every blog who post majority of comments and seem to take charge of the blog. You seriously cannot expect anyone posting comments on what the great Buddha said here, can you? Best wishes to you.
JaiHindji: No one knows exactly what the Buddha actually taught. His original teachings have been corrupted and substituted by the people over the centuries according to their own understanding. I seriously doubt if Buddha denied the existence of TuriyaAtman or Brahman or the Transcendental Reality. He only denied the existence of the jiva or the ego which is taken to be imaginary self. He may have denied the existence of the various Gods or God per se because of which his teachings was never embraced by the God loving Hindus and so it spread across the east of Hindustan. Perhaps you can enlighten us what the Buddha actually taught.
The Resident Disciple brought up the Buddha in order to inform us that RM goes even further...etc. Now, it is evident to me that neither the Master nor the Disciple is worth listening to on anyone other than RM. You may not agree, so Whatever floats your boat, as they say.
Quote from a recent comment above by Mr.Lohia.
The pure self-awareness which shines as ‘I’ is the real import of the word ‘I’
Verse 21 of Upadesa Undiyar:
Quote from Michael in same comment above.
So even when ‘I’ rise as the ego and experience myself as ‘I am Michael’, I am aware of the underlying self-awareness.
Quote.
This may be true for Bhagavan and for Michael. But no, not for me. In my own experience I am not directly aware of the underlying awareness at any time waking, dreaming or sleeping. For an ordinary person like me who is not a Jnani and who identifies only with the cidabhasa all the time how can I be ever be directly aware of the underlying pure awareness unless me or I as cidabhasa am totally erased and destroyed by Cit or the underlying pure awareness like it happened to Bhagavan? Perhaps Michael himself would care to reply on this.
adhistana, greetings
"But no, not for me. In my own experience I am not directly aware of the underlying awareness at any time waking, dreaming or sleeping.”
I am not jnani to tell you anything, and maybe Michael can answer your query much better and to the point. But I couldn’t help responding before he does (if he does).
Let me ask you: do you “feel” you are existing right now, or rather you feel you are not existing?
Also, if you feel there is existence going on at this moment, it means you know it, right? (you can’t say no…)
That existence and that knowing (or awareness of that existence) is what people refers as underlying self-awareness or self or brahman or whatever, as simple as that.
Turning one’s attention towards that “feeling” (figure of speech) of existing, and knowing it, is all that is required.
Cidabhasa is turning attention towards everything else but not that existence/awareness.
Recognizing and staying in that awareness/existence or consciousness/being” is call abiding and is the fruit of atma-vichara. Also, we may notice that this “underlying” feeling of existence (actually is not underlying, it all permeating!) is borderless, infinite, timeless and carries a “sense of profound peace and expansion”.
That is why is called satyam/sat (existence), jnanam/chit (awareness), anantam/ananda (infinite peace)
Don’t take my word for it, I just shared what helps me recognize what is really but really going on here.
Trying to keep it simple also...
Good luck on your path brother or sister.
Post a Comment