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 401 – 528 of 528Correction:
With ego in command, our life is miserable; why should we pretend that it is tolerable?
Why do we get angry?
We may get angry when our expectations are not met or when our desires are thwarted. We may become angry when somebody or something we are attached to is taken away from us. We are likely to get angry when somebody or some incident causes harm to the things or people we love.
The intensity of our anger depends on the intensity of our desires and attachments. For example, if I am too attached to my car, I will become very angry if someone causes harm to my car. If I am only slightly attached, my anger may not be so much in such situations.
However, if we have no expectations, have no likes and dislikes, we will not become angry because of whatever seemingly bad or horrible situations we may encounter. So to give up our anger we need to tackle its root, namely our desires and attachments. And give up our desires and attachments we need to remove their root, namely ego. And to remove ego we need to turn our attention a full 180 degrees within and thereby experience ourself as we really are.
Sanjay,
yes, we have primarily to cut the ego-tree off its roots (or root it up).
Dragos,
I just consider that looking within is synonymous with letting go of the ego.
So I try to combine practically both aspects. I hope that will intensify and deepen my attempts of self-investigation. In this manner my investigation will become more careful and keen and the awareness of myself as if I were a person should gradually vanish.
There have been a number of revealing comments of late:
"very capable aspirants are lead astray with this wishful thinking"
"Michael James has understood correctly what Bhagavan taught in his post of his"
"Some do not like when we thus clarify; but why should we dilute the truth to satisfy?"
The implicit assumption by these 3 commentators is that they know what the truth is, how else can they make such comments? But one cannot know the truth until s/he is self-realised; prior to that it is a belief, a concept, a hypothesis held by the illusory mind, which we have been told is false and misleading. So in these statements, one has the roots of religious fundamentalism, not self-investigation.
Assumptions of the mind are yet so exiting; why painting things so black ?:-)
Why being concerned with the mind's assumptions ?
To whom do these assumptions appear ?
Find out and be at peace.:-)
Nice comments Venkat.
There is frequent talk here about the "ego".
For me, this always seems imprecise and not very useful even fantasy.
Often what MJ has said is repeated... but what does it mean? what is the ego?
MJ says that the ego is the world and body.
does this work? Can anyone actually go so far into "I" that the world and body disappear?
For me, very precisely, when my attention is focused inward using some kind of meditation, the "ego" is simply that takes attention off the subject going outward into thought or ambition. And to overcome the "ego" is simply recognizing that attention has been lost... and back to self. Then... the ego is something very specific that "I" can deal with practically: attention lost into ambition or thought or emotion (ego)?... then just bring attention back to inward focus.
does it make sense? The definition of "ego" here seems to broad to be useful.
(I'm not trying to pose as if I know or master the path... far from it)
Yes, Roger.. I have similar questions... and I believe this is what this comment section should be about... dissecting things that could help us in our own practice....
For me, there are some crucial things that need more clarification (which obviously get more clarified by practice but...) ..they are:
1. What is the ego?!
2. What exactly is the path?!
3. What does the state of realization we are trying to achieve entail?!
These are very very important questions. I'm trying to answer based on what Bhagavan says, and what my meager practice so far seems to tell me.... So please, everyone join the discussion, with what you experienced so far, and your manana ...
1. What is the ego?!
The ego, according to Bhagavan is basically what is aware of all other thoughts. You are aware of anger... what is aware of anger is the ego. Subject<--->object relationship.... what-is-aware-of-anger <---> anger .. I think this is clear to anyone, no question about it...
Bhagavan also says that this ego expands and creates everything so in a way everything we see right now is ego, or an expansion of it... just like in a dream...
So ego is what is aware of everything else, and also the world, the body etc..... Also ego is mind accord to Bhagavan, so all this world is mind (just like in a dream, including your body). So ego, mind, i, world are the same thing...
2. What exactly is the path?!
The path is to look at the ego, right?! See what it its... But what exactly that entails... it's simple to just say it.... So, to whom right... well i'm doing that... it's obviously nothing there, but when I really try to keenly look at it (very very brief moments of intensity of attention) it seems to me that the very act transitions to diving into yourself as Bhagavan rightly says in Ulladu Narpadhu verse 28: (http://www.happinessofbeing.com/Sri_Ramanopadesa_Noonmalai.pdf)
"
Just as one would dive (restraining one’s speech and breath) in order to find a thing which has fallen into the water, one should dive within (oneself) restraining speech and breath with a keen mind (that is, with a keen and penetrating attention fixed on the feeling ‘I’), and know (the real Self, which is) the rising-place (or source) of the ego, which rises first. Know thus.
"
So this would be the practice, it so seems to me....
3. What does the state of realization we are trying to achieve entail?!
Bhagavan repeateadly says that when the State we are after is achieved, body consciousness along with world consciousness will be gone forever... But many teachers say these two will come back and you (as pure consciousness) won't be affected by them...
So what do you think...
Thanks,
Dragos
So we greenhorns must penitently admit that only Salazar's concepts, imaginations, theories, expectations, truth's (as imagined and believed by the mind) will never veil Brahman/Self.:-)
Dragos,
may I generally recommend to carefully study Michael's numerous articles.
Regarding your first question 1. What is the ego?! you may watch also Michael's recent video: Sri Ramana Teachings:
2018-10-28 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: discussion with Michael James on the nature of ego
Your last question 3. What does the state of realization we are trying to achieve entail?! you will find answered after realization - if then still necessary.
You do not greatly profit from any speculation.
I'm asking for other people's own opinion/actual practice ... why is everyone just quoting/parroting Michael here?!
As regards, the state of realization, this is a very important question... if the state of realization does not entail perception of the world (it's people, object, time etc...) and basically we won't experience it anymore (just like you now you don't experience last night's dream) it means that all teachers who teach otherwise are not enlightened at all... (just assume for the sake of argument that this is the case, isn't this the logical conclusion?!)
Joseph, I know what the ego is... I'm asking you what it think it is... and what is your experience so far...
"what you" i meant
My opinion/practice so far is that you have to dive deep within yourself as Bhagavan says in verse 28, and that there won't be any perception of this world with it's time, people etc.... So basically anyone who says otherwise is not enlightened... Yes, I know... this sounds arrogant... so what do you think?! Seriously... isn't this what Bhagavan implies?!
So basically, Papaji, Mooji, Robert Adams, Nisargadatta and tens of other so called Jnanis are not Jnanis at all...
(now let the quote war begin :).... better state your own practice/conclusions, thanks...)
I will not reply to anyone who just mindlessly posts quotes here without also adding up his own thoughts / practice... I'm not trying to look arrogant, but please share what you think...
Salazar,
what do you do (or try to do) everyday? What exactly is your practice... just so we know how to tackle our conflicting ideas... so please share...
Same for everyone else... please share... so we can have a honest discussion
(sorry for the scattered posts, ideas came like that...) and sorry if it looks arrogant... that's not the idea... we're trying to help each other progress in understanding and sharpening the practice..
thanks,
Dragos
Dragos,
between you and me I think that none of the mentioned teachers did reach the same depth of wisdom as Bhagavan Sri Ramana. Not only I but many others are convinced that he is the greatest luminary in the firmament of spirituality in the recent past. I cannot judge if these mentioned teachers are considered with justification as jnanis.
So far as I am concerned I have to admit that I just began to overcome a sense of frustration about he fact that till now I was not able to bring the mind to stand still i.e. to eliminate all thoughts or at least to bring the mind gradually under control. Not to rise as ego/person and thus to remain in the self seems to be still far away. However, there is no alternative but to develop the required patience and perseverance.
Kind regards.
Dragos, sorry,
correction: it should be "the fact" not "he fact".
Thank you Joseph,
I’m in the same situation...
Dragos
1. The ego is a thought. One thought cannot see other thoughts; to posit such essentially furthers the entification of the ego. I don't think this is what Bhagavan was teaching. He was saying that once the I-thought, which identifies with body-mind arises, then all the further concepts about the world arise. So we don't see things as they are - non-different from us, as in the same gold in different ornaments - but through the lens of our I-thought which likes and dislikes, has greed and fear.
I have pointed out in previous comments, quotes from Muruganar and Shankara that clearly state that it is the Self / awareness that witnesses the jiva and the world.
2. For me, the path is to investigate the ego, first analytically / intellectually, and then through constant awareness of the I-thought, especially when it waxes - in desire, anger and fear. This constant inward awareness on its own, leads to a natural (rather than forced) subsidence of thoughts, such that you just be - summa iru.
3. Realisation does not necessarily mean the disappearance of the body and world. It simply entails the loss of subject-object division - ie one goes through life, without specifically identifying with this particular body-mind and its desires and fears. Again, there are quotes from Muruganar and Advaita more generally (including books that Bhagavan recommended such as Kaivalya Navaneeta, Ashtavakra Gita, and Bhagavad Gita).
This disappearance of the body world is a logical follow-on if one asserts that the world is projected and perceived by the ego. Therefore when the ego dies, the world must disappear. This is MJ's logic, but in my opinion is based on a misunderstanding of Bhagavan's teaching.
That of course is just my opinion, since I am not realised.. You need to investigate and come to your own view.
To all those pandits, scholars and pretentious sages who do not appreciate Michael James's commentaries and explanations on Bhagavan's teachings.
What are you doing here criticizing Michael James saying he has not realized the Self and such other nonsense. How do you know for sure Michael James is not a Jnani even of he says he is not? As is you people have realized the Self yourselves and are Jnanis?
Go and start your own blogs like Michael James has done if you have a better understanding than Micheal James instead of behaving like arrogant assholes and showing off your worthless mental concepts.
"Therefore when the world appears, svarūpa [our ‘own form’ or actual self] does not appear [as it really is]; when svarūpa appears (shines) [as it really is], the world does not appear" Nan Yar
No one can doubt this quote by Bhagavan.... How do you interpret it? ok, be it so... it's mysterious, mind can't comprehend it... etc... what do I know.. let's leave it here...
"You have already gone astray" lol.. I am already astray... trying to disentagle myself form this messy life-body... looking for what is unchanging in me... the path is clear, trying to understand certain things that might help me more profoundly does not make me "corrupted"... well... each with his own way... everyone is responsible for himself... I wish everyone success in this endeavour
Have a nice day,
Dragos :D
Have you got the experience to speak with authority?! If not, how do you know I'm not correct? On what you base your intrepretation?
I'm not saying I'm right... That's why I believe it's important we all have a honest discussion about this...
If, as you say, the grasping has stopped, how can you be aware of any world since what you perceive as the world are in themsevles things (mental impressions) that are grasped?! Don't you see your logical contradiction?!
Salazar,
having had an experience of self - our real nature - is nothing particular. Rather we all have it every night.:-)
Evidently your experience (of what ever it really was) was not manonasa but at best manolaya.
Dragos
I will again repeat GVK 1119:
"Though the mind that has been captivated and held under the sway of the shining of pure being may move away to sense objects that are seen, heard, eaten, smelt and touched, as in the past, its knot has definitely been severed through perfect, firm vichara."
Muruganar's comment on this verse:
"There is no rule that the mind whose knot has been cut should not operate among the sense objects. . . . it can operate among them wholly as the Self, but it will not in the least become bound by them."
As Salazar pointed out, no jnani has stated that the world disappears on realisation. It is therefore highly unlikely that Bhagavan intended this interpretation, and this is clearly evident in GVK 1119 and Muruganar's comment thereon. This idea of world disappearing on enlightenment is just another concept grasped by the ego to maintain itself . . . "I need to keep on practising until the world disappears!" What Bhagavan and all Jnanis tell you is that you already are free, and it is just your ignorance that binds you. Think what this means! Think about the story of the tenth man, and its meaning; no one disappears on the 10th man remembering to count himself - they were 10 before and they are 10 after.
Actually, even in Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham, Bhagavan makes it clear in his directly written teaching, that the world does not disappear on realisation.
v.26: O hero, having enquired into all the states which are of various kinds, play your role in the the world, always clinging firmly with the mind only to that one which is the supreme state devoid of unreality. O hero, since you have known that Self which exists in the heart as the Reality of all the various appearances; therefore without ever abandoning that outlook, play your role in the world as if you have desire.
v27: O hero, being one who has seeming mental excitement and joy, being one who has seeming mental anxiety and hatred, being one who has seeming effort or initiative, but being as one who is in truth devoid of all such defects, play your role in the world. O hero, being one who has been released from the many bonds called delusion, being one who is firmly equanimous in all conditions, yet outwardly doing actions appropriate to your disguise, play your role in the world.
Paragraph Three
சரவ் அறிவிற்கும் சரவ் மதோழிற்குங் கோரண மோகிய மன மடங்கினோல் ஜகதிருஷ் டி நீங்கும். கற்பித ஸரப்்ப ஞோனம் பபோனோ மலோழிய அதிஷ் டோன ரஜ்ஜு ஞோனம் உண் டோகோதது பபோல, கற்பிதமோன ஜகதிருஷ் டி நீங்கினோ மலோழிய அதிஷ் டோன மசோரூப தரச்ன முண் டோகோது.
If the mind, which is the cause of all [objective] knowledge and of all activity, subsides, jagad-dṛṣṭi [perception of the world] will cease. Just as knowledge of the rope, which is the base [that underlies and supports the imaginary appearance of a snake], will not arise unless knowledge of the imaginary snake ceases, svarūpa-darśana [true
experiential knowledge of our own actual nature or real self], which is the base [that underlies and supports the imaginary appearance of this world], will not arise unless perception of the world, which is an imagination [or fabrication], ceases
Indeed beliefs, being just thoughts, would sustain the mind. However, having desire to experiencing the Self and at the same time the world and trying to justify it with numerous examples of the so-called "enlightened" people is not better at all.
Hi Salazar, I concur with your comment to me.
Noob, the ashram publication of Who am I, contained in "Words of Grace" has this translation for your paragraph:
"If the mind which is the instrument of knowledge and is the basis of activity subsides, the perception of the world as an objective reality ceases. Unless the illusory perception of the serpent in the rope ceases, the rope on which the illusion is formed is not perceived as such. Similarly, unless the illusory nature of the perception of the world as an objective reality ceases, the vision of the true nature of the Self on which the illusion is formed is not obtained".
This gives a very different sense to the MJ translation that you have quoted. Michael's might be a sparse, word for word translation; but clearly the meaning inherent can be conveyed with very different nuances.
Consequently any thinking person needs to take into account MJ's interpretation, ALONGSIDE others such as Muruganar, Annamalai Swami, Shankara and the various books that Bhagavan recommended, even if you dispute other Jnanis.
Indeed you need to consider the significance of Bhagavan's verses in UN (such as 'the world is real for the ajnani and the jnani . . .', 'this body is I for the ajnani and jnani . . . ') and UNA (as I have quoted above); as well as his dialogues as recorded in Talks (whatever the shortcomings).
As I have stated previously MJ has done a great service for us in translating Bhagavan's works. To understand them is our responsibility. To simply rely on Michael's interpretation, without recourse to understanding how his interpretation contradicts that of others, just betrays an ego that wants comfort and security in a belief without having to think for itself.
Venkat, thank you for your input.
This is entirely my judgment about the meaning of such a deep masterpiece. However, if I have to take into account the fact that according to Bhagavan we must treat this world the same way as we treat our dreams, the statement that an "enlightened person" can see this world is the same as saying that I keep seeing dreams after waking up, which is equal to " I keep dreaming". Besides this is all happening in "my dream", so to speak.
We are just have to much attachment to this world.... Like when we see a dream but feel reluctant to wake up from it. And it keeps feeding us all the garbage about " see these enlightened persons" in your dream, you can be like one of them. And we fail to understand that there is only ONE, and he is not a person.
Funny stuff, sometimes when I have a philosophical argument with my friends and they ask a question why we do this or that, trying to find a logical answer, I answer them "I did this or that because I woke up in the morning"
Noob,
I think Salazar articulated it well - not to have any expectations of what realisation entails. The philosophical point we can all intellectually grasp and agree upon is that we are not separate from the world (the gold in ornaments), and that the ego is an illusion and the cause of our travails. Therefore just be aware of the ego in all its thoughts and actions, and Bhagavan says that watching / investigation will cause it to subside. What happens after that is not your (ego's) concern.
Noob,
For me the waking world has no more reality than a dream. We / our ego take it seriously, and believe we need to grab things for ourselves and achieve something for ourselves. That is what Bhagavan meant by dream. That is what Bhagavan meant by "just be". That is why he suggests a number of verses from the Bhagavad Gita describing a jnani, such as:
"Satisfied with what comes to him by chance, beyond the pairs of opposites, free from envy, equal in success and failure, he is not bound by his actions".
There is no hint of disappearance of the world in BG, but there are plenty of verses to say it is not real, it is illusory, like a mirage of water in the desert . . . so don't take it seriously, and be unaffected by it.
So my question for you Noob: How do you understand Bhagavan's UNA verses 26 and 27, which I quoted in an earlier comment, and which is the gist of the BG quote as well?
Indeed, having the ability to see the world after "realization" is one of those expectations.
Venkat, my understanding of those two verses is as follows:
Bhagavan uses "O Hero", speaking to a 2nd person. My personal take is that it is a sort of a reassurance to those on the path, in the same way as it is in Bhagavad Gita. Every body dies sooner or later, what awaits beyond is what we will find out in due time. When we are ready, we will just await THAT, playing our role without worries and fears.
Noob - the UNA and the BG verses are speaking of a jnani.
I wonder why Bhagavan, who always was very straight-forward in his teaching, would seek to confuse by saying at one point the world disappears with the ego, and then saying within the same composition, 'the world/body exists for the jnani and ajnani' and 'play your part in the world'. And why point to Shanakara, Bhagavad Gita, Kaivalya Navaneeta and Vivekachudamani, which do not promulgate this idea of the world disappearing.
One either concludes that Bhagavan was not consistent and confused in his teaching, or that our interpretation of it is confused.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have no particular desire to see the world. I am simply disagreeing with Michael's interpretation of Bhagavan's, based on the various sources I have quoted.
There seems to be a cult developing around Michael's translation and interpretation of three texts (UN, UU and Nan Yar), whilst discarding pointers from Talks, Day to Day, Muruganar's commentaries, Annamalai Swami, let alone other jnanis.
Venkat, for me this is very simple. I accept that my mind can create illusions with different degrees of sophistication. I also try to take the world and my dreams as just one great illusion. So what jnanis are we looking for in this dream world? I know with my experience that I cannot change what I see in my dreams when I am already dreaming, even though it looks like I have a will there as I am frequently travelling there, speaking in different languages, performing other actions that seem to be impossible to do without a will in this world. And I know that that is all an illusion in my dreams therefore it can also be an illusion in this world. So again what jnanis are we looking for?
They can all be just illusory jnanis.
"So again what jnanis are we looking for?"
So why quote Bhagavan's Nan Yar?, And why frequent this site?
Probably this is my role. I came across Bhagavan's teachings by accident, but I always wanted, since I was a kid, to find out about the world and consciousness. At first I could not even accept that this can be all an illusion, but with time, slowly, Bhagavan's interpretation won, cleared all doubts I had when I read Bhagavad Gita, the Bible, etc. And I keep asking that same question myself, why am I even coming to post here?
Probably I am not yet ready to give up on everything.....
We have created so many needs for ourselves and made our lives extremely complicated
The mind continues to multiply its needs. Actually, what we need for living is food, clothing and shelter – pretty basic. But we have made our lives very complicated by creating so many needs for ourselves nowadays. Can anyone of us live without a mobile phone or computer these days? All these things were not needed 30 to 40 years back. We have created all these perceived necessities now. This is the nature of maya.
Nowadays so many things are available, but even in a relatively primitive society desires were endless. This is the nature of mind because we think happiness comes from external things.
Edited extract from: 2018-06-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston - discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 17 (1:00)
Reflections: Yes, we have definitely created so many needs for ourselves, but can we undo them now? It may seem difficult but we can try doing so. A simpler life is conducive to more peace and contentment. We can try getting out of this rat race of owning more and more things.
Some of our friends are of the opinion that we should speak only from direct experience and not just repeat whatever Bhagavan or Michael have said or written. It was also stated that since Michael is not a jnani, we should not believe in everything he says or writes. My views on these points are as follows:
Should we speak from our direct experience and not just repeat what Bhagavan or Michael have said or written?
No one denies the need for direct experience, but this does not mean we should not repeat what Bhagavan has written in his own words. If we consider him to be our guru, why should we not repeat whatever he has written? This will help us to internalise the meaning of these words. Many devotees recite Bhagavan’s works and this is beneficial.
I do try to repeat whatever Michael has said or written (maybe in my words), but this is because I concur with his views. We tend to trust people whom we believe are more experienced than us. Others may have more trust in other 'teachers'. It is fine.
'Michael is not a jnani, so we should not believe in everything he says or writes,' believe some of our friends.
The one who says so, can you tell us whether or not you are a jnani? If you say, ‘I do not know’, then if you do not know even about yourself, how can you say whether or not Michael is a jnani? If you say, ‘I am not a jnani’, then how can an ajnani know whether or not someone else is a jnani? If you claim, ‘I am an jnani’, then there could be no one other than you, so how can you even see Michael? So the question ‘whether or not Michael is a jnani’ can never arise in you.
In fact, we can never know whether or not someone is a jnani. One may counter argue and say, ‘but Michael has himself said that he is not a jnani’. OK, so if I say tomorrow that ‘I am a jnani’, should everyone believe me? A jnani has no need to admit that he is a jnani. There is no one other than him to whom he can say so. This is not to say that I believe Michael is a jnani. He may or not be one. To me this question is irrelevant.
Even to say Bhagavan is a jnani is not correct as long as we point to his body while saying so. The jnani is not a body, so the real Bhagavan is only that which is shining in us as ‘I’.
Venkat, you say
1. The ego is a thought.
Have you experienced: with attention inward... a thought may arise... but the thought is seen while attention still does not waiver from the inward focus?
From this perspective, a single thought is not a challenge to awareness.
It is thinking, thought that digresses endless actually taking away awareness. Awareness becomes identified and invested with the thinking process, with thoughts of ambition, gain, avoiding loss etc.
The "ego" takes over awareness through digressive thinking and emotions, NOT necessarily by a single thought. Nisargadatta said somewhere that he still had thoughts arise... but he paid no attention to them.
And Venkat you say: I wonder why Bhagavan, who always was very straight-forward in his teaching, would seek to confuse by saying at one point the world disappears with the ego
The "world disappears with the ego" when meditating with eyes closed and going into the "no world no body state" (nirvikalpa samadhi). Bhagavan's statements perfectly describe this state. But then when eyes open... the world or some refined subtler aspect of it is there. So his statement "world disappears with ego" applies only to the eyes closed state.
This is elaborated in Godman "Be as you are" the chapter on Samadhi.
Addressing others:
There is speculation about what the ego is and what we are trying to "achieve".
The ego loves this as there is never any break from the philosophic speculation and argument.
The "cure" seems to me to be to stop this speculation:
Put attention within NOW, and if some thinking or emotion takes the attention outward and away... THIS is the ego. What do we have to achieve? Simply notice that the attention has been diverted outwards... and place the attention back inward.
Stories and fantasy about what the ego is and what we might achieve are pretty much useless because they are imaginations in the future.
Why should be "believe" anything? Belief is another digression in to imagination. Instead... simply put attention within NOW and when attention is diverted outwards you will know exactly what the "ego" is and what circumstances are a challenge for you personally right now.
Michael James with blogs such as "what we should believe..." is trying to start his own religion.
It's a big deal if indeed the state we're after is what we experience in deep sleep everynight... if it's not so, yeah, everyone can claim enlightenment, and ideed is not our business to judge who is who... Who cares anyway?! ... it's obviously a highly individual business... to whom?! right... let me see for myself...
All the best to all,
Dragos :)
on the other hand, I cannot but think of Andrew Cohen and all the people he seduced with his "enlightenment" . Lives can be ruined if we are not careful and just blindly believe every claim... perhaps having an idea of what the state entails, as much as words can express it, can save a lot of people from getting into the hands of such charlatans...
I still believe the State we're after is what we experience in deep sleep where no world as such appears, where peace reigns and only being is. Forever conscious in that state is enlightenment.. I believe Bhagavan meant that by his path...
There are quotes by Shankara to that regard (if I find it I will post it), also zen masters, Ibn Al Arabi in sufism/islam, Catholic mysticism where "union with God" is used to describe the experience and the world is "seen no more"... If I have time I will post here the quotes...
And by the way Salazar,
I believe Papaji is a charlatan, who started the whole neo-Advaita nonsense, producing deluded "teachers" like Andrew Cohen... Perhaps you're next....
Dragos,
A summarised sequence of your posts is as follows:
"I'm not saying I'm right... That's why I believe it's important we all have a honest discussion about this..."
"If, as you say, the grasping has stopped, how can you be aware of any world since what you perceive as the world are in themsevles things (mental impressions) that are grasped?! Don't you see your logical contradiction?!"
"I still believe the State we're after is what we experience in deep sleep where no world as such appears, where peace reigns and only being is."
"I believe Papaji is a charlatan, who started the whole neo-Advaita nonsense, producing deluded "teachers" like Andrew Cohen... Perhaps you're next...."
Interesting isn't it? You start by saying you want an honest conversation from everyone, and that you don't know; then from your comments it actually transpires that you do think you know, basically following what Michael has said; and you end with derogatory comments about another jnani, which actually had nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
So your ego tried to show a bit of faux humility, but just could not maintain it.
Hi Dragos,
You say:
I still believe the State we're after is what we experience in deep sleep where no world as such appears.
Bhagavan had an affinity for ajata (meaning he preferred to emphasize this state when teaching or in some documents). That is: awareness so pure that it could never even move to create the world. But this is only one state: eyes closed (or attention withdrawn from eyes totally), attention withdrawn from world and body.
Regarding Shankara, you may be thinking of the Mandukya Upanishad Karika with Shankara's commentary. There are copies with can be downloaded or read on line.
The "state we are after" is simply having attention within. And noting when attention is drawn outward being lost in digressive thought. Then bring attention back within. That is What else can be done?
Thoughts about "what state we are after" are likely more imaginative digressive thought. Place attention within and then actually see what is there. Anything else such as philosophic imagination is a distraction.
Bhagavan wrote or dictated some works which emphasized the "no world, no body" state of awareness. But he also taught people who were active in the world for example in Talks. Michael James has mistakenly taken these documents emphasizing "no world no body" to be the whole picture and made ridiculous conclusions like "the world does not appear to a jnani".
This kind of teaching invites more imaginative philosophic speculation and distracts from placing attention within.
Hi Roger
Ajata vada is the final truth, developing from eka jiva vada, which is a prakriya to urge the ego to disregard all else and focus on itself, the one jiva.
Ajata vada is simply saying that there is no birth, no death, no ego in the first place. It negates the whole idea of a jiva having any distinctive / separate reality. It is simply pointing out that the snake (ego) is just an illusory product of ignorance; it never really existed; therefore how can it be born or die.
Hi Venkat,
thanks for the ajata clarification.
IMO the only absolute truth has to be unchanging, it must be pure consciousness, realization, or "That" (from I am That all this is That).
All we know of ajata is that it is a philosophy, a conceptual projection.
MJ's teaching that the world no longer exists for a jnani is from Ajata (or from temporary or permanent Nirvikalpa). Thus it is only a concept.
So I am saying that the only useful thing to do is to have attention inward, on self, "I", "I AM" or whatever preliminary.
In this regard, philosophic imagination is a distraction from inward attention. Most all of the discussion here is a distraction, imagination.
When I say "preliminary", I find it useful to be able to place attention on the inward energy some times. For example when hiking with a heavy pack up a steep trail, "I" maybe difficult to locate but the precursor inward sensation or energy may be easier to locate.
Also, IMO the ajata philosophy although the final truth is not the whole truth. Because the temporal universal still exists (while it does). The temporal world is not absolute... but even for Bhagavan the appearance of the world must have continued to exist while his body was alive.
MJ seems to insist that only the absolute god exists, and he ignores that the relative god as world does have a temporal reality.
Roger
Ajata vada doesn't say the illusion doesn't appear. It clearly does. It just says that there is no reality to it, as separate from Brahman. It is as we were discussing on Aparokshanubuthi, where the clay is real and the pot is just a temporary effect of clay, and does not have any separate existence / reality apart from clay. And as the idea of a separate world is an illusion, a dream, therefore it cannot be said to have birth or death.
Shankara's commentary on Gaudapada's famous verse says:
"Birth or death can be predicated only of that which exists, and never of what does not exist, such as the horns of a hare . . . It has already been said that our dual experience is a mere illusion . . . Hence it is well said that the Ultimate Reality is the absence of destruction etc, on account of the non-existence of duality (which exists only in the imagination of the mind)."
By contrast, Shankara goes on to say: "For It (Brahman) is ever unimagined, because it is like the rope that is never the object of our imagination, and is real, even before the knowledge of the unreality of the snake. Further the existence of the subject (knower or witness) of imagination must be admitted to be antecedent to the imagination. Therefore it is unreasonable to say that such subject is non-existent".
[Note here that Shankara is saying that Brahman is the witness of the imagination, not the ego as Michael has asserted].
So, when ajata says "no birth, no death, none in bondage", it is saying both that an illusory dream ego ("horns of a hare") cannot be said to have birth or death (recall Nisargadatta used to ask - "do you remember your birth?"), and that the non-dual Brahman also cannot have birth or death. Ajata is simply reaffirming that there never really was a distinct, separate ego-entity; it was always just an imagined I-thought.
Once that is understood, temporal reality is irrelevant; it is just a film running its course on the screen; there is no identification with a particular character in the film. That is the point of nishkamya karma, or wei wu wei - actionless action, or desireless action - a jnani lives the remainder of his life without any particular desire or fear. It is the zen chop wood, carry water.
"One of Noob's comments implied that the people who warn about expecting the world to vanish would automatically have the desire to keep seeing the world. That is a typical but immature response. To have NO expectations includes ANY expectation as it was mentioned to Noob, so why was he assuming that there is an expectation (to want to see the world) after all?"
I am assuming this because many posts here quote different jnanies that say that the world is there to remain...
And that's after the same people say it is impossible to grasp the Self with the mind.
BTW, Salazar, you are right, probably I am typing on the illusory keyboard right now in the same way as I talked with illusory people when I saw a dream last time. I can only know that when the dream has run its way. Why am I doing it?
Why was I talking with all those illusory people when I was dreaming? Probably because I dreamed?
So there is the divine grace, the pure mind, the Self and the world.... quite interesting.
Salazar
I think you may be referring to Isa Upanishad
v.6: He who sees all beings in the Self itself, and the Self in all beings, feels no hatred by virtue of that realisation.
Sankara:
Just as I, the soul of the body, am the witness of all perceptions, and as such I am the source of its consciousness, and am pure and attributeless, similarly in that very aspect of mine am I the soul of all, beginning with the Unmanifested and ending with the immobile; he who realises the unconditioned Self in all beings thus, by virtue of that vision, does not hate.
Salazar claims to shamelessly boast and brag to have had experience of this or that SELF at various times. But it still does not change his status as the one and only "premier fucking asshole" of this blog.
Salazar, keep posting your worthless mental concepts from the loony-bin you have been consigned to until you kick your goddamn bucket. That is all you are good for. You will never realize the Self or get liberated the way Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi did, you fucking asshole.
Salazar, if you are such a "great spiritual Jnani as you claim and boast to be without any shame, why don't you have your own blog and your own goddamn followers? Why do you want to misuse and abuse Michael James's blog to dispose off your worthless shit? You are not just an "ajnani" but you are also the only hypocrite in this blog.
Happy Deepawali
A friend: Happy Deepawali! Could you take a couple of minutes to explain the significance of deepawali?
Michael: ‘Deepa’ means ‘light’ and ‘awali’ means ‘a series’. So deepawali means 'a series of lights'. Oil lamps are lighted during this festival and, ever since gunpowder was invented by the Chinese and came to India, deepawali includes fireworks.
But the significance of the festival is connected with a story of Vishnu, narayana, killing the daemon Narakasura. This festival is a celebration of the conquest of this evil daemon. There is a puranic story (mythological story) behind this.
Bhagavan explained the significance of this mythological story. Naraka is often used as a term for hell. So narakasura is a daemon who rules over hell. Bhagavan explained that naraka is the body and the asura (daemon) who rules over the body is ego. Vishnu killed narakasura with his discus.
How do we kill ego? It is by experiencing self-knowledge, by experiencing pure self-awareness. When ego is killed, the light that shines forth, which is the light of pure self-awareness, that is deepawali.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-11-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 22 (1:39)
Reflections: Deepawali is a Hindu festival. The friend who asked this question is a Hindu from India, and Michael is supposedly a Christian from the UK. Imagine a Hindu asking a Christian to explain the significance of their own Hindu festival. I am also a Hindu from India, but I have no shame in admitting that Michael knows more about the Hindu culture and Hindu way of life than I know about it.
Michael is more Indian, more Hindu, than most of the Hindus. He has totally soaked himself in the Hindu culture. We are fortunate to have him amongst us. He is explaining to us that which we should have already known but unfortunately, do not know or do not know enough.
The world may expect anything from us but if we have no desires, the expectations of the world would mean nothing to us
A friend: The world expects many things from us. How do we tackle this issue?
Michael: The world may expect anything from us but if we have no desires, the expectations of the world would mean nothing to us. Let anyone expect anything from us, but we wouldn’t have the desire to satisfy their expectations. We desire appreciation, and therefore we desire to cater to others’ desires. If we are indifferent even to that appreciation, we would be indifferent to their expectations.
The cause of our troubles is within us as our ego, why blame anyone else for our troubles? If we have no desires nothing will trouble us.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-11-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 22 (1:29)
Reflections: Yes, others’ expectations seem to be a problem, but as Michael has explained, the real problem lies within us as our ego and its desires. My niece is getting married this December, and its celebrations will continue for a few days. One is expected to wear something new every day. However, why should I try to fulfil the expectations of others? I would try striking a balance. I may repeat some dress, if not all.
Regular ritualistic worship in Hindu homes
In most of the Hindu households, some place in their home is earmarked as a place of puja or worship. It may be a small space in a corner or some homes may even have a mandir (temple) in a separate room. In most of the traditional homes, regular worship is performed by their occupants. In some houses, even pujaris (priests) are employed to perform regular pujas. They come every day to perform pujas. The question is how useful or efficacious are such pujas in the house?
Pujas done with love purifies the mind and makes one spiritually mature, so to this extent all pujas are beneficial. However, if only the pujaris perform these pujas it will not benefit the family members. All the benefit of such pujas will go only to the pujaris (if they worship with love). However, the occupants may also be benefitted if they participate in pujas along with pujaris. However, mere actions of pujas are of little if they are not done with love.
However, it is always good to have a place of puja in the house even if no regular worship is done there. As and when the situation arises, say in the times of difficulties, some may need to pray to God for help. At such times such places may prove useful. We may not need such places of worship but it may be useful to our other family members. Bhagavan teaches us in Nan Ar? that if we are practising atma-vichara, we need no other spiritual practice.
Thank you for your posts Mr Lohia. You bring much needed maturity to the comments section.
.
Salazar, ātma-vichār is beyond your capacity.
.
If we want to become fearless, we should become desireless
If we have no desires, we will have no fears. I desire regular meals, enough clothing and shelter and I fear that I may not have these forever. If we had no desire, we will be indifferent to everything. Whether or not we have food, whether or not we are in pain, if we are indifferent to these things, we will have no desire for anything. And without desire, we can have no fear.
Even the richest man on this earth has fear. He may fear that the stock markets may crash or his business may run into losses or whatever. He is attached to his billions and therefore he fears that he may lose it. So desire and fear are two sides of the same coin. A truly fearless person is a person without desires, and only a desireless and fearless can be truly happy.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-11-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 22 (1:27)
Sanjay Lohia,
to become desireless one must be egoless. And how to become egoless we are taught to practise intense atma-vichara. And how to become able to carry out intense self-investigation ? By carrying out self-investigation without interruption.
Have I forgot anything ?
Josef, yes, we cannot become completely desireless without destroying ego. However, our desires can be reduced by other means to some extent. These can be reduced by niskamya bhakti. It can be reduced by recollecting that if Bhagavan is taking perfect care of all our needs, why should we desire anything?
I have a desire to eat sweets, but I may try to resist indulging is such a desire by impressing upon my mind that sweets are bad for me. It will increase my weight. This is the Deepavali season where there will be a lot of sweets around me, so it is important to reflect on these lines!
So we can reduce our desires and attachments to some extent even without practising self-investigation. But such means can only take us so far. As you say, eventually we have to practise atma-vichara in order to destroy ego, the root of all our desires.
Such great souls who are enabled to know by own experience that all is in the self and that no object in this world or universe is apart from the self are very rare indeed.
A jnani does not find anything different or separate from the self. All are in the self. It is wrong to imagine that there is the world, that there is a body in it and you dwell in the body. If the truth is known, the universe and what is beyond it will be found to be only in the self.
There is no being who is not conscious and therefore who is not Siva. Not only is the jnani Siva but also else of which he is aware or not aware. ...Siva is seen as the universe.
Hi Venkat,
Thanks for the ajata & Gaudapada comments, always interesting. Some issues:
You say "once that is understood (ajata etc), temporal reality is irrelevant...."
"Understood" is mere conceptual mental activity and falls far short of realization.
Temporal activity (ie the world) is hardly "irrelevant".
With realization the ego's obsession with gain and loss, the claims of ownership and doership, the identification and attachment are gone.
But the temporal world still maintains a relevance, only without ego attachment.
The world may only be a temporal phantom "Idea" without concrete form but it has relevance at that level.
Calling the world irrelevant is hypocrisy when we consume food, use shelter, use basic medical services and transportation etc. even after realization.
Krishna's comments seem useful: "do your duty" which indicates some relevance.
If "I am That and all this is That"... as the so-called "world" is "That"... it has relevance?
Would we call the actions of Nisargadatta, Ramana, Krishna "irrelevant"?
If action and the world are irrelevant... why would realized beings do any action at all? Yes there is no "doer" but this is not the same as abstaining from the appearance of activity.
The biggest issue with the idea that "temporal reality is irrelevant" is that un-realized beings adopt an attitude that action is unnecessary and then they dream of escape from the world. Krishna's comments about "do your allotted duty" should be Incorporated.
ajata and Gaudapada's & Sankara are describing an aspect of the higher state of consciousness (which has to be totally beyond description).
They are NOT describing how to act or think before realization nor are descriptions of the higher state sufficient for realization.
Thoughts about escape from the world or that the world is irrelevant are just more ego activity taking a position, asserting a viewpoint and wishing for some result in an imagined future.
So many wise jnani's in this forum....
Roger,
I have a lot of sympathy for your comment. And I agree that nishkamya karma is a key teaching of Bhagavad Gita.
But the world and our actions in it are irrelevant in the sense that there is nothing to achieve or do.
Most jnanis advise seekers to discard the world and not be involved in it to the extent possible; and focus instead on self-investigation. Sankara advocates that renunciation is an important (though not a prerequisite) factor for realisation. And after realisation, as you note, there is nothing more to do.
Noob,
...that is because consciousness is the reality.:-)
Consciousness means to be aware that 'I exist'.
This awareness of our existence is consciousness.
I do not know, maybe the concept is too difficult to grasp but:
1) My whole perception of the world is through my 5 senses (hearing, seeing, touching, smelling and tasting).
2) These 5 senses are enabled by the mind, which controls the organs which in their turn provide the input (or are responsible for the creation) of the world.
3) My consciousness is aware of the mind and, as a result of it, is aware of the world.
4) if my mind is no more, how to be aware of the world?
Whether there after realization is anything more to do we will see only after realization.
However, it is said that once the seeker became himself the self there remains nothing further to be achieved.
Noob,
your assumption is correct:
Without the mind perception of anything or any world cannot occur.
Moreover, all our desires and dislikes are only possible when the mind is "feeding" the consciousness. trying to curb them with the mind (engaging the thought process) is the same as a criminal will start an investigation into his own acts.
As for the comments like "Krishna's comments seem useful: "do your duty" which indicates some relevance",
In my opinion ( of course pretty much negligible) this was said so that we could finish our life cycle without much fear and worry, if I am a husband, I have to protect fearlessly my family, if there is an earthquake I have to save my family, even sacrificing my life, if there is an armed burglar, Ill put my chest against the barrel. If I am a boss and I have to fire a cheating worker, I must do it.
Noob,
what else but the mind will curb our desires and dislikes ?
Do you think Ishwara or the self will do it for you ?
Josef,
If we accept that this mind and this world are like a dream,
then everything related to the mind, including all the thoughts, all the actions of the body have been already predetermined and WILL run its course.
In the same way as in my dream it looks as if I have the complete control of my actions but upon waking up I realize that this was a dream. Even though in my dream there was no one but me, all those people that I talked to, all that food that I ate, all the buildings that I saw, were nothing but my consciousness (they were so to speak inside my mind), during this dream it looked as if they were separate from me, objects, with which my mind was interacting. The mind can give an illusion that we can change the dream while we are dreaming, but is there anyone who succeeded? Upon waking up I realize that there was nothing I could do in my dream. Isn't a desire just a thought of which "I" becomes aware of?
Therefore the best is just to remain calm, the dream will end anyway. Creating a fruitless task in such a dream to change what thoughts "I" is aware of by engaging in a thought process (utilizing the mind as means to do so) will just multiply the thoughts, in my opinion.
Noob,
"Therefore the best is just to remain calm, the dream will end anyway. Creating a fruitless task in such a dream to change what thoughts "I" is aware of by engaging in a thought process (utilizing the mind as means to do so) will just multiply the thoughts, in my opinion."
Yes, but just to become able to remain calm one first or at least simultaneously must weaken one's desires, likes and dislikes. And that one cannot do without using the mind's power and will. What does it matter when also thoughts are thus multiplied ? Why worry or mind about the gossip of thoughts and illusions which one must anyway sacrifice for getting ahead on the path together with desires, likes and dislikes ?
(of course just my opinion).
Josef,
If it was predetermined that "I" becomes aware of the thoughts "my mind must be purified" or "I have to do yoga", or "I must eat vegan food" it will happen anyway.The question remains what "I" becomes aware of when the mind is no more.
To know the truth about Bhagavan, we have to change our perspective
We think that Bhagavan’s story began when he had the fear of death as a boy of 16. For us, it is from this point that the entire interesting story starts. But from Bhagavan’s point of view, this is the point when his entire story came to an end. At the age of 16, the ego that appeared as Venkataraman was devoured forever, and everything else – his body, the world – was also devoured along with his ego.
However, because our ego is still seeing from outside, we say that Bhagavan’s story continued for another 54 years as a jivanmukta. This is true from our perspective, but from Bhagavan’s perspective, this is not true. So we have to change our perspective. To know the truth about Bhagavan, we have to know the truth about ourself.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-06-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston - discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 17 (1:34)
Your remaining question is easy to answer: after extinction of the mind 'I' becomes itself but relieved/released/rid of any adjuncts. Then the 'I' is absolutely ident with supreme brahman or self.
Josef,
This is for us to find out. For now, "I" seems to be content with watching the endless row of changing dreams. However, the seed has been sown as we are now fiercely debating about these topics on this blog. I personally think the moment of "death" is of the utmost importance, it is when "I" has a chance to be aware of nothing but "I". Until then, in my opinion, it is better to remain calm and "do the duties" fearlessly, always trying to be aware of nothing but "I" and awaiting the moment.
Noob,
as you say we must find out that. I however prefer to stay alive because I already had almost the 'chance to be aware of nothing but "I".' - (impending of immediate death 40 years ago) - and to use my remaining "lifetime" for making me suited for experiencing essential insights/understanding. 40 years ago one could not find even the slightest trace of "spiritual maturity". Instead then I only went off in search of the experience of "exciting adventures".:-)
Bhagavan: ocean of nectar, full of love and one with all
A friend: If we follow this path of self-enquiry, the path of trying to destroy ego, don’t we run the risk of becoming aloof, withdrawn and uncompassionate?
Michael: The people we are bad are people with strong egos. They have strong desires and attachments. They care only for themselves, and they will even exploit others. They feel ‘only my happiness matters; I don’t care about anyone else’. However, if we start practising self-investigation, our desires and attachments start reducing. Our mind starts becoming more and more purified. So this way our ego is weakened or attenuated, and consequently we see less difference between ourself and others.
So we cannot bear to see the suffering of others. We suffer by seeing others suffer. So the more we practise self-investigation, the purer our mind will become - the more caring, kind and compassionate we will become. Inwardly we will become more detached, but outwardly we will grow in love and compassion for others.
Bhagavan was so kind and compassionate even to the hornets when his thigh brushed against their nest. He felt extreme remorse for an act which was not intentional. He let the hornets sting his thigh until they were fully satisfied. Since Bhagavan is that pure self-awareness shining in the heart of all, he saw himself in those hornets. He felt as those hornets felt.
So there is no contradiction between being kind and compassionate and following this path. If we are practising this path, the less we will like to cause harm to or hurt others. We will not be able to even see anyone hurt.
We will become indifferent to things for ourselves. Bhagavan had no desires and attachments, but when people used to come and tell him about their calamities – their husband or child has passed away – sometimes Bhagavan listening to such stories would shed tears. He is just like a mirror, so he felt all that other people felt.
Edited extract from the video: 2018-06-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston - discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 17 (1:34)
Reflections: Bhagavan’s life should melt even a person with a heart of stone. If it does not, we have not understood the greatness of Bhagavan. He is the pure-awareness shining in the heart of all from Vishnu down to a small ant or hornet. He feels our pain as we feel it, so he is ever ready to remove all our suffering. Bhagavan is another name for pure love and infinite compassion. We saw an inkling of such love and compassion while he was in his body.
Once we start following Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation, we start losing interest in all organised religions
In the comment section of Michael’s latest video, I wrote the following:
Sanjay: Deepawali is a Hindu festival. The friend who asked this question is a Hindu from India, and Michael is supposedly a Christian from the UK. Imagine a Hindu asking a Christian to explain the significance of their own Hindu festival. I am also a Hindu from India, but I have no shame in admitting that Michael knows more about the Hindu culture and Hindu way of life than I know about it.
Michael is more Indian, more Hindu, than most of the Hindus. He has totally soaked himself in the Hindu culture. We are fortunate to have him amongst us. He is explaining to us that which we should have already known but unfortunately, do not know or do not know enough.
In reply to this comment, Beejum wrote as follows:
Beejum: Sanjay Lohia *m James has never ever claimed to be a Christian nor for that matter any other religion
I have replied to him as follows:
Sanjay: Beejum Ittahb, yes, Michael is (or was) a Christian by birth; however, of late, I think, he is more Hindu than a Christian. This is how I see, but he may have a different opinion on this matter. However, even to say that he is more Hindu than a Christian is not correct because once we start following Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation, we start losing interest in all organised religions. It is because religions are the creation of our mind, but we are trying to transcend our mind by turning within. However, from another perspective, we are trying to follow the essence of all religions. Bhagavan explains this in verse 10 of Upadesa Undiyar:
Being [by] subsiding in the place from which one rose: that is karma and bhakti; that is yoga and jñāna.
In continuation of my conversation with Beejum:
Beejum gave his views in response to my reply to him. The following is what I have written in response to his reply:
Sanjay: Beejum Ittahb, as you say, like Buddha, a young Michael (in his 20s) left the comforts of his home and natural surroundings and went out in search of truth. This adventure finally brought him to Tiruvannamalai. He has said that he was just generally dissatisfied with things and so he wanted to find the real meaning to life. Yes, Christianity didn’t have the answers to his doubts and dilemmas; otherwise, why would he move out to find the real purpose of life?
I also sometimes wonder how a person can know so much. His knowledge and understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings are mind-boggling. He is a man in love – his only love being Bhagavan’s teaching. Bhagavan teaches us: Being [by] subsiding in the place from which one rose: that is karma and bhakti; that is yoga and jñāna.
What is this ‘one’ which rises? It is our ego. So our real birth is this arising of ego and its death will be our real death. Bhagavan is not concerned about our physical birth or death because these are all part of our dream. He is only concerned about the dreamer, namely ego. His entire teachings are centred on the need to investigate ego and to see that it does not exist. If this ego is destroyed, everything else will be destroyed along with it.
Sanjay,
you say "His entire teachings are centred on the need to investigate ego and to see that it does not exist. If this ego is destroyed, everything else will be destroyed along with it."
Will this ego ever have understanding that it would be in its own best interest and benefit to get annihilated ?
It seems this ego will ever refuse its assistance to get destroyed. Can we expect the ego to accept happily its death sentence ?
So it will never give its consent to its own destruction. What will we lose when we wait for its agreement and willingness to die ?
It should be clear that the ego has no business to be here at all.
Hi Josef:
you talk about the ego, tell stories about the ego. This is the ego talking about the ego.
Why don't you find some way of putting attention inward all the time as much as is possible?
How many hours per day do you meditate?
sanjay says: yes, Michael is (or was) a Christian by birth; however, of late, I think, he is more Hindu than a Christian. ...
Michael James corrupts Bhagavan's legacy by mixing it with Christianity.
MJ's emphasizes belief just as Christianity does. MJ emphasizes his rigid scriptural authority rather than direct experience.
There are numerous blogs such as "What should we believe? Why should be believe what Bhagavan taught us?"
Bhagavan's real teaching is about direct experience, not belief. Where did Bhagavan ever insist that people believe a certain way?
Hi Josef,
A quote by Bhagavan from "Conscious Immortality":
All lectures and books do little good and are of use only for beginners, to point out on the way. The real service is done in meditation. One sitting still and silent -- as mentioned in the poem by the Tamil saint Tayumanavar -- can influence a whole country. The force of meditation is infinitely more powerful than speech or writings. One who sits in silence meditating on the Self, will draw a whole lot of people to him without his going out to anyone.
Even books like the Bhagavad Gita, Light on the Path, must be given up to find the Self by looking within. Even the Gita says "meditate upon the self". It does not say, "Meditate upon the book, the Gita".
And a favorite quote from Lahiri Mahasaya from Yogananda's bio:
Solve all your problems through meditation. Exchange unprofitable religious speculations for actual God-contact. Clear your mind of dogmatic theological debris; let in the fresh, healing waters of direct perception. Attune yourself to the active inner Guidance. the Divine Voice has the answer to every dilemma of life. Through man's ingenuity for getting himself into trouble appears to be endless, the Infinite Succor is no less resourceful.
Some times we are taking friendly fire....
Hi Roger,
your explanations are a perfect example of how one could misinterpret Michael's writings.
I dislike saying it, but deliberate misinterpretation of Michael's articles is rather a mentally disturbed intention which does not promote a beneficial understanding of Bhagavan's teaching.
However your recommendation namely putting attention inward all the time or as much as possible is certainly a good one.
Regarding the number of hours of meditation may I report to you that I try to be self-attentive whole the day. Meditation in a sitting position I do not observe regularly.
But in some - perhaps too wide - intervals I feel that this poor practice is not sufficient and then I put in periods of intense and intensive looking inside.
Hi Josef,
You say that MJ's articles are the only truth and that to see anything different is a "mentally disturbed intention".
Or saying it differently: to challenge MJ's viewpoint is automatically a deliberate misinterpretation.
Even to consider a different perspective than what is officially approved by Michael James is "mentally disturbed".
Josef, you have the disease of "guru-itis". An inflammatory ego disease where one engages in conflict with the world proclaiming that "my guru has the only right way".
There can never be any single teaching which is the "only way" for all people for all time.
To claim that one has the "only way" (as Michael James does) is an egoic mental disturbance.
Roger,
again you show your disease of repeating your "only way" mantra.
Neither I nor Michael ever claimed that MJ's articles are the only truth or to have the "only truth" or "only way".
Different perspectives/viewpoints were categorically repudiated by MJ only when they rock the very foundations of Bhagavan's teachings.
Roger, you seem to be a hopeless case...
Take a step sideways, take a deep breath ...and all is okay. For heaven's sake do not persist in your dreadful and deadly monotony ! For what I had to emphatically criticize you was only your unparalleled repeated deliberate misinterpretation.
Post a Comment