When Bhagavan says that we must look within, what does he mean by ‘within’?
Last month a friend wrote me an email in which he asked me to clarify certain aspects of Bhagavan’s teachings, including what he means by ‘within’ when he says that we must look within, and whether the source of the individual self can be within that same individual self, so this article is adapted from the reply I wrote to him.
Everything other than ourself (including not only our body and breath but also all our thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions, memories, beliefs, desires and so on) is external to ourself, so what is ‘inside’ or ‘within’ is only ourself. When we attend to anything other than ourself we are looking away from ourself, so we need to turn back 180 degrees, so to speak, to look at ourself alone. This is what Bhagavan means by turning within or looking inside.
There are not two selves, a real Self and an individual self, because we ourself are one. However, so long as we experience ourself as Kevin, Michael or any other person, we are not experiencing ourself as we actually are. What you refer as ‘the Self’ is ourself as we actually are, which is pure self-awareness, ‘I am’, uncontaminated by even the least awareness of anything else, but when we are aware of ourself as if we were a person, that mixed and contaminated self-awareness, ‘I am this person’, is what is called ego, which is what you refer to as the ‘individual me’ or ‘individual self’.
What you refer as ‘the Self’ is what Bhagavan generally refers to as ātma-svarūpa, which literally means the ‘own form’ or real natural of oneself, or just as svarūpa, meaning one’s own real nature. Our real nature is ourself as we actually are, whereas ego is ourself as we seem to be. These are not two different things, just as a rope and the snake it seems to be are not two different things.
The rope is not a snake, but the snake is nothing other than a rope. Likewise, our real nature is not ego, but ego is nothing other than our real nature.
If we see an illusory snake, how to see what it actually is? All we need do is to look at it very carefully, because if we look at it carefully enough we will see that it is just a rope. Likewise, if we look at ourself, this ego, carefully enough we will see that we are just pure self-awareness, uncontaminated by even the least awareness of anything else.
When we look at what seems to be a snake, what we are actually looking at is only a rope, even though it continues to look like a snake until we look at it carefully enough to see what it actually is. Likewise, when we look at ourself, who now seem to be this ego, what we are actually looking at is only our own real nature (ātma-svarūpa), even though we continue to seem to be ego until we look at ourself carefully enough to see what we actually are.
What is the source of the illusory snake? It is only the rope. And where is it? It is inside the snake, metaphorically speaking. Therefore if we look deep inside the snake, we will see its source, the rope.
Likewise, what is the source of ego? It is only our real nature. And where is it? It is inside ego, metaphorically speaking. Therefore if we look deep inside ego, we will see its source, our real nature.
Our real nature is pure self-awareness, which is what we always experience as ‘I am’. Ego is the adjunct-mixed self-awareness ‘I am this body’ or ‘I am this person’. Within this adjunct-mixed self-awareness, ‘I am this body’, is pure self-awareness, ‘I am’. All we need do is remove all adjuncts, because what will then remain is only this pure self-awareness, ‘I am’. It is so simple.
How can we remove all adjuncts? As ego we attach ourself to these adjuncts (everything that makes up whatever person we currently seem to be) by projecting them in our awareness (just as we do in a dream), so to remove them we must try to be aware of ourself alone. This is why Bhagavan said that attention is the key. By attending to anything other than ourself we rise as ego, and by attending to ourself alone this ego will dissolve and cease to exist, and what will then remain is only pure self-awareness, our real nature.
As Bhagavan says in verse 16 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
Since our fundamental self-awareness, ‘I am’, is what now seems to be ego, the false awareness that is aware not only of itself but also of other things, in order to attend to our own fundamental self-awareness all we need do is attend keenly to ego, because when we seem to be attending to ego, what we are actually attending to is only ourself.
When we mistake a rope to be a snake, what we are actually seeing is just a rope, but with the added belief ‘this is a snake’. This added belief is like the adjuncts that we as ego mistake to be ourself. This added believe can be removed only by our looking at the snake carefully enough to see that it is actually just a rope. Likewise, all the adjuncts that we as ego mistake to be ourself can be removed only by our looking at ourself, this ego, carefully enough to see that we are actually just pure self-awareness.
Our aim is to experience and just be the pure self-awareness that we actually are, but in order to do so we must investigate ego. Since we now experience ourself as ego, we cannot attend to ourself except as ego, just as when we see a rope as a snake we cannot look at it except as a snake. However, by looking at the snake, we see that it is actually just a rope, and thereafter we can never again mistake it to be a snake. Likewise, by keenly attending to ego, we see that we are actually just pure self-awareness, and thereafter we can never again mistake ourself to be ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that we should look within, what he means is that we should look only at ourself, this ego (the subject who perceives all objects, the one who is aware of everything else), because when we look at ourself keenly enough we will see that what we actually are is not the ego that we seemed to be but only pure self-awareness.
Everything other than ourself (including not only our body and breath but also all our thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions, memories, beliefs, desires and so on) is external to ourself, so what is ‘inside’ or ‘within’ is only ourself. When we attend to anything other than ourself we are looking away from ourself, so we need to turn back 180 degrees, so to speak, to look at ourself alone. This is what Bhagavan means by turning within or looking inside.
There are not two selves, a real Self and an individual self, because we ourself are one. However, so long as we experience ourself as Kevin, Michael or any other person, we are not experiencing ourself as we actually are. What you refer as ‘the Self’ is ourself as we actually are, which is pure self-awareness, ‘I am’, uncontaminated by even the least awareness of anything else, but when we are aware of ourself as if we were a person, that mixed and contaminated self-awareness, ‘I am this person’, is what is called ego, which is what you refer to as the ‘individual me’ or ‘individual self’.
What you refer as ‘the Self’ is what Bhagavan generally refers to as ātma-svarūpa, which literally means the ‘own form’ or real natural of oneself, or just as svarūpa, meaning one’s own real nature. Our real nature is ourself as we actually are, whereas ego is ourself as we seem to be. These are not two different things, just as a rope and the snake it seems to be are not two different things.
The rope is not a snake, but the snake is nothing other than a rope. Likewise, our real nature is not ego, but ego is nothing other than our real nature.
If we see an illusory snake, how to see what it actually is? All we need do is to look at it very carefully, because if we look at it carefully enough we will see that it is just a rope. Likewise, if we look at ourself, this ego, carefully enough we will see that we are just pure self-awareness, uncontaminated by even the least awareness of anything else.
When we look at what seems to be a snake, what we are actually looking at is only a rope, even though it continues to look like a snake until we look at it carefully enough to see what it actually is. Likewise, when we look at ourself, who now seem to be this ego, what we are actually looking at is only our own real nature (ātma-svarūpa), even though we continue to seem to be ego until we look at ourself carefully enough to see what we actually are.
What is the source of the illusory snake? It is only the rope. And where is it? It is inside the snake, metaphorically speaking. Therefore if we look deep inside the snake, we will see its source, the rope.
Likewise, what is the source of ego? It is only our real nature. And where is it? It is inside ego, metaphorically speaking. Therefore if we look deep inside ego, we will see its source, our real nature.
Our real nature is pure self-awareness, which is what we always experience as ‘I am’. Ego is the adjunct-mixed self-awareness ‘I am this body’ or ‘I am this person’. Within this adjunct-mixed self-awareness, ‘I am this body’, is pure self-awareness, ‘I am’. All we need do is remove all adjuncts, because what will then remain is only this pure self-awareness, ‘I am’. It is so simple.
How can we remove all adjuncts? As ego we attach ourself to these adjuncts (everything that makes up whatever person we currently seem to be) by projecting them in our awareness (just as we do in a dream), so to remove them we must try to be aware of ourself alone. This is why Bhagavan said that attention is the key. By attending to anything other than ourself we rise as ego, and by attending to ourself alone this ego will dissolve and cease to exist, and what will then remain is only pure self-awareness, our real nature.
As Bhagavan says in verse 16 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
வெளிவிட யங்களை விட்டு மனந்தன்‘வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு’ (veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu), ‘leaving aside external viṣayas [phenomena]’, means ceasing to attend to anything other than ourself, and ‘மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தல்’ (maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdal), ‘mind knowing [or investigating] its own form of light’, means mind attending only to its own fundamental self-awareness. Just giving up attending to external phenomena is not sufficient, because we do so whenever we fall asleep, so what is required is just that we attend only to ourself, that is, to our own fundamental self-awareness, because if we do so we will thereby give up attending to anything else.
னொளியுரு வோர்தலே யுந்தீபற
வுண்மை யுணர்ச்சியா முந்தீபற.
veḷiviḍa yaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉantaṉ
ṉoḷiyuru vōrdalē yundīpaṟa
vuṇmai yuṇarcciyā mundīpaṟa.
பதச்சேதம்: வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām.
அன்வயம்: மனம் வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): maṉam veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām.
English translation: Leaving aside external viṣayas [phenomena], the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness [true knowledge or knowledge of reality].
Since our fundamental self-awareness, ‘I am’, is what now seems to be ego, the false awareness that is aware not only of itself but also of other things, in order to attend to our own fundamental self-awareness all we need do is attend keenly to ego, because when we seem to be attending to ego, what we are actually attending to is only ourself.
When we mistake a rope to be a snake, what we are actually seeing is just a rope, but with the added belief ‘this is a snake’. This added belief is like the adjuncts that we as ego mistake to be ourself. This added believe can be removed only by our looking at the snake carefully enough to see that it is actually just a rope. Likewise, all the adjuncts that we as ego mistake to be ourself can be removed only by our looking at ourself, this ego, carefully enough to see that we are actually just pure self-awareness.
Our aim is to experience and just be the pure self-awareness that we actually are, but in order to do so we must investigate ego. Since we now experience ourself as ego, we cannot attend to ourself except as ego, just as when we see a rope as a snake we cannot look at it except as a snake. However, by looking at the snake, we see that it is actually just a rope, and thereafter we can never again mistake it to be a snake. Likewise, by keenly attending to ego, we see that we are actually just pure self-awareness, and thereafter we can never again mistake ourself to be ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that we should look within, what he means is that we should look only at ourself, this ego (the subject who perceives all objects, the one who is aware of everything else), because when we look at ourself keenly enough we will see that what we actually are is not the ego that we seemed to be but only pure self-awareness.
Posts
528 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 528 Newer› Newest»Salazar,
I always thought that there is no incurable disease, but after reading your comment I am now in great doubt if there is any remedy or curative treatment for such a pigheadedness.:-)
Good question, relevant for all - not only for the questioner alone.:-)
I read (past tense) the question above "If our ego cannot even concede to a minor thing...".:-)
Isn't it good that the 'I-thought' is absent in deep sleep ?
So take your bedtime and lie down to sleep; sleeping is very refreshing.:-)
Hi Sam,
You mention Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya: What is this? Is a document available?
Hi Salazar,
Thanks for "75 old devotees". V. Ganesan says:
He [Munagala] 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.
Also Godman says that a portion of Talks was reviewed by Bhagavan as part of a court deposition.
I agree with MJ that there are translation errors in Talks. However, that is hardly reason to entirely ignore the document which covers 4 years of teaching. Talks gives a radically different message than MJ: people have different temperaments, no single teaching works for everyone, and many other various methods are endorsed as resulting in the goal.
Salazar, regarding the sanskrit terminology "nirivikalpa samadhi" and so forth. it's used by Bhagavan and Sankara and may be useful for contemplation.
Venkat delightfully quotes RM above 'jnanis fix their sight in the substratum even during activity'.
MJ has said that the only way is when the body and world disappear from awareness (nirvikalpa).
However, placing attention on the "substratum" and thus separating from mental & emotional distraction during activity may be essential.
Sam, I also appreciate your comments on "the world".
The advaita descriptions of world as maya and world as unreal are for contemplation.
The "ego" moves towards pleasure (acquiring that which is desirable) and away from pain.
Thoughts about escaping from the world are just more ego activity.
Roger,
referring to the last sentence of your recent comment "...are just more ego activity."
Continuous misinterpretation MJ must be a big pleasure for you.
Is that real (your) happiness/ananda ?
Should there be not an end of troublemaking thoughts ? How can you ever remain as the self with cultivating such restless thoughts ?
Hi Josef,
You are making a general commentary "continuous misinterpretation".
Can you provide a specific instance?
MJ claims to have the ONLY way to God and is not realized. He implies that Buddha, Sankara et al could not have been realized because they didn't follow MJ or atma vicara.
Apparently you think we should allow such statements to go unchallenged?
What is your issue with identifying corruption ?
Roger,
may you provide a specific instance where
1. MJ claims to have the ONLY way to God.
2. He implies that Buddha, Sankara et al could not have been realized because they didn't follow MJ or atma vicara.
As far as I am concerned I am generally not exactly a friend of corruption.
If I would consider MJ as being stricken by corruptedness I would not study his articles and comments at all.
Oh Salazar,
your silence kept in sleep did evidently not last long. Your words indicate that you could not enter the kingdom of heaven. Instead you seem to be contaminated by the mind's ignorance.
As you know the mind is only the aggregate of thoughts and thoughts cannot exist but for the ego. Therefore all thoughts are pervaded by the ego. If you are wise you would seek wherefrom the 'I'-thought rises...and then all the other thoughts will disappear.
Yes Salazar,
in this regard you are completely right.
Therefore bye-bye for now!
Huike, the Second Patriarch, said to Bodhidharma, “My mind is not yet at
rest. Master, I implore you, set my mind to rest.”
The master replied, “Bring your mind here and I’ll set it to rest for you.”
Huike said, “I’ve searched for my mind, but am unable to find it.”
“There,” said the master, “I’ve set your mind to rest.”
Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya – Part 1 of 2
Roger,
Kaarana means cause, Kaarya means effect, and prakriya means analysis, or investigation or methodology. So, Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya simply means Cause-Effect Analysis, whereby one seeks to establish that the world, including one’s body-mind in it, is nothing but mere names-and-forms, the underlying substance being Brahman or Consciousness.
Below is a lucid account of it. [Roger, in the below explanation keep in mind that body-mind is like pot - mere name, form and function - while Consciousness is like clay, the substance underlying body-mind. So, Consciousness alone is the reality or sathya; and, body-mind is mithya. So, everything in the world is ONE, Consciousness, the differences being merely in name and form.]
The cause produces only name, form and function
By D. Venugopal
(Source: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/venugopal/venugopal38.html)
The question that arises out of this discussion is as to what the cause produces, when the effect is pre-existing in it. When the pot is made, what exactly is it that comes into being. The clay, which has been a lump, is now in a different form. The clay in the new form can be now put to particular uses. Since it has a specific form and particular uses, this clay now gets a new name, namely, the pot, for identifying it during the daily transactions. The effect that the cause brings about is production of name, form and function. Kärya is näma, rüpa and karma. When the clay is shaped into different forms with different uses, the same clay gets different names. Even so, many names, forms and functions do not mean many substances since all of them are made only of clay. When we say pot, there is no independent substance called the pot but only clay from which the pot is made.
Causation does not bring about any change in clay as a substance. In the following conversation, clay enlightens the pot-maker on this point:
Pot-maker to clay: See what I have done! You were earlier a lump of clay; I have now converted you into a shapely pot.
Clay: What do you mean? I have not become anything different. I continue to be the same clay as before.
Pot-maker: How is it that you miss very evident things? Earlier you were a lump. Now you are shapely. Earlier you had no particular use. Now you can be used for carrying water and for a variety of other jobs. Earlier you were called clay. Now you are called a pot. Are these not changes?
Clay: I do not understand you. With shape or without shape, I am only clay. With use or without use, I am only clay. I may be called a pot or anything else; but I continue to be only clay. Now tell me what change has taken place to me as clay? I have undergone no change at all!
The pot-maker had no answer to give to clay!
The word “pot” sits on the tongue only and does not cover any substance. Chändogya Upaniñad says: Pot is only a name dependent on speech. The product is merely a verbal distinction. In reality, only clay exists.
We have only words and their meaning. We think that there are tangible objects for which we have the words. But, these are just words and their meanings. The word, “pot” has its meaning which we understand and we can communicate it to others. This is vyavahära or transaction. But, we consider that the object that we perceive is the meaning of the word. But our notion does not give the pot, for example, that kind of tangibility. This is because “pot” has no being, as the is-ness of the pot belongs to clay. The capacity to go beyond the pot and see clay without doing anything to the pot or the clay is Vedänta. The pot continues to be pot and clay continues to be clay. But, our understanding of them becomes different.
(CONTINUED below in Part 2)
Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya – Part 2 of 2
What exists is the clay and not the pot
The reality that underlies all changes of forms is the substance itself. Change of form does not produce any change in substance. Every time we see the pot, the substance that we see is nothing but clay. When the substance remains the same in all forms and the change does not affect the substance, the change into forms cannot be considered as change, as far as the substance is concerned. So, from the angle of the substance, the change is not considered as real. For example, Devadatta, sitting, standing or lying is considered to be the one and the same person. In the case of the clay and the pot, we, however, tend to think of the pot not as an apparent change of the clay but consider the pot as a new substance and call it a clay pot. If we hold it in our hand and ask someone as to what it is, we would invariably get the answer that it is a pot. However, when we touch the pot, we are only touching clay. When we see the color of the pot, we are seeing only the color of clay. When we feel the texture of the pot, we are feeling the texture of only clay. The weight of the pot is only the weight of clay. However, we regard the substance 'clay' as a substance 'pot'. We can use the two words, pot and clay for the same thing only when both words mean the same thing. The clay must be the pot and the pot must be the clay. To arrive at this conclusion, pot must pass the anvaya-vyatireka test. Applying this test, we find that whenever the pot is present, clay is also present. Therefore, there is anvaya or invariable co-existence. However, whenever the pot is not present, clay can be present as a lump or as many other objects made of clay like the lid, bowl, and lamp. So, there is no vyatireka or invariable co-absence. Since the pot and the clay have not stood the test, they cannot be equated and used as synonyms.
Again, when we say ‘clay pot’, pot becomes the substantial noun and clay as the attribute of pot becomes an adjective. Nevertheless, in reality, clay is the substance and pot is the attribute, which is a particular form and usage of clay. Therefore, clay has to be the noun and pot has to be the adjective. The right expression would therefore be ‘potty clay’ and not ‘clay pot’. The grammatical error in the expression ‘clay pot’ arises out of the error in understanding. We confer substantiality on pot that does not have any substantiality being only a name, form and function of clay and deny substantiality to clay, which is the actual substance. When we say, “pot is”, the is-ness or existence belongs to clay and not to the pot. The is-ness of the pot is entirely borrowed from clay. Overlooking this fact is the basic error.
P.S.: Roger, Let me know if the above explanation makes it clear for you.
So much theory here about "Self" without having realized "Self" like Bhagavan Ramana who actually did. Like the "so called master and teacher" of this blog like his students.
Even the Master and Bhagavan Sri Ramana of Arunachala having actually realized Self remained silent. But there is non-stop yapping about "That Self" having not realized it.
Such Jnana from Happiness of Being Ashram I have not seen anywhere else.
Hi Sam (if that's an acceptable nick name),
I will read your posts.
thanks,
Hi Josef,
I used google advanced search looking for "no other way" and "only way" on the blog. A few quotes follow.
Clearly, Michael James knows the "only way" which is Atma Vicara and there is "no other way".
IF Atma Vicara is the ONLY way, how do we explain other greats (such as Buddha, Sankara, Krishna etc) who did not mention "Who am I?" as a technique? I do not believe that MJ's statements include Buddhism.
Also:
MJ insists that the ONLY way is to "experience the self alone" which is no body or world in awareness (nirvikalpa samadhi). This conflicts with other sages including Bhagavan (for example in Talks and Godman) and Sankara.
When an unrealized person claims "the ONLY way" this is intellectual conviction or belief and NOT from realization.
This places the speaker in conflict with virtually all other teachings and teachers.
This is called EGO.
quotes from MJ:
Ātma-vicāra is therefore a battle between our love to experience ourself alone (sat-vāsanā) and our liking to experience other things (viṣaya-vāsanās). In order to succeed we must just persevere in trying to be self-attentive as much as possible. There is no other way.
...we will be able to understand why he said so often that self-investigation is not only the direct means but also the only one by which we can experience ourself as we really are.
Self-investigation is the only way to wake up...
There is no other way, and no shortcut.
This attempt to be clearly aware of ourself alone is what is called self-attentiveness or self-attention, and it alone is the correct practice of self-investigation or ātma-vicāra as taught by Sri Ramana.
the only way to deprive our ego or mind of the nourishment that it requires to survive is to try to attend to ourself alone.
If we want all thoughts to wither away, the only way to make them do so is to try to attend to ourself alone, thereby ignoring them.
therefore investigating ourself or meditating on ‘I’, our ego, is the one infallible means to destroy all karma. Indeed, it is the only mean by which we can destroy it, because it is the only means by which we can destroy the illusion that we are this finite thing called ‘ego’.
The only way to free ourself from all thoughts, including their root, this ego, is to try to watch, observe, witness or attend only to ourself, who are what now seems to be this ego.
the only way to separate ourself permanently from all adjuncts is to destroy this ego
So long as we are attending to anything other than ‘I’, our mind is active, so the only way to keep it still (without falling asleep or into any other such state in which the mind subsides without clear self-awareness) is to attend only to ‘I’: in other words, to be aware of nothing other than ‘I’.
Roger,
You are welcome. Yes, you can certainly address me as "Sam", which has been my nickname since my teenage years.
Eventually, we recognise that whatever sadhana is being done, is being done through us rather than by us
In the course of our sadhana, two types of bhava (attitude towards God) are talked about. There is the monkey bhava and there is the kitten bhava. A baby monkey clings firmly to its mother in order to be kept safe. Whereas, the baby kitten doesn’t know how to cling, in fact it cannot cling to its mother, so it just cries out for help. In response, its mother comes and picks it up by the scruff of its neck and carries it.
Bhagavan has clarified that the spiritual path begins with the monkey bhava. First of all, we have to cling firmly to God. We have to cling firmly to self in our heart. But as we progress along the spiritual path, our ego gets more and more attenuated. As its outward desires become weaker and weaker, it surrenders itself more and more. We yield more and more to God. So we slowly progress from the baby monkey attitude to the kitten attitude.
That is, when we reach a certain stage of our spiritual development, we will think, ‘I am doing nothing; I can do nothing’. How can we cling to self-attentiveness if not by the grace of Bhagavan? So it is all entirely done by him. Eventually, we recognise that whatever sadhana is being done is being done through us rather than by us.
The effort has to be made – we have to cling – but how are we clinging? It is only because of the love that he has given us. There is nothing else we can do but to cling because he has taken away all our desires for other things. He has given us love only for himself, so clinging becomes our second nature. It doesn’t feel like ‘I am clinging; I am a great devotee’. It feels ‘I am totally worthless. He has taken possession of me. It is all his grace’.
Bhagavan used to often say ‘Grace is the beginning, middle and end’. Grace is the love that Bhagavan has for us or the love that we (as we actually are) have for ourself (as we actually are).
Edited extract from the video: 2018-10-11 Holland Park: Michael James discusses verse 4 of Śrī Aruṇācala Padigam (21:00)
Reflections: In what stage are we? Are we in the baby monkey stage or in the kitten stage? I think I am somewhat in between. I need to cling to self, but without Bhagavan pull from within such clinging can never take place.
Hopefully at the time of death, "I" being unable to cling to the body any longer, will try to grasp my substance, while being deprived of all the sense perceptions.
Our eternal 'I' is not a thought. The 'I-thought' is already the first thought 'I am this body' because the ego is always connected with the 'I am this body'-idea. In the moment the 'I'-thought rises on waking all other thoughts rush out spontaneously.
Indeed 'I am' stands alone by itself.
Regarding "sheer BS-concepts":
Why worry about anything ?
There is only one consciousness - beyond thoughts.
In deep sleep there is no 'I'-thought. It arises on waking and then the world appears.
The real 'I' is subsisting through all the three states of waking, dream and sleep.
Do not allow yourself to be distracted. :-)
Hi Salazar,
I like your talking about gross body, subtle bodies etc...
I can try to communicate this... although nothing of substance can be communicated.
IMO each of us may have different entry points, all slightly different depending on temperament.
If you say that you know the "bodies" by contemplation on "I" then I can't disagree and look forward to your discussing the subject.
The "body" is a key for me. I followed Barry Long's suggestions. I don't need to make him an unquestioned authority nor did he advise that. He says "don't accept anything I say without first finding it to be true in your experience".
His main suggestion is to go into the "sensation" or subtle energy in the body.
For example: sit meditatively and for an extended period of time (as long as necessary) put your attention into your hands (or any body part) and discover "what is the sensation there?"
There are other levels to this... but that would be a digression.
See the book "Stillness is the way" and various tapes and his web site www.barrylong.org... or ask me. :-)
A key point is: when the sensation is found in awareness, the mind is held because the sensation is subtler than digressive thinking.
I sink into the sensation all the time. That is my primary practice or simply what I am.
I say "mind is held" because "I" is occluded when thought runs away one thought leading to the next actually obscuring attention. When "mind is held" a thought may arise... but inward attention is maintained.
He didn't say this, but the sensation is the "vital body", pranamayakosha, or energy body. It is the same thing that kundalini yoga excites but in this case we are not stimulating it... just putting attention on it. Bhagavan discusses this in various places (another possible digression).
When you rest fully in the sensation / energy throughout the whole body... then the next layer may be revealed: the sensation / energy may "wink out" leaving only "I", or the causal body. In other words the physical layer has dropped away to reveal the energy layer, and then the energy layer drops away to reveal that which is finer than energy: it is as if the body is subtle as a thought... or just space.
The distinctions seem somewhat arbitrary, but yes the energy body is an outer layer. It is not necessarily pure "I". BUT is it subtler than the gross body, subtler than digressive thought, and so YOU ARE THAT at a particular level, and since putting attention on it holds thought this is extremely valuable.
Also when the energy body falls away revealing body as subtle thought or space (without physical material or energetic qualities) ... this too is not "I" as the causal body could be called just another layer (from a particular perspective). What or Who is observing these phenomena?
But "I" or "I AM" is splendidly there separate from the material body & energy bodies. When the outer layers have been reduced.. then there "I AM".
Realizing that you aren't just the physical body has been called important. To discover your relationship with the bodies... just place your attention there into the body meditatively and the reality will be known. Although... perhaps by contemplation on "I" the same can be known.
This is another perspective on the blogs title: what is meant by "within" ?
Sam
I would not rely too much on Venugopal's write-up of Vedanta. It is a sterile, rather dull book, which parrots his teachers (Dayananda and Paramarthananda), and repeats their duplicitous criticism of Bhagavan's self-enquiry.
Roger - I'd say the freshest explication of the cause-effect prakriya is still Sankara's Aparoksanubuthi.
"...visions, beautiful sounds or smell, and so on..."
I am happy when people show good comprehension:)
Bhagavan taught us definitely to ignore all of that but look for that what is experiencing it.
Roger,
I do not see any disparagement of any other forms of practices in Michael's articles. When Michael states the indispensable necessity of atma-vichara he never neglects to give sound reasons for his statements.
Regarding your criticism of Michael "IF Atma Vicara is the ONLY way, how do we explain other greats (such as Buddha, Sankara, Krishna etc) who did not mention "Who am I?" as a technique? I do not believe that MJ's statements include Buddhism." I agree what Salazar addressed yesterday to you (22 October 2018 at 21:31): "So in the end it IS vichara even when it was not particularly mentioned or acknowledged."
If this world is real then God has to be finite
While I was surfing the net yesterday, I found a video by Swami Mukundananda in it. He seems to be a famous guru in the USA. Some of our friends from America may know about him. He seems to be proficient in sastras. In this video, he was seen discussing whether or not this world is real. He started first by quoting Sri Sankara where he says that this world is mithya (unreal). However, then he quoted about 7 to 8 other acharyas who apparently have said that this world is real. Mukundananda said that he agrees with both these viewpoints.
He concluded that only our inner world is unreal. All our thoughts, desires, feelings and so on are unreal. However, he claimed that this manifested solid world is real. He said that our mental world is our creation so it is unreal, but the outer world is God’s creation so it is real. However in the course of his lecture he also stated that God is infinite and non-material, so how can our mind and intellect know God because these instruments are limited and made up of matter?
There were quite a few fallacies in his arguments. He was not able to clearly tell us the difference between the inner world and outer world, which he claimed is not alike. According to Bhagavan, whatever world we experience is unreal – these are all creations of our mind. Bhagavan has given us clear and logical arguments to prove his point. Whatever world we experience appears to be real while we experience it. Even when we dream we consider that world to be just like the present world. So how can one prove that this current world is not just another dream?
Also, Mukundananda said God is infinite and non-material, which is true. But he simultaneously claimed that this world is real. However, can these two statements be true simultaneously? If God is infinite, this world has to be unreal. It has to be nothing more than a dream. If this world is real than God cannot be infinite because a part of this infinite space will be occupied by this so-called ‘real world’. So if this world is real, God has to finite. So Mukundananda’s arguments were not in accordance with simple logic.
This is where Bhagavan is so unique. His teachings are clear, coherent and logical. He has given us the essence of all sastras. Others may confuse us instead of clarifying matters. This is how I look at it. However, some may find such lectures useful.
All the subtle bodies are also a creation and parts of mind, which operates our senses of smell, taste, sound, touch, vision and that's it. Mind works only within the realm of these senses. I can apply my 5 senses to my body, but how to apply the senses to "I"? Funny part is that we use the senses when we want to know something, they are operated by our attention to some extent, however how do we taste, see or hear I? We cannot, because I is the subject and well known to itself, it does not have to be called out by a name. Since mind operates only senses, it cannot even touch the realm of Self.
And also, since everything that mind and body has to experience has been already predetermined from the very beginning to the end like in a dream, is there anything to do and who can do anything but to humbly await the dissolution of the mind and the body while cultivating the desire to know "I" and only "I"?
Sanjay,
how can one judge the reality of the world or anything else if he cannot even say whether his own self-awareness is real or not ?
Making inferences from sense-informations is frankly short of evidence.
Without knowing the knower one gets into a risky area and is on shaky ground.
Thanks Venkat, I downloaded Sankara's Aparoksanubuthi.
Hi Josef,
you say "I do not see any disparagement of any other forms of practices in Michael's articles":
See below for disparagement. "only way" is itself a disparagement, a claim of superiority.
Competition with other teachings is an OUTWARD movement of ego into the world, it has nothing to do with a spiritual practice.
You say quoting Salazar "in the end it IS vichara even when it was not mentioned or acknowledged".
History records many people that were probably enlightened. Some of them left substantial teachings such as Buddha, Krishna, Sankara et al.
You disparage them all by saying that in their teaching they somehow missed the key element responsible for their enlightenment... and you just happen to have it.
The real question is: why do YOU have this need to feel superior in the world?
If you say that Atma Vicara is the best for you, fine, but when you say that Atma Vicara is the only way for everyone... this is ego.
Learn from Krishnamurti who MJ attacks in multiple blogs.
"K" points out that the incessant need to acquire is the issue.
We may all recognize that acquiring money, power, fame, the best sports team, the fastest car, the best meditation cushion etc.... is all just the outward movement of the ego into the world.
AND guess what, having the "only way" to Self is just another egoic acquisition.
By closely examining that which differs from our preferences... we learn!
A different spiritual teacher warned "judge not". Why is it that on this blog judging is a primary feature?
Michael says:
Which spiritual teachings are truly credible?
Why the teachings of J.Krishnamurti are diametrically opposed to those of Sri Ramana
What Krishnamurti teaches is diametrically opposed what Bhagavan teaches us
Regarding Nisargadatta, though he is reputed to be an ātma-jñāni, we cannot know what his inner state actually was. In the English books that record his teachings there seems to be a lot of confusion and lack of clarity...
Therefore generally I find that what Eckhart Tolle writes is at best only superficially similar of Sri Ramana’s teachings, and that careful scrutiny shows many glaring differences between them.
No doubt there have been many other teachers who MJ has judged... but I'd have to read ALL the blogs.
Hi Salazar,
Have you come to the conclusion that liberation from the ego is:
a) One in which Brahman alone is the witness, with no ego to have any volitional action or desire. This arguably implies an indescribable, almost 'mystical' change in state
or
b) One in which the ego is ameliorated to such an extent, that it enables the body to continue to function, but without any personal fear or desire - and without such personal fears / desires, it therefore acts 'impersonally', which means its acts will be for the benefit for the whole, because its identification is with the whole rather than the fragmentary me (but without any specific desire to do so). This is I think JK got at in terms of a radical de-conditioning of the mind.
They are both similar but also different. If (b), then arguably the ego does have a role to play in 'detaching' itself, and acting in ways that are in harmony with the understanding. If (a), then the ego has no control, and all it can do is step aside and look inwards, and leave the rest to Brahman.
I don't know the answer to this - would be interested in your perspective. Thanks.
Hi Salazar,
There seems a misunderstanding here that due to prarabdha we have no responsibility for our actions.
Perhaps this makes more sense for the seeker who has withdrawn from the world. And it makes sense from the advaita level.
But... there are multiple levels to consider. Moral restraint is a prerequisite for advaita. See the document recommended by Venkat Aparokshanubhuti where Shankara states exactly that in verses 104-105.
Michael James fails the basic moral requirement due to arrogance. A mind which insists that it knows all, that it has the ONLY WAY for all people for all time and sits in judgment of other spiritual teachers and practitioners is identified with a spiritual teaching. This may be a "good" or satwic attachment but it's still an identification.
To quote a famous interpreter (Michael James!):
As Sri Ramana taught us, enquiring about others is anātma-vicāra (investigating what is not ourself), so it will not benefit us in any way.
Making judgments about other teachers, and claiming to have the only way in a sea of different teachings are outward movements of attention.
If MJ actually believes what he teaches... then he'd withdraw from the world into full time practice.
Having always a counter-argument/reply and self-made imaginations ready - everyone will see how far he will come with such kind of self-deception.
At any rate it is Bhagavan's teaching that questing 'Who am I' within one's mind, that is questing with the mind turned inwards whence the 'I' rises, will be alone the enquiry leading to self-knowledge.
To seek and abide in the reality which is ever attained is alone true liberation, the state of non-emergence of the ego-'I'.
Hi Josef,
When you say "having a counter-argument/reply ready" you are referring to yourself?
Roger,
not exactly.:-)
Salazar,
you say "Especially that a mind is holding to something - that is nonsense."
At the moment I can't remember in what context I could have asserted "that a mind is holding something".
Salazar,
"Diving deep" by enquiring whence the 'I' springs is done certainly by the mind.
According Bhagavan: Only then when one reaches thus the heart the individual 'I' sinks crestfallen, and ...at once reality manifests itself spontaneously as 'I-I'.
Diving deep into one's mind is of course spoken metaphorically for keen investigation.
So what truly I am is therefore the supreme light, the source of supreme peace.:-)
Hi Venkat,
Regarding your question:
somewhere in the rig veda there is a description of self realization,
something like:
"I saw all of the equipments (ie mind, body, emotions) as if from a great distance forever uninvolved and untouchable."
Recently I found the same description in Barry Long's "From here to eternity":
Suddenly I am the Supreme Being, supreme consciousness. I see existence like a tiny sphere far, far away and start physically laughing because I know that nothing in existence - no sensory effort and not even love - can reach me or be what I am. I am above all.
From these descriptions the final disposition of the ego remains uncertain.
Salazar says that "There is only one self. Jesus Christ, Bhagavan and the Buddha never truly existed but as self and they are all the same one self."
If there is only one self - also called jnana - how can there be anyone excluded of it ?
Therefore a jnani sees nothing apart from him.
Are only the three mentioned sages the same one self ?
Are not rather we all included in the supreme consciousness, in eternal silence ?
Of course that has first to be realized in the depth of our heart.
Therefore diving deep within is necessary.
Our real nature is ourself as we actually are, whereas ego is ourself as we seem to be. These are not two different things, just as a rope and the snake it seems to be are not two different things. However, pure consciousness is indivisible, i.e. it is without parts and includes all. Nothing is outside or apart from it. It has no form and shape, no within and without. That is true.
Hi Venkat,
Are there other works especially of Shankara that you find compelling?
I have 2 translated by Nikhilananda which seem essential:
1: Drg-Drsya-Viveka
2: Mundakopanishad with Gaudapada's karika and Shankara's commentary
and another:
3: A Thousand Teachings translated by Mayeda
And your suggestion: Aparoksha-Anubhuti is also good.
I like these concise works. There is hardly a need to look elsewhere.
BTW, for Michael James and some others here a quote from the Aparoksha-Anubhuti: :-)
132: Only those in whom this consciousness (of Brahman) being ever present grows into maturity, attain to the state of ever-existent Brahman; and NOT others who merely deal with words [2].
[2]: "Deal with words": Engage themselves in fruitless discussions about Brahman by variously interpreting texts bearing upon It.
Because pure consciousness is indivisible even the most dull-witted are not excluded from self !!! Not even Salazar.:-)
Our destiny has brought Bhagavan into our lives; however, whether or not we try to follow his teachings depends on our freedom
A friend: Some people are making effort to know who they really are. Is this their prarabdha?
Michael: No, prarabdha is concerned with what you experience. However, whether or not you are making efforts to turn within is totally dependent on your will. Do you have the love to know the truth or not? This is independent of your destiny.
The fact that we have come to know about Bhagavan is our destiny, but what use we make of this will be decided by our will. We are free to put his teachings into practice or to ignore them. Our destiny is helpless here.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-07-14 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: discussion with Michael James on Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 8 (1:52)
Reflections: We may have the most sublime spiritual texts in our house – we may, for example, have texts such as Bhagavad Gita with us. We may even read this, but the love with we read it depends on our will. We may read such texts without trying to go deep into their meaning or may read them with full interest – all this depends on our will. Again, whether or not we try to practise what Gita teaches us depends on our will.
Therefore, our spiritual life is a warfare between the opposing elements of our will. It is our will which is keeping up bound, and the same will liberate us if we use it to turn within. Our outward directed will is our only problem.
"Nama Rupa Thinks It's Me" by Annette Nibley
Check out http://www.whatneverchanges.com/blog/files/nama-rupa-thinks-its-me.html
Is it not our good prarabdha to be allowed reading all interesting explanations of Salazar ?
Even having a vision of Bhagavan Ramana's face implies the seer. The nature of the vision is the same as that of the seer. A vision cannot be eternal, so the value of the vision is the same as that of the seer.
Perhaps even the self-forgetfulness of the ego inclusive the "end of the story" are possibly predetermined.:-)
Salazar, Roger
Thanks you for your comments. Apologies for not responding early - back from work, in the evening, so have some time now. As an aside, I wholly concur with you on Swartz and his 'enlightenment business'
S, as you know, when you describe the thoughts coming up for Bhagavan without premeditation, etc - that is true for us too. It is just that we also have the thought that I am the originator of this thought, I am the actor, etc. But this is our fundamental error.
I'm not sure if you have read Sankara's Upadaesa Sahasri? I would recommend it. Whilst Bhagavan focused on the method, Sankara focused on the philosophy of advaita. I think they are complementary. See what you think.
7.1 Because I am the one who always perceives everything that enters the mind, therefore I am the Absolute, the supreme, omniscient and all-pervading.
7.5 The object only manifests in the mind and only when the mind itself is manifest (waking or dream). When (as in dreamless sleep) the mind is not manifest the object has no existence. Therefore because the Seer is constant, duality does not exist.
7.6 As long as the mind failed to discriminate, it supposed that no Supreme (ie transcendent) being existed. But after discrimination, it apprehends nothing other than the Supreme, not even itself as mind.
8.1 O my mind, my true nature is pure consciousness, connection with taste and other objects of physical experience is due to your delusion. No result whatever accrues to me from your activities as I am free from all distinctions.
8.2 Therefore give up actions based on illusion, and attain to permanent cessation from striving for the unreal. For I am ever the supreme Absolute, liberated, unborn, one without a second.
10.13 He who though seeing duality when awake, yet on account of his awareness of non duality does not see it as if he were asleep, and who is apparently active yet really actionless for the same reason - he alone is a knower of the Self.
12.13 He only is a knower of the Self who has first known that the Self is the unbroken Witness and is not an agent, and who then gives up the notion that he is himself a knower of the Absolute.
14.23 If you know that desires and efforts and the individual sense of 'I' and 'mine' are by their very nature void of all application to the Self, then just remain established in your Self. What is the use of active efforts?
16.73 Just as one does not identify oneself with the body of another, so does one not identify oneself with one's 'own' body after vision of the Supreme. Having obtained this supremely pure knowledge one becomes totally liberated.
17.23 A man should carry out the best forms of physical and mental asceticism if he wishes to purify his mind, the highest goal. `the mind and sense should be kept constrained and under control. The body should be exposed to the rigours of the climate.
18.222 In order to perform the discrimination necessary to find the meaning of the word 'thou' there must be renunciation of all action. This is the right means. For the Veda teaches 'peaceful, self-controlled'.
19.8 O my mind, here thou art of the nature of non-existence. For when the matter is scrutinised thou canst not rationally be said to exist. The real, O my mind, cannot be destroyed, and neither can the unreal be born. Thou art both born and destroyed. Therefore thou art non-existent.
Thanks Sam regarding Annette's page.
I like those teachers that have somehow convinced me that they speak from the realized state. Even if they lived centuries ago.
I'm not sure that any of the growing crop of non-duality & advaita teachers are actually realized.
When an unrealized person teaches advaita... it is done as an intellectual conviction or belief which is entirely different than teaching from the realized state. And the neo-advaita schools ignore prerequisites (meditation to first still the mind) which seems to make realization unlikely.
BTW: the book "A thousand Teachings" aka "Upadesasahasri of Sankara" translated and edited by Sengaku Mayeda might be of interest. From the jacket: Mayeda is (or was?) professor and chairperson of the Department of Indian Philosophy and Buddhist Studies and the University of Tokyo.
Hi Salazar, Venkat, and Roger,
I agree that Annette Nibley may not be self-realised. But I find that as long as we are able to sift the chaff from the grain, we have something to learn even from those who are not yet self-realised, much like we learn from each other on this blog.
Highly recommended is studying Salazar-Upanishad, the new edition of Swami Salazarananda.:-)
Religions tell us that God has created this world, but why would God create anything?
If God is infinite satisfaction and happiness, why would he spoil all this by creating anything? Creation is an action, and all actions stem from our dissatisfaction, unhappiness or desire. God is never dissatisfied or unhappy. He does not have any desire so it would be absurd to claim that this world is God’s creation. God just is. He is what is – ulladu. Creation happens because of the power of God's presence, but it has no will or intention, and without these, it can make no effort to create anything.
Why do we create anything? It is because of our need, greed or desire. We build a house because we have the need for shelter. Some people try to create a business empire because of their greed for more and more wealth, praise or whatever. Even artists paint, sing or create some piece of art because of some need, which may not be always material. It could be an emotional need. He or she is unhappy and such artistic pursuits give them some satisfaction.
So ego is the only creator. It uses the energy inherent in God to create things, but God is not even aware that its shakti is being stolen by ego to create this world. In fact, in God’s view, there is no creation.
there is only one meditation -- the rigorous refusal to harbour thoughts.
Nisargadatta
"My point is..."
Enquiring for whom is having point is good tapas.
"...it came from grace according to many sages."
What is grace ? Wherefrom will grace come ?
Is not the self our grace ? Grace is the self.
Salazar,
Do not get excited. I unfortunately cannot control my thoughts; it must be my prarabdha.
But panic-stricken I follow just your advice and do not identify with ego. So you may go home with your mind set at ease.
When the sense of 'I am the body' arises then the notions of 'you' and 'he' also arise.
Therefore the notions of 'you' and 'he' cease only when the sense of 'I am the body' is put an end.
Our brilliant graphic artist will still win the highest acclaim. What an ornate work of art ...:-)
The imbecilic nincomPOOP Salazar who is supposed to have attained Jnana and liberation as he himself claims just like Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi who ACTUALLY did, is getting very, very angry and agitated.
I wonder what for? He can kiss Papaji's no good ASS for all we care. It seems the nutcase Salazar is feeling very, very lonely in his loony bin where he has been locked up by Lord Ishwara. Alas, what a pity! Lol! Hahahaha!
Since many have posted so many worthless comments here (except a few of course), I thought I would be allowed to post a couple in praise of the absolutely "fucking moron Salazar".
In our spiritual journey, we need to be like an expert gardener
Though our will has many elements, we have the ability to weed out the bad elements and to cultivate the good ones. A gardener wants to grow certain vegetables in his garden, but so many weeds will also come along with the plants. The gardener has to constantly remove these weeds in order to make the vegetables grow. This is what we are doing in our spiritual path. We are constantly trying to weed out the bad tendencies and to cultivate the good ones.
Good ones do not mean the tendencies to do so-called good actions. Any desire to do any action is a bad tendency because our real nature is being and not doing. So we have to weed out the vasanas which draw our minds away from ourself and cultivate the vasanas which draw our minds towards ourself.
Every thought is a rising of a vasana. Our attention to that thought is like water to a plant. So by attending to our thoughts we are nourishing them, or by withdrawing our attention from our thoughts we are depriving them of the nourishment they need to flourish.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-07-07 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 18 (1:07)
Salazar,Sam, Roger
I was just reading Kena Up, and came across Sankara's commentary on v2.4:
"Being the witness of all cognitions and by nature nothing but the power of Consciousness, the Self is indicated by the cognitions themselves, in the midst of cognitions, as pervading all of them. There is no other door to Its awareness. Therefore when Brahman is known as the innermost Self of cognitions, then is It known, then there is Its complete realisation. Only be accepting Brahman as the witness of all cognitions can it be established that It is by nature a witness that is not subject to growth and decay, and is eternal, pure in essence, the Self, unconditioned and one in all beings."
"Only be [correctly it is meant 'by'] accepting Brahman as the witness of all cognitions can it be established that It is by nature a witness that is not subject to growth and decay, and is eternal, pure in essence, the Self, unconditioned and one in all beings."
So the only task remaining for the 'accepting ego' is to carry out its own dissolution.
Venkat, Salazar, Roger,
Thanks, Venkat, for quoting S's commentary on K.Up. I guess the I-thought or ego or the I-sense or ego-sense is also an "object" to that Consciousness. That is why Bhagavan says in UN that Consciousness or Self does not need to say "I", body cannot say "I", so in between these two something arises and says "I" and apprehends its limits as the body. Using kaarana-kaarya prakriya, we can say that just like the body is a name-and-form whose underlying substance is Consciousness, the "I-thought" (which Bhagavan equates with mind and ego) is also a name-and-form manifestation of the underlying substance of Consciousness. So, we, that is Consciousness, are a witness even of the I-thought or what we ordinarily mean by "I', the ego-sense. Right?
Hi Sam
That is how I understand it as well.
There is only consciousness. A separative I-thought arises that identifies with an apparent body, that is deemed to be separate from the world. From this a whole series of fear-desire based thoughts arise, and we proceed to interpret the world as good and bad, for us or against us. And this becomes so immersive, that we take all of our (environmentally-programmed) ambitions / desires / fears to be real. It is like a movie or a video game where we are closely identified with the lead character and his/her tribulations.
Advaita and Bhagavan are both teaching us that we are not, and we do not need, any of these things (neti, neti), and thus when all this is negated - thought is realised to be useless - then we 'just be' in silence. The super-imposing thought is no longer taken seriously, and so does not attach and propagate itself, and we are just left in consciousness. "Killing the ego" is poetical; it is the cessation of the super-imposition of thoughts on consciousness.
As you and I discussed previously, everything is just consciousness = energy = clay, from which arises a manifestation of energy in the shape of a form, which is transmitted through light waves (=energy), which is then captured by sense organs (also a manifestation of energy), and which transmits energy through nerve cells to the brain, which inexplicably forms an image of what is 'outside'. It is all just energy playing with itself. The kaarana-kaarya prakriya indeed. There is no birth, no death. Nothing ever happened. Nothing really matters.
Summa iru is indeed the highest instruction.
Thanks Salazar
I think we posted simultaneously. Not sure if you'd agree with what I've just written?
From your experience, when you are silent, watching the world, but also watching your body-mind-thoughts as they respond to the world . . . that watcher, which sees both the world (seemingly) outside, and the feelings-thoughts (seemingly inside), but which in itself can only be imputed as the undifferentiated substratum . . is that not what vedanta says is Brahman?
What's up with the filthy disgusting language that appears at times?
It must give one an advantage over another or make the user feel superior.
It is really pathetic that a blog like this ends up with this garbage.
Salazar,
I tend to agree with Venkat's presentation of the matter, although there is not much wrong with what you are saying, considering also the fact that you are speaking from experience. When you bring in Reflected Consciousness (Chidabhasa), that is what Bhagavan refers to as ego, and he says that this ego is unstable unless it identifies itself with a body as "I". As far as the Witness-consciousness is concerned, if it is thought-free, then thought-free consciousness has been referred to as Self by Bhagavan - I can give the quote (which I had quoted sometime back on this blog) if you are interested. But. I can see how you an I can trip over these terms and concepts. The fundamental fact to keep in mind is that Only Pure Consciousness is the real deal, and rest all, ego et al, are mere names and forms and hence unsubstantial or mithya. That perspective, which is Viveka, gives rise to Vairagya, which dovetails nicely into Nididhyasana (after of course a the above Sravana and Manana). Again, I cannot emphasize enough that once you keep the Kaarana-Kaarya Prakriya in mind and mull over all its deep and subtle implications then you will be hooked on to Nididhyasana. I am quite open to your critique of these viewpoints of mine.
All the different names 'I-thought', the 'first thought 'I', 'witness', the sense of 'I', 'mind', 'ego', 'intellect', 'reflected light', 'reflected consciousness', 'inner organ' (antahkarana) and 'suttarivu' do not denote the self in its purity (atma-svarupa).
morrison,
you ask "What's up with the filthy disgusting language that appears at times?"
Do you not know that a "real jnani" has no need to feel responsible for his filthy speech.:-)
Salazar, (and Venkat)
I have reached this understanding based on Kaarana=Kaarya Prakriya. Whatever be these terms and concepts floating around, like chidabhasa, ahamkara (ego), mind, body, intellect, prana, etc., they are all after all various forms named so, with different kinds of relations between them theorised. The point is to reject all forms, that is disregard them as mithya, and focus attention (now, don't trip me by asking "who is the one who is focusing the attention) on Consciousness, which is done by being thought-free (which is the same as not paying attention to the forms, be they thoughts, feelings or perceptions), that is, summa irau (be still), which is the be-all and end-all of sadhana. Don't you think so?
Hi Venkat, Sam,
nice comments thanks.
Hi Salazar,
you say "However in the classical sense a witness is a subject-object relationship between a seer and seen. Brahman is not witnessing any objects, so in that regard Brahman cannot be the witness for me.
For me the "subject-object" relationship is the key and not well understood.
MJ teaches that all objects must be eliminated from awareness and we must experience "ourself alone" with NO objects, no world or body in awareness and this is the ONLY way (right?) But this is only one facet.
During waking state, the illusion is: ownership, doership, identification and attachment to objects. The fact that objects appear in awareness is NOT the issue.
The illusion is when awareness becomes invested in objects for example when awareness is lost in digressive thought and emotion. IF awareness can be increasingly maintained on "I" or "I AM" or "Being" in the presence of objects... then what else can be done?
I like the ancient saying (although I seem to be the only one):
I am THAT,
Thou art THAT,
All this is THAT.
This saying proposes a progressive realization.
Initially "I" realize my unbounded immortal nature... but objects still exist separately. It is only with "All this is THAT" where all of creation is realized as my essence then the subject-object relationship is eliminated totally.
Being still (as just being) is correctly called 'summa iru(ppadu)'.
Roger,
I very much agree with you when you characterize one's progress in realization as:
"I am THAT,
Thou art THAT,
All this is THAT."
Because only then there is nonduality. Anything short of that is duality. The last two statements, by the way, occur in Chandogya Upanishad (as you may already know):
Thou art THAT = Tat tvam asi
All this is THAT = Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma
The first one, "I am THAT" (Aham Brahmasmi) occurs in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.
The above three statements have to be the case because the differences between "I", "Thou", and "All this" are only at the level of name and form, and hence not really any differences at all, and not at the level of underlying substance, which in all cases is only Consciousness.
Creation of the Universe - Part 1 of 3
(from Swami Paramarthananda's Commentary on Drik-Drsya Viveka)
What is creation? Creation can be defined as the production of an effect or a product from a cause. When an effect is produced out of a cause what happens exactly? What is the mechanism? The words cause, effect, etc., are normally used very loosely. Take the example of a potter making a variety of earthenware, like pot, jug, etc., out of a lump of clay. Clay is said to be the cause and the varieties of earthenware are said to be the effect. We say that the potter has produced, created or made many pots. The author asks the question: when one says that the potter created the earthenware, what has the potter created? On enquiry we find that the potter has not produced or created anything at all. In fact, nobody can create anything. Matter can never be created or destroyed. Thus the potter has not produced even an ounce of matter. He has not produced any substance at all. Previously there was clay and now also there is only clay alone. Then why do we say that the potter has created a pot? Then we come to know that the meaning of the word ‘creation’ is nothing but adding a shape to the already existing clay. The potter cannot and does not produce anything and all his efforts are to add a shape to the wet clay. Before shaping, there was only clay and after shaping also there is only clay. Before the shaping it is called clay. When the shape is given, the very same clay is given a new name, pot. What has the potter done? He has not produced anything. He has given a rūpam (shape or form), and in keeping with the shape, a new nāma (name) has been given, either pot or jug or plate or lid, etc. Addition of varieties of nāma-rūpa (name and form) is called creation, not production of substance. Addition of configuration to a substance is called creation. Cause plus addition of nāma-rūpa is creation. Clay plus nāma-rūpa is equal to earthenware. Gold plus nāma-rūpa is equal to ornaments. Wood plus nāma-rūpa is equal to furniture. Cause plus addition of nāma-rūpa is called ‘production’ of an effect. This is lesson number 1.
Now we will go to next lesson. It was said that the potter does not produce anything but that he gives only shape. The next question that is asked is from where does the shape come. Where does the potter bring the shape from? The shape is not added by the potter. All shapes are already present in the clay itself. The spherical clay has all the geometrical shapes in potential form. Spherical shape is nothing but all the shapes in unmanifest form. Clay contains all the names and forms of earthenware in potential condition, called avyakta nāma-rūpa (unmanifest nāma-rūpa). The potter does not do anything to the substance, clay, but only brings the unmanifest nāma-rūpa into manifestation. Nothing is produced including the nāma-rūpa. Substance plus unmanifest nāma-rūpa is called the cause. The same substance plus the manifest nāma-rūpa is called the effect. What is the benefit of the efforts of the potter? He has neither created the clay nor has he created nāma-rūpa. He has only changed the unmanifest nāma-rūpa into manifest nāma-rūpa. This nāma-rūpa transformation is called creation. Creation is the manifestation of nāma-rūpa upon the substance, which substance remains the same before and after the manifestation. This is lesson number 2.
(Continued below)
Creation of the Universe - Part 2 of 3
What about the creation of the universe ? The universe must also be a basic substance with the manifest nāma-rūpa. If the universe is a created substance, a product or an effect, it must also be a substance with manifest nāma-rūpa. Before the production of the universe, the basic substance must have existed with unmanifest nāma-rūpa. The universe in the current condition is one basic substance with infinite nāma-rūpa. The basic substance cannot be created by any one including God. Nothing can be created by anyone including God. Gauḍapāda establishes this principle in Māṇḍūkyakārikā. Therefore, the basic substance must have been present with the unmanifest nāma-rūpa. What is that basic substance, mūla-vastu? What is the truth of this universe? Vedānta calls that basic substance, Brahman. Just as clay is the basic substance from the standpoint of earthenware, from the standpoint of the whole creation including the five elements, time, etc., the basic substance is Brahman. What is the nature of that substance? It is sat-cit-ānanda or Pure existence and pure consciousness which is limitless. Limitless existence-consciousness is the basic substance which was present before creation and is present after creation also. Now we have the basic substance with varieties of manifest nāma-rūpa. Bṛhadāranyaka Upaniṣad (6.1) says that everything in this world may be classified into names, forms and actions.The manifest nāma-rūpa has appropriate function. In fact, the nāma is given to refer to whatever the function of the rūpa is.
What is the universe? It is Brahman plus manifest nāma-rūpa. Before the creation Brahman must have been present with the unmanifest nāma-rūpa. Brahman plus the unmanifest nāma-rūpa is the cause and Brahman plus the manifest nāma-rūpa is the effect. The technical name for the unmanifest nāma-rūpa, which is located upon Brahman, is māyā. Brahman plus the unmanifest nāma-rūpa māyā is the cause and Brahman plus the manifest nāma-rūpa māyā is the effect. To differentiate Brahman plus the unmanifest nāma-rūpa, the cause, and Brahman plus the manifest nāma-rūpa, the effect, two distinct names are given. Brahman plus the unmanifest nāma-rūpa māyā is called Īśvara (God). Brahman plus māyā is Īśvara. Brahman plus the manifest nāma-rūpa is called jagat (universe or world). Brahman continues to be present all the time without having any transformation at any time. During sṛṣṭi, sthiti and pralaya (creation, maintenance and dissolution), Brahman is Brahman. The substance, Brahman, continues to be the same always. The nāma-rūpa that is upon that Brahman goes through the unmanifest and manifest conditions. Conversion of unmanifest nāma-rūpa into manifest nāma-rūpa is creation. Conversion of manifest nāma-rūpa into unmanifest nāma-rūpa is dissolution. This goes on and on. Kṛṣṇa describes this process in the Bhagavad Gītā:
At the beginning of the day, all things that are manifest arise from the unmanifest. At the beginning of the night, they resolve in that alone which is called the unmanifest. (8:18)
There is only Brahman. In one condition it is called Īśvara and in another condition it is called jagat.
(Continued below)
Creation of the Universe - Part 3 of 3
The author says that this māyā, which is nothing but unmanifest nāma-rūpa and located in Brahman is also known by the name brahma-śakti. This māyā is known by the name, śakti (power). Any śakti or power cannot exist independently. It has to exist in some substance. For example, the speaking power cannot exist separately from the person that has the power. Māyā-śakti rests in Brahman depending on Brahman for its very existence. This māyā-śakti has two powers. One is the vikṣepa-śakti, the power to manifest, the power that converts the unmanifest to the manifest condition. Vikṣepa means ‘throwing out’ or ‘projecting’. The manifestation of the universe is in the hands of the vikṣepa-śakti of māyā, which rests on Brahman. The second power is āvaraṇa-śakti, the power of covering or veiling the truth. First the vikṣepa-śakti of Īśvara starts functioning at the time of creation. Īśvara is not affected by the āvaraṇa-śakti of māyā. When the vikṣepa-śakti is operating, all the unmanifest nāma-rūpa gets manifested. All the universes and the individual jīvas are thrown out. Once the jīvas and the jagat come into manifestation, the āvaraṇa-śakti of māyā becomes active and because of that, every jīva is ignorant of the basic truth that everything is Brahman plus nāma-rūpa and that the jīva is also Brahman plus nāma-rūpa. This is called ajñānam and the āvaraṇa-śakti of māyā is called ajñānam. This self-ignorance leads to the fear of mortality, which is saṃsāra. Self-knowledge is the solution for this saṃsāra.
He points out that ignorance regarding one’s own nature is the cause of the bondage. This ignorance is caused by the āvaraṇa-śakti of māyā. To explain the origin of ignorance the author enters the creation topic even though it is not the main subject matter of the text. Brahman is the cause of the universe and the universe is the effect. The emergence of the effect from the cause is creation. Brahman is of the nature of sat-cit-ānanda. Thereafter we saw that any product is nothing but nāma-rūpa and does not exist substantially. Thus the world is nothing but nāma-rūpa. This world nāma-rūpa should have existed in Brahman in potential form before creation because what is in potential form alone can come into manifestation because of the law that nothing can be created or destroyed. The unmanifest nāma-rūpa is called māyā. This māyā has two powers, vikṣepa-śakti and āvaraṇa-śakti. At the time of creation, the vikṣepa-śakti operates and the āvaraṇa-śakti does not operate at the cosmic level. Īśvara is not affected by the āvaraṇa-śakti. The karmas of the jīvas determine the time of creation. During dissolution all the sañcita-karma are dormant. When a portion of the sañcita-karma of the entire cosmos is ready to fructify as the prārabdha-karma, the vikṣepa-śakti of māyā becomes operational. The vikṣepa-śakti makes the unmanifest nāma-rūpa into the manifest nāma-rūpa. All the five elements, fourteen lokas, the gross bodies, and the subtle bodies, which are all non-substantial nāma-rūpa come into manifestation. There is only one substance behind all the nāma-rūpa. That original substance, which is the only substance behind the non-substantial nāma-rūpa, is Brahman. Vikṣepa-śakti will operate until the creation of the individual jīva. After the jīvas are created, the āvaraṇa-śakti starts operating and covers the jīva with the concealing power. There is no concealment for Īśvara at the macro level. Āvaraṇa-śakti operates only at the jīva level.
I agree with Salazar that what is aware of the ego/mind is what Bhagavan calls Self....
In my opinion, the ego mind is the counsciousness that inhabits the body, and what is aware of it is the Self. To destroy the illusion caused by this ego-body appeareance we must look for the source of it, the I AM. This is the practice....
Dragos,
as you yourself say ("In my opinion"), it is at best the view of the ego that "Self" is aware of it.
Are we not taught that "Self" is aware only of itself ? So how can "Self" be aware of the wrong awareness of the ego-mind ?
Theories about creation are mere speculation. The problem of mankind is ignorance.
Therefore one has first to shake off the dirt of ignorance.
Salazar
From Poonjaji's "The Truth Is"
p.26:
Know I am inactive, the activity takes place in me,
I am That, I am the screen, I never come and I never go.
Identify as Consciousness itself.
When the mind is pure you will see Self in all beings.
Purify the mind by removing all concepts, especially the concept of purity.
Then Self reveals itself to the empty mind which is Consciousness.
If there is unhappiness you are not unhappy, you are the untouched Awareness of this happiness.
p.31:
There is the awareness which is aware of objects like flowers. True Awareness is the awareness which is aware of the awareness of objects. It is the undisturbed simple awareness in which things rise and fall.
p.153:
Your true nature is Awareness, it cannot be practised.
If you do not know, this Awareness turns outward towards manifestation and there is suffering.
Turn you face inward toward the source of 'I'.
Then the reflection of `Self falls on the mind turned toward Self, dissolving this mind into Self.
p.261:
You are the one who watches. You are the witness of thought as it rises, passes away and stops.
The one who watches is everlasting.
The mind is the habit to be involved in its objects. It can't both silently watch and be involved.
Because of this habit you forget that what you are involved in is just a projection on the screen. Due to this forgetfulness, identification goes from being the silent witness to becoming the projection itself. You forget that you are the screen on which these projections are rising and passing.
So allow the projections of the mind, which is everything you see within and without.
Like this you must remain That which is untouched, That which is before identifications and intellectual grasps. This is eternal Being.
The one who follows the thought is also a thought.
The one who follows the thought is in thought.
When you know that both are thoughts, you are Home.
Then allow thoughts to arise and allow them to be followed.
You remain as That unmoved and unconcerned Being.
This is the highest understanding.
"So allow the projections of the mind, which is everything you see within and without.
Like this you must remain That which is untouched, That which is before identifications and intellectual grasps. This is eternal Being."
"Then allow thoughts to arise and allow them to be followed.
You remain as That unmoved and unconcerned Being."
Is allowing the projections of the mind and allowing thoughts to arise and allowing them to be followed really being untouched, unmoved and unconcerned ?
Poonjaji's descriptions (and others) have puzzled me.
He says for example:
There is the awareness which is aware of objects like flowers. True Awareness is the awareness which is aware of the awareness of objects..
My concern has been... what can I do? What is my precise intention in practice?
It is possible to be aware... but how the heck to be "aware of the awareness"?
In my current opinion: my effortless "job" is simply to be aware all the time. Which is to rest in "I" or "I AM" or "Being". And to rest in such a way is the result of "who am I?" or "not this" or other methods.
The second stage "aware of awareness" is realization.
Realization is spontaneous and happens by grace not by my effort.
The second level "aware of awareness" is beyond my effort but the requirement for grace is my being "aware", that is all that I can do.
"Aware of awareness" corresponds with the earlier descriptions that I posted: "I saw all of creation as if from a great distance totally uninvolved and forever separate my essence being beyond forever untouchable by all external things".
right?
Roger
Brhadaranyaka Up has the great line "How can one know That by which all this is known". It is that awareness of awareness that it is pointing to.
And when they say, we are already that, we just don't know it, one immediately sees how true that is. We are just misled by the superimposed ignorance of the I-thought and subsequent thoughts that arise subsequential to it.
Hence neti, neti - realise that all these thoughts / feelings and not it, and keep on negating until all that is left is Silent, Unmoving Awareness. That is why they say no practice can get you there - because you are already there.
All the sages from ancient to modern, say that total, utter desirelessness is moksha. Because when there is absolutely no desire, no preference, no fear, you are that unmoving, untouched awareness, that is choicelessly aware of all that is, without any desire to move away or towards whatever is currently appearing.
So there is no practice, no effort, no stages. It is a fundamental shift in awareness from not seeing yourself as a body-mind, to BEING consciousness. But this is not just intellectual either. It is the razor's edge that Katha Up talks of.
Bhagvan's summa iru indeed is the highest instruction.
Venkat,
I upvote your sagacious answer @ 28 October 2018 at 15:19.
Hi Venkat,
"summa iru" is a practice... or a non-practice.
One must conceive of it and have the intent to be that and strip away what it is not.. otherwise why speak of it and why call it an "instruction"?
In agreement,
R
Salazar,
You are so right in writing "The problem is not truly thoughts, it is the attachment to these thoughts, if there is no interest in a thought it has no impact whatsoever."
Question can then be asked, "Why do we get attached to thoughts?" As I see it, it is perhaps because:
1. We are seeking something out of life and we see thinking as a means to achieve that end.
2. We believe we are the ones thinking those thoughts - they are "my" thoughts.
Your thoughts on this?
When Salazar writes "By the way, being "aware of awareness" is just a clumsy way to describe that we ARE awareness, intrinsically so and that needs no effort whatsoever."
it should be undoubtedly clear that so long we experience ourself as ego we must investigate this ego - in order to know our real nature.
Sam, if I may attempt an answer to your question . . .
I think that your second response comes first, and from there your first response.
However, I'm not sure that why are “we” attached is a valid question in the first place, because the 'we' itself is the attachment. It is tautological.
The ego is nothing but attachment; and attachment pre-supposes duality. As Bhagavan says, it comes into existence by grasping form, and further self-aggrandises by attaching to second and third person objects (including fame, fortune, pleasure etc.). As we become attached to something, the more that thoughts arise - about how we like it, how we can get more of it, our fear of losing it, etc, etc. And the more that thoughts arise, the more we get caught up in them.
So, utter detachment = utter desirelessness = choiceless awareness = no mind = summa iru
Then the next question “how do we become detached”, or “how do we stop thoughts" is also not valid. That in itself is a thought, a concept, a desire.
The story of the tenth man is really significant. There were always 10 men, but the counter had to realise that he had forgotten to count himself. When he got that knowledge, and was convinced of it, he was free of sorrow. Similarly, we have to, through atma vichara, investigate ourselves, such that we gain the steady conviction that we are really consciousness, with the same strength of conviction that we currently have, that we are the body-mind.
If we had that conviction, that we are not this body-mind and that we are non-separate from the world, then what attachment, desire or fear could there be?
In Mandukya Karika chp 4, Gaudapada praises Asparsa Yoga, Asparsa being ‘no touch’. Simply do not be touched by anything that is not-Self.
Three cheers, NO EFFORT AT ALL IS NEEDED.
There has even never been an ego, we not even seemed to be that wrong awareness 'I am this body or this ego.
Therefore, how could there have been any need to remove the false ego-awareness or how could there be ever any problem ?
You lucky mankind !!! Lucky You! Be just simply perfectly happy !
with "effort" (as with many things) it can be stated either in the positive or negative:
Effort must be ceaseless and untiring until the goal can be reached.
No one succeeds without effort... those who succeed owe their success to perseverance.
Conscious deliberate effort is needed to attain that effortless state of stillness.
quotes attributed to Bhagavan
Most of us are not able to reach the goal by beginning with that effortless state.
That could do at most only a couple of handfuls sages.
Salazar,
"Certain things have to be grasped/discovered by one alone".
Yep, and that is what is meant by "there is no path to realisation".
There is nothing to realize because self is anyway ever realized.
There is no path, there is nothing. Even the absence of something or anything is a matter of complete indifference to us. So mankind is completely needless.
What have we done to deserve that total disaster ?:-)
Bhagavan is the perfect outlet from which grace flows eternally, steadily, with full power and perfect control
Bhagavan will never force atma-jnana on us because if he does so it may topple our balance of mind. So we will not lose our mental balance if we take refuge in Bhagavan and his teachings. He is a perfect guru who is working from within. He is preparing us in so many ways. He is giving us countless opportunities to rectify our vasanas from moment to moment. But are we making proper use of such opportunities? We will have to admit, we are not.
Bhagavan knows us so well because he is nothing other than ourself. So he will not give us anything until we are ready for it. He is leading us gently, smoothly and as quickly as possible to our final destination. He is giving us the right doses of his most powerful grace unceasingly. Bhagavan has to control its release because, like an overdose of any medicine, an overdose of grace may harm us. By his controlled release of his grace, he is making us fit to receive more and more of his grace.
Therefore Bhagavan is the perfect outlet from which grace flows eternally, steadily, with full power and perfect control.
~ The above is a paraphrase of ideas of Sri Sadhu Om and Michael
Reflections: It is so much reassuring to know that Bhagavan is leading us with so much care and concern. It is such a cool and refreshing feeling. This knowledge makes us relaxed.
He wants us to reach our finishing line as quickly as possible, but he knows that this should not be forced. We are perfectly safe in his hands.
Sometimes I would risk an overdose of Bhagavan's most powerful grace because receiving only the usual dose of grace seems to harm me more than a proper overdose.:-)
Clay Pot Example by Swami Sarvapriyananda
Check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHYTkzoaiKU
You Can Be Free In This Very Life - Papaji
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhD5ZWOoVmY
Arise, awake and stop not till the goal is reached: Swami Vivekananda
In the booklet ‘Who am I?’ Bhagavan says that a time will come when all that has been learnt has to be forgotten. There are so many things we can learn about, but all such knowledge has to be eventually given up. Let us make good use of the limited time we have available to go deep into Bhagavan’s teachings. If we are attracted to other things, those are all diversions.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-10-28 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: discussion with Michael James on the nature of ego (1:54)
Reflections: Yes, we have very little time available with us because this body will not last forever. This life will go past very quickly. So we should not waste our time on unnecessary pursuits. As far as possible, we should spend our time reading, listening to, reflecting on and practising Bhagavan’s teachings. These are the only things that really matters. Rest everything is a distraction.
Swami Vivekananda said: ‘Arise, awake and stop not till the goal is reached’. I am sure Bhagavan would have endorsed his advice. How can we stop before our goal is reached? What is our goal? It is complete and irrevocable self-surrender. Bhagavan has made this crystal clear.
Are we not taught that the ego-mind does not really exist.
So how can the (seeming) ego/mind spoil at all the one eternal awareness ?
Salazar,
You are spot on when you talk about effortlessness. Because we are already that and we don't need to put effort because we don't need to achieve something we don't already have. Trying to put effort is like somebody who is in Ramanasramam asking what should i "do" or what exertions I should put in to reach Ramanasramam - he does not need to "do" anything, or rather he has to stop "doing" anything and just come to understand that he is already in Ramanasramam. Similarly, we are now so strongly identified with the mind that we take its defects to be our defects and so we are always on the lookout for putting in effort to overcome the defects of the mind, while all we need to do is understand that we are already That and we just need to remove ignorance, or better still realise that even the ignorance was merely imagined, there is no bondage - we are merely imagining the bondage because we are erroneously thinking we are the bound body-mind. So, as Papaji always emphasized that his only advice was "Keep quiet", and keeping quiet means dropping all forms of effort and exertions, including thinking, and just being, which is what "Summa iru" of Bhagavan amounts to. I think the reason we are always itching to "do" something is that we are always seeking, but when it comes to the Self, there is no need to seek because we are already that and we just have to give up the false notions we have about ourselves - the Tenth man is not missing; the necklace is not lost.
Two statements from Bhagavan:
1: Conscious deliberate effort is needed to attain that effortless state of stillness.
2: Here it is impossible for you to be without effort. When you go deeper, it is impossible for you to make any effort.
There is another quote from Bhagavan although I can not find it at the moment, something like: when effort is required, effort will arise, when effort is not required it will not arise.
These statements describe an intelligent use of effort which leads to effortless stillness.
Salazar, you say confirmed by my own direct experience, that awareness cannot be anything else than effortless.
Salazar, you had an experience in time of effortless awareness, and it ended.
Why aren't you this effortless stillness eternally?
Is that grasped?
Salazar wrote
"However Brahman/Self is effortless. And that is even quoted by people here but don't believe it since they think they are the ego and not Brahman."
I do not doubt that "Brahman/Self" itself "is always effortless". Is it of great practical use to think "I am not the ego but Brahman" ?
"One thought of remembrance to be aware is enough, after that the mind has to be left alone, awareness does not need the mind to be aware. In fact except of that one thought of a prompt anything else by the mind spoils vichara! "
How is the mind to be left alone ? Is it not rather to be focussed properly on its source ?
D Samarender Reddy,
your statement: "So, as Papaji always emphasized that his only advice was "Keep quiet", and keeping quiet means dropping all forms of effort and exertions, including thinking, and just being, which is what "Summa iru" of Bhagavan amounts to. I think the reason we are always itching to "do" something is that we are always seeking, but when it comes to the Self, there is no need to seek because we are already that and we just have to give up the false notions we have about ourselves".
However, experience shows that dropping all forms of effort and exertions, including thinking and giving up the false notions we have about ourselves, is just not actually managed effortlessly but only by keen and thorough attention.
Nevertheless, Papaji's peaceful radiation felt even by watching the given video (Global Well-Being) only for some minutes impressed me really. Thanks.
Salazar,
regarding your reply to Roger "there is no eternity. I do not expect you to grasp where I come from."
Where do you actually come from ?
Salazar
Your articulation of circular reference is spot on. Bhagavan told us that I is just a thought (albeit one which is the jumping off point for others), and many have conceptualised some entity 'I'. But 'I' is just a thought not an entity. But by making it an entity, it is then believed it can do something to bring about its own destruction.
JK used to critique those who talked about trying to control thoughts, by saying that the controller is the controlled, ie that the controller is just a thought, and the controlled is also just a thought. And therefore it is absurd to talk about one thought controlling another thought.
So there really is nothing we can do apart from summa iru. Thanks for the useful discussion.
Salazar repeatedly proclaims to be wise while labeling others as ignorant. This is duality, ego.
Salazar,
it is true that I am far away from the mastery over the mind and senses. Therefore I continue with faith in the compassionate grace of the Lord my endeavour to subdue them. Anyhow I do not give up my hope to become ever free from desire and delusion. Then by steadfast abidance in atma-svarupa I may know that real happiness and perfect peace is within me as my own inherent nature.
Salazar,
referring to Papaji's comparison of vasanas with writings on the beach "...i.e. when he said that vasanas are like writings on the sand of a beach, all what is needed is to take one's foot and wipe out those writings and the vasanas are gone."
Why to make that effort with one's own foot ? That task would carry out much easier the rising tide in one night.:-)
Salazar,
you wrote today (29 October 2018 at 17:20) as a reply to me: "Who is asking the question? The ego, and therefore it has spoiled awareness.
...LMAO...Is that grasped?".
Is it not clear that the immutable, all-pervasive one and absolute self cannot be polluted by the ego at all ?
It seems that someone (too) became a prey to delusion. Without sincerity and humility there can be no approach to wisdom.
Since Salazar is well versed and an expert in these matters why does he not start his own blog like Michael James has done instead of trying to show off here everyday in this blog that he is the only person here to have understood what needs to be understood correctly and others have not?
I am quite certain he will be as famous as Micheal James himself is and and will attract a lot of followers.
Salazar you are an obnoxious asshole and you stink like hell. Even if I praise you you get upset. You are fishing for followers unlike Michael James and Sanjay Lohia who are authentic and faithful in their devotion to Sri Ramana Maharshi.
Salazar I am not angry at all. I am simply stating the plain fact about your own giganic ego. You boast that you have no ego at all but then a brief comment of mine hurts you so much. If it is not your ego that gets hurt then what is it Mr.Know it all Salazar?
Seriously, Salazar why don't you start your own blog? You could teach a lot of ignorant egos which you yourself point out all the time are out here and there outside this blog.
Salazar if you start your own blog I will promise to read your posts just like I read Michael James's posts whenever time permits. Reading contents in your blog should be quite entertaining if not spiritually enlightening. After all you always claim to have understood everything while the rest of us have not.
Salazar,
you say: Only a delusional ego would be concerned with humility, it's another diversion from awareness.
The diversions are countless ....
Do you have anything but diversions from awareness?
Your posts here are diversions?
Listen now attentively to the buzzing sound of a humble-bee...hmmm
As already Salazar stated, the diversions are countless ...:-)
By the way, Salazar has in fact started his own blog here with his magnificent teachings - albeit the blog runs in Michael's name.
Salazar,what is it you are trying to prove and establish? That you are in fact a Sage like Sri Ramana Maharshi is and the rest of us here are mere ignorant jivas?
Josef,
You write, "However, experience shows that dropping all forms of effort and exertions, including thinking and giving up the false notions we have about ourselves, is just not actually managed effortlessly but only by keen and thorough attention."
But, you see, since you are already that, that is, the Self, and since all that is seemingly covering it up is the mind activity in the form of thoughts, all that you have to do is give up thinking, including so-called attending, and just remain still (summa iru).
As Bhagavan says in Talk 601: "He who instructs an ardent seeker to do this or that is not a true master. The seeker is already afflicted by his activities and wants Peace and Rest. In other words he wants cessation of his activities. Instead of that he is told to do something in addition to, or in place of, his other activities. Can that be a help to the seeker? Activity is creation; activity is the destruction of one’s inherent happiness. If activity be advocated the adviser is not a master but the killer. Either the Creator (Brahma) or Death (Yama) may be said to have come in the guise of such a master. He cannot liberate the aspirant but strengthens his fetters."
Glad you liked Papaji's video.
from http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.com/2008/06/yes-but-what-do-i-do.html
"Yes, but what do I do?" - Part 1 of 4
by David Godman
What I want to do today is elaborate a little on Papaji’s statement: ‘I don’t give people any do’s or don’ts.’
Many people go to the Guru with the idea that he should tell them to ‘do’ something in order to reach some goal or be relieved of some problem or other. We are all so addicted to ‘doing’, we believe that we have to ‘do something’ to attain whatever spiritual goal we are chasing.
When the Guru says, ‘You are the Self, you are Brahman,’ the disciple often responds by saying, ‘Yes, I understand, but what do I do to attain it? How do I discover this for myself?’
The asking of such a question means that the disciple thinks that Brahman is something he should become, through effort, rather than something that he already is. The assumption implicit in this world-view is the premise behind all sadhana.
With this in mind, read verse 271 of Guru Vachaka Kovai:
The Guru who instructs the disciple, who has taken complete refuge in him, by giving one more prescription for action, instead of directing him towards jnana, and who leads him into activities, saying ‘These should be done,’ is for the disciple [equivalent to] the coming of cruel Yama and Brahma. Only he who consummates them [the disciples], transforming them into those who have done all that needs to be done, enabling them to attain the true benefit of this birth, is the grace-bestowing, divine Guru.
Since Brahma is the god of birth and Yama the god of death, the verse is implying that gurus who get their disciples involved in unnecessary activities, physical or mental, instead of directing them towards jnana, will be responsible for them being reborn. Bhagavan gave similar advice to the following devotee when the latter came up with a ‘Yes I understand, but what do I do?’ query:
Question: Our grasp is only intellectual. If Sri Bhagavan be pleased to direct us with a few instructions we shall be highly benefited.
Bhagavan: He who instructs an ardent seeker to do this or that is not a true master. The seeker is already afflicted by his activities and wants peace and rest. In other words, he wants cessation of his activities. Instead of that he is told to do something in addition to, or in place of, his other activities. Can that be a help to the seeker?
Activity is creation; activity is the destruction of one’s inherent happiness. If activity be advocated the adviser is not a master but the killer. Either the Creator (Brahma) or Death (Yama) may be said to have come in the guise of such a master. He cannot liberate the aspirant but strengthens his fetters. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 601.)
The same idea appears in Day by Day with Bhagavan, 27th March 1946, afternoon, where Bhagavan tells a questioner: ‘the truth is, all karma of whatever kind will lead to fresh bondage. That is why it is said in Ozhivil Odukkam that the Guru who prescribes fresh karma or action of any sort, i.e., rituals or sacrifices to one who after trying various karmas comes to him for peace, is both Brahma and Yama to the disciple i.e., he only creates fresh births and deaths.'
"Yes, but what do I do?" - Part 2 of 4
Ozhivil Odukkam is a Tamil philosophical text composed by Kannudaiya Vallalaar several centuries ago. It was one of Bhagavan’s favourite advaita texts, so much so that he asked Muruganar to make a Tamil prose rendering of it in order to make the meaning clearer and more accessible. The original Tamil is extremely difficult to follow, and most people gain an understanding of the work through a commentary that has appeared in all editions of the text. Unfortunately, the commentator incorporated a few interpretations of his own that are not present in the text, which is why Bhagavan thought that a new and clearer rendering of the original was desirable. Muruganar never found time to execute this commission, so the true meaning of the original verses remains inaccessible to all but the most learned Tamil scholars.
The idea that Gurus who tell disciples to do things are Yama and Brahma in disguise comes from verse 123 of this work:
Having exhausted themselves by activities, aspirants come to the Guru seeking jnana. He alone is the true jnana-bestowing Guru who, possessing the wealth of bliss, produces the crop of bliss in them so that they wander without volition and without doing anything. But the Guru who occasions the least rising of their ego through his instructions is both Brahma, he who possesses the ability to create the world, and Yama too, the god of death.
‘Without volition and without doing anything’ refers to the ego-free state in which there are nosankalpas (decisions or choices made by the mind) and no sense of being the performer of the actions that the body is doing.
Most people will read a verse like this and decide that it refers to physical activities alone.
‘My Guru is OK.’ they will say, ‘He doesn’t tell me to run around doing things; he tells me to meditate instead.’
That is not an acceptable response to this verse because it is also implying that keeping the mind busy – even with meditation – is no different from keeping the body busy. Anyone who prescribes either course keeps his followers on the wheel of birth and death. It would seem that Bhagavan accepted this position because, in the two citations from Talks and Day by Day that I have already given, he is introducing the ideas from this verse and endorsing them.
I began with a quote from Papaji. I will reintroduce him here because one of his often-repeated maxims is highly relevant to what I am endeavouring to say: ‘Physical activities produce physical results; mental activities produce mental results; since the Self is neither physical nor mental, an awareness of it cannot be brought about by either physical or mental activity.’
That’s a hard conclusion to accept for most people because it undercuts and negates all their mental activities that are optimistically geared towards realising the Self. The solution, as both Bhagavan and Papaji pointed out on many occasions is ‘being still’ (summa iruttal). When Bhagavan gives out the instruction ‘Summa iru’ (be still), he is not telling us to practise being still – that would just be more ‘doing’ – he is telling us desist from all mental activity, even meditation. ‘Being still’ is not something you accomplish by effort; it is what remains when all effort ceases.
"Yes, but what do I do?" - Part 3 of 4
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!
To which I will add verse 647 of Guru Vachaka Kovai, followed by another quote from Thayumanavar that comes from the same poem:
If you remain still, without paying attention to this, without paying attention to that, and without paying attention to anything at all, you will, simply through your powerful attention to being, become the reality, the vast eye, the unbounded space of consciousness.
If we truly see-without-seeing the inner light,
not investigating, not thinking at all,
will not the flood of bliss come,
spreading in all the ten directions,
rising up in surging waves to overflow its banks?
(‘Udal Poyyuravu’, verse 58)
There is a section in Padamalai that gives a broad summary of Bhagavan’s views on ‘being still’. I will conclude today’s offering by reproducing it.
25
Supreme liberation will shine as Atma-swarupa if one remains still.
This verse is introduced by the word ‘amma’, which indicates that Bhagavan is expressing surprise in this statement, possibly at the thought that anyone could think otherwise.
26
Through his gentle smile, radiant Padam joyfully declares: ‘Why this distress? Be happy by just remaining still.’
Bhagavan: Your duty is to be, and not to be this or that. ‘I am that I am’ sums up the whole truth; the method is summarised in ‘Be still’.
And what does stillness mean? It means ‘Destroy yourself’; because, every name and form is the cause of trouble. ‘I-I’ is the Self. ‘I am this’ is the ego. When the ‘I’ is kept up as the ‘I’ only, it is the Self. When it flies off at a tangent and says ‘I am this or that, I am such and such’, it is the ego.
Question: Who then is God?
Bhagavan: The Self is God. ‘I am’ is God. If God be apart from the Self, He must be a selfless God, which is absurd.
All that is required to realise the Self is to be still. What can be easier than that? Hence Atma-vidya [Self-knowledge] is the easiest to attain. (Maharshi’s Gospel, pp. 31-2)
27
Since becoming established in the state of the Self is both the means and the goal to be attained, remain still.
Though it was Bhagavan’s highest and simplest upadesa, he conceded that for many people, it was an impossible command to execute:
Question: What should one do in order to remain free from thoughts as advised by you? Is it only the enquiry ‘Who am I?’
Bhagavan: Only to remain still. Do it and see.
Question: It is impossible.
Bhagavan: Exactly. For the same reason the enquiry ‘Who am I?’ is advised. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 322)
Bhagavan: All the age-long vasanas carry the mind outward and turn it to external objects. All such thoughts have to be given up and the mind turned inward. For that, effort is necessary for most people. Of course everybody, every book says, ‘Summa iru,’ i.e. ‘Be quiet or still’. But it is not easy. That is why all this effort is necessary. Even if we find one who has at once achieved the mauna or supreme state indicated by ‘Summa iru’ you may take it that the effort necessary has already been finished in a previous life. (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 11th January, 1946)
"Yes, but what do I do?" - Part 4 of 4
28
The wonderful meaning of the one supreme word [summa iru] is to know and rest in the Atma-swarupa through the enquiry ‘Who am I?’
29
Except by remaining still [summa iruttal] by what great tapas can the Atma-swarupa be attained in the Heart?
Bhagavan: People seem to think that by practising some elaborate sadhana the Self will one day descend upon them as something very big and with tremendous glory, giving them what is called sakshatkaram [direct experience]. The Self is sakshat [direct] all right, but there is nokaram or kritam about it. [That is, there is no one who performs actions, and no actions being performed.] The word ‘karam’ implies doing something. But the Self is realised not by doing something but by refraining from doing anything, by remaining still and being simply what one really is. (The Power of the Presence, part three, pp. 131-3)
30
It will be impossible to merge with the feet of Lord Sonachala [Arunachala], unless one remains still, with the mind consumed and annihilated.
Bhagavan: Stillness is total surrender without a vestige of individuality. Stillness will prevail and there will be no agitation of mind. Agitation of mind is the cause of desire, the sense of doership and personality. If that is stopped there is quiet. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 354)
31
By shining motionlessly, which is meditation on the Self, all manner of excellent benefits accrue.
32
To remain still, without thinking about that which is other than the Self, is to offer the mind to the Self.
33
Being still is the experience of swarupa jnana. Whatever is perceived by the senses is a false, illusory appearance.
34
To rest, remaining still as consciousness, is union [sayujya], the abundance of peace.
35
Knowing That is only abiding as That. Therefore, shine, remaining still without objectifying.
D Samarender Reddy,
thank you for giving that wonderful texts.
But,
refraining from doing anything,
remaining still and being simply what one really is,
getting the mind consumed and annihilated,
offering the mind to the Self,
remaining still without objectifying,
all that necessary effort must first be accomplished - at least for most people.
If we try reflecting on our adverse situations in the light of Bhagavan’s teachings, this will reduce our worries
Our adverse situations are a good time to reflect on Bhagavan’s teachings. If we try to see our unfavourable situations in the light of Bhagavan’s teachings, this will reduce our worries. Such reflections will obviously also deepen our understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings.
Some amount of money is due to me from somewhere, but for some reason, I am not able to receive this. I often think about this. However, why should I think about such issues? I may send them reminders to return this amount, but why should I worry? Why do I think about such matters? It is because I am attached to this amount. I think it belongs to me and therefore I have a right to receive it back.
However, this is all the play of maya. I am unnecessarily worrying about some pieces of paper or some figures in my bank account. If and when this amount comes to my account will I become happy? Yes, it is because my current agitation of mind, which exists because of this issue, will subside temporarily, and this will make me satisfied for some time. But again some new issue will crop up and I will again start worrying. We should understand that there is no real happiness in money or wealth. Happiness exists only within.
Moreover, whether this amount comes to me or not depends on my prarabdha. Since prarabdha is Bhagavan’s will, why should we doubt his will and intelligence? He loves us more than we love ourself, so we should gladly accept his will as our will. Whatever we experience will mature us spiritually. Bhagavan gives us many such opportunities to rectify our will. If this amount is not supposed to come to me, no amount of effort on my part will bring it back.
Also, if we think about such issues, we have not travelled far on our spiritual path. We should try and remember Bhagavan’s supreme vairagya. When he reached Tiruvannamalai, he threw away even the few coins he then had with him. He was sure that Arunachala will provide for all his needs. We should try to emulate his vairagya, to whatever extent possible.
Of course, in the end, we need to use Bhagavan’s brahmastra to dispel all our concerns. That is, we should try to find out ‘who is having these worries?’ Thus, we should try to turn within by ignoring everything else. This is the direct and most powerful way to dissolve all our problems then and there. If we stop attending to our thoughts or concerns, all our thoughts or concerns will subside.
So Bhagavan’s teachings and, more importantly, the practice of vichara is the most powerful antidote for all our concerns, worries and problems.
Sanjay ,
"When he reached Tiruvannamalai, ... He was sure that Arunachala will provide for all his needs. We should try to emulate his vairagya, to whatever extent possible."
What provided Arunachala actually for Ramana downstairs in Patala Lingam ?
We also should be able to accept readily all rigours of fate which correspond to all the attacks of the vermins in Patala Lingam which Ramana's young body had to endure there then in the year 1896.
Josef, yes, Bhagavan’s life is the greatest lesson on what true surrender is. He accepted everything that happened to him or around him as Arunachala’s will. His humility and forbearance were simply out of this world.
In fact, when he was in Patala Lingam, he was so absorbed in himself that he was not even aware of vermin eating away his thighs. This is a lesson for us – that is, when we try to practise self-investigation, we should be so deeply absorbed in ourself that we should not be even aware of vermin on our body. This may be not possible initially, but this is certainly possible as we practise more and more.
Bhagavan has also indicated that when we try to turn within, we should let our body become like a corpse. That is, we should try to lose all our connection with with our body. This is the only way to experience ourself as we really are. We should try to separate the 'I am' from our 'body'. This is granthi-bheda (severance of our knot of ignorance), and this is our ultimate goal.
Salazar,
as you say, the sentiment to not feel drawn to Arunachala is of course also entirely the ego's concern.
To understand the point you may read again your previous comment and then by comparison you would perhaps find...
Salazar,
I meant nothing cryptic; when you imply that feeling drawn to Arunachala is only the ego's irrelevant concern, one has to consider also the other side of the coin namely that also the opposite i.e. not feeling drawn to Arunachala is only the ego's (irrelevant) concern.
Nikola asked the following question in the comment section of Michael’s latest video:
Nikola Cvetkovic:
Question, maybe for future sessions:
When we recognize that we are not willing to surrender, what should be our relationship with this lack of willingness? Investigating who is not willing is here prevented by the lack of willingness itself. So is the point to go with life until the experiences makes us more willing, along with practicing self inquiry to the level we are able to surrender?
Or should we not cling to this present idea and just keep the practice "pretending" that this lack is not present and rely on the practice itself to remove it?
The question is about which approach is better, positive or negative, and what are pros and cons of both?
I answered him as follows:
Sanjay:
Nikola, if we are not willing to practise self-surrender and self-investigation, no one can force us to do so. However, when you ask these questions, it shows that Bhagavan has sown some love in your heart for Bhagavan and his teachings. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have listened to Michael’s video. So you just need to fan this interest.
This interest may not be great, but you can surely start by practising turning within a little here, a little there. In other words, you can cultivate the love and willingness to practice self-investigation. You may be able to do this only for a few minutes daily, or maybe even a few seconds daily, it doesn’t matter. All such efforts will add up. This is the way most of us start our practice.
Eventually, there will be a snow-balling effect. The more we practise, the more momentum our practice will gain, until it will become our second nature. There is no turning back at this stage. It will only be a matter of time before we reach our goal, which is the annihilation of ego.
Salazar,
my previous comment was written not to make you "worse" but primarily out of the idea to control the mind and intellect.
Sanjay,
I would answer to Nikola:"pretending" does in any case not serve the necessary mind-control/mind-restraint. Without withdrawing of the mind to its source one cannot abide in one's real nature. Therefore we should try to reject every kind of thought as and when it arises. Because...:the self is ever present and we have to realize it as such, as the pure being-consciousness, the source of thoughts.
In continuation of my conversation with Nikola Cvetkovic:
Nikola: Thank you for your time. My question wasn't about lack of willingness to practice, but about lack of willingness to surrender the ego.
Just like Michael explained, the only reason we need practice is because we dont want to fully surrender. If we wanted to truly do it, it would be easy just like falling asleep and actually then we wouldnt watch these videos because we would be realised just like Bhagavan, or same as Bhagavan.
Time is very relative factor to our practice. Just because you practice for long time doesnt mean you are closer to realisation then some random person on the street that doesnt practice at all.
Maybe this person will hear about the truth and has done it in pervious lives, ask himself once and thats it. And you and me might spend next 40 years practicing without any progress.
However Ramana did said that no effort to realise the Self is ever wasted. He also said that as long as a person has a mind, there is no way for that person to know how much of it is there left to surrender. Bhagavan is the only one who knows this.
Sanjay: Nikola, our willingness to practice and our willingness to surrender are directly proportionate to each other. That is, to the extent we practise to that extent we are willing to surrender. What does the practice of self-investigation entails? When we practice turning with, we are trying to surrender our likes and dislikes – trying to surrender our hold on everything other than ourself. So the practice of self-investigation is just another name for the practice of self-surrender. Our self-surrender can be initially practised without actually investigating ourself, but without self-investigation, we cannot complete our self-surrender.
Yes, as you imply, we cannot measure our spiritual progress or the progress of others, and there is no use in our trying to go so. The only thing that matters is our own perseverance at self-surrender and self-investigation. We are surely progressing if we are practising or even trying to practise these. We should rest assured that Bhagavan knows where we stand and he is doing everything to help our progress.
My two cents on the philosophy and practice of this teaching...
First of all there are a LOT of different spiritual paths, each with their own unique aims. We have to take this into account... There are various scriptures where the goal is attainment of some state and not at all merging in the mind’s source. Fair enough, but this path seems incredibly hard to me... From what I gather based on the practical philosophy and my meager practice, we have to dive deep within ourselves to find the source of the mind A trace from that incredible state is found right now within ourselves as “I”, the observer/knower/cognizer/subject etc... of all our thoughts and perceptions... (“To whom”, right?!.. we try to go back by following this thread, “I” or “I am”... )
So thinking more carefully my previous comment, this “I” or “I am” is just a reflected consciousness not at all the Self in its all glory, our only “scent” we need to track to dive within and go back to our source...
If this is so, then it does not make any sense that there will be any experience of time space etc..., no world will appear, this is so clear and intuitively I feel its correct...
Now, this seems an incredible feat to me... Let’s pray to Bhagavan for help... I am baffled, scared, and I actually can’t believe He wants us to achieve that... This is truly astonishing
To those who want to follow Bhagavan’s teachings, nothing about bodies, nadis, yogas and such things will have any appeal
What Bhagavan said about the heart being two digits to the right of the centre of the chest is not his real teaching. It has no deep spiritual significance. That was just said to satisfy the people who cannot think except in terms of the body. It is meaningful only at the level of yoga. All talk about nadis, chakras, kundalini and such concepts are for people who have a very gross mind. We need a subtle mind to grasp Bhagavan’s teachings.
What is Bhagavan’s basic teaching? It is that our root problem is ego, and ego is nothing but the false awareness ‘I am this body’. So in order to know ourself we need to eradicate ego, and in order to eradicate ego we need to distinguish the pure awareness ‘I am’ from the ‘body’. In other words, we have got to separate these two things. We have to isolate the pure awareness ‘I am’ and give up everything else.
So if that is Bhagavan’s real teaching, what does it matter where in the body the awareness ‘I’ seems to be centred? This will interest only those whose minds are looking outwards. If we want to follow Bhagavan’s teaching, nothing about bodies, nadis, yogas and such things will appeal to us.
If we want to follow Bhagavan’s teachings, we have to go much much deeper.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-10-28 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: discussion with Michael James on the nature of ego (1:32)
Reflections: Bhagavan explicitly explained to Suri Nagamma that when our body itself is an imagination, all talk about nadis, chakras, kundalin are also nothing more than imagination. The less we know about such matters, the better it is for us. Why fill up our minds with concepts which have no deep spiritual significance? Why learn about irrelevant things which will merely clog our minds.
Ramana Maharshi on the "I Am"
(from Talk 503)
Reality is only one and that is the self. All the rest are mere Phenomena in it, of it and by it. The seer, the objects and the sight, all are the self only. ... The only permanent thing is Reality; and that is the Self. You say “I am”, “I am going”, “I am speaking”, “I am working”, etc. Hyphenate “I am” in all of them. Thus I - AM. That is the abiding and fundamental Reality. This truth was taught by God to Moses: “I AM that I-AM”. “Be still and know that I-AM God.” so “I-AM” is God.
You know that you are. You cannot deny your existence at any moment of time. For you must be there in order to deny it. This (Pure Existence) is understood by stilling your mind. The mind is the outgoing faculty of the individual. If that is turned within, it becomes still in course of time and that “I-AM” alone prevails. “I-AM” is the whole Truth.
Salazar,
What EXACTLY is the practice?! Theorizing is a little value to me...
I’m interested in practical results...
Same question to everyone else...
How EXACTLY do you practice?!
Thank you
... also, what did you experience so far?! Please share your practicalities not empty theorizing...
I’ve been doing this for several years now. In my own words trying to describe the practice, I’m trying to hold on to the seer, what is aware of everything else, the so called “I” or “I-thought”. .. doing this tenaciously one seems to have opened a pandora’s box where all repressed stuff from this and previous lives comes up to get “cleaned” so to speak by vichara... this has been my experience so far... seems a never ending endeavor... what was your experience so far?
Thanks,
Dragos
Ramana Maharshi on the "I Am" – Part 1 of 4
Everyone knows ‘I am.’ There is the confusion that the ‘I’ is the body. Because the ‘I’ arises from the Absolute and gives rise to buddhi (Intellect). In buddhi the ‘I’ looks the size and shape of the body, na medhaya means that Brahman cannot be apprehended by buddhi.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 54)
The Master, while referring to the Bible for “Be still and know that I am God”, Psalm 46, found in the Ecclesiastes.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 77)
Consciousness is indeed always with us. Everyone knows ‘I am!’ No one can deny his own being. The man in deep slumber is not aware; while awake he seems to be aware. But it is the same person. There is no change in the one who slept and the one who is now awake. In deep sleep he was not aware of his body; there was no body-consciousness. In the wakeful state he is aware of his body; there is body-consciousness. Therefore the difference lies in the emergence of body-consciousness and not in any change in the Real Consciousness. The body and body-consciousness arise together and sink together. All this amounts to saying that there are no limitations in deep sleep, whereas there are limitations in the waking state. These limitations are the bondage; the feeling ‘The body is I’ is the error. This false sense of ‘I’ must go. The real ‘I’ is always there. It is here and now. It never appears anew and disappears again. That which is must also persist for ever. That which appears anew will also be lost. Compare deep sleep and waking. The body appears in one state but not in the other. Therefore the body will be lost. The consciousness was pre-existent and will survive the body. In fact, there is no one who does not say ‘I am’. The wrong knowledge of ‘I am the body’ is the cause of all the mischief. This wrong knowledge must go. That is Realisation. Realisation is not acquisition of anything new nor it is a new faculty. It is only removal of all camouflage.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 96)
The Self is known to everyone but not clearly. You always exist. The Be-ing is the Self. ‘I am’ is the name of God. Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement “I AM THAT I AM” in EXODUS (Chap. 3). There are other statements, such as Brahmaivaham, Aham Brahmasmi and Soham. But none is so direct as the name JEHOVAH = I AM. The Absolute Being is what is - It is the Self. It is God. Knowing the Self, God is known. In fact God is none other than the Self.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 106)
The Self is ever-present (nityasiddha). Each one wants to know the Self. What kind of help does one require to know oneself? People want to see the Self as something new. But it is eternal and remains the same all along. They desire to see it as a blazing light, etc. How can it be so? It is not light, not darkness (na tejo, na tamah). It is only as it is. It cannot be defined. The best definition is ‘I am that I AM.’ The Srutis speak of the Self as being the size of one’s thumb, the tip of the hair, an electric spark, vast, subtler than the subtlest, etc. They have no foundation in fact. It is only Being, but different from the real and the unreal; it is Knowledge, but different
from knowledge and ignorance. How can it be defined at all? It is simply Being.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 122)
“Be still and know that I am God.” To be still is not to think. Know, and not think, is the word.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 131)
The ‘I-thought’ is the ego and that is lost. The real ‘I’ is “I am That I Am.”
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 164)
The essence of mind is only awareness or consciousness. When the ego, however, dominates it, it functions as the reasoning, thinking or sensing faculty. The cosmic mind being not limited by the ego, has nothing separate from itself and is therefore only aware. This is what
the Bible means by “I am that I AM”.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 188)
Ramana Maharshi on the "I Am" – Part 2 of 4
The egoless ‘I am’ is not thought. It is realisation. The meaning or significance of ‘I’ is God. The experience of ‘I am’ is to Be Still.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 226)
One should not think ‘I am this - I am not that’. To say ‘this or that’ is wrong. They are also limitations. Only ‘I am’ is the truth. Silence is ‘I’. If one thinks ‘I am this’, another thinks ‘I am this’ and so on, there is a clash of thoughts and so many religions are the result. The truth remains as it is, not affected by any statements, conflicting or otherwise.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 248)
Everyone knows ‘I am’. Who is the ‘I’? It will be neither within nor without, neither on the right nor on the left. ‘I am’ - that is all.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 273)
You admit “I am”. You admit “I was” in sleep. The state of being is your self.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 280)
The Bible says, “Be still and know that I am God”. Stillness is the sole requisite for the realisation of the Self as God. … The whole Vedanta is contained in the two Biblical statements: “I am that I AM” and “Be still and know that I am God.”
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 338)
“I am that I am.” “I am” is God - not thinking, “I am God”. Realise “I am” and do not think I am. “Know I am God” - it is said, and not “Think I am God.”
It is said “I AM that I AM”. That means a person must abide as the ‘I’. He is always the ‘I’ alone. He is nothing else. Yet he asks “Who am I?” A victim of illusion would ask “Who am I?” and not a man fully aware of himself. The wrong identity of the Self with the non-self makes you ask, “Who am I?”
There are different routes to Tiruvannamalai, but Tiruvannamalai is the same by whichever route it is gained. Similarly the approach to the subject varies according to the personality. Yet
the Self is the same. But still, being in Tiruvannamalai, if one asks for the route it is ridiculous. So also, being the Self, if one asks how to realise the Self it looks absurd. You are the Self. Remain as the Self. That is all. The questions arise because of the present wrong identification of the Self with the body. That is ignorance. This must go. On its removal the Self alone is.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 354)
Your duty is to be: and not to be this or that. “I AM that I AM” sums up the whole truth. The method is summed up in “BE STILL”. What does “stillness” mean? It means “destroy yourself”. Because any form or shape is the cause of trouble. Give up the notion that “I am so and so”. Our sastras say: ahamiti sphurati (it shines as ‘I’).
(Aham, aham) ‘I-I’ is the Self; (Aham idam) “I am this” or “I and that” is the ego. Shining is there always. The ego is transitory; When the ‘I’ is kept up as ‘I’ alone it is the Self; when it flies at a tangent and says “this” it is the ego.
The Self is God. “I AM” is God. “I am the Self, O Gudakesa!” (Ahamatma Gudakesa).
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 363)
Vichara is the process and the goal also. ‘I AM’ is the goal and the final Reality. To hold to it with effort is vichara. When spontaneous and natural it is Realisation.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 390)
Nirvana is Perfection. In the Perfect State there is neither subject nor object; there is nothing to see, nothing to feel, nothing to know. Seeing and knowing are the functions of the mind. In nirvana there is nothing but the blissful pure consciousness “I am.”
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 406)
Dvaita and advaita are relative terms. They are based on the sense of duality. The Self is as it is. There is neither dvaita nor advaita. I AM THAT I AM. Simple Being is the Self.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 433)
In the Bible God says “I AM before Abraham.” He does not say “I was” but “I AM.”
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 436)
Ramana Maharshi on the "I Am" – Part 3 of 4
This Consciousness is the eternal Being and the only Being. The seer cannot see himself. Does he deny his existence because he cannot see himself with the eyes as pratyaksha (in vision)? No! So, pratyaksha does not mean seeing, but BE-ing. “To BE” is to realise - Hence I AM THAT I AM. I AM is Siva. Nothing else can be without Him. Everything has its being in Siva and because of Siva.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 450)
You say ‘I AM’. That is it. What else can say I AM? One’s own being is His Power. The trouble arises only when one says, “I am this or that, such and such.” Do not do it - Be yourself. That is all.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 478)
Be still and know that I AM GOD. “Stillness” here means “Being free from thoughts”.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 480)
Reality is only one and that is the self. All the rest are mere Phenomena in it, of it and by it. The seer, the objects and the sight, all are the self only. ... The only permanent thing is Reality; and that is the Self. You say “I am”, “I am going”, “I am speaking”, “I am working”, etc. Hyphenate “I am” in all of them. Thus I - AM. That is the abiding and fundamental Reality. This truth was taught by God to Moses: “I AM that I-AM”. “Be still and know that I-AM God.” so “I-AM” is God.
You know that you are. You cannot deny your existence at any moment of time. For you must be there in order to deny it. This (Pure Existence) is understood by stilling your mind. The mind is the outgoing faculty of the individual. If that is turned within, it becomes still in course of time and that “I-AM” alone prevails. “I-AM” is the whole Truth.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 503)
Everyone is aware, ‘I am’. Leaving aside that awareness one goes about in search of God.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 557)
You are neither That nor This. The truth is ‘I am’. “I AM that I AM” according to the Bible also. Mere Being is alone natural. To limit it to ‘being a man’ is uncalled for.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 601)
“Be still and know that I AM God”. So stillness is the aim of the seeker. Even a single effort to still at least a single thought even for a trice goes a long way to reach the state of quiescence. Effort is required and it is possible in the waking state only.
(Source: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 609)
That which is, always is. If the ahankar dies, It, the Reality, exists as It has always existed. You may speak of It as having aham vritti or simply aham. It is all the same. That which exists is ‘I am’ or ‘aham’.
(Source: Day by Day with Bhagavan, 12-11-45 Morning)
‘I exist’ is the only permanent, self-evident experience of everyone. Nothing else is so self-evident (pratyaksha) as ‘I am’. What people call ‘self-evident’ viz., the experience they get through the senses, is far from selfevident. The Self alone is that. Pratyaksha is another name
for the Self. So, to do Self-analysis and be ‘I am’ is the only thing to do. ‘I am’ is reality. I am this or that is unreal. ‘I am’ is truth, another name for Self. ‘I am God’ is not true.
The Swami thereupon said, “The Upanishads themselves have said ‘I am Brahman’.” Bhagavan replied, “That is not how the text is to be understood. It simply means, “Brahman exists as ‘I’ and not ‘I am Brahman’. It is not to be supposed that a man is advised to contemplate ‘I am Brahman’, ‘I am Brahman’. Does a man keep on thinking ‘I am a man’ ‘I am a man’? He is that, and except when a doubt arises as to whether he is an animal or a tree, there is no need for him to assert, ‘I am a man.’ Similarly the Self is Self, Brahman exists as ‘I am’, in every thing and every being.”
(Source: Day by Day with Bhagavan, 22-3-46 Afternoon)
Ramana Maharshi on the "I Am" – Part 4 of 4
We do not know anything about Siva or the Paramatman. We know the jiva. Or, rather, we know we exist. ‘I am’ is the only thing that always abides, even when the body does not exist for us, as for instance, when we are asleep. Let us take hold of this, and see wherefrom the ‘I’ sense or ahamkara, as you put it, arises.
(Source: Day by Day with Bhagavan, 27-12-46)
When I say you are present at all times and at all places and you ask where is that ‘I’, it is something like asking, when you are in Tiruvannamalai, ‘Where is Tiruvannamalai?’ When you are everywhere, where are you to search? The real delusion is the feeling that you are the body. When you get rid of that delusion, what remains is your Self. You should search for a thing which is not with you but where is the need to search for a thing which is always with you? All sadhanas are for getting rid of the delusion that you are the body. The knowledge that ‘I am’ is always there: call it Atma, or Paramatma or whatever you like. One should get rid of the idea that ‘I am the body’. There is no need to search for that ‘I’ that is the self. That Self is all pervading.
(Source: Letters from Sri Ramanasramam, [73] The “I” is the Mind Itself)
Samadhi alone can reveal the Truth. Thoughts cast a veil over Reality, and so It is not realised as such in states other than samadhi. In samadhi there is only the feeling ‘I AM’ and no thoughts. The experience ‘I AM’ is being still.
(Source: Maharshi’s Gospel, VI. Self-Realisation)
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says ‘Aham’ is the first name of God. The first letter in Sanskrit is ‘A’ and the last letter ‘Ha’ and ‘Aha’ thus includes everything from the beginning to the end. The word Ayam means That which exists, self-shining and self-evident. Ayam, Atma, Aham all refer to the same thing. In the Bible also, ‘I AM’ is given as the first name of God.
(Source: Gems from Bhagavan, XIII. Miscellaneous)
Not even an iota of prarabdha exists for those who uninterruptedly attend to the space of consciousness, which always shines as `I am', which is not confined in the vast physical space, and which pervades everywhere without limitations.
(Source: Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi, Ch. 21 Karma, Destiny and Free Will)
Salazar,
no matter. I referred only to your sentence of 30 October 2018 at 23:15 "There is no need to make one or the other "better" or "worse"."
Seeing always both sides of the coin finally serves to control the mind and intellect.
It is surely Bhagavan's direct command for everyone who seeks to know the self that one has first to perfect himself in self-discipline, give up desires and attune the mind to the self.
D Samarender Reddy,
thanks for compiling your compilation of Ramana Maharshi's sayings on the 'I am'.
So by the constant grace of Arunachala and the unfailing protection of Lord Siva we may dedicate our life to the supreme omnipresent being. Only by complete surrender to the Lord who dwells as the self in the heart we can attain that supreme state.
Let us become free from the enslavement through desires and thus be well satisfied in the self and by the self.
Salazar, regarding bizarre assumptions creeping up on this blog and "dull-witted":
We clearly see that it must be our indispensable endeavour to primarily destroy the mind's evil tendencies.
Dragos Nicolae,
You asked on
31 October 2018 at 15:10 to 'everyone".
How EXACTLY do you practice?
Michael James has explained quite in detail how to practice in his several commentaries and comments in this blog. Is that not sufficient for you? Sri Ramana Maharshi has also explained how to practice. Who is better to explain than the two of them here?
Hi Salazar,
I received my copy of "Conscious Immortality" today which is supposed to be a record of Paul Brunton's conversations with Bhagavan. I believe you recommend it?
Although I have hardly looked at it... somethings are very interesting.
I appreciate the preface which frankly, intelligently and impartially describes the intrigue surrounding the work:
The original manuscript was lost and whatever text was removed is unknown.
Of the current work: 62% of the book corresponds to Munagala's "Talks" and of that 62%... fully 67% corresponds word for word with Talks.
And the preface which is from V.S. Ramanan president of Sri Ramanasramam says "There is a wealth of instruction in the notebook and the ashram feels devotees can gain immeasurably from this new edition".
Of course, at best words only point.
thanks again,
Hi Sam,
thanks for your excellent and inspiring posts.
Guru Vachaka Kovai - verse 43
The projected picture of this world of triads is a play of chit-para-shakti [i.e., the power or reflected light of self-consciousness] on the screen of supreme consciousness.
Reflections: The seer, seen and the process of seeing or the knower, known and the process of knowing is all like a film appearing on the screen of awareness. What is the power which makes such a picture appear? It is chit-para-shakti – the reflected light of self-consciousness.
The books we like change in correspondence to and in relation with our need.
In alteration what Salazar said ("...actually all what is needed can be found in Padamalai or GVK.") I would say that all what is needed must be found finally in one's own practice.
Sanjay,
as we know, the reflected light of self-consciousness is not the direct light of self but only the light borrowed by the ego from self.
Hi Josef,
Regarding your comment: "all what is needed must be found finally in one's own practice"
The way (or "non-way") is self revealing. Instructive glimpses are provided.
Roger,
at least instructive glimpses are appreciated. Who might be the provider of them ?
Josef loves to make these innocent appearing questions while we know that [his] ego has already the answer and it just likes more food to argue once an answer was provided :)
Where could that come from? [Rhetorical question.]
Salazar,
why do you so easily see through my person ?:-)
You always see what it's really all about, that is certain.
who provides glimpses? Grace.
A glimpse maybe the result of extensive Atma Vicara practice or whatever else you do or being with a realized person.
For example after a period of extensive meditation, a lengthy retreat etc... Grace might reveal some highly personal clue on what to aspire to next... this may just be a clear example of profound stillness demonstrating not in concepts but actually in your experience what it is.
So in this regard: the way is self revealing. Study and contemplation is also good. But grace will actually show you.
PB talks extensively of glimpses: https://paulbrunton.org/notebooks/
Just enter "glimpse" into the search box.
There are many false matches but 700+ in total.
Roger,
if Paul Brunton had not written his book "A search in Secret India" perhaps I would not know anything about Arunachala-Ramana. Therefore I have to write posthumously a thank-you letter to him.:-)
Hi Josef,
I certainly allow anyone a devotional attraction to Arunachala.
But I feel none myself.
I do live with an extensive mountain range in my backyard with numerous 4000+ meter peaks.
So that will have to do for me even though it has no associated mythology it is not less in feeling.
Roger,
no matter, I feel myself no devotional attraction to the magnificent mountainous region of Sierra Nevada. In contrast to that majestic Californian mountain range Arunachala hill with its only about 800 meters height is only a dwarf. However, Arunachala is not an ordinary mountain...and more than a myth.
Salazar,
let me have my inferior devotion to the location Arunachala!
But you are right in saying: simply to be is the supreme devotion and the highest attainment is the realisation of one's identity with the Lord within through atmanishta,
the steadfast abidance in the oneness of self.
By the way, I only guessed that Roger meant Sierra Nevada. Sorry, I have never been in California.
The three vices of the mind are desire, fear and anger presuppose duality and duality is based on the mind.
It is said...once the mind is destroyed, the illusion of bondage is put to an end.
The only direct means of destroying the mind with its duality and consequent vices is unswerving abidance in the self, atmanishta. When atmanishta becomes sahaja or spontaneous, the sense of duality is destroyed for ever.
Arunachala is pure self-awareness; how then can it be considered as an object ?
IF one has the skill of devotion / Bhakti, then devotion to some object (ie mountain, saint, child, spouse or abstract god etc... whatever is personally moving) may lead in the direction of freedom. It is not the object that frees, it is the devotion.
It is the same with Karma Yoga. It is not the action that frees, it is the inward selflessness found in performance of ones duty.
Download the pdf of Talks and search on Bhakti: there are 62 hits. Bhagavan puts devotion at the same level as other methods including vicara. People have different temperaments. The thing is finding what works for you.
If Papaji dismissed devotion, then maybe it wasn't his temperament... or he skipped key lectures by Bhagavan. :-)
Salazar,
..."And secondly, the term Self is an object, as is Brahman, sat-chit-ananda, pure self-awareness etc. It can only be an object for the mind, it is imagined."
But... Arunachala is self and that is beyond the mind which itself does not even actually exist. Therefore imaginations of the non-existent mind are completely irrelevant. As pure consciousness Arunachala is always present as transcendental being within, beyond the three states of consciousness, eternal and immutable.
We should surrender unto the omnipresent Lord who dwells in the heart, not to any "ignore list".:-)
I see two trends on this blog, a parrot style repetition-regurgitation of what Michael has thought for himself, and neo-advaita guru wannabes who like to pretend they're better than anyone else... good luck!
Dragos,
make it better - good luck, best wishes and kind regards to Bucharest.
Why remain in the dark, finite hole when we can become one with the brilliant, infinite whole
Why not just keep quiet; why let ego see height,
Why rise as ego and give up happiness; why such incessant madness,
Why not bring ego under Bhagavan’s feet; why not remove all its heat,
Why remain in the dark, finite hole when we can become one with the brilliant, infinite whole.
Salazar,
You fit in nicely with Michael James. Both of you have strong held opinions on how everyone else should practice and that is your main vocation.
Salazar,
Can you explain what are Bhagavan's basic tenets of his practice/philosophy and what they entail? Then you will see the many logical errors you produce in what you write...
Thanks
Salazar likes to play down his often condescending style of commenting by the notion "I share my viewpoints on this blog."
For instance: "Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahha"
(1 November 2018 at 23:44)
Anyhow an interesting, strange and revealing viewpoint.:-)
Salazar,
I believe the path is to dive deep into oneself and get the Self metaphorically speaking... logical conclusions for me is that there will never be a world to be experienced. No time, no space, no thoughts, no seeing anything, pure self awareness, nothing else... that, for me, easily separates the wheat from the chaff, as far as many other spiritual teachers/writings are concerned... and keeps everything extremely simple... Bhagavan's metaphysics is an aid to this path, keeps the mind not so scattered on so may spiritual concepts...
Neo-advaita on the other hand tells people there's no ego, nothing to do... that's so wrong in my opinion and, most importantly, very capable aspirants are lead astray with this wishful thinking. Neo-advaita has nothing to do with Bhagavan's unique path and goal... We need to get to our source to destroy the ego (which manifests all we see) not merely accepting there's no ego... if it's so simple as neo-advaitins imply, why so many people don't realize it so quickly...?! It has nothing to do with theory/accepting something, it has all to do with our rising vasanas from countless lives/dreams... we are told how to destroy them... dive within to reach the source... so how's that compared to neo-advaita that you seem to preach here?! You are leading many people astray
A seeker of truth must learn not to lose his equanimity when he encounters a rude or insulting manner or aggressive attitude of someone.
Dragos Nicolae,
Reg:
31 October 2018 at 15:10 to 'everyone".
How EXACTLY do you practice?
Michael James said in this commentary.
Our aim is to experience and just be the pure self-awareness that we actually are, but in order to do so we must investigate ego. Since we now experience ourself as ego, we cannot attend to ourself except as ego, just as when we see a rope as a snake we cannot look at it except as a snake. However, by looking at the snake, we see that it is actually just a rope, and thereafter we can never again mistake it to be a snake. Likewise, by keenly attending to ego, we see that we are actually just pure self-awareness, and thereafter we can never again mistake ourself to be ego, the false awareness ‘I am this body’.
Therefore when Bhagavan says that we should look within, what he means is that we should look only at ourself, this ego (the subject who perceives all objects, the one who is aware of everything else), because when we look at ourself keenly enough we will see that what we actually are is not the ego that we seemed to be but only pure self-awareness.
Michael James has understood correctly what Bhagavan taught in his post of his. Now if it has not yet practically worked for the student (whomever it is) it is not the teacher's fault but the unreadiness of the student or seeker to give up identification with the ego.
We see that impure beings are overpowered by rajas and tamas.
They are caught and harnessed in the wheel of samsara. By a lucky chance they will get a free bed in a special clinic.:-)
Let us say enough is enough
To reach our goal we need to destroy ego; self-investigation is the only way to let it go.
Some do not like when we thus clarify; but why should we dilute the truth to satisfy?
With ego is command our life is miserable; why should pretend that it is tolerable?
Let us say enough is enough.
Post a Comment