Wednesday, 15 April 2020

The dreamer is ourself as ego, not whatever person we seem to be in a dream

A friend called Reinhard recently sent me what he described as ‘a pleasant exchange with David [Godman] about ajata and the discrepancy to ‘our’ ordinary perception’ and wrote, ‘If you have some comments, they are always welcome’.

Part of the context in which their exchange took place was that on page 2 of his article Swami Siddheswarananda’s views on Bhagavan’s Teachings David discussed the meaning of verse 534 of Guru Vācaka Kōvai, and in that context he quoted the following passage from his book Living by the Words of Bhagavan (2nd edn, p. 236):
It is a fundamental tenet of advaita that the world is projected by the individual mind that sees it. Some people think that this means that each individual jiva projects its own world, but Bhagavan taught that this is not the correct perspective. He maintained that the jiva which sees the world is the only jiva that exists, and that all the other people whom this jiva sees are merely imagined projections of the first jiva. Since all things and all beings are merely the externalised projection of the jiva who sees them, it follows that when this jiva is absent or destroyed, the other beings and things simply cease to exist.

Chadwick once questioned Bhagavan on this topic: ‘If the world exists only when my mind exists, when my mind subsides in meditation or sleep, does the outside world disappear also? I think not. If one considers the experiences of others who were aware of the world while I slept, one must conclude that the world existed then. Is it not more correct to say that the world got created and is ever existing in some huge collective mind? If this is true how can one say that there is no world and that it is only a dream?’

Bhagavan refused to modify his position. ‘The world does not say that it was created in the collective mind or that it was created in the individual mind. It only appears in your small mind. If your mind gets destroyed, there will be no world.’
Referring to this passage Reinhard asked David, ‘Although I think that I have no real difficulty to follow the teachings of Bhagavan intellectually and to some degree intuitively, it seems hard to understand that part which is expressed in Chadwick’s discussion in Living by the Words’, in reply to which David wrote:
Bhagavan never supported the ‘Chadwickian’ compromise. The world (according to Bhagavan) is present when the ‘I’ that projects and sees it exists and is taken to be real, and entirely absent when it is not. The world and its contents (including ‘others’) have no reality outside of the seer that projects and sees them.
thereby echoing what Bhagavan taught us in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, namely:
அகந்தையுண் டாயி னனைத்துமுண் டாகு
மகந்தையின் றேலின் றனைத்து — மகந்தையே
யாவுமா மாதலால் யாதிதென்று நாடலே
யோவுதல் யாவுமென வோர்.

ahandaiyuṇ ḍāyi ṉaṉaittumuṇ ḍāhu
mahandaiyiṉ ḏṟēliṉ ḏṟaṉaittu — mahandaiyē
yāvumā mādalāl yādideṉḏṟu nādalē
yōvudal yāvumeṉa vōr
.

பதச்சேதம்: அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும். அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum. ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr.

English translation: If ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if ego does not exist, everything does not exist. Ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this is alone is giving up everything.
In reply to Reinhard’s email more generally David also wrote, ‘A good source to get information on this is Guru Vachaka Kovai, verses 18-101’, and since Reinhard began his email saying that he had re-read two of David’s articles, Ajata and Swami Siddheswarananda’s views on Bhagavan’s Teachings, David replied that I had ‘had a go at explaining this’ in What is the correct meaning of ajāta vāda? and had ‘also given a critique of Swami Siddheswananda’s wrong ideas about Bhagavan’ in Metaphysical solipsism, idealism and creation theories in the teachings of Sri Ramana.
  1. Distinguishing ourself as ego from the person we seem to be is very important if we are to understand Bhagavan’s teachings correctly
  2. Whatever may happen is the sweet will of Bhagavan, given to us to help us follow his path ever more diligently and unwaveringly
  3. When Bhagavan talks about ēka jīva, what he means by jīva is ego, the one dreamer and perceiver of all phenomena
1. Distinguishing ourself as ego from the person we seem to be is very important if we are to understand Bhagavan’s teachings correctly

In the first of his emails to David Reinhard had written:
Although I think that I have no real difficulty to follow the teachings of Bhagavan intellectually and to some degree intuitively, it seems hard to understand that part which is expressed in Chadwick’s discussion in Living by the Words:

It seems still rational to conceive the creation, the world to be the dream of Brahma, a divine mind, sharing a commonality for all beings, jivas.

But Bhagavan contradicts this by stating the world to be a projection of our limited personal mind. That is the hard thing if we accept a common knowledge, the corona virus and climate change happening in a world we all share. Hard to conceive that all that is MY IMAGINATION only!

Then suicide would be a relief for these challenges — but of course, the ‘dream-crisis’ wouldn’t need any other help but my waking up! :-)
Since Reinhard had asked for any comments I may have on this, I replied:

When you say, ‘Hard to conceive that all that is MY IMAGINATION only!’, it is important to understand that this is not Reinhard’s imagination or dream but only ego’s. Reinhard is just a part of this dream, albeit a central part, but the dreamer is ego. As ego you now mistake yourself to be Reinhard, so it seems to you that Reinhard is experiencing all these things, but what is actually experiencing it is only ego, who currently experiences itself as ‘I am Reinhard’.

When we are dreaming, it seems to us that all the other people in our dream are seeing the same world that we are, so there seems to be what you call ‘common knowledge’, but as soon as we wake up we recognise that none of those other people were seeing anything, so there was no common knowledge but only ego’s private knowledge of its own dream. Not only were none of the other people seeing anything, but even the person we seemed to be was not seeing anything. What was seeing it all was only ego.

Therefore if our present state is just a dream, as Bhagavan says it is, then there is no common knowledge, and no person is seeing any of this. It is all only ego’s dream, so it is experienced only by ego and not by any person, not even by Reinhard.

Distinguishing ourself as ego from the person we seem to be is very important if we are to understand Bhagavan’s teachings correctly. This person, meaning all the five sheaths (body, life, mind, intellect and will), is an object, something perceived by us, and we as ego are the subject, the perceiver of all these things.

If we are willing to accept that all this is just ego’s dream, that is the simplest possible explanation for the appearance of all this multiplicity. Only for those who are unwilling to accept this is it said that this is ‘the dream of Brahma, a divine mind, sharing a commonality for all beings, jivas’.

These are two different levels of explanation given in advaita to account for the appearance of duality. The contention that this is God’s or Brahma’s dream is a form of sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda [the view that creation occurs prior to and independent of perception], whereas the contention that it is ego’s dream is what is called dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda [the view that perception is what causes the appearance of creation, as in a dream]. The latter is the explanation favoured by Bhagavan, because it is the simplest and most useful explanation for those who seek to give up all attachment to this dream by investigating who am I, this ego who is dreaming all this.

However, the ultimate truth is not even dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda but only ajāta, because if we investigate ego keenly enough, we will find that what actually exists is not ego but only pure awareness (just as if we look at an illusory snake carefully enough, we will see that what is actually there is not a snake but only a rope), so there never was any ego and hence never was any dream.

2. Whatever may happen is the sweet will of Bhagavan, given to us to help us follow his path ever more diligently and unwaveringly

In reply to this Reinhard wrote:
I can only agree to the philosophy and have also done before. For me, it is the love and trust in Bhagavan, his authenticity and wisdom I could never doubt, which makes it acceptable to follow a theory which is not yet confirmed by direct experience. I am well aware of the philosophical systems you mention and the many instances Bhagavan used them according to the capacity of the hearer.

The gap or the clinch comes in when outer pressure like the corona crises, the climate change seem to impinge upon us, as any form of suffering would. Even when we trust Sri Ramana with all our heart we still have to meet the pressing issues of existence and the desire to validate his teachings become maps to move in a sound direction.

With other words: theory is fine but no solution to close the gap. Only our sadhana will, and I trust it does.

I am writing to you — you are a dream character of my ego — and I am one of yours? :-)
in reply to which I wrote:

I agree with you that the only solution is practice. All that Bhagavan taught us had one sole aim, namely to guide and encourage us to investigate and surrender ourself, and whatever ‘theory’ he taught was intended to support us in our practice of self-investigation and self-surrender.

Regarding your question, ‘I am writing to you — you are a dream character of my ego — and I am one of yours?’, according to Bhagavan there is only one ego, just as in a dream there is only one dreamer. So whose dream is this? It is the dream of the one who is aware of it, and that one is the one and only ego. Both Reinhard and Michael are characters appearing in the dream of that one ego, namely ourself. As ego we always experience ourself as a character in our dream, but that character is no more real than any other character, and it is not the dreamer (the perceiver) but one of the phenomena dreamt (perceived) by the dreamer.

Regarding issues such as the coronavirus crisis and climate change, when such things appear in our dream, they should urge us to try to wake up from this dream, and if we find it challenging to face them, we should consider such challenges to be opportunities given to us to go deeper in our practice of surrender. Why are we concerned about such things? Why do we find them challenging? Because of our desires and attachments. Therefore we must gradually learn to let go of all our desires and attachments and to accept whatever may happen as the sweet will of Bhagavan, given to us to help us follow his path ever more diligently and unwaveringly.

3. When Bhagavan talks about ēka jīva, what he means by jīva is ego, the one dreamer and perceiver of all phenomena

In a subsequent email Reinhard gave me the passage from Living by the Words of Bhagavan that I quoted at the beginning of this article, in which David quoted Bhagavan as saying in reply to Chadwick, ‘The world does not say that it was created in the collective mind or that it was created in the individual mind. It only appears in your small mind. If your mind gets destroyed, there will be no world’, and referring to this he wrote:
Regarding the theory you mention of ‘eka jiva’, this passage seems to emphasize not so much the one ego as the common creator behind all seeming multiplicity but rather ‘your small mind’. The one jiva model seems to be closer to a Divine projector of a multiplicity while the one jiva projecting all keeps only a narrow gate (reminding of Christ’s narrow gate) and puts all responsibility of exploring the root of the I-thought for dissolving the seeming multiple world view.
In reply to this I wrote:

When Bhagavan talks about ēka jīva, what he means by jīva is ego, the one dreamer and perceiver of all phenomena. Though in his reply to Chadwick he says that the world ‘only appears in your small mind’, what he means by ‘mind’ in this context is likewise only ego, which is the perceiving element of the mind.

Like many other words, the term ‘mind’ is used in various different senses, so we need to understand from the context in what sense it is used on each occasion. In many contexts it is used to refer to the totality of all thoughts or mental phenomena, but in most cases in which Bhagavan used it he was referring to ego, which is the first thought (the ‘thought called I’, as he often described it) and the root of all other thoughts, as he explained in verse 18 of Upadēśa Undiyār:
எண்ணங்க ளேமனம் யாவினு நானெனு
மெண்ணமே மூலமா முந்தீபற
      யானா மனமென லுந்தீபற.

eṇṇaṅga ḷēmaṉam yāviṉu nāṉeṉu
meṇṇamē mūlamā mundīpaṟa
      yāṉā maṉameṉa lundīpaṟa
.

பதச்சேதம்: எண்ணங்களே மனம். யாவினும் நான் எனும் எண்ணமே மூலம் ஆம். யான் ஆம் மனம் எனல்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): eṇṇaṅgaḷ-ē maṉam. yāviṉ-um nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam-ē mūlam ām. yāṉ ām maṉam eṉal.

அன்வயம்: எண்ணங்களே மனம். யாவினும் நான் எனும் எண்ணமே மூலம் ஆம். மனம் எனல் யான் ஆம்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): eṇṇaṅgaḷ-ē maṉam. yāviṉ-um nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam-ē mūlam ām. maṉam eṉal yāṉ ām.

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

Explanatory paraphrase: Thoughts alone are mind [or the mind is only thoughts]. Of all [thoughts], the thought called ‘I’ alone is the mūla [the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause]. [Therefore] what is called mind is [essentially just] ‘I’ [ego, the root-thought called ‘I’].
All other thoughts are objects perceived by ego, whereas ego is the subject, the perceiver of them all, so no other thoughts can exist without ego, and hence ego is the one constant thought, the thread on which all other thoughts are strung, as he says in verse 2 of Āṉma-Viddai. This is why he says that ego is the mūla (the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause) of all other thoughts, and that it is therefore what the mind essentially is.

Since we as ego are alone what perceives all phenomena, and since there is no creation other than perception, we, this one jīva or ego, are the sole creator of this appearance of multiplicity. Therefore to bring this dream of multiplicity to an end, all we need do is eradicate ego, which we can do only by persistent practice of self-investigation and self-surrender.

332 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 332 of 332
Sanjay Lohia said...

Why should we even exist as ego?

The following is an extract of my conversation with Michael. This appears in Michael’s video of 25th April 2020:

Sanjay: Sir, recently a friend commented on your latest video, where he wrote: ‘There is no good reason to want to exist in this world’. What he says seems so true and striking. This ego doesn’t have even a single reason even to exist, so all its aims and ambitions are completely misplaced. So we need to impress upon this ego in clear and forceful terms that it has no business even existing, so it should surrender as quickly as possible. I would be glad if you could expand on it so that we become more and more willing to surrender completely. Thank you.

Michael: It is true – ‘There is no good reason to want to exist’, but its very nature as ego is its desire to want to exist. So this desire to exist will remain until we surrender ourself completely. So whatever way we look at it, ego is the problem, but ego is not something other than ourself. It is we who are talking, we who are asking questions and seeking answers and trying to understand Bhagavan’s teachings. This ‘I’ is ego and this is the problem.

Ego is nothing but a false awareness of ourself. It is not something other than our real nature in substance. In substance, it is our real nature, but in appearance, it is something else because our real nature is pure awareness – an awareness that is not aware of anything other than itself. But when we rise as ego, we are aware of things other than ourself, and we are aware of ourself as one among those things – that is a body. So our rising as ego is the source of all our trouble. In sleep, when we don’t rise as ego we have no problem. In sleep, we are free of ego and consequently free of the desire to exist as ego.

However, until ego is able to destroy itself, it continues to rise again and again. So as ego we need to follow the path that Bhagavan has taught us. As you say, we need to impress upon ourself that we have no business existing as ego, but we can impress upon ourself only to be some extent by studying and thinking about Bhagavan’s teachings. But to effectively impress this upon ourself we need to put his teachings into practice by constantly trying to turn our attention within and thereby surrender ourself to him.

Slowly-slowly the truth of his teaching will sink deeper and deeper in our heart and will impress upon our heart more and more forcibly. Then we will have less and less desire to rise and go outwards, and we will have more and more love to subside back within.

So as with every question, we come back to the only solution – ‘Put what Bhagavan taught us into practice. Try to investigate ourself and surrender ourself’. As ego, we have so many desires, including its most basic desire to exist as ego, but we can overcome all desires only by putting what Bhagavan taught us into practice.

• Based on the video: 2020-04-25 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses suicide and other subjects (00:24)

anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay,
Those who are seeking worldly desires are seeking ultimately infinite happiness.
I am speaking from own experience.:-)
As it is proverbially said, one learns (only) by experience.

anadi-ananta said...

As Michael says:
"We have to first decide what our aim in life is. Are we seeking worldly pleasures, or are we seeking to surrender ourself? OK, if we are seeking to surrender ourself, for most of us we don’t have sufficient vairagya. We still have desires for some pleasures of life, but we have got to think what our ultimate purpose in life is. Ultimately, if we want to attain eternal bliss, if we want to attain our real nature, we have to be willing to let go of everything. We may not be willing to let (go) of everything now, but we need to at least begin to let go of things."
It would be wise to adhere to that guidline.

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sanjay Lohia said...

To think about mistakes and successes itself is a mistake

A friend: Michael, could you please tell us about your mistakes and successes in your earlier stages? Your life could be an inspiration to others.

Michael: If I were to think about mistakes and successes, that itself will be a mistake. We need not be concerned about these things because we are investigating what we actually are. What we actually are is beyond all mistakes and successes. Mistakes and successes are only for ego, and by thinking about our mistakes and successes we are giving life to our ego.

You say, my life could be an inspiration for others, but if we want to progress on this path, we have to find the inspiration within ourself. Each of us has to live our own life and events in our lives should not concern us because these are outward things. We should be concerned only with one thing: turning our attention within and trying to know what we actually are.

To tell the truth, I don’t even think in terms of mistakes and successes. Most of my time my attention is going outward, and that is a big mistake. This is because of my immaturity, and the only way of overcoming this is by following the path that Bhagavan has shown us – however many times my attention slips away, trying to pull it back within. Because I lack sufficient love, I cannot claim any great success in this.

We need not compare our life with anyone else’s life. We need not try to understand how other people are progressing on their path. We cannot understand these things because this is an inward path. This is a featureless path. We are attending to that which is ever-present, which is perfectly ordinary - ‘I am’. What can you say about ‘I am’ except ‘I am’? There is nothing more to speak about it. ‘I am’ speaks for itself.

We know that we are, and we know that we are aware. Who is it who exists and is aware? That’s all we need to be concerned about – turning within more and more and more. All we need to understand is that following this path is good, and allowing our attention to go out is not so good because it is just perpetuating the problems which we are trying to escape from. So let us turn our attention within more and more and let us not be concerned about anything else.

If we are concerned about our mistakes and successes, let us leave that concern to Bhagavan. Let him take care of our mistakes and successes.

Who is it who is concerned about mistakes and successes? Turn your attention back towards ourself. Mistakes and successes come and go. They are things other than ourself. Who am I who makes mistake and succeeds?

• Based on the video: 2020-04-26c Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses mistakes and successes on the path (00:00)

Sanjay Lohia said...

We should thank Michael for keeping the focus on Bhagavan’s teachings instead of on himself

My exchange with Sujan Kumar D:

Sujan Kumar D: I am Reading Sri Michaelji's works on Sri Bhagavan from last 8 years. This question has been asked in various ways in his blog and in various meetings.

As I am aware, he never spoke about his life or his experience or anything about his personal life. He thinks it is almost not necessary to speak about him from ego point of view. I adore him but I don't know anything about him except that he is the devotee of Shri Ramana Bhagavan and a friend of Shri Sadhu om Swamiji. When someone asked who is your favorite person, I said Shri Michael james and then they asked who is that and I replied I don't know but he is the most beautiful person i have ever came across. Comparing him with others is impossible. He has put a lofty high standard on everything he deals with. I don't think anyone can surpass him in this generation.

But Sometimes i felt that he should speak about beautiful memories of his life in Arunachala and his interaction with old devotees probably some interesting anecdotes. But I know Michaelji is not interested in those things. And i thank Michaelji for improving my English through his simple and lucid articles on Teachings of Shri Bhagavan.

Sanjay Lohia: Sujan, I am glad to know that Michael is your favourite person. I too respect and admire him more than any other person I know. As you say, he is such a beautiful person. His beauty lies in his humility, in his love for Bhagavan and in his passion for sharing Bhagavan’s life and teachings with others.

Yes, Michael is always reluctant to talk about his personal life, including about his life at Tiruvannamalai. He feels it is not important, and I understand why he feels so. Bhagavan’s entire teaching is based on turning away from the person we seem to be. Bhagavan wants us to investigate this ego which says ‘I am Sanjay’, so Sanjay and Sanjay’s life is inconsequential. Likewise, Michael correctly feels that his life as a person is inconsequential, and therefore avoids discussing it. This is a valuable lesson for all of us.

We should ignore ‘Sujan’ and ‘Sanjay’ because they are not real. What is real is only ‘I am’, which is our basic and immutable awareness of our existence. So we should thank Michael for keeping the focus on Bhagavan’s teachings instead of on himself.

• Extract from the comment section of the video: 2020-04-26c Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses mistakes and successes on the path


anadi-ananta said...

Asun,
when you say "...Bhagavan says that "when ego rises, everything rises", including god and guru which aren´t different from ego which, in turn, is not different nor separated from ourself, actually." you might distinguish/tell the difference between things:

1.) Because ego is only the knot between body and pure awareness, it cannot be pure awareness itself. God - as the supreme ruling power and pure awareness - must therefore be different from ego.
2.) Although ego is in its essence (namely in its chit-aspect) pure awareness it is as the knot between body and pure awareness different from ourself as we really are.
3.) If only pure awareness does actually exist, ego cannot really exist but only seems to exist.

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
anadi-ananta said...

Asun,
Anonymous wrote on 3 May 2020 at 16:53: "...It was so surprising and gave me assurance that there is something beyond us."
While reading that mentioned sentence again, yes, perhaps (s)he rather meant simply somewhat of a higher power behind us as superficial persons.

According my English dictionary the personal pronoun "us" is the object form of the pronoun "we" which means "I and another person or other people" or people in general.
Because that does not clarify our doubt, let us ask Anonymous directly.:-)

anadi-ananta said...

Anonymous,
you wrote on 3 May 2020 at 16:53: "...It was so surprising and gave me assurance that there is something beyond us."
Please tell us what you mean with the words "...there is something beyond us".

Anonymous said...

Asun

This is also from ulladu narpadhu

To those who have not realized (the Self) as well as to those who have the world is real. But to those who have not realized, Truth is adapted to the measure of the world, whereas to those that have, Truth shines as the Formless Perfection, and as the Substratum of the world. This is all the difference between them.

Bhagavan didn’t completely dismiss the existence of the world.

R Viswanathan said...

"Michal Borkowski said... Dear Michael,
If we are the Self, here and now, and if we are completely and absolutely self attentive our whole 'supposed' current lives,because of Bhagavan's teachings and inspiration, if we dont realise who we are, what will happen in our future lives if our future lives do not really exist?"

The given below comment by Sri Michael James in the Comment section of one of the articles in this blog might be partly answering the above question:
http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2019/12/why-should-we-try-to-be-aware-of.html

Michael James said...10 December 2019 at 19:00
A friend wrote to me asking, ‘How do I exhaust all my “vasanas” totally in this life before death, so that I will no longer transmigrate/reincarnate totally?’, in reply to which I wrote:

The root of all vāsanās is ego, so we cannot get rid of them entirely without getting rid of ego. However we cannot get rid of ego without first weakening our vāsanās to a considerable extent, because so long as our vāsanās are strong they will be constantly driving our attention outwards.

However the only means to eradicate ego is also the most effective means to weaken all vāsanās, namely the practice of self-investigation and self-surrender. The more we attend to ourself, the weaker our vāsanās will become, until eventually they become so weak that we are able to focus our entire attention on ourself alone, whereupon ego will be eradicated, because we will be aware of ourself as we actually are.

What is called ‘transmigration’ or ‘reincarnation’ is just a series of dreams, because what we now take to be our life is just a dream, so this series of dreams will continue so long as the dreamer survives. Since the dreamer is ourself as ego, all dreams and hence ‘lives’ will cease forever only when ego is eradicated, so the practice of self-investigation and self-surrender is the only means to bring transmigration to an end.

R Viswanathan said...

"Am aware of tremendous fear to merge into Oneness with Bhagavan, and listen daily to Aksharamanamalai for courageous support."

For information: Discourses on Aksharamanamalai in English by Sri Nochur Venkatraman are streamed live (May 5 to 18; 10 to 11.30 AM India time) in
http://mixlr.com/voiceofrishis/

Also, if one missed the live streaming, one can also listen at a convenient time in
http://mixlr.com/voiceofrishis/showreel/

Sanjay Lohia said...

Karen, you say, ‘I have been feeling pulled in multiple directions prior to landing here, and the weariness is evident’. Yes, Karen, we are extremely weary and now we want to return to our true home, which is our true non-dual, immutable nature. We have simply had enough of the ego-based miserable existence. However, as you say, our past conditionings will not dissolve without inner conflicts.

You ask ‘Any suggestions for how to surrender completely is appreciated’. I will quote Michael in answer to this. He says in one of his recent videos:

Whatever else we may be doing, if we are not turning our attention within, it is of no use. The measure of the extent to which we have really understood Bhagavan's teachings is how much we put them into practice? How much are we really turning our attention within? How much are we ceasing to be concerned about our external life, whatever may happen in it? Our external life is totally shaped by destiny. Let destiny take care of it. It is no concern of ours.

The only way to surrender completely is to turn our attention within completely and let our ego drown in our inner clarity. Understanding Bhagavan’s teachings can help in our final surrender, but we cannot surrender completely without turning our entire attention within. Michael has made this clear in so many places.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Who is the doer?

A friend: You say we are not the doer, so who is the doer?

Michael: Good question! This can be answered in various ways.

Now we feel we are the doer, but why do we feel we are the doer? Mind, speech and body are the three instruments of actions, and we identify with these instruments and take them to be ourself. Whatever actions are done by mind, speech and body, we experience them as actions done by us. We think ‘I am thinking’, ‘I am speaking’, ‘I am sitting’ because these instruments seem to be ourself. So all actions they do seem to us to be actions done by us.

This is how doership arises. So we cannot be free of doership so long as we are aware of ‘I am this body’. ‘This body’ encompasses the mind, speech and everything. So when we rise as ego, we automatically experience whatever actions the mind, speech and body are doing as actions done by ourself. This is how doership arises.

The other way in which this question can be answered, particularly in the bhakti-marga, God is often referred to as the ‘karta’, the doer, because ultimately everything is done by God from a certain perspective. Actually, according to Bhagavan, God does not do anything, but from the perspective of ego we can say God does everything. So we should surrender our will to the will of God and let him do everything. We shouldn’t interfere. So in that sense, God can be called the ‘doer’ from a different perspective.

• Based on the video: 2020-04-25 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses suicide and other subjects (00:30)

My reflection: Ultimately, no one is the doer because all actions are part of maya. No one is there who can act, so how can there ever be a doer? This is the ultimate truth. God is just being, so it doesn’t do anything. Since we are one with God in our essential nature, we are also just being. We never rise to do anything. So, all our actions are just a figment of our (ego’s) imagination

Sanjay Lohia said...

Who is the doer?

A friend: You say we are not the doer, so who is the doer?

Michael: Good question! This can be answered in various ways.

Now we feel we are the doer, but why do we feel we are the doer? Mind, speech and body are the three instruments of actions, and we identify with these instruments and take them to be ourself. Whatever actions are done by mind, speech and body, we experience them as actions done by us. We think ‘I am thinking’, ‘I am speaking’, ‘I am sitting’ because these instruments seem to be ourself. So all actions they do seem to us to be actions done by us.

This is how doership arises. So we cannot be free of doership so long as we are aware of ‘I am this body’. ‘This body’ encompasses the mind, speech and everything. So when we rise as ego, we automatically experience whatever actions the mind, speech and body are doing as actions done by ourself. This is how doership arises.

The other way in which this question can be answered, particularly in the bhakti-marga, God is often referred to as the ‘karta’, the doer, because ultimately everything is done by God from a certain perspective. Actually, according to Bhagavan, God does not do anything, but from the perspective of ego we can say God does everything. So we should surrender our will to the will of God and let him do everything. We shouldn’t interfere. So in that sense, God can be called the ‘doer’ from a different perspective.

• Based on the video: 2020-04-25 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses suicide and other subjects (00:30)

My reflection: Ultimately, no one is the doer because all actions are part of maya. No one is there who can act, so how can there ever be a doer? This is the ultimate truth. God is just being, so it doesn’t do anything. Since we are one with God in our essential nature, we are also just being. We never rise to do anything. So, all our actions are just a figment of our (ego’s) imagination.

Aham Asmi said...

.


Yes, thank you Sanjay Lohia for posting Mr James' Q&A.
Most inspiring is Mr James' great devotion to Sri Ramana's Teachings as well as the fact that he delivers that message in its original form.

I am grateful.


.

Daniele Tomasi said...

I wonder that if there is only one ego, does it project my body and take it to be I and also project other people's bodies and take them to be I simultaneously. Because if I realise the ego then I am liberated, but the ego is still projecting itself into the form of others, believing them to be I. Just like Bhagavan became realised but there was still ego identifying with other bodies, people still thinking they were real.

anadi-ananta said...

Salazar,
yesterday you say "However there is no such thing as a mind, purified or not."
Yes, that is the viewpoint of the non-dual self or reality.
However, at least on the level of predominant/prevailing/prevalent ajnana, mind is (called) a bundle of thoughts.
Would you not like to agree that for the purpose of making the mind absolutely free from delusion i.e. pursuing its subsidence in self, one must inevitably accept at least temporary the seeming existence of it ? Is not self-investigation just done by the mind although it is said on the other hand that self itself is the path and the goal ?

Daniele Tomasi said...

I am new to all this and don't understand a few things. How can there be only one ego when there are many people? Where does this ego reside if it is separate from the objects it perceives yet composed of form (if it wasn't composed of form it wouldn't exist and there would just be self). Michael could you please expound on these issues.

anadi-ananta said...

Karen Taylor,
because you asked on 2nd May 2020 at 02:50 (comment nr.201) "Can the Self be "this or that" ?",
in verse 1038 of Muruganar's Guru Vachaka Kovai (GVK) it is said that the nature of self is nirguna, devoid of qualities.

anadi-ananta said...

Salazar,
regarding your yesterday's assertion (4 May 2020 at 19:27): a "purified mind" cannot be used as a synonym of self,

Giving up the false self (ego) is true renunciation, which with regard to content I consider as the same as purification of mind or at least paraphrasing it.

Michal Borkowski said...

Thank you sir.

Anonymous said...

By us, I just meant people. I was saying this from duality perspective.

Anonymous said...

I agree with what your comment

Anonymous said...

Yes anadi-ananta. I meant exactly what you wrote :)

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

anadi-ananta, I do not believe that Bhagavan wants us, even temporary, believe in a mind. Because that belief itself IS the mind. So how could it vanish when there is the belief of a mind which has to be dealt with?

And you also incorrectly conclude that I am implying that correcting the belief into another belief ("there is no mind") could be the remedy. Of course not. The remedy is either summa iru, or for most vichara. With properly vichara the non-existence of the mind is directly experienced in looking for it (where it supposedly comes from) but never be able to find it. That repeated "experience" of never finding a "mind" results into the discovery that there is only self.

And vichara is not done by the mind (as in a bunch of thoughts) but by the chit-aspect of the mind. It is impossible for objectified consciousness to realize its own non-existence since every attempt of it to do so will reaffirm its existence because every action will keep rising objectified consciousness. Only silence or non-action (of the mind) can be vichara or pure consciousness.

I believe I have said that before a couple of times. I may phrase it now a little different but in essence my opinion has not changed in that regard in the last years.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Gita and Bhagavan's teachings

A friend: In chapter 12 of Gita, Arjuna asks Sri Krishna, ‘There are devotees who worship you in form, and there are those who worship the unmanifest. Which of these is better?’ Sri Krishna replies, ‘The task of those whose mind is set on the unmanifest is more difficult’. How do we understand this in the context of Bhagavan’s teachings?

Michael: It all depends on the maturity of the mind. For those who are much attached to forms, they will find it easier to worship God in form. They will be inclined to believe that God is a form – something separate from them. So that’s appropriate at their level of spiritual development. However, if they go deeper into the spiritual path, they will understand that if they feel they are separate from God, they are thereby limiting God. That means God is no longer infinite. If God is infinite, there can be nothing other than it.

So as we go deeper into the spiritual path, the idea that God is separate from us loses its appeal. As our bhakti matures, we want to give ourself entirely to God, to surrender ourself entirely to God. We don’t want to stay as a separate entity. So when we reach that state then formless will appeal to us more. If form appeals to us more, worship of form will seem easier, and if formless appeals to us more, worship of the formless will seem easier.

For those of us who have been drawn to Bhagavan’s path, this is a formless path because we are turning our attention within away from all forms. Which is easier, to know ourself or to know other things? We are always aware of ourself, always aware of ‘I am’. To know other things, our attention has to move away from ourself to those other things. So knowing ourself must be easier than knowing other things.

So those of us who are drawn to Bhagavan’s path, worship of form will not be so appealing and therefore will not be easy. Why create an idea that God is something separate from ourself? God is ever shining in our heart as ‘I’. He is our nearest and the dearest. He is never away or never separate from us. For us, this is much more appealing.

What Krishna said to Arjuna was suitable for Arjuna's state of mind then. Gita is a wonderful text. There are so many different levels of teachings in Gita. And also there is so much room to interpret these teachings in so many different ways. But Bhagavan has given us much simpler teachings. What is the ultimate import of Gita is given to us by Bhagavan in very very simple terms in his teachings. So if we read and understand Bhagavan's original texts like Nan Ar, Ulladu Narpadu and Upadesa Undiyar, even the overall teachings of Gita will not appeal to us. Gita does contain the highest teachings, but Krishna had to come down seeing Arjuna was not willing to accept his highest teachings.

• Based on the video: 2020-05-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 40 (01:00)

Michael James said...

A friend wrote to me recently asking:

QUESTIONS BEGIN

I had this doubt which I couldn’t solve by myself. Bhagavan often quoted the bible statement “I am that I am” sums up his teachings better than aham brahmasmi or tat tvam asi. This is mentioned in guru vachaka kovai as “I am is I am” without any additional adjunct and that’s the true import of the statement.

In Bhagavan’s works (ulladhu narpadhu), the words “நான்-நான்” is translated as “I am I”. So, are these three phrases, namely:
(1) I am that I am
(2) I-I
(3) I am I
one and the same? I searched your articles sir, and this question has not been addressed till now, maybe “I am that I am” is a self-explanatory phrase, but I fail to understand its true import sir.

And one more question sir, what is the correct tamil translation of this statement? I understand it like “நான் நானாக இருக்கிறேன்”. If it’s incorrect, then what’s the correct translation sir?

QUESTIONS END

In reply to this I wrote:

‘I am that I am’ has been interpreted in various different ways, but as you say, Bhagavan interpreted it to mean ‘நான் நானாக இருக்கிறேன்’ (nāṉ nāṉ-āha irukkiṟēṉ) [‘I exist as I’], which is what he normally expressed more briefly as ‘நான் நான்’ (nāṉ nāṉ) [‘I am I’].

The term ‘I-I’, which is found in many English books, is a wrong translation of ‘நான் நான்’ (nāṉ nāṉ), which means ‘I am I’, just as ‘நான் இது’ (nāṉ idu) does not mean ‘I-this’ but ‘I am this’, and as ‘நான் யார்?’ (nāṉ yār) does not mean ‘I-who?’ but ‘I am who?’ or ‘Who am I?’.

Since we cannot be anything other than ourself, ‘I am I’ is the most accurate statement of our identity, and this is why Bhagavan said that ‘I am that I am’ is the greatest of all mahāvākyas. That is, since he took ‘I am that I am’ to mean ‘I am I’, he said that it expresses our true identity more accurately than ‘ahaṁ brahmāsmi’ [‘I am brahman’] or any other mahāvākya from the Vēdas.

anadi-ananta said...

Salazar,
no, I believe to be Siva, the supreme being itself.
But simultaneously I notice that I am still limited by the five sheaths and easy prey of the deceitful senses. Because due my ignorance I did not reach the shore of liberation, the idea of ajnani or jiva is a description fitting/applying of/to me. Therefore I hope that by the grace of Arunachala my mind will finally subside in the heart and true knowledge might be revealed in me. :-)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Bhagavan's stories are useful to the extent they inspire love in our heart

Sri Sadhu Om used to say, 'Bhagavan didn't come to this world just to be a subject of a story. He came to this world to give us his teachings, and those teachings are 'turn within''. So Bhagavan's stories are useful to the extent they inspire love in our heart. Beyond that the stories are of no use. If we truly love Bhagavan, we should do what he has asked us to do. The whole purpose of his life, why he appeared in our dream is to tell us to turn within.

• Based on the video: 2020-04-26c Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses mistakes and successes on the path (00:07)

My reflection: As Michael says, Bhagavan’s stories are useful to the extent they inspire love in our heart. Beyond that his life stories are of no use. If the stories about Bhagavan inspire love in us, how should we make use of that love for Bhagavan? We should make use of that love by trying to do what Bhagavan has asked us to do, which is to ‘turn within’.

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sanjay Lohia said...

Our only dharma is to surrender

A friend: My husband is totally into self-enquiry and spirituality from the time he gets up until he goes to sleep. He has no desire to work for money. So as his wife, what should be my dharma?

Michael: Firstly, it’s not up to him to decide. He can decide he doesn’t want to work for money, but work and money will be forced upon him if that is his destiny. Bhagavan said just like marriage comes according to destiny, outward forms of renunciation also come according to destiny. The work that this body has to do it will do. So you need not be concerned about that. All outward things have already been decided by our destiny.

What is our dharma? Bhagavan has given us very simple dharma – the dharma of surrender. The more we subside, the more we surrender, the better it is for us and the happier our lives will be. Happiness doesn’t lie in accumulating material wealth or any of these things. Happiness lies in renouncing our desires and attachments, our likes and dislikes, and ultimately in renouncing the root of everything, namely ego. This is our true svadharma (dharma of oneself).

Surrender can be practised whatever our outward life may be, whether we happen to be a sannyasi or grihastha, or whether we happen to be rich or poor or whatever. It doesn’t matter because surrender is an inward path. Surrender is beneficial here and now. Every time we reduce the strength of our desires and attachments, every time we as ego subside that little bit more, we are more carefree and happy.

So the dharma of the wife or of the husband is all the same. Our only dharma is to surrender. That is the dhrama that Bhagavan has taught us. If we have other aims in life – suppose if we want to acquire wealth, then we have certain restrictions. We are then told to ‘acquire wealth in an honest way and don’t cheat people’ and such things. Such dharmas are necessary for those who have other ambitions. But if our sole aim is to be happy, then the path of surrender is the only dharma we have.

• Based on the video: 2020-04-25 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses suicide and other subjects (51:00)

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

anadi-ananta, re, your comment on 5 May 2020 at 23:04 where you say, "No, I believe to be Siva" BUT ........

So you really do not believe in that, especially considering your many, many comments where you keep describing all of the problems as an ego/ajnani.

AND, the whole point of this exchange, your obvious belief of a change from being an ajnani to become self through purification. Thus your comment at 23:04 contradicts comments you made before.

I have noticed that before, you make comments, then if you get questioned about these comments you later make a comment which contradicts these previous comments entirely.

Then a week later you start commenting the same as in the beginning, thus contradicting you again.

By the way, what is the point of all of your comments who seems to question certain parts of my comments? All these years you were not able to make a case, instead it feels like dealing with an eel .....

And you also do not conceit, admitting you were wrong and confused and did misunderstand certain concepts.

A previous comment of yours:


"One cannot purify oneself into self. It is impossible."
Is that true ???
Is not a purified mind just self ?


Is it not time to conceit that this comment is false? Since you seem to believe (according to your question, "Is that true?") that the ajnani can purify itself into self. And if you still believe in that, elaborate IN YOUR OWN WORDS and not just repeating phrases you've read.

Because only if it is in your own words it can show how much you truly have grasped and how much you've not.

anadi-ananta said...

Salazar,
I just happen to read a comment of Michael on the article of Wednesday, 8 March 2017 There is only one ego, and even that does not actually exist,
in which he writes in reply to Shiba:
"[...]
Now we experience ourself as a person, and as such we are an ego or jīva, and since everything that we experience other than ourself is just a dream, we are the only ego or jīva, so if we ask Bhagavan who is the one jīva he will reply ‘You are that’. However, he also advises us to investigate who we, this one jīva, actually are, and he said that if we investigate ourself keenly enough, we will discover that what seems to be an ego (or jīva) is actually just pure and infinite self-awareness (or brahman). Therefore though what we now seem to be is this one jīva, what we actually are is only brahman.

Likewise, since all phenomena are projected and perceived only by this one ego, just like all the phenomena that we perceive in a dream, they are all just an expansion of this ego, and hence Bhagavan says, ‘The ego indeed is everything’. However, this ego and all the phenomena that it perceives seem to exist only when we look elsewhere, away from ourself, so if we look at ourself very carefully to see ‘who am I, who now seem to be this ego?’, we will see that we are not actually this ego but only pure awareness, which is brahman. Therefore what seems to be all these phenomena is only this ego, and what seems to be this ego is only brahman. In other words, the immediate source and substance of everything is the ego, whereas the ultimate source and substance of everything is brahman.

We are already brahman, so we do not need to attain brahman or to become brahman, and hence brahman is not an issue about which we need to concern ourself. However, though we are actually brahman, we now seem to be this ego, and because we seem to be such we face numerous problems and limitations, so this ego is an issue that we do need to be concerned about. Therefore rather than asking us to dwell on brahman, which seems to be something other than ourself so long as we seem to be this ego, Bhagavan advises us simply to investigate what this ego is, because if we look carefully enough at this ego we will see that it is actually just brahman (just as if we look carefully enough at an illusory snake we will see that it is actually just a rope).
[...]" 9 March 2017 at 11:18

So I thought that I could copy that remark as an appropriate conclusion to our discussion on my "Salazar day".

Sanjay Lohia said...

If we undergo some suffering, that is for some good purpose

A friend: How do we process the atrocities against fellow being as something pre-ordained – for example, mass murders and wars?

Michael: We can understand this in two ways. One is we can accept that there are countless jivas, and each jiva has its own past karma which it is experiencing in this life. This is the more ordinary level of viewing things.

However, Bhagavan has tried to take us deeper. According to Bhagavan, our life is nothing but a dream. While dreaming, there seem to be many people experiencing the same dream world, but when you wake up, you recognise you were the only one experiencing that dream world. We are now dreaming. In this dream, all sorts of things happen, and some things seem to be pleasant and some things unpleasant. Everything we experience is our destiny. So we may read in the newspaper about a war happening somewhere, or we may be involved in a war ourself, but all such happenings are part of our destiny.

So if we take this view, then there is only one ego, and that ego is experiencing the fruits of its past karmas. So whatever you perceive in this world is the fruit of your past karmas, so it’s all preordained. If we undergo some suffering, that is for some good purpose. We may not understand the reason why we are suffering.

• Based on the video: 2020-04-25 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses suicide and other subjects (00:37)

My reflection: So this coronavirus has appeared in my dream, and therefore I am the only one who is experiencing it. All the suffering which is seemingly caused by Covid-19 is only in my imagination. So if I turn within and wake up from my dream, I can get rid of this virus here and now. This is a fact if we believe in Bhagavan’s teachings.

Sanjay Lohia said...

To think about ego and take it to be ‘it’ is misleading

To think about ego and take it to be ‘it’ is misleading. Ego means ‘I’. It is ‘I’ who wants to investigate itself. I want to investigate myself, but I also want to think about other things.

We are just confusing ourself by thinking of ego as ‘it’ as if it is a third person. The term ‘ego’ is used by Bhagavan to distinguish what we seem to be from what we actually are. In certain contexts, it is useful to distinguish ego from what we actually are, but as far as practice is concerned, it is all done by ego. Ego means what we now experience ourself to be. So it is ‘I’ that rises in waking and dream and that is what is seeking to know its real nature. When it knows its real nature, it will cease to be ego and be as we actually are.

Ego is a Latin word which means ‘I’, but it is not ‘I’ as I actually am, but it is ‘I’ as I rise in waking and dream and identify myself as this body and mind.

• Based on the video: 2020-04-26a Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to gain discernment (vivēka) (00:13)


Sanjay Lohia said...

Asun, ‘swami’ or ‘swamiji’ is a respectful way of addressing someone. ‘ji’ after ‘swami’ adds even more respect. ‘Swami’ has a range of meanings. It could mean master, lord, religious or spiritual teacher, sannyasi or husband depending on the context.

Yes, Michael James is a swami in the true sense. He is a spiritual teacher of the highest order.

Sanjay Lohia said...

We are looking for something, but what we are looking for is just ourself

What we are practising is not just meditation, though we can describe this path as the path of meditating on ourself. It is first and foremost an investigation. We are looking for something, but what we are looking for is just ourself. It is not something new. We are looking for something which is ever-present, but what is concealed not by its absence but by the presence of other things.

• Based on the video: 2020-04-25 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses suicide and other subjects (1:07)

My reflection: Michael has coined this term ‘self-investigation’. Any investigation is a process of discovery, so what are we trying to discover here? Whatever we are trying to discover or find out is present here and now. It is just concealed by some extraneous things, and these extraneous things are ego and all its thoughts.

So if we could pierce through this ego and look only at ourself, we will discover or find out what we are investigating.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Whatever we desire, we desire because we think we will get happiness from that thing

A friend: Why is the ‘causal body’ referred to as ‘anandamaya-kosa’, when if anything it keeps us away from ‘ananda’?

Michael: [laughs] It is because our real nature is happiness and it is also love for happiness. All desires are driven by one fundamental desire to be happy. If I think I will become happy by becoming rich, I will try becoming rich. If I think I will be happy by watching a football match, I will watch a football match. So whatever we desire, we desire because we think we will get happiness from that thing. It is because we associate happiness with certain things, we desire those things. It is because we think certain things will detract us from happiness or will cause us suffering, we dislike those things.

So all likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, hopes and so on are caused by what we think will make us happy and what we think doesn’t make us happy. But, according to Bhagavan, happiness doesn’t lie in anything other than ourself. So the reason the sheath composed of all our vasanas is called anandamaya-kosa is that all our vasanas are ultimately our desire for happiness. But because of our wrong discrimination, we seek happiness in so many things. We think happiness lies in tasty food or in having a lot of money or whatever. These are all wrong beliefs.

All jivas (egos), from the tiniest creature to the highest Gods, are seeking happiness. Whatever they desire they desire because they feel fulfilling those desires will make them happy. Even an ant carries some sugar from one place to another because it is seeking happiness. However, jivas do not realise that happiness is their true nature, and therefore as long as they remain separated from our real nature, they can never be truly happy.

So we are seeking happiness in the wrong places. Bhagavan teaches us that happiness doesn’t lie outside; it lies only and only within ourself.

• Based on the video: 2020-05-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 40 (35:00)

My reflection: The following needs to be put in bold: Bhagavan teaches us that happiness doesn’t lie outside; it lies only and only within ourself.

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

Sorry anadi-ananta, as I said before, anybody can copy and paste comments and texts by others, and again you behave like an eel, especially in responding to specific questions re. your confrontational comments.

Well, I'll leave it at that, my opinion about you has been confirmed and the best course of action is really to entirely ignore you.

And as I see on another thread, you are back to your old games, taunting for a "succinct" comment. Asun is so right about you ....

Sanjay Lohia said...

As ego, we are always driven to regain what is ours, namely infinite happiness

A friend: Where do all our dreams come from, whether in so-called waking or dream?

Michael: Ultimately, the root cause of everything is our rising as ego. When we rise as ego, we seemingly separate ourself from our real nature, which is infinite happiness. So as ego, we are always driven to regain what is ours, namely infinite happiness. So as ego, we always have a desire for happiness.

Our desires in their seed form are called vasanas, and these vasanas are what give rise the appearance of any dream. So Bhagavan says whatever we see outside is just a projection of our own vasanas. But vasanas don’t exist independently? Whose vasanas are they? They are ego’s vasanas, so the root cause of everything is ego but the immediate cause is vasanas.

So though the vasanas are called the causal-body, they are not the ultimate cause. The ultimate cause, the first cause, according to Bhagavan, the cause of all causes, is our rising as ego.

• Based on the video: 2020-05-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 40 (00:42)

My reflection: Whatever we see in front of us a dream and this dream is maya - what does not exist even when it seems to exist. So we can never adequately this dream.

Sanjay Lohia said...

The thoughts are just the symptoms

It is good to recognise that our mind is harmful to us. The natural tendency of the mind is to go outwards, and all harm comes to us because we allow ourself to go outwards. However, the part of the mind which is really harmful to us is our will. That is, all our desires, attachments, likes, dislikes and so on are the harmful elements of our mind.

People who try to meditate think that thoughts are the problem, but thoughts are not the problem in themselves. That is, thoughts are not harmful by itself but the passion with which we think is harmful. So the desires and attachments which impel us to think are harmful. Supposing we sit down with an idea to meditate, and we start thinking of other things. We may start thinking about what we should eat or what bills we need to pay or whatever. Why do we think these thoughts? It is because we are more interested in those things than in turning within.

So it is our desires and attachments which compel us to think, and they are harmful elements of our mind. The thoughts are just the symptoms. If we think a lot about something, that’s just a sign that we have so much love and desire for that thing.

So how can we root out our desires and attachments? We can do so most effectively and quickly by self-investigation, by turning our attention back towards ourself. Whenever any desire or attachment or fear prompts us to start thinking of something, instead of following that thought we should turn our attention back towards ourself. We thereby weaken that desire or attachment or fear.

• Based on the video: 2019-09-22 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses self-investigation and spiritually immaturity (00:23)

Col said...

When to let go of pointing? Let go of bhagavan and follow his teachings

anadi-ananta said...

Michael,
regarding your comment of 5 May 2020 at 20:56,
I am glad to read that the translation of ‘நான் நான்’ (nāṉ nāṉ) as the term 'I-I', which is found in many English books, is wrong. I always brooded over the meaning of that term and considered it as somehow distorted rendering.
The correct translation/meaning 'I exist as I' or briefly 'I am I' made much more impression on me. In this main clause 'I am I' grammatically the subject 'I' expresses its union/unity/sameness/identity/oneness with the predicate 'I' or at least its close bond/alliance/connection with it. Presumably the first mentioned 'I' signifies ego and the second symbolizes the supreme self.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Militant vegans

If we feel that we are compassionate, that leads to the attitude ‘holier than thou’. That is, we feel self-righteous – ‘I am a very good person. I am better than all these other people’.

We can see this, for example, in some militant vegans. They feel quite correctly that it is wrong to exploit animals. They think it is wrong to kill animals for food – for eggs or milk or whatever. Therefore, some vegan will criticise other people and even sometimes take violent actions in order to assert those beliefs. In the end, they just end up getting a bad name for the vegans.

That is all a play of maya. Why do we feel compassion for the animals and feel that it is wrong to harm them? It is because Bhagavan has blessed with the clarity of mind to understand that these animals suffer just like us. We see many good people in this world who do not feel that it is wrong to eat meat and consume dairy. So in that sense, they are spiritually blind, but we shouldn’t be angry with them for that reason. Rather we should feel sorry for them, and we should feel gratitude for Bhagavan for having given us the clarity to understand that eating meat and dairy (in today’s context) is wrong.

That’s just an example to show how compassion if it is not mature compassion, can lead to self-righteousnesses and create problems.

• Based on the video: 2019-06-23 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses humility, compassion, empathy and charity (00:11)

My reflection: What Michael says is very true. I also at times have this feeling of ‘holier than thou’. I feel I am better than others just because I am a vegan, and therefore I understand the plight of animals which others do not. However, as Michael points out, this is not a correct attitude to have because this shows a strong ego in me. As Michael says:

We see many good people in this world who do not feel that it is wrong to eat meat and consume dairy. So in that sense, they are spiritually blind, but we shouldn’t be angry with them for that reason. Rather we should feel sorry for them, and we should feel gratitude for Bhagavan for having given us the clarity to understand that eating meat and dairy (in today’s context) is wrong.

Michael addresses even the people who consume meat as ‘good people’. So seeing others as bad is itself bad.





Sanjay Lohia said...

If we are too concerned about helping others, we are overlooking the defects existing within us

The following is a reproduction of my Whatsapp exchange with my cousin, Harsh:

Sanjay: Michael James: If we are too concerned about helping others, we are overlooking the defects existing within us. Our main defect is ego, and from this defect sprouts all our secondary defects which are our likes, dislikes, desires, attachments and so on. So we should be primarily concerned about this ego. If we investigate ourself and thereby eradicate this ego, we will thereby solve all our problems. If we overlook this problem of ego, and if we see problems outside and if try to solve outside problems by trying to help others, we are perpetuating ego and thereby perpetuating all problems that result from it.

Harsh: Sounds contradictory to me as there is a very fine line between empathy and sympathy. Sympathy might be attributed to ego but empathy is humane / a feeling without ego and if one helps others with empathy then its not ego ,according to my limited understanding.

Sanjay Lohia: What you say seems true, but Bhagavan Ramana used the term 'ego' in a much deeper sense. Ego is what we seem to be. Ego is the erroneous idea 'I am this body', and this is our root defect and the cause of all other defects. So what Michael James is saying is that we should concentrate on removing this root defect of ours. If this goes, everything else vanishes with it. This is not to deny the importance of sympathy and empathy if these come naturally to us.

Obviously, empathy is a nobler feeling than forced sympathy. But who has empathy? It is still this ego. So we can still see our separateness from others. As long as we see this separateness, our ego is still alive.

Harsh: Being judgemental and opinionated about a particular theory and feeling such as empathy in others is also a part of having ego.

Sanjay: Yes. Ego sprouts as all our ideas. So whatever ideas we may have, originate from ego.

Harsh: That means life = ego

Sanjay: Yes. If ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence. So our life is nothing but an expansion of ego.


Sanjay Lohia said...

If we are good, our actions will naturally be good; if we are bad, our actions will naturally be bad

Bhagavan was not much concerned about our behaviour because Bhagavan knew if we follow this path of self-investigation, our behaviour will automatically improve. To put in other words, if we are good, our actions will naturally be good. If we are bad, our actions will naturally be bad. So what we need to be concerned about is ourself, and not so much about our actions.

In this context, when I say, ‘if we are good or bad’, what I mean is that we are good to the extent ego is subsiding, to the extent ego is getting less and less strong – to that extent we are good. When ego is strong, its likes and dislikes and so on will also be strong, so to that extent, we are bad. But these are all relative terms. Nobody is absolutely good or bad.

So as with everything with Bhagavan’s teachings, the root of everything is only ego. Why we have these likes and dislikes? It is because ego is still strong. The more we turn our attention within, the more this ego will subside, and the more its likes and dislikes will also subside. So Bhagavan’s path is the true solution to all our problems.

It’s much easier to see the problems in the world than to see the problems within ourself. It’s much easier to try to solve the problems of this world than to solve the problem within ourself. But the root of all problems we see outside is only within ourself, which is this ego. In sleep, there are no problems or suffering. There are no others whose suffering we have to alleviate. All these things seem to exist only we rise as ego in waking and dream.

That is, it is our rising as ego that brings waking and dream into existence, and it is only in this waking and dream that we see all the suffering in this world. What is the way to solve all the suffering we see in a dream? It is to wake up from the dream.

• Based on the video: 2019-06-23 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses humility, compassion, empathy and charity (26:00)

Sanjay Lohia said...

‘Let us not fear anything’, says Michael

Some of my notings from today’s Zoom meeting with Michael. This was organised by RMF UK. Michael said:

(1) Ego is seeing itself as all these phenomena.

(2) Let us not fear anything or desire anything. Nothing can happen which is against Bhagavan’s will. All we need to do is to try to surrender our likes and dislikes so that we are less and less affected by anything else.

My note: ‘Let us not fear anything’, says Michael. This message is very relevant to me as fears of different kinds do crop up from time to time. We need to remember that no one has got the power to override Bhagavan’s will, and since Bhagavan is love, whatever is happening or whatever will happen is all for our good.

(3) It is much better to be ill-treated in this world than be praised. If it is our prarabdha to be ill-treated it is for our good. If we are praised by the world, we have to be doubly vigilant. We have to constantly keep a watch on ego.

(4) It is not good to put people on a pedestal.

Sanjay Lohia said...

If we turn within fully here and now, we cease to be a beggar here and now

Someone sent me the following saying of Bhagavan Ramana: ‘Just a turning-in, and you are no more a beggar’. I am not sure if Bhagavan actually said this or if he said this, where he said this. But this prompted me to reflect on this saying:

If we turn within fully here and now, we cease to be a beggar here and now. All our desires are akin to begging this or that. These desires and attachments will remain as long as our ego remains. How to make this ego die? We can do so ONLY by turning within a full 100%. Once we cease to be ego, we remain as pure self-awareness, which is infinite, eternal, immutable happiness. Thus we will no longer have any desires from this point onwards. So our begging days will be over.

Only we as atma-svarupa are perfect contentment, and we need to experiences ourself alone without awareness of anything else if we want perfect contentment. So we need to turn within a full 100%. Even 99.99% will not do because ego will still remain with even a 99.99% turn within.

Sanjay Lohia said...

The only beneficial answer that can be given to any question is the answer that will turn our attention within

Whatever Bhagavan taught us, its sole purpose is to motivate us to investigate ourself and surrender ourself.

Regarding the purpose of creation or origin of life, what Bhagavan taught us about the origin of life is very clearly expressed by him in verse 26 of Ulladu Narpadu:

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

So the origin of life is our rising as ego, and the purpose of life is to cease rising as ego. It is like saying that the purpose of a dream is to wake up from the dream. That is, when we recognise that a dream is a dream, we should put an end to it by waking up.

In fact, creation has no purpose. Our rising as ego is a mistake on our part. We should have never risen as ego, and if we investigate ourself keenly enough we will see that actually, we have never risen as ego. We are always as we actually are – just pure, immutable, ever-unchanging awareness.

So to all questions about creation and the purpose of creation, the ultimate answer is ‘In whose view does creation seems to exist?’ In view of ourself as ego. So who am I? If we investigate ourself, we will see that we are not this ego, so there was never any creation. That which is always is without undergoing any change whatsoever.

So when we ask questions, we need to understand that the only beneficial answer that can be given to any question is the answer that will turn our attention within. It is only by investigating ourself can we surrender ourself, and by only by surrendering ourself can we be free of all these problems.

• Based on the video: 2020-04-25 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses suicide and other subjects (48:00)

My reflection: Whatever questions we ask Michael, he always motivates us to turn within. Why? It is because our very looking outside is the biggest problem. Who looks outside? It is ourself as ego, and this ego itself the main problem and the root of all our problems. So the solution to any problem can only to turn within and keenly investigate ourself. This is the only way to get rid of ego and all its problems.


Aham Asmi said...

.


Where is Mr James? It is unusual that no comments from the public have been posted recently.


.

Rob P said...

He's gone! He's been taken up..




No, there he is, over there.


:) Welcome back Michael

R Viswanathan said...

"I have been listening to Sri Nochur nearly six years, and his talks, in any language, still this mind to the most peaceful state. I don't begin to understand this but accept it very much. I learn so much through him."

You are truly blessed to be able to listen through Sri Nochur's discourses irrespective of the 'language'. I would think that there is one obstacle less in the path of self surrender. May Bhagavan's grace continue to act on you.
You might be knowing perhaps that Sri Ramanasramam website has many of Sri Nochur's discourses:
https://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/resource_centre/audio/aksharamanamalai-talks-jan-2014/
https://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/ulladu-narpadu-talks/
https://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/resource_centre/video/

Sanjay Lohia said...

Except by his grace, even an atom doesn't move

The following is the reproduction of my Whatsapp exchange with Michael:

Sanjay Lohia: I was feeling lost (without the comments on your blog), but am relieved to read these comments after many days.

Michael James: I am sorry about my unreliable (and extremely slow) internet connection, but what to do? All happens according to the will of Bhagavan, and its unreliability reminds me how totally reliant we are on him for everything. "Avan arul andri or anum asaiyadu" (except by his grace, even an atom doesn't move), which is a Tamil saying that Bhagavan often used to quote

Note: So as Rob says, ‘Welcome back Michael’.

anadi-ananta said...

Re.‘Welcome back Michael’,
was he ever away ?

Sanjay Lohia said...

No sadhana is possible in sleep because ego, which is the instrument for any sadhana, is absent in sleep

Martins: Some zen masters talk about necessity to reduce sleeping hours. What was Bhagavans attitude in this matter?

Sanjay: Martins, I believe, in regards to sleep, Bhagavan advice was similar to that of Gita. That is, we should sleep in moderation, just like we should eat or act in moderation. We do need sleep to recharge our tired body and mind, but we should remember that we cannot progress spiritually in sleep: that is, no sadhana is possible in sleep because ego, which is the instrument for any sadhana, is absent in sleep.

So we should have no hard and fast rules for sleep. Whenever sleep overpowers us, we should sleep. But when we are awake, we should try to be as much self-attentive as possible, or at least spend our time studying and thinking about Bhagavan’s teachings.

• Extract from the comment section of the video: 2020-05-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 40

anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay,
re. your comment of 7 May 2020 at 15:52;
thanks again for the transcription.
You reflect saying "So we can never adequately this dream."
Would you like to complete this sentence ?
(By the way, because the sentence "But vasanas don’t exist independently?" is a plain statement and does not raise a question the question mark is put unnecessarily.):-)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Anadi-ananta, what I meant to write was ‘So we can never adequately explain this dream’. Yes, the question mark in that sentence was a typo.

Sanjay Lohia said...

So let us not indulge in praise or allow others to praise us as far as possible

It is not good for us to praise or be praised. It’s not good to put people on a pedestal. OK, we can praise Bhagavan because he is God and guru.

We need to be attending to ourself, not attending to others. A lot of people on the spiritual path like to put on the pedestal, but we can’t know the state of any other persons. What we need to do is to investigate and find out who we are. Let’s not be overly concerned about the inner state of other people. Let’s not have too high expectation of other people because if they don’t live to our expectations, we will be disappointed. So why have expectations of others?

We are all humans and are all imperfect. Perfection lies only in the annihilation of ego, and we don’t know whose ego is annihilated and whose has not. So let us not indulge in praise or allow others to praise us, as far as possible. The only exception is Bhagavan. We can praise Bhagavan to our heart’s content, but the real way to praise Bhagavan is to follow what he taught us, by putting into practice what he taught us.

• Based on the video: 2020-05-09 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses ajāta and other subjects (1:25)

To whom? To me. Who am I? said...

It struck me one day that we are really on the razor's edge while following Bhagavan's path, because the razor's edge is so sharp that there is no room for anything other than ourself on the path and we have to tread carefully and all alone. Even our opinions, concerns, thoughts about other people, and also this person I take myself to be, or the world we have to leave behind. And we have to keep on the path unceasingly because there's no room to pause and sit down along the razor's edge.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Do I need to retire from Wall Street?

A friend: How to be in the world of business and not be attached? Do I need to retire from Wall Street?

Michael: Attachment doesn’t lie in Wall Street; attachment lies in your heart. For some people external renunciation is necessary, but Bhagavan generally didn’t recommend external renunciation. We can quit our job and go and sit in the Himalayas, but that is not real renunciation. The real renunciation is the renunciation in our heart, the giving up of our desires and attachments. We can give up our desires and attachments equally well in Wall Street or sitting in a cave in the Himalayas.

It may seem more difficult in Wall Street because in Wall Street there is more distraction, more temptations to go outwards to make more and more and more money. So what we need to give up is our desires for more and more and more. It would be a great achievement if we can give up desires in the midst of all the temptations of Wall Street. So sometimes our seemingly unfavourable circumstances, we can turn to our advantage and make it favourable.

So merely giving up your job in Wall Street isn’t necessarily going to solve your problems so long as there are desires in your heart. What you need to give up is your desires and attachments and which you can do only by turning within. The more we turn our attention within the more the ego subsides, and the more it subsides the more its desires and attachments subside along with it.

In Wall Street, you need to maintain equanimity both at the times of profit and the time of loss. This itself is an exercise in self-surrender. You are not allowing yourself to be swayed by the ups and downs of life, so there is no reason why we shouldn’t follow this path in Wall Street. But you may find that after following this path for some time, your desire to work at the Wall Street may drop off, and you may find it more conducive to seek your livelihood in some other way. This may happen, but these are things which are not in your hand. If it is your destiny to work your entire life in Wall Street, you will work your entire life there.

Bhagavan said ‘It’s not up to you to decide whether you work or whether you renounce work. Your very effort to work or renounce work is the bondage’. We need to give up the desire to work or to renounce work. Bhagavan said at one place in ‘Who am I?’ – ‘Likes and dislikes are both to be disliked’. So the only desire we can have in the desire to be free of all desires.

Who has these desires? Desires are only for ego. We can reduce the strength of our desires and attachments to a certain extent, but we can give them up entirely as long as ego exists. The very nature of ego is to have desires and attachments. So we need to eventually give up our ego if we want to be free of all desires and attachments.

• Based on the video: 2020-05-09 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses ajāta and other subjects (1:00)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Correction:

Who has these desires? Desires are only for ego. We can reduce the strength of our desires and attachments to a certain extent, but we cannot give them up entirely as long as ego exists. The very nature of ego is to have desires and attachments. So we need to eventually give up our ego if we want to be free of all desires and attachments.

Yo Soy Tu Mismo said...

Sanjay, from my point of view, we can sometimes forget that Grace is transforming our view of the other first of all judgments.

As we attend more and more to ourselves, our perception of the other is changing more and more clearly from antipathy or ego sympathy to empathy and from empathy to a progressive recognition that there is no other and only Consciousness.

anadi-ananta said...

Yo Soy Tu Mismo,
"As we attend more and more to ourselves,...".
If we actually exist as a common multiple we can rather use the singular ('ourself') instead of the plural ('ourselves').:-)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Yo Soy Tu Mismo, as our view of ourself is gradually transformed, our view of others automatically starts to transform. The more this ego starts to dissolve, the more the others will also start to dissolve. That is, the more we investigate and thereby surrender ourself, the more the distinction between ourself and others starts to fade, and a time will come when all differences between ourself and others will completely fade away.

So our aim is to experience this absolute oneness. It is said in the sastras - ekam evadvitiyam. Ekam means ‘the one’; eva means ‘only’ and advitiyam means ‘without a second’. So until we reach the state of ekam evadvitiyam (one only without a second), we should preserve with our practice of self-investigation and self-surrender.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Muruganar: ‘I have seen the sun, and I don’t need anything else’

Muruganar used to say that ‘I have seen the sun, and I don’t need anything else’. So Muruganar didn’t care about anything except Bhagavan. Muruganar wasn’t there for people appreciating him or for people treating him well. He was there only for the love of Bhagavan. All he cared about was Bhagavan and Bhagavan’s love, and he cared about nothing else.

• Based on the video: 2020-05-09 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses ajāta and other subjects (1:13)

My reflection: We should try to emulate Muruganar and care only Bhagavan and Bhagavan’s love. This is the only way to surrender ourself to Bhagavan.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Often the difficulties of life are a mirror to us; they show us the strength of our desires and attachments

Whatever is happening, it is all happening according to prarabdha. Prarabdha is what is allotted to us by God or guru, let’s say Bhagavan, for our own good. So we have to accept whatever comes as his will for our good. We have to face up to the joys and sorrows of it and learn from it. We learn from all experiences in life in one way or another.

Often the difficulties of life are a mirror to us. They show us the strength of our desires and attachments. If we face our prarabdha with viveka and vairagya, we can learn from any situation in life.

We shouldn’t fear anything because nothing can happen except by the will of Bhagavan and whatever happens, is for our good. So let us not desire anything or fear anything. Let us not have high expectations of others or anything. Our job is to surrender to Bhagavan - surrender all our desires, fears, likes, dislikes . . .

• Based on the video: 2020-05-09 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses ajāta and other subjects (00:37)

anadi-ananta said...

section 1.,
"...it is important to understand that this is not Reinhard’s imagination or dream but only ego’s. Reinhard is just a part of this dream, albeit a central part, but the dreamer is ego. As ego you now mistake yourself to be Reinhard, so it seems to you that Reinhard is experiencing all these things, but what is actually experiencing it is only ego, who currently experiences itself as ‘I am Reinhard’."
So - with regard to a person - 'ego' seems to be cultivating its currently mistaking imagination/dream from its seeming paramount position.
What could be the reason that ego is not simply contented merely with happily experiencing its high position and instead makes improper use of experiencing itself as any innocent person and into the bargain simultaneously a billion times ? :-)

anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay,
today you say "So until we reach the state of ekam evadvitiyam (one only without a second),...".
If we want define things clearly : Already conceptual there is no room to consider anything or anyone to be outside of 'the one without a second'.
Such an idea is conceivable only on the playground of imagination.:-)

anadi-ananta said...

section 2.,
"Both Reinhard and Michael are characters appearing in the dream of that one ego, namely ourself. As ego we always experience ourself as a character in our dream, but that character is no more real than any other character, and it is not the dreamer (the perceiver) but one of the phenomena dreamt (perceived) by the dreamer."
Ego and person/character seem to be an inseparable couple in which both are linked together in dear unreality.
Therefore it is most plausible that the ultimate truth is not even dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda but only ajāta.

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

We are subconsciously so much attached to that body and in being a person that we take differences in our personality for real. The so called purification or maturing process, but that is maya too.

It is the story of the ego/person somehow improving, it is a delusion since that what improves is simply a lessening of asserting itself, as the ego in form of thoughts.

There is the American spiritual teacher Katie Byron who told the story where she fell into a deep depression and stayed at that time in a half-way house, being totally oblivious about her surroundings and just stayed in her room agonizing. In that stage she had an epiphany that all her suffering simply comes from her thought(-processes). That's what Bhagavan taught.

However she "created" her own way or method called "The Work" what basically is geared to improve what? The person/personality aka ego. So it's a very shallow teaching far from Bhagavan's deep revelation of reality.

So why am I telling this here? Because all that what had transpired to Katie Byron was determined by birth and unfolding according to her prarabdha. Her depression, her "insides" of the effects of thoughts and her subsequent development of that method 'The Work.'

So what had really changed? She claimed to feel better, her depression is gone and she even lost some weight. She probably thinks that she has "grown" spiritually since she is now teaching others to repeat her "discovery".

However all of that is a delusion. A Katie Byron does not exist and therefore all of these changes are just imaginations of mind. She may feel having "matured" and have been "purified" but that is just the ego/mind talking, caught up in samsara.

Self had never changed, what had changed is the pattern of thoughts.

So what should have done Katie instead? Vichara of course and with that having the dispassion to ignore the depression but also the elation afterwards and foremost see that nothing has grown or matured but as an imagination.

There are truly no jivas who are closer to self than other jivas. That assumption is as real as the child of a barren woman. Every jiva has the exact same potential for self as anybody else. Why? Because as soon as the idea of a "very advanced" or "close to self-realization" rises one is in delusion.

As Bhagavan stated, the thought "I am not realized" is the reason for being bound. There is no difference between "I am not realized" and "he is close to self-realization" because both statements denote the disbelief of being self. The mind just believes its own concepts and therefore believes in "being close to realization"

THERE IS NO CLOSE TO REALIZATION!

The only reason why sages talk about "mature disciples" is to explain seeming differences in the phenomenal world since they know that people who are wondering about the unreality of the world can only be satisfied with an unreal answer. They are not capable to grasp what I am stating here since they are still very much attached to the body and personality and subsequent seeming "changes".

Now I am not saying that one cannot use terms like "maturity" and "purification" but as all terms explaining the unreal phenomenal world, they have to be taken in the same spirit. That in all reality there cannot be an "highly advanced" jiva. Who would or could know?

Sanjay Lohia said...

We can use our will to change whatever purpose we have given to our life

Concerned Citizen: Swamiji: ideally what should be purpose of one's life? Can this be changed by one's will?

Sanjay: Concerned Citizen, do we really need a purpose to exist as this ego? In fact, all our aims and purposes in life are only keeping us bound. If at all we need a purpose, it should be to not to have a purpose in life. Or our only purpose in life should be to cease rising as ego or to subside within never to rise again.

It is only our will that decides whatever purpose we give to our life. So, yes, we can use our will to change whatever purpose we have given to our life. We may have given a lot of value to making money in the past or to having sex or whatever, but these may not be that important to us now. So we are constantly changing our aims and purposes. So if we are wise, we should have only one purpose in life, which is to turn within and subside within, never to rise again.

• Extract from the comment section of the video: 2020-05-02 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 40

Sanjay Lohia said...

We need to try more and more to turn our attention within in order to keep a constant eye on ego, to make sure it doesn’t pop out and starts its mischief

A friend: Muruganar was mistreated in the ashram, and Bhagavan allowed it because such ill-treatment is good for ego. What do you say?

Michael: Muruganar may have had no ego but Bhagavan, through Muruganar’s life, taught us that it is always better to be in a position where we are not held in high regards by others. It is better to be ill-treated than to be praised and put on a pedestal. So Bhagavan will always give his true devotees a lot of difficulties in their life.

So though Muruganar had completely surrendered to Bhagavan, outwardly his life continued to be a difficult life. So through Muruganar’s life, Bhagavan was teaching us that we shouldn’t be looking for a comfortable life or an easy life. Let the whole world taunt us or ridicule us. That is only good for us. Bhagavan said those who scold or abuse our ego are our real friends because who are they abusing? They are abusing our ego which is our only real enemy. So those who are against our enemy is our true friend.

We have to be wary of those who praise us because the worst trap of ego is to acquire a taste of praise and appreciation. If we are praised or put on a pedestal, that itself is a huge challenge. We may think we are humble, and we may think that we are not moved by praise, but this ego is a very tricky bedfellow. Ego will always be seeking pleasure in the praise it receives. So we have to be ever vigilant.

The only way to prevent ego from rising and from preventing it from getting swayed by either praise or blame is by constantly keeping a watch on it. The only way to keep it in check is by constantly turning our attention within.

If it is our prarabdha to be ill-treated, it is good for us, and if it is our prarabdha to receive praise that is good for us. But to handle praise is very challenging. Praise is very dangerous. We are much safer by being abused and ill-treated by the world than by being praised by the world. We need to try more and more to turn our attention within in order to keep a constant eye on ego, to make sure it doesn’t pop out and starts its mischief.

• Based on the video: 2020-05-09 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James discusses ajāta and other subjects (01:07)

Aham Asmi said...

.


Sanjay, your post 16 May 2020 at 08:58 is well timed given the comments posted just prior to yours.

“It is better to be ill-treated than to be praised and put on a pedestal. So Bhagavan will always give his true devotees a lot of difficulties in their life."

Wonderful sweet words!

Mockery, ridicule, humiliation, whilst these can be painful in the moment are “like an anvil to the goldsmith” (Verse 489 GVK), one should be grateful for such boons.


.

Aham Asmi said...

.


Moderation has ceased!


.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Unfortunately, we have no real story of ours

Michael said at one place: ‘Each one of us has a personal story, but if we take interest in our personal story, we are only strengthening ego’. So if I take interest in Sanjay and in Sanjay’s life, I am strengthening my ego. So if Sanjay’s story is not my story, do I have a story of my own? No, unfortunately, we have no real story of ours.

We are pure, immutable, infinite and eternal self-awareness, and therefore we just are. We just exist as pure ‘I am’. So as pure existence, we do not have a story. We are nirvishesha: we are devoid of variety or we are completely featureless. All stories are vishesha: that is, they are full variety and features. So we should let go of all our interest in anything vishesha and focus only on that which is nirvishesha.

So, all our stories are false – a figment of our imagination. Our bank balance is a lie; our house is a lie; our relations are all illusions. All our learning about anything other than ourself is maya – it is not knowledge but ignorance, says Bhagavan. We have no connection with any story or anything else.

Sanjay Lohia said...

We are foolishly holding on to a floating bear mistaking it to be a raft

Bhagavan teaches us in verse 128 of GVK:

Not knowing that the world in front of them brings only great harm, those who take it to be real and a source of happiness will drown in the ocean of birth and death, like one who takes hold of a floating bear as a raft.

Sadhu Om: If someone has caught hold of a floating bear, without knowing its true nature but hoping that it will serve as a raft, he will find it very difficult to leave it, even when he has discovered his mistake, since the bear will also have caught hold of him; similarly, even though someone has heard from the Guru that the world is a false appearance, he finds it very difficult to leave it aside, because of the tendencies of attraction which he created by his great desire for it, when he took it to be real. Such is the strength of the mind’s attachment to this world!

My reflection: I believe most of us are holding on to a floating bear mistaking it to be a raft. Who can deny that this world doesn’t seem real? It may not be real, but we do take it to be real and will continue to do so as long as we take ourself to be this ego.

So if we want to let go of this floating bear, all we have to do is to investigate ego and see that it does not exist. This is the only way to let of this floating bear, namely this world. We need to turn within and let go of the world and all our other thoughts. We will remain in the grips of this floating bear until we turn within completely and disassociate ourself with everything else.

To whom? To me. Who am I? said...

In paragraph 1 of Nan Yar Bhagavan says, "for everyone the greatest love is only for oneself".

Although according to Bhagavan there is really only pure self awareness, now there seem to be three entities - pure self awareness, ego, and this person. In the quote above, which of these three entities does 'everyone' and 'oneself' refer to?

I think 'everyone' refers to ego, because Bhagavan starts the paragraph by saying "Since all living beings want to be always happy without what is called misery", and neither the person nor pure self awareness can want to be happy but only ego is always looking for happiness. So the sentence can be rewritten as "for ego the greatest love is only for oneself". What does "oneself" refer to? It cannot be pure self awareness, because if ego had greatest love for "I am", then it would turn 180 degrees inwards and dissolve in pure self awareness.

"oneself" must refer to the ego I think. If ego has greatest love for itself (as ego), and it has confused itself with its adjuncts, then it has greatest love for its adjuncts (this person, the world, etc), which is in line with my experience. Therefore "oneself" in the quote from Nan Yar above must refer to ego.

So if ego could see that it is different from its adjuncts, then it would not wrongly direct its love and attention towards adjuncts but would love and attend to itself (as ego) and therefore it would cease to exist.

Anonymous said...

To whom,

I agree. I don’t think ego should see that it is different from adjuncts, but should realize adjuncts as non existent. Or it should see all adjuncts as itself.

Anonymous said...

I agree. But at the same time we should be humble enough to learn from and respect anyone who is spending all their life in spreading Bhagavan’s teachings. Also, we should have discrimination to be able to understand what messages have to be taken in and what should be discarded.

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

No Anonymous, that is not what Bhagavan has taught. Respecting or disrespecting can only happen as a doer, someone who identifies with the ego. Same goes for humility or arrogance. It is not advised for a devotee of Bhagavan to pursue ideas like that.

As you've mentioned before, you just have started studying Bhagavan's teachings, so it makes sense that you have not fully grasped the ramifications of vichara and Bhagavan's path.

As a devotee of Bhagavan we are not concerned of being humble or respectful what one can only be as an ego, but to realize that there is nothing what could be humble or respectful! The very act of trying to apply virtue is the opposite of vichara. It feeds the ego.

Sanjay Lohia said...

We may have enjoyed all sorts of pleasures, but none of those pleasures has satisfied us

Everyone wants to be happy. We have been looking for happiness here, there, everywhere through so many dreams after dreams after dreams, or life after life after life. We are constantly seeking happiness. We may have enjoyed all sorts of pleasures, but none of those pleasures has satisfied us. We are seeking complete satisfaction, so out of desperation we have come to the spiritual path.

When we come to Bhagavan, he says: 'The reason you haven't found happiness or satisfaction outside is that they do not exist outside. You yourself are infinite happiness and satisfaction. Know yourself and you will be completely happy and satisfied'. So if we believe this, this is how our devotion to the way will grow.

• Based on the video: 2019-01-27 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses difficulties on the path (54:00)

My reflection: If we are not able to find real happiness and satisfaction within ourself, we will not find it anywhere else. So we should keep looking within until we find what we are seeking because this is the only place where true and unalloyed happiness actually exists.

Sanjay Lohia said...

To whom?, Bhagavan teaches us in the first paragraph of Nan Ar?:

Since all living beings want [or like] to be always happy without what is called misery, since for everyone the greatest love is only for oneself, and since happiness alone is the cause for love, [in order] to obtain that happiness, which is one’s own nature, which one experiences daily in [dreamless] sleep, which is devoid of mind, oneself knowing oneself is necessary. For that, jñāna-vicāra [awareness-investigation] called ‘who am I’ alone is the principal means.

As you say, ''oneself' in the quote from Nan Yar above must refer to ego'. By ‘everyone’ and ‘oneself’, Bhagavan definitely means all egos (humans and non-humans) we encounter. But why do we as egos want to be always happy? It is because happiness is our true nature.

anadi-ananta said...

What Salazar in the above comment of 17 May 2020 at 03:21 tries to sell as Bhagavan's teaching is just the product of ego's arrogance. But unfortunately he does not recognize it.
Only an ignorant fool considers respect and humility as needless conduct for a devotee of Bhagavan.

Anonymous said...

Salazar,

I have been reading Bhagavan’s teachings for a long time. But atma vichara practice- very recent.

If one does atma vichara sincerely, one will automatically become humble, but may not think that he/she is being humble. The thought ‘I have to be/am humble’ may not be right, but ‘being humble’ is right. So when one is humble, he/she will not consider someone as Guru, but will pay attention to what is being said and learn from it. I like Nochur and Ganesan Anna a lot. Whenever I hear their talks, it helps me understand Bhagavan’s teachings more. I don’t consider them as my Guru though. Being yourself and Being humble are same.

To whom? To me. Who am I? said...

Sanjay, it is not clear to me why "ego wants to be always happy" means that "happiness is our true nature". I feel like that would be like saying, "egos want to be always rich/famous because being rich/famous is our true nature", which is obviously not right.

Bhagavan's teaching "happiness is our true nature" is such an important clue, but I don't entirely understand it.
If somebody were to ask me, "Why do you like eating chocolate", I can say, "Because I think it'll make me happy". But if they then ask, "Why do you want to be happy?", it is certainly not easy to see that I want to be happy because happiness is my real nature. I think that in the first paragraph of Nan Yar Bhagavan does not explain why happiness is our real nature, but he just states it, "which is one’s own nature".

Bhagavan's example of a headache I find useful in this regard (thanks to Sanjay's transcription comment that helped me find this quote from Michael's video by searching this blog):

"When ego rises we become dissatisfied. We may experience some satisfaction here and there, but it is always against the backdrop of dissatisfaction. We are never perfectly satisfied - we always want something more. Why? It is because our true nature is eternal and infinite happiness; therefore, we can never be satisfied until and unless we become one with our true nature. Bhagavan gave an example to illustrate this. When we have a headache, why do we want to get rid of it? Since our nature is not to have a headache, we want to get rid of it in order to return to our natural headache-free state. Just like headache is not our natural condition, our body and mind is not our natural condition. We are perfectly happy without body and mind in sleep. So if we want to be perfectly happy, we need to somehow permanently get rid of our body and mind. We get rid of them every night in sleep but foolishly take them back in the morning."

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

Asun, yes - a person/ego claiming to be above the laws of "God" is ridiculous and foolish. I also never stated that humility is not necessary, what I stated is that the "desire of the ego to be humble" is turning the attention to the ego and not self.

How does the ego "respect" or "disrespect" others? Only in form of a thought. That is NOT vichara.

Also, how many times do I have to say that the "conduct of a person" is maya? Bhagavan doesn't want that the ego conducts as a "good" person, he wants us to realize that there is NO person! How can we do that in worrying about the ego's conduct? It reaffirms the ego.

People who worry about their conduct are the fools who refuse to drop their baggage on the train. They do not want to attend to self, they want to pamper their ego.

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

Asun, discerning the person from the ego is not a concern for me. What is ego? The definition I use is the "I" or first thought, and the person is the second and third thoughts. However as soon as the ego rises as a first thought, simultaneously second and third thoughts arise too and therefore to try to discern that is not helpful IMO. It is a futile thought process.

All what we need to know is that we can either turn attention "inwards" to self, or "outwards" to ego/person. Yes, I say ego because the first thought only arises when turning outwards, not when turning inwards, there is no ego turning inwards.

Now let's not get lost in a discussion of contamination of objectified consciousness while turning within, that is just a distraction by the ego and is not necessary as a concept as long as one pursues vichara.

But that is how I see it. If you have a personal approach that fits better for you, then I'd not object to it.

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

Yes Asun, all what we "have to do" is to attend to self. One can drop entirely all other concerns. Actually, one must drop all other concerns or ideas, otherwise one is slacking and gives attention to the phenomenal world.

If vichara is not possible (mind too agitated or dull), one can try to surrender, even pray, do japa, or read Bhagavan's teachings. And then come back to vichara.

To try to be humble, to try to be respectful, to try to be a good person is not for devotees of Bhagavan because a devotee of Bhagavan knows that this is an delusional act in objectified consciousness, it is the opposite of vichara.

Funny though, the same people who point out that japa cannot yield self-realization are nonetheless convinced that they have to try to be humble. That shows the confusion about Bhagavan's teaching since both transpire in the mental realm. However japa is of immediate benefit (if vichara is not possible) but trying to be humble is a fool's game which is endless.
Humility will arise by itself without desiring or looking for it with practicing vichara.

anadi-ananta said...

Without humility one cannot even start practising vichara.

Sanjay Lohia said...

If all our desires are constantly fulfilled, we will go on desiring more and more

The ultimate purpose of the law of karma is to wean us away from our desires and to turn us back within. Our prarabdha are the conditions which are most favourable to developing the purity of mind to want to turn within. Even to begin to turn within, we need a certain degree of purity of mind. That we get by receiving blows.

If all our desires are constantly fulfilled, we will go on desiring more and more. However, none of us experiences unmitigated pleasures in this life. Pleasures and pains are dyads. They go hand in hand. So by undergoing experiences as ordained by prarabdha, we slowly slowly come to understand that we are not going to find satisfaction in this external world. Whatever we may achieve, nothing will permanently satisfy us. If we want satisfaction, we have to look elsewhere, namely within ourself.

• Based on the video: 2018-08-18 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 19 (00:40)

My reflection: Michael says, ‘The ultimate purpose of the law of karma is to wean us away from our desires and to turn us back within’. We may have so many ideas about destiny and will, about which prevails destiny or will and so on. But we do not understand the ultimate purpose of the law of karma.

Sanjay Lohia said...

To whom?, you say, ‘Sanjay, it is not clear to me why "ego wants to be always happy" means that "happiness is our true nature". I feel like that would be like saying, "egos want to be always rich/famous because being rich/famous is our true nature", which is obviously not right’. Both of these things are not the same. Ego may want to be rich and famous because it feels by being rich and famous, it will become happy. So ego’s ultimate aim is to be happy. It may want to be rich and famous as a means to be happy.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Anandi-ananda, you say, ‘Without humility one cannot even start practising vichara’. This may be true in one sense because our rising as ego is itself arrogance. So we need to be become humble by trying to subside within.

However, the correct way to understand this will be ‘without some purity of mind one cannot even start practising vichara’. Why don’t we turn within to practise atma-vichara? It is because we have so many desires and attachments towards this world. So we need to lessen these desires at least to some extent before we may even want to turn within. So we need purity of mind to turn within. If we say we need humility to turn within, this doesn’t make things very clear.

anadi-ananta said...

Sanjay,
let me say that we need all the good aspects you list in their entirety to go deep in turning within. But without humility one cannot actually subside to the supreme power - at least in my experience. So I would call humility the crowning glory of all the needed prerequisites/preconditions.

Anonymous said...

Right :)

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

Sanjay, you are correct, if there would be really a prerequisite for vichara then that would be some purity of mind. However as we all know, Bhagavan said that the desire for vichara is enough.

It is foolish to connect vichara with some virtues which have to be attained first, that is nothing else than the egos excuse to not practice vichara at all. And that is of course the hallmark of an immature aspirant. Someone who loudly exclaims "we need virtue before vichara" is not a devotee of Bhagavan, IMO. Furthermore that kind of talk may corrupt the understanding of the newer people on the path.

Again, "trying to be humble" is not for a devotees of Bhagavan, it is for those who still need to perform dual acts as a doer. That is fine, however what are they doing on this blog?

To whom? To me. Who am I? said...

Sanjay,
I agree with what you say in your comment of 18 May 2020 at 08:23.
We want to be happy always, implies that happiness is our real nature.

I was wrong in arguing that this is like saying that if I want to be famous, implies that being famous is my real nature.

Desires such as desire for fame, wealth are all ultimately the desire for happiness, as you say. We don't want fame/wealth for fame/wealth themselves but for the happiness we think we will get from them. On the contrary, the desire for happiness is simply the desire for happiness, there is no other motive behind this desire than happiness itself.

So the desire for happiness is not like any other desire.

Also from another point of view, we always want to be happy, but one does not always want to be rich or famous. If something sad happens, I would forget about my desire to become rich. When I'm tired after a busy day, I don't care for my desire to be rich. But I can never forget about my desire for happiness.

Also other desires involve thought. When I think what status I will have in society, my desire for fame rises and flourishes. I think about the object of desire and my desire for it rises. But with happiness, I don't have to think at all, it is a very fundamental desire.

It is such a pure desire, the desire for happiness itself, which is the goal of the whole of Bhagavan's teachings!

anadi-ananta said...

Of course one can always be convinced to be on the right track. And one may imagine to practise atma-vichara in the correct way and to be a "true devotee of Bhagavan". And one may even think he is an expert on Bhagavan's teaching.
Nevertheless, sooner or later one will notice which way the wind is blowing. :-)

R Viswanathan said...

"Perhaps it is finally time to walk alone, and stand naked before Bhagavan."

Perhaps you have read this: "The Mountains are Calling and I Must Go Answering the Call of Sri Bhagavan by Dennis Hartel"

https://archive.arunachala.org/newsletters/2020/jan-feb

Michal Borkowski said...

🙏

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yo Soy Tu Mismo said...

Salazar, from your point of view, a beginner who barely manages to perform Vichara eating in vain because he does not want to be vain or this could contribute to the weakening of his visheya and karma vasanas?

anadi-ananta said...

As Asun reports Michael saying "If Bhagavan supports whatever we do, he will provide the means to do it, so we need not rely on anyone other than him.”
We certainly may have confidence in Bhagavan's ability.:-)

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

Yo Soy, I am not sure what you mean with "eating in vain". I am also not sure of the rest of the comment, would you please rephrase it?

What could contribute to the 'weakening' of vasanas?

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
anadi-ananta said...

Re. Salazar's suggestion,
tackling the root aka ego is easily started by cutting off its branches.

anadi-ananta said...

Questioning and doubting comments on this blog is not to be considered as a bad thing or committing an offence. Just by questioning and doubting we ajnanis get the chance to approach cautiously a more comprehensive understanding of Bhagavan's teaching. With that having got into trouble with (seemingly) advanced people (having been to university) should not leave deep worry lines.

anadi-ananta said...

R Viswanathan,
"The Mountains are Calling and I Must Go Answering the Call of Sri Bhagavan by Dennis Hartel"
Thanks for your advice.
Best wishes to Dennis.
I met him a few times at Sri Ramanasramam in Tiruvannamalai two and three years ago, but because of my then reserved mood we did have only short talks. I did not even know his name and origins. Only after seeing his photo in the linked newsletter "The Maharshi" Jan/Feb 2020 (https://archive.arunachala.org/newsletters/2020/jan-feb) I remembered Dennis Hartel as my pleasant person to talk to. However, I instinctively felt his strong yearning for silence.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Extract from the note by Dennis Hartel

The following is an extract of an article titled ‘The Mountains are Calling and I Must Go’. This had appeared in the journal ‘The Maharshi’ (Jan/Feb 2020; Vol 30, no 1). Dennis wrote an email entitled ‘Refuge’ which arrived early on the morning of Tuesday, December 3, 2019, a part of which is as follows:

I ask that you please do not make any efforts to locate my whereabouts. I have put all my faith in Bhagavan’s guiding presence and all of you should do the same and celebrate with me this new direction in my life. Does not the Lord of the Universe sustain the trees of the forest, the birds in the sky, the fish in the sea. Will He ever forsake me? How is it possible. And how wonderful it is to want nothing from the world but the opportunity to abandon all hopes, all fears and desires and rest in Him.

Also, do not be too alarmed at this turn of events. Who knows, I may be back in two months, or two years, or at some point in time you will come to learn that my journey on earth has come to end. It is in His hands alone, is it not? Isn’t it the same for all of us?

My reflection: Apparently, Dennis had left for an unknown place. I found this note quite beautiful, especially when he says, ‘Does not the Lord of the Universe sustain the trees of the forest, the birds in the sky, the fish in the sea. Will He ever forsake me? How is it possible. And how wonderful it is to want nothing from the world but the opportunity to abandon all hopes, all fears and desires and rest in Him’.

Of course, Bhagavan doesn’t ask us to abandon our homes in order to surrender to him, but he does ask us to fully surrender to him. So what Dennis wrote in his email is beautiful and shows us how we should totally trust and rely on only Bhagavan for all our needs. In fact, we should care only about Bhagavan and our surrender to Bhagavan. We need not even think about our bodily needs because if we think about them, that shows that we are not yet willing to surrender totally.

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
To whom? To me. Who am I? said...

"If [our individual] self rises, everything rises; if [our individual] self subsides [or ceases], everything subsides [or ceases]. To whatever extent we behave humbly, to that extent there is goodness [or virtue]. If [we] are restraining [curbing, subduing, condensing, contracting or reducing our] mind, wherever [we] may be [we] can be [or wherever we may be let us be]."
Paragraph 20 of Nan Yar.

If we take the second line in the context of the other lines, then it seems to me that Bhagavan is implying humility as subduing the ego, and according to Bhagavan ego can be subdued by self-investigation. So humility is just a side effect of vichara.

anadi-ananta said...

Karen,
putting down the unnecessary baggage now and forever merging into the heart is our overriding aim.:-)

Sanjay Lohia said...

We cease to be the doer by turning our attention inwards

So long as our attention is turned outwards, we identify with a body, speech and mind, so we seem to be the doer. But when we turn our attention within, we are investigating the reality of ego which seems to be the doer. To the extent our attention is turned within, to that extent we are separating ourself from the body, speech and mind. So we cease to be the doer by turning our attention inwards.

• Based on the video: 2020-05-17 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to ignite unwavering devotion (00:51)

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sanjay Lohia said...

Thanks, Asun. Please continue posting such extracts.

anadi-ananta said...

Thanks Asun for your transcription regarding the gradual illumination of the 'mind'.
However, don't be surprised if any quick-witted one lodges the objection that in reality there is no mind at all.:-)

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
. said...

Compelled to unlern. Not that bad :)

anadi-ananta said...

"Guru Vachaka Kovai,(The Garland of Guru's Sayings)
by Sri Muruganar
Translation and Commentary by Sri Sadhu Om & Michael James
PART THREE
THE EXPERIENCE OF THE TRUTH
Chapter 14. The Non-Existence of Misery
verse 956:"If one clings only to the knowledge [of one's own Self] as the real refuge, then the misery of birth [or the birth of misery], which is caused by ignorance, will come to an end."

That sounds actually quite simply.
However, before one is able to cling only to real knowledge as the real refuge one must first and to the greatest possible extent eradicate one's ignorance.
Similarly: Every experienced woodcutter would tell us that one cannot eradicate the deep roots of a thick bush/tree before one has cut off most of its spacious and low-hanging branches because one would not even approximately reach the rhizome/root-area.

Yo Soy Tu Mismo said...

Excelent Anadi Ananta.

anadi-ananta said...

Yo Soy Tu Mismo,
thanks; as always I am in excellent form.:-)

Purification of mind does NOT reflect on one’s outward behavior, a purified mind is no mind and any perceived behavior is illusion said...

Yo Soy, you are kidding, right? :-D

Sigh, what can one say ..............

anadi-ananta said...

Why not let out a sigh of relief ? :-)

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 332 of 332   Newer› Newest»