Why did Bhagavan sometimes say the heart is on the right side of the chest?
A friend sent me a WhatsApp message yesterday saying that while explaining the first verse of Saddarśanam someone had said, ‘Many ask why Ramana Maharshi stated that heart is on your right. It is because you think that it is on the left. Heart actually is where one experiences the existence as consciousness’. I understood this to mean that that person had implied that the right side of the chest is where one experiences existence as consciousness, so I replied accordingly, but later my friend clarified that what that person was trying to convey was that ‘ullam or heart is not on right or left or nothing to do with the position in the body, but where or what one experiences as consciousness — not the body or mental consciousness which many associate this word with’.
Saddarśanam is a Sanskrit translation (albeit a very inadequate and in many places seriously distorted translation) by Kavyakantha Ganapati Sastri of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, so the first verse of Saddarśanam is his translation of the first maṅgalam verse of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, in which Bhagavan said:
உள்ளதல துள்ளவுணர் வுள்ளதோ வுள்ளபொருWhat I replied to my friend is as follows:
ளுள்ளலற வுள்ளத்தே யுள்ளதா — லுள்ளமெனு
முள்ளபொரு ளுள்ளலெவ னுள்ளத்தே யுள்ளபடி
யுள்ளதே யுள்ள லுணர்.
uḷḷadala duḷḷavuṇar vuḷḷadō vuḷḷaporu
ḷuḷḷalaṟa vuḷḷattē yuḷḷadā — luḷḷameṉu
muḷḷaporu ḷuḷḷaleva ṉuḷḷattē yuḷḷapaḍi
yuḷḷadē yuḷḷa luṇar.
பதச்சேதம்: உள்ளது அலது உள்ள உணர்வு உள்ளதோ? உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல் அற உள்ளத்தே உள்ளதால், உள்ளம் எனும் உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல் எவன்? உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே உள்ளல். உணர்.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): uḷḷadu aladu uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu uḷḷadō? uḷḷa-poruḷ uḷḷal-aṟa uḷḷattē uḷḷadāl, uḷḷam eṉum uḷḷa-poruḷ uḷḷal evaṉ? uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē uḷḷal. uṇar.
அன்வயம்: உள்ளது அலது உள்ள உணர்வு உள்ளதோ? உள்ள பொருள் உள்ளல் அற உள்ளத்தே உள்ளதால், உள்ளம் எனும் உள்ள பொருள் எவன் உள்ளல்? உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே உள்ளல்; உணர்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): uḷḷadu aladu uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu uḷḷadō? uḷḷa-poruḷ uḷḷal-aṟa uḷḷattē uḷḷadāl, uḷḷam eṉum uḷḷa-poruḷ evaṉ uḷḷal? uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē uḷḷal; uṇar.
English translation: If what exists were not, would existing awareness exist? Since the existing substance exists in the heart without thought, how to think of the existing substance, which is called ‘heart’? Being in the heart as it is alone is thinking. Know.
Explanatory paraphrase: If uḷḷadu [what is or what exists] were not, would uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu [existing awareness, actual awareness or awareness of what is] exist? [Or: (1) Except as uḷḷadu, does uḷḷa-v-uṇarvu exist? (2) Other than uḷḷadu, is there awareness to think [of it, meditate on it or investigate it]?] Since uḷḷa-poruḷ [the existing substance or reality] exists in the heart without thought, how to [or who can] think of [meditate on or investigate] uḷḷa-poruḷ, which is called uḷḷam [the heart]? Being in the heart as it is [that is, as pure thought-free self-awareness] alone is thinking [of it, meditating on it, contemplating it, investigating it or revering it]. Know [or be aware] [of it as it is].
What Bhagavan says about heart in the first maṅgalam verse of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu has nothing to do with the body or the right side of the chest. He says it is ‘உள்ளல் அற’ (uḷḷal-aṟa), ‘without thought’, whereas the body, like everything else in the world, is just a thought.
This verse is extremely subtle and deep in meaning and implication, whereas what he said about the heart on the right is relatively gross and superficial, so we should not trivialise the deep meaning of this verse by associating it with the heart on the right.
The heart on the right is true relative only to the dēhātma-buddhi. When we mistake ourself to be a body, the dēhātma-buddhi (the false awareness ‘I am this body’) is experienced by us as centred on the right side of the chest, which is why we point there when referring to the body as ourself, and why when we experience any shock or strong emotion we feel a sensation there. We also sometimes experience a similar sensation there when we try to turn our attention back towards ourself, but that is because of our attachment to this body, the survival of which is threatened by keen self-attentiveness.
Therefore the right side of the chest is not where one experiences existence as consciousness (sat as cit), but where one experiences one’s dēhātma-buddhi centred.
The heart on the right has nothing to do with the core teachings of Bhagavan. He referred to the heart being on the right side of the chest only to satisfy those who were unwilling to give up thinking in terms of the body and who therefore asked him where in the body the heart is located and whether it is the same as the anāhata cakra.
However, in most cases where Bhagavan used the term heart, such as in the first maṅgalam verse of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, he was not referring to the right side of the chest but only to our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is sat-cit, our fundamental awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’, because that alone is the real heart, core or centre of ourself, and hence of all other things also. Therefore when he says in the first maṅgalam verse, ‘உள்ளத்தே உள்ளபடி உள்ளதே உள்ளல்’ (uḷḷattē uḷḷapaḍi uḷḷadē uḷḷal), ‘Being in the heart as it is alone is thinking [or meditating on it]’, he does not mean we should be in the right side of the chest, but only that we should be in and as உள்ள பொருள் (uḷḷa-poruḷ), the existing substance, which is our real nature, pure awareness.
Posts
679 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 679 Newer› Newest»Karen,
you say "This world interests me not one bit, and nothing makes sense. Who am I? ???????"
We have to learn not to take a (subjective) ego/mind-born view of "this world" but with our real eye which means by real self-awareness.
Presumably we then will have a way of looking at things cleared up from ego's ignorance.
Anadi-ananta, I thank you for pointing out this typo. Yes, it should be: ‘Bhagavan can be found nowhere except in and as ‘I’.
Karen, this is in response to your two recent comments:
You write, ‘This world interests me not one bit, and nothing makes sense. Who am I? ???????’ If this is the case, what more do you need? Why we are still stuck up in this world? It is because this world still interests us a lot. We are still attached to our bodily existence. So if you are now only interested in finding out ‘Who am I’, you are probably in a blessed state. We need such overwhelming love and dispassion to experience ourself as we actually are.
You write, ‘Can anyone please explain what Bhagavan means when he instructs us to "go back the way we came"? How has this ego come into existence? It has come into existence by grasping a form of a body and by taking it to be itself. In other words, ego comes into existence because of pramada (self-negligence), which means by looking away from itself. So now it has to go back the way it came. It can do so only if it stops grasping forms and instead grasps itself alone. Since Bhagavan says, ego is a formless phantom, if it turns towards itself and tries to grasp itself alone, it will subside back into its true nature, which is pure and infinite self-awareness. We are back in our true home!
You also say, ‘I never thought as a youngster that I would feel so weary after just fifty-six years but here I AM. Why such increased fear suddenly? however, I really don't want a return ticket here so someone please wake me up now!’ If we are weary of this world, and if we are weary of our bodily existence, these could be good signs. How can we be comfortable in this world and hope to transcend the world? So extreme dissatisfaction in this world is not bad if such dissatisfaction prompts to leave everything outside and turn within will all-consuming love.
No intelligent jiva will want a return ticket here, but, Karen, no one can help us get out of this mess we find ourself in. We have bound ourself to this ego and this world by taking interest in things other than ourself. And now only we can extricate ourself from this seemingly hopeless condition by taking interest in only attending to ourself. We do not have any other way out of this ‘jail’. We are in our self-created ‘jails’ whether we know it or not, whether we acknowledge it or not.
But we can anytime walk out of this jail anytime we want because this jail has a small doorway on the wall at the back of us. This doorway is always open, and this takes us out of this jail. So we just turn back within, and we walk out of this tiny doorway never to return again. We can now celebrate our independence day!
Does all this help to answer your questions and doubts?
Karen, I ended my comment addressed to you by writing: ‘But we can anytime walk out of this jail anytime we want because this jail has a small doorway on the wall at the back of us. This doorway is always open, and this takes us out of this jail. So we just turn back within, and we walk out of this tiny doorway never to return again. We can now celebrate our independence day!’
I would just like to add to this analogy. This is an extremely tiny doorway, so in order to get out of it, we need to really bend very very low. We cannot just walk past it. This signifies that our ego has to subside, subside, subside and subside before we can hope to get out of the prison we find ourself in. I fully erect ego can pass through this doorway.
Sanjay,
you say today 10 July 2020 at 15:38 "I fully erect ego can pass through this doorway."
What do you mean ? If 'erect' is used as an adjective, perhaps you wanted to write "A fully erect ego cannot pass through this doorway". If 'erect' is used as a transitive verb that sentence seems to be not complete.
Karen,
I too like that small book "Truth Revealed" (Sad-Vidya) published by Sri Ramanasramam, Translated from the Tamil original of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi.
Yes, the preface was written in 1935 by Grant Duff whose name was also Douglas Ainslie, a Scottish poet, translator ...
"Viswanathan's comment referring to Robert's translation of Ulladu Narpadu inspired me to go over that translation again....."
I did not mean to make you feel burdened to go though the painstaking effort of Sri Robert Butler when I gave this reference. My apologies. I thought that one can easily skip that portion if one prefers and look for word to word translation or the summary itself, which I reproduced for that UN verse. His translation of Sri Muruganar's Vrithi Vurai of Aksharamanamalai helped me to understand better the original Tamil version of Sri Muruganar since the classic Tamil of Sri Muruganar was in the beginning a bit difficult for me to absorb. Thus, it is both admiration and gratitude for Sri Robert Butler that perhaps has motivated me to refer to him here in this blog where translation of Sri Michael James itself is available in various places.
True sattvika ahara…
The following is an extract of my exchange with Michael on the matter of diet and what Sri Krishna says about sattvika diet in Bhagavad Gita. This exchange happened over Whatsapp and email. This started when I forwarded to Michael the following Whatsapp message:
MOST ANIMALS DIE BECAUSE WE EAT THEM. MOST HUMANS DIE BECAUSE THEY GET SICK FROM EATING THEM
This message triggered our conversation:
Michael James: True, but none of us can die till our allotted prarabdha is over, and none can live for a moment after that. While alive we should avoid eating animals, but whatever we do or don't do, death cannot be averted
Sanjay Lohia: Thank you, sir. So by eating healthily we cannot prolong our life. But it is written in Bhagavad Gita that if we eat sattvika food, it will increase the duration of our life. Verse 8, Chapter 17 says:
Foods in the mode of goodness increase the duration of life, purify one's existence and give strength, health, happiness and satisfaction. Such foods are juicy, fatty, wholesome, and pleasing to the heart.
How do we understand this verse?
Michael James: On average, people who eat healthily live longer than those who eat unhealthily, so if we are destined to live long we are likely to be inclined to eat healthily, namely a sattvika diet. However, though a sattvika diet is conducive to a long and healthy life, some people who eat such a diet die young, whereas some who eat an unhealthy diet live long. All depends entirely on prarabdha.
What is implied in that verse in the Gita is that a sattvika-minded person will be inclined to eat a sattvika diet, and that such a diet is generally conducive to a long life. Perhaps part of the purpose of this verse is to encourage people to like a sattivka diet, but only people who are inclined to have sattika qualities will be encouraged in this way.
If we are following Bhagavan's path, we will naturally be inclined to eat a sattvika diet, so we need not give much thought to such matters.
The most sattvika of all diets is to feed our mind with a diet of his teachings, so constantly dwelling on his core teachings and trying to put them into practice is true sattvika ahara.
Anadi-ananta, what I wanted to write was:
A fully erect ego cannot pass through this doorway.
I thank you and appreciate your keen power of observation.
How do we remember that we existed in sleep? (part one)
Michael James: Murthy, what you asked me was: ‘How do we remember that we existed in sleep?’ What I wrote in that email was as follows:
Our ‘memory’ of our existence in sleep is not a ‘memory’ like any of our other memories which are relatively superficial, because all other memories are memories of phenomena which we experience in waking or dream. So they are registered in our mind, and they can easily be forgotten, whereas our ‘memory’ of our continuity of our existence in sleep is a much deeper ‘memory’, which is not registered in our mind but in and as our very existence. So it can never be forgotten.
I particularly put ‘memory’ in scare quotes because it is not a memory in the normal sense of the term. Since we remember sleep, we take it as ‘memory’, though it is not memory like any other memory. So what we call our ‘memory’ of sleep is the very nature of our existence sat-chit. As sat-chit we are clearly always aware of our existence – not only I am aware ‘I am’ but I am also aware ‘I was’. So we call it ‘memory’ for want of any better term.
Even in waking and dream, as ego, we remember that we slept. How do we remember that we slept when we were not there in sleep? The answer is we were there in sleep not as ego but as pure awareness. The clue to this is in verse 24 of Ulladu Narpadu, in which Bhagavan says:
The insentient body does not say ‘I’; being-awareness does not rise; in between one thing, ‘I’, rises as the extent of the body. Know that this is the awareness-insentience-knot, bondage, soul, subtle body, ego, this wandering and mind.
What does Bhagavan mean by ‘in between’ or idaiyil here? How can something arise in between the body and sat-chit? Obviously, he is using ‘in between’ is a metaphorical sense here. This can be illustrated by an example. Suppose if you read a story in the newspaper and ask me ‘Is this story true?’ I may reply to you, ‘It is neither true nor false but somewhere in between’. It implies that it has got certain elements of truth in it and certain elements of falsehood – as a whole it is not true.
Ego is exactly like that. Why Bhagavan says idaiyil? It is because ego takes certain properties of the body and certain properties of sat-chit and claims them both as its own. That’s why it’s called chit-jada-granthi. It’s an entangled mixture of chit and jada, of pure awareness and the body. So just like it claims the body as ‘I am this body’, it also claims the awareness as ‘I am this awareness’.
(To be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (34:00)
How do we remember that we existed in sleep? (part two)
Michael James: When we say ‘I existed in sleep’, we are claiming that our real existence was there in sleep. We are claiming that sat-chit is ours, just like we claim that our body is ours. But ego is neither of these. It is some spurious entity that has risen grasping the properties of both. As ego we are always aware of ‘I am’, but ‘I am’ doesn’t’ belong to ego. ‘I am’ is our real nature. This body doesn’t belong to ego, but ego takes on the properties of both.
If you wake up and I ask you, ‘did you sleep?’, and you say, 'yes, I slept’. If I ask you ‘how did you remember you were asleep?’ You would probably say, ‘I clearly remember that I was in a state in which I wasn’t aware of anything’. How did you remember that? That is not a memory like the normal memory of phenomena. That ‘memory’ is our very nature of our existence sat-chit because sat-chit is that which is always existing and shining. So since I exist and shine now, I know very clearly that I was existing in sleep.
That’s why Bhagavan says even when see others dying, death is somehow never real to us. Bhagavan said even in a battlefield when a soldier sees his comrades dying around him, he doesn’t actually feel he is going to die. He may feel fear, but he doesn’t feel he is going to die because we all know very clearly that we are immortal. But the trouble is we superimpose our immortality, which is the immortality of sat-chit, on the body. So we take our body to be immortal and think that we are never going to die.
That’s why Bhagavan also told the story of an imposter who didn’t belong to either the bridegroom party or the bride’s party, but he posed to each party that he belonged to the other side. So, such is the nature of ego. Ego doesn’t belong to sat-chit. It doesn’t belong to the body. It takes the properties of both.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (34:00)
My reflection: How do I know that I was asleep? As Michael explains, I clearly recall that I was asleep because I existed in sleep. But this ‘I’ which existed in sleep was not ego but the chit aspect of ego. So since one aspect of ego was present in sleep, I as ego claim that I was asleep.
I know that I was asleep because I am clearly aware now that I was in a state in which I was not aware of any phenomena. The ‘I’ who is now aware of such a state which was devoid of phenomena is ego. So this is ego’s ‘memory’. However, this memory is different from all our other more superficial memories. All other mundane memories are impressions in our mind, but our ‘memory’ of sleep is not an impression on our mind because actually our mind or ego was not there in sleep to form this impression.
So our ‘memory’ of sleep is quite unlike our other memories, but we clearly recollect that we existed in sleep as ‘I am’. So in our true nature, we are just this ‘I am’ because only this ‘I am’ exists and shines in all our three states of waking, dream and sleep. Anything that comes and goes cannot be the real ‘I’. So this is a very crucial inference we draw by analysing our experience in our various states.
Salazar said on 11 July 2020 at 04:09:
"I bought a few years ago Robert's translation of Ozhivil Odukkam and enjoyed it a lot."
I am very thankful for this remark because it encourages me now to start reading Ozhivil Odukkam, which I learn was often quoted by Bhagavan. I could download the commentary (Vilakka Vurai) by Sri. K. Sriram (Mugavai Kanna Muruganadimai). I learn that Bhagavan has even mentioned once to Sri Muruganar that it would be good if this work is explained by someone in Vedantic terms.
Karen Taylor said on 10 July 2020 at 06:30:
"Can anyone please explain what Bhagavan means when he instructs us to "go back the way we came?......Why such increased fear suddenly? Is this part and parcel? I felt more peaceful twenty-five years ago when just entering spiritual path....."
You may find it useful the following passage taken from the article 'Encounters with Ramaswami Pillai' by Roland Olson, which appeared in Mountain Path, January-March 2014:
...When I returned to Arunachala the next year a fellow devotee, Robin, introduced me to him and I overcame my shyness by asking him a question about Self Enquiry. He responded by glaring at me and shouting, “Forget about that! That is not for you! Look at Bhagavan’s picture! Just sit quietly and look into his eyes! He will do everything! Is it a mistake that God spelled backwards is dog? It is not! Where else will you find someone who returns only good for evil, who is always your friend, who has complete trust in you? Bhagavan will do everything. Just trust him.” I tried to ask another question but it was as if he hadn’t heard. “Just go back to the Source! Water comes from the ocean as vapour, rains down into the rivers and goes back to the ocean. God to God! That bliss is there right now. Meditate in front of Bhagavan, eyes open, eyes closed, it doesn’t matter. He will do everything for you.”
The ferocity and sheer volume of his voice overwhelmed me. I had expected him to answer my question with sophistication and surgical precision and instead it felt like he was hitting me over the head with a board, but I did take him seriously enough to write down what he
said in my journal and think about it.
When I visited the Ashram again two years later with one of my daughters we walked over to the Morvi Compound so I could introduce her to him. Maria was a young woman in her early 20’s, a college graduate and rather reserved. She knew very little about Bhagavan and the Ashram. This visit to Ramanasramam was to be an exploration for her and not a deep sea dive. That did not deter Ramaswami Pillai from pushing her into the deep water! As soon as the introduction was over he began to shout. “Surrender! That’s the path for you. Nothing else is necessary. Life is full of trouble and challenges so put your cares on the Lord and surrender. Churches and temples are not necessary! He will take care of it all!” He stared at her as he went on in this vein and concluded by saying, “If you wish you may take this as initiation.”
As we walked away she looked at me and said, “Dad, can you tell me what that was all about?” How could I explain? I took care to write down what he said and sent it to her several years later when she asked me to.
Salazar said that he bought a few years ago Robert Butler's translation of Ozhivil Odukkam. Actually the first edition of this book composed by Kannudaiya Vallalar came out in the year 2019, published by Sri Ramanasramam.
Ego does exist in sleep but only as pure awareness
No words can adequately express this subject. This is why Bhagavan often used words which seemed paradoxical. He says in verse 5 of Ekatma Panchakam ‘ceppedu ceppit’, which means 'saying without saying'. Though these words seem to be paradoxical, they are very very deep in meaning. Bhagavan uses these words to stop us in our tracks as it were. He could have said 'silence', but why does he say 'saying without saying'? Such phrases make us think more deeply beyond the words. If he had said 'silence', we would have just skimmed over it without thinking over it.
Verse 5 of ‘Ekatma-Panchakam’ is as follows:
That which always exists (and shines) by its own light, is only the reality (vastu), that one self. When at that time (in ancient days) the Adi-Guru (the primal Guru, Dakshinamurti) revealed that reality without saying (that is, by teaching through silence), say who can reveal (it by) saying (through words).
Bhagavan says ceppadu ceppit – even the Adi-guru taught this saying without saying. What does he mean by the words ‘saying without saying’? In order to understand Bhagavan, we have to go beyond words. We have to see where these words are pointing towards. That is why I wrote that ego does exist in sleep but only as pure awareness, not as ego, thereby implying that what ego actually is, is only pure awareness. As such it exists in sleep, and as such, it exists even now.
Now ego exists as ‘I am so-and-so’, but actually what it is, is only ‘I am’. So all this is to see the immediacy of it. So long as we see ego and pure awareness as two things, we are not getting it. What ego actually is is only pure awareness here and now. So if you look at yourself, you will see yourself as pure awareness. Obviously, who is doing the looking? Only ego, but when ego looks at itself it sees itself as pure awareness, it thereby ceases to be ego.
Bhagavan often used to emphasise that ego and pure awareness are one and the same thing. Bhagavan says in verse 24 of Upadesa Undiyar:
By existing nature, God and soul are just one substance. Only adjunct-awareness is different.
So it is only upadhi unarvu (adjunct-awareness) that is different, and upadhi unarvu is just an appearance. In substance, the snake is nothing but the rope, but in appearance, it is something other than the rope. So the rope and the snake are just seemingly different. Likewise, the difference between ego and our real nature is just an appearance. They are one in substance. That is why if we look carefully at ego, we will see that it is nothing but pure awareness.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (44:00)
Karen, only Michael’s efforts are truly inspirational. I am learning from him every day in so many ways. So, all thanks to our beloved Sri Michael James! Of course, ultimately it is all coming from Bhagavan – Bhagavan is shining in us as absolute clarity of pure self-awareness. So anything inspirational can originate only from this clarity.
If love is coming through these transcriptions, again thanks should go to only Bhagavan because only Bhagavan is pure and infinite love. Our ego is held together by its bundle of desires, so ego is the very antithesis of love. So as ego, we are devoid of much love.
Anyway, I thank you for your kind and encouraging words.
Unknown, all thanks only to Bhagavan. Who are we to clarify anything, when we are born in confusion, exist in confusion and will perhaps also die in confusion? By 'we' I mean this ego. So clarification can only come from clarity, and only Bhagavan is absolute clarity. So all thanks to Bhagavan and Michael: Michael is our link to Bhagavan. He is our ladder to Bhagavan - our bridge to Bhagavan.
Sanjay,
"That is why if we look carefully at ego, we will see that it is nothing but pure awareness."
Therefore all appearances seem to be a case of carefully looking. In other words one may conclude from that statement that the careful onlooker is already nothing but pure awareness. However, the emphasis is on the word 'careful'. Hence all the people who are not able/ready to look carefully enough at ego have bad prospects. Ultimately humanity seems to be divided in the caste of a few good observers or careful onlookers and those who are not looking keenly enough.:-)
Salazar, you say, ‘Your two main vasanas which became obvious over the years: And that is diet and Michael, your savior :-) Once you can let go of these two strong attachments, you'll be much closer to self’. I admit that I am guilty of these crimes in the court of Salazar. Now I await your punishment. Anyway, I appreciate your concern for me because you obviously want me to come closer to self. So, thank you!
Our saviour is only Bhagavan because only Bhagavan exists. Michael has pointed out to me in clear and unambiguous terms why Bhagavan is our only saviour. So I have high regards for Michael.
The supreme power of grace is leading us along this path, and it will never fail
Michael: Bhagavan has said that all that we have to do is persevere and we will surely succeed – success is guaranteed. All that is required is perseverance.
A friend: Will we ever be able to abide in ourself permanently? It seems impossible.
Michael: It is possible for grace, and grace is driving us. What is grace? Grace is the infinite love that Bhagavan has for us as himself because he doesn’t see us as other than himself. So he loves us as himself. Because he loves us as himself, he wants us to be as we actually are, so to speak. We say Bhagavan wants but Bhagavan doesn’t want anything. We say this because we can think of it only in our terms. Bhagavan loves us as himself, so he wants us to be himself.
So that power of love is what is drawing us along this path, leading us along this path. That is the supreme power of grace, and grace will never fail. We are powerless in front of it.
Bhagavan is very very gentle. He doesn’t force things. He gently leads us until we are willing to put our head on the block and then he chops it.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (02:21 + 02:28)
My reflection: Michael says, ‘success is guaranteed’. It’s music to my ears. Bhagavan himself has guaranteed our success in so many places. But perhaps, the greatest assurance he has given us is in paragraph 12 of Nan Ar?:
God and guru are in truth not different. Just as what has been caught in the jaws of a tiger will not return, so those who have been caught in the look [or glance] of guru’s grace will never be forsaken but will surely be saved by him; nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly in accordance with the path that guru has shown.
Bhagavan says, ‘so those who have been caught in the look [or glance] of guru’s grace will never be forsaken but will surely be saved by him’. Can Bhagavan give us a greater assurance than this? I don’t think so. Since we are trying to walk (albeit at our own lethargic speed) in accordance with the path shown to us by Bhagavan, now we expect Bhagavan to keep his promise and save us as asap.
As Bhagavan sings to Arunachala in one of his verses, ‘Arunachala, now do not cheat me!’ So I am confident that Bhagavan will not cheat us. His written assurance cannot be a false promise – he will not lie. It is impossible. So Bhagavan will surely save us. When? Michael has answered this: ‘Bhagavan is very very gentle. He doesn’t force things. He gently leads us until we are willing to put our head on the block and then he chops it’. So our job is to become more and more willing to put our head on the block. Bhagavan is ever ready to finish us off here and now.
Is that a good idea when one who is surely not free of attachments discovers/identifies alleged ego-feeding mistakes/attachments of an other ?:-)
Salazar, you say, ‘Sorry, ultimately that is not my business, however since you increasingly take on the role of a "teacher" in communicating with others, I am setting certain standards otherwise I have to consider you for a hypocrite’. I am indeed a hypocrite. ‘I’ means ego here – this ego is certainly the biggest hypocrite. Sometimes it poses as chit (awareness) and sometimes as a body, but it is neither. So we should welcome all condemnation or abuse coming to this hypocrite, which is the greatest imposter. So this shameless fellow should bend its head down and disappear from the scene asap, which it is not willing to do yet.
By the way, Bhagavan is our only real teacher and guru. So we are his shishyas or chelas (disciples). If this imposter ego is posing as a ‘teacher’, it needs to be shown its place. I can do so only by investigating, ‘who is trying to pose as a teacher?’
Salazar,
"Change is extremely slow...".
Is there anything else wrong ?
So instead of complain about imperfect contemporaries let us stay with the changeless pure consciousness.
Unknown,
tell me which spelling mistake correction (in this thread) were you expecting. I am full of expectation.:-)
Salazar,
it is clear that one cannot derive benefit from everybody. Because my consciousness can still be compared to murky water, I regret that my ideas were not to your advantage and did not come up to your expectations. :-)
The vasanas are the likes and dislikes in their seed form
Sanjay: Our vasanas are our collection of desires.
Michael: They are the seeds of our desires – they are desires in seed form.
Sanjay: OK, but every time we experience ourself as a new person, does it alter our vasanas in any way?
Michael: Now you identify yourself with a person called ‘Sanjay’, and you have certain likes, dislikes, attachments and so on as Sanjay. When Sanjay dies, obviously all his desires, attachments die along with Sanjay, but the seeds of those desires and attachments are carried forth by the ego that now says ‘I am Sanjay’. This ego takes all its vasanas with it, and it again projects another person as itself, and it then thinks ‘I am John’ or ‘I am Mohammad’ or whatever.
Let us take you are born as Mohammad in Arabia. As Mohammad, you will have different parents, different relations and you will be in a different place. So you will seem to have different desires and attachments, but the same seeds of vasanas will now sprout from the perspective of Mohammad. You (the same ego) will now be attached to Mohammad’s wife, his children and his children. So the seed forms of vasanas are carried forth.
So vasanas are not desires per se, but the seeds of the desires. The seeds of desires will carry on and manifest differently. Now you like a certain sort of a diet because of the culture you are born in. If you are born in a different culture, you may have a liking for a different type of diet.
Sanjay: So suppose if I have a desire for a bigger car now, and if I die and am born as a poor person, will I still have this desire for this big car?
Michael: Because you have money now and you have a car, you may have desire for a bigger car. When you are born a poor person, you may desire to have a bicycle. The object of desire may seem to be different, but still, you have a desire for a faster mode of travel.
So vasanas are the likes and dislikes in their seed form. So the form in which they manifest may be different, but the seeds remain the same.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:48)
My reflections: This ego is carrying these desires and attachments within itself since we do not know how many thousands or even crores of births. So the same sort of story must be repeating again and again. In every birth, I have a family and am attached to my family. In every birth, I am attached to a particular sort of diet. So my current life is no different from my other countless lives which I must have lived in my previous dreams.
So I should not be overly attached to this life because even this life will pass. If this ego doesn’t vanish before I die, I will be born again and the same old story will repeat itself. Why do the same things over and over again? Why not simply surrender here and now and prevent the reoccurrence of this same story - another wife or husband, another set of parents and children but the same type of desires and attachments. So aren't we being foolish by doing the same things over and over again? Why are we not weary and exhausted by such repetitive same type of life-stories? It is because of our spiritual immaturity. We are not able to see through all these things.
So reflecting deeply in this way will help us gain vairagya, and vairagya will help us to leave everything outside and turn within with greater love.
Thirukkural: Some verses from Chapter 35 titled ‘Renunciation’
Michael was referring to some of the following verses of ‘Thirukkural’ in his latest Zoom meeting organised by RMF-UK. Michael often quotes the following verses, especially verse 341:
Verse 341:
Pain, there is none,
from all those one renounces.
Whatever one renounces,
cannot cause pain.
By giving up lust for something,
one also precludes the pain it can cause.
Verse 350:
Be attached to God, who is attached to none,
only so that you leverage that attachment to let go of all other attachments.
Be attached to the One, who is attached to none.
Be so attached to be free of any attachments.
Bhagavan’s whole heart is poured out in Aksaramanamalai
Michael: I have embarked on doing a translation of Aksaramanamalai of my own, and it’s still a work-in-progress. It’s a very very important work to do because Bhagavan’s whole heart is poured out in Aksaramanamalai. So words cannot express what an important work it is. It is also extremely important for anyone following Bhagavan’s path because, in this work, Bhagavan expresses the feelings and challenges that any devotee following this path will face.
A friend: : I believe these verses can be interpreted in many ways.
Michael: Muruganar was writing a commentary of Aksaramanamalai. In this process, he came to one of its verses and he wasn’t fully satisfied with any of its meanings. So he asked Bhagavan, ‘Bhagavan, what was it that you had in mind when you sang this verse?’ Bhagavan said, 'The fellow who sang it has gone away long ago. If you want me to give a meaning I have to break my head to do so. You may as well break your head and give your own meaning'.
So Bhagavan always declined to give the meaning of these verses because Bhagavan didn’t want to limit the meaning. That is, verses that have multiple-meaning are meant to have multiple-meaning, and in different states of mind the verses may strike in different ways. So we cannot give an exhaustive list of all the possible interpretations because more meaning may come out later. Bhagavan was careful to avoid interrelating Aksaramanamalai in any way.
Sometimes when people asked Bhagavan, ‘Bhagavan, I recite these verses but I am not able to understand them’, Bhagavan said, ‘Recitation of it is itself the meaning’. Even to the people who were not fully able to understand them, he still encouraged them to recite them because the words have their own power.
The friend: Yes, we listen to these songs and even if we don’t understand them, love comes forth spontaneously.
Michael: The words coming from sages like Bhagavan have the power of a mantra. Bhagavan’s original words have such power in them. Even if we don’t understand the language, they can melt your heart. The whole purpose of Aksaramanamalai is to melt completely in the love of Bhagavan. Bhagavan sings:
Like ice in water, melt me as love in you, the form of love.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (02:12)
My reflections: As Michael has indicated that he has a plan to give a series of talks on Aksaramanamalai in these meetings. He has indicated that before starting these talks, he wants time to prepare for each verse. However, I believe Bhagavan’s grace will speak through Michael if and when he begins this series of talks.
If, as Michael says, ‘Bhagavan’s whole heart is poured out in Aksaramanamalai’, the same heart of Bhagavan will eloquently speak through Michael. So my humble suggestion to him is that he should start this series of talks without concerning himself with elaborate preparations. Why not surrender even the preparations to Bhagavan? As Sadhu Om used to say, Bhagavan is even prepared to think for us if we surrender to him. So I am sure Bhagavan will do the thinking for Michael.
Sir, what do you say? I would love to have your reaction to my humble views.
As we see Nostradamus is back. :-)
Karen, you wrote, 'It comes across clearly to this one that Sanjay knows Bhagavan is paramount while feeling much gratitude to Michael for being such a mighty instrument. Haven't been here long but this is one perspective'. I am in 100% alignment with your perspective.
Karen, as you say, 'All is Bhagavan, Bhagavan is all!' Yes, we as ego are nothing, so why to think so much about the life of this transient and ephemeral person in this world? In fact, as a person, we have only our death to look forward to. We are a passing show. Bhagavan is all - only Bhagavan is. Only Bhagavan is living. We are as good as dead.
Asun,
perhaps you wrote your "Faith song" originally in Spanish. At least for me at first reading, that what you wanted to express with your poetry in English comes through not so entirely clear. Perhaps one should read it several times.
On no account do not be discouraged to indulge in your poetric bent also in English.:-)
Firstly I apologise to anyone who has written any comments (or emails) addressed to me recently that I have not replied to. During the past few months there have been so many comments here and I have received so many emails that I have not had time to read most of them, let alone reply to them. I have been replying to as many emails as possible, but I have not had time to reply to the vast majority of them.
Secondly, Sanjay, you wrote to me recently drawing my attention to your comment of 13 July 2020 at 16:41, in which you asked for my reaction to the views you expressed in the penultimate two paragraphs, so the following is my response:
You ask, ‘Why not surrender even the preparations to Bhagavan?’, but why should you assume that preparing to do any work to the best of one’s ability conflicts in any way with surrender? If it is my prārabdha to prepare as well as I can for this task, Bhagavan will make me do so.
Surrender is not just not doing this or that, but is not rising as ego to think ‘I should do this’ or ‘I should not do that’, so what we need to guard against first and foremost is the rising of ego. If I were to think, ‘Bhagavan will speak through me, so I need not think carefully or deeply about each verse’, would that not be presumptuous and egotistic?
Whether Bhagavan chooses to speak through us or not is up to him, so it would be the height of egotism to assume that he is speaking or will speak through us, as if we were some sort of divinely commissioned channel for his grace. Sometimes in retrospect it may seem that what we have said could not have been said by us without his guidance, but we should not assume that that will always be the case, because if we allow such a big ego to rise it will surely face an equally big downfall.
As often seems to be the case, you seem to be placing me on an unrealistic pedestal, which is not good either for you or for me. In Bhagavan’s path our aim is to separate ourself from whatever person we may seem to be, because what is real is only ‘I am’ and not any person. Therefore putting any person (whether oneself or anyone else) on a pedestal is going directly against the path that he has shown us. Sanjay and Michael are both just fleeting appearances in a dream, so why attach any importance to them or delude ourself by pretending that either of them is in any way something special?
Sanjay,
"Only Bhagavan is living.
We are as good as dead."
Because we are Bhagavan we have nothing to fear.
Saying without saying (part one)
In his video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness, at 44:00 Michael quoted two verses which both had the phrase ‘saying without saying’. I wrote to Michael asking him to clearly specify the verses because he had not mentioned the exact source of the first of these verses. He has sent me an email mentioning these verses:
The verses I referred to were verse 36 of Akṣaramaṇamālai:
சொல்லாது சொலிநீ சொல்லற நில்லென்று
சும்மா விருந்தா யருணாசலா
sollādu solinī sollaṟa nilleṉḏṟu
summā virundā yaruṇācalā
பதச்சேதம்: சொல்லாது சொலி நீ ‘சொல் அற நில்’ என்று சும்மா இருந்தாய் அருணாசலா.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): sollādu soli nī ‘sol aṟa nil’ eṉḏṟu summā irundāy aruṇācalā.
English translation: Arunachala, saying without saying, ‘Stand [stop, stay or remain] without speech’, you just were [without doing anything].
and verse 5 of Ēkāṉma Pañcakam:
எப்போது முள்ளதவ் வேகான்ம வத்துவே
யப்போதவ் வத்துவை யாதிகுரு — செப்பாது
செப்பித் தெரியுமா செய்தன ரேலெவர்
செப்பித் தெரிவிப்பர் செப்பு.
eppōdu muḷḷadav vēkāṉma vattuvē
yappōdav vattuvai yādiguru — seppādu
seppit teriyumā seydaṉa rēlevar
seppit terivippar ceppu.
பதச்சேதம்: எப்போதும் உள்ளது அவ் ஏகான்ம வத்துவே. அப்போது அவ் வத்துவை ஆதி குரு செப்பாது செப்பி தெரியுமா செய்தனரேல், எவர் செப்பி தெரிவிப்பர்? செப்பு.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): eppōdum uḷḷadu a-vv-ēkāṉma vattuvē. appōdu a-v-vattuvai ādi-guru seppādu seppi teriyumā seydaṉarēl, evar seppi terivippar? seppu.
English translation: What always exists is only that ēkātma-vastu [oneself, that one substance]. If at that time the ādi-guru [the original guru, Dakshinamurti] made that vastu known [only by] speaking without speaking, say, who can make it known [by] speaking?
sollādu soli and seppādu seppi both mean 'not saying saying' or 'saying without saying'.
(To be continued in my next comment)
Saying without saying (part two)
• verse 36 of Akṣaramaṇamālai:
Arunachala, saying without saying, ‘Stand [stop, stay or remain] without speech’, you just were [without doing anything].
Sadhu Om explains this verse as follows: ‘O Arunachala, through silence you instructed me, ‘Be still, without the least action of mind, speech and body’, and you also remained in such a fashion’.
• verse 5 of Ēkāṉma Pañcakam:
What always exists is only that ēkātma-vastu [oneself, that one substance]. If at that time the ādi-guru [the original guru, Dakshinamurti] made that vastu known [only by] speaking without speaking, say, who can make it known [by] speaking?
As Michael said in one of his recent videos, Bhagavan deliberately uses phrases such as ‘saying without saying’ or ‘speaking without speaking’ to make us stop and think deeply.
What is Arunachala or Bhagavan or Dakshinamurti trying to say without saying? They are trying to tell through their eloquent silence that we cannot find what we are searching for if we do not remain silent like them. They are telling us that we can experience true and infinite happiness only in silence. But what sort of silence are they talking about? They are talking about the silence which is devoid of ego or mind: in other words, we can experience true silence only when ego does not rise to say ‘I’ or anything else.
Only such silence, which is beyond all types of the silence of body, speech and mind, will enable us to understand what Arunachala or Bhagavan or Dakshinamurti are trying to say without saying. If we want to experience ekatma-vastu as it is, we have no other option but to remain absolutely silent or remain in a state where our ego has no chance of rising even in the least. Only then Arunachala or Bhagavan will be able to teach us whatever they are trying to say without saying.
Michael, well said indeed. Trust you are doing well. Take care and the very best wishes to you. Warm Regards.
Sir, I thank you for your latest comment. I am sorry if I have gone overboard in praising you in some of my comments. Obviously, I did this because of my spiritual immaturity: that is, I didn’t fully realise that ‘putting any person (whether oneself or anyone else) on a pedestal is going directly against the path that Bhagavan has shown us’. But since you have now pointed this out to me, I will definitely from now onwards keep this in mind.
Yes, I agree. Bhagavan may want us to thoroughly prepare before we speak on his teachings, so why should we assume that every time we speak or write about Bhagavan’s teachings, Bhagavan will speak through us? Our job is to keep our ego in check and not assume that we are some divinely ordained channel for Bhagavan’s grace. As you rightly imply if we feel this way, we are clearly exposing a strong ego in us.
As you imply, Sanjay, Michael or whoever is just fleeting appearances on the screen of pure awareness ‘I am’. Only this ‘I am’ is real – this ‘I am’ in its purity is what Bhagavan actually is. So we should not be concerned with the fleeting appearances which appear on the screen of pure awareness. Our interest in these appearances is keeping us away from turning within fully to experience ourself as we actually are.
We need such clear guidance so that we don’t falter in our path. That is, we should not become a yogabrastha – one who has fallen from the practice of yoga. In our context, yoga means this mahayoga, this practice of atma-vichara. So we need to careful to walk this path with caution and utmost humility. Bhagavan teaches us in Nan Ar that the humbler we are, the better for us. This humility entails not rising as ego to praise or criticise others – at least, we should keep such praise and criticism within limits.
I once again thank you for this valuable lesson. With regards.
We always have to go deeper and deeper and deeper (part one)
A friend: I have a dispute with my cousins regarding some property which is in our joint name. They want to sell the property but don’t seem to be inclined to give me my fair share in it. So should I give in to their demands or fight for my rights?
Michael: What is required is that we don’t have the desire for things. If it is your destiny to fight for your rights, you will fight for your rights. Your destiny may prompt you to feel that for the sake of your children or your family, you have to fight for certain rights. But inwardly we need to be free of the desire for these things. So the outward actions will go according to prarabdha.
We need not be concerned about our actions. We need to be concerned about the desires that are driving us to do these actions. We don’t have to even analyse that too much. We should take care not to rise as ego – by not rising as ego, our desires and attachments are not coming into play. So whatever actions are done by our body, speech and mind are according to prarabdha. If we don’t surrender our ego, definitely our likes and dislikes will come into play. So we will feel, ‘O these cousins are cheating me. This isn’t fair’. Thus we will feel resentment and all sorts of things.
What is the root of all this resentment, all these feelings of injustice? It is our rising as ego. That is why Bhagavan focuses on the root. All such resentment, feelings of injustice, attachments is for whom? These are obviously for me – that is ego. So we thereby turn our attention back within and thereby curb the rising of ego. To the extent we curb the rising of ego, to that extent we are curbing our desires and attachments.
Maybe it the destiny of our body and mind to be engaged in litigations, but inwardly we will not be affected by the outcome. We lose the litigation and we have to pay all the opponent’s fees and everything, but we will not be affected by that because we are not rising as ego.
So the whole problem is ego. Even the vasanas are not a problem. The ego is the root of vasanas. So long as we rise as ego, vasanas will come into play. To the extent we investigate and surrender ourself, to that extent we will subside, and to the extent we subside, to that extent our desires and attachments will be weakened.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:52)
We always have to go deeper and deeper and deeper (part two)
The friend: Whatever is to come to me, will come to me. So if I tell my cousins, ‘OK, if you feel you are being fair, please take whatever you want’, but if my fair share is to come to me, it will come to me.
Michael: It will come to you, yes.
The friend: I don’t want to fight, so I leave it to them to decide my share. Whatever is in my destiny as decided by Bhagavan will automatically come to me. So I believe that’s a better attitude to have?
Michael: Yes, yes, certainly, it’s a better attitude to have, definitely. But supposing it is your destiny to fight a court case with them, you will be driven to do so, even though you may not want to. Something will prompt you – your family members may prompt you, or you may feel, ‘O this is unfair. I have to fight for my rights’. Your body, speech and mind cannot avoid doing those actions which you are destined to do. But that need not concern us.
Bhagavan says in the 13th paragraph of Nan Ar, ‘Instead of yielding ourself to the parameshwara shakti, why should we constantly be thinking ‘it is necessary to do like this; it is necessary to do like that?’ Even to think, ‘I should fight for my rights’ or ‘I shouldn’t fight for my rights’ – leave that burden to Bhagavan. He will decide whether you are going to fight with them or surrender to their demands. What you need to be concerned about is yielding yourself to him – that is, not rising as ego.
So the practice Bhagavan has taught us is the practice of turning within and letting go of all outward things. Bhagavan has greatly simplified things by asking us just to focus on self-investigation and self-surrender. We do not have to concern ourself with whether we should act like this or like that. That will be taken care of by prarabdha.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:52)
We always have to go deeper and deeper and deeper (part three)
The friend: That I agree. What I mean to say is that it is always better not to hold on to things than to hold on to things consciously.
Michael: Always letting go of things is better. Often in Scotland, people say the following saying:
What is for you will not go by you
What is destined to come to us will come to us. It will not go past us. In Thirukkural there is a verse which Bhagavan often used to quote:
Whatever we let go of, we are free from the trouble of that thing
So it is always better to let go.
The friend: That was how I was thinking. They want to give me something but not my fair share. So I say, ‘OK, whatever you want to give, please give’. Whatever I am destined to receive or not receive does not rest with my cousins. It will all happen according to my destiny.
Michael: As Bhagavan said in that note to his mother, whatever is not to happen, will not happen, however much effort we make to make it happen. Whatever is to happen will not stop from happening, however much we try to prevent it from happening. So what is destined - only that will happen. So if your fair share is to come to you, it will come to you, and you are destined to receive an ‘unfair’ share, you cannot avoid that. So we need not concern about such things.
What is important is that inwardly you let go. If you outwardly let go also that is according to prarabdha. But we have to be always watching the inward thing. We should be free of desires and attachments by not rising as ego. Then, whatever happens, let it happen according to destiny.
Outward renunciation is relatively easy. For example, you can say, ‘OK, I don’t want to fight with my cousins. Let them take whatever they want to take’, but inwardly you may still be thinking ‘O, it’s unfair. They got an unfair share. I got less’. So the problem is not the outward thing but the inward thing. So long as you feel ‘I have renounced in their favour’ or ‘I have given it up’, you haven’t properly renounced.
You should aim to remain established in a state where an ‘I’ does not rise to say, ‘I have renounced’. So we always have to go deeper and deeper and deeper.
(The end)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:52)
Congratulations to everyone for having reached the unique state where "effort is no longer needed” !
“The mind will always feel that self-attention is difficult, because it can never attend to self. Only self can attend to self.”
Yes, certainly the self has no need to attend to itself.
Therefore it is unmistak(e)ably clear: the mind has to strive for self-attention.
Bhagavan said ego is the primary disease, and the body is the secondary disease, and any disease that comes to that body is a tertiary disease (part one)
A friend: The following is an extract from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi - Talk 22 (31st January, 1935):
Mrs. Piggott returned from Madras for a further visit. She asked questions relating to diet regulation.
D: What diet is prescribed for a sadhak (one who is engaged in spiritual practices)?
M: Satvic food in limited quantities.
D: What is satvic food?
M: Bread, fruits, vegetables, milk, etc.
D: Some people take fish in North India. May it be done?
No answer was made by the Maharshi.
D: We Europeans are accustomed to a particular diet; change of diet affects health and weakens the mind. Is it not necessary to keep up physical health?
M: Quite necessary. The weaker the body the stronger the mind grows.
D: In the absence of our usual diet our health suffers and the mind loses strength.
M: What do you mean by strength of mind?
D: The power to eliminate worldly attachment.
M: The quality of food influences the mind. The mind feeds on the food consumed.
D: Really! How can the Europeans adjust themselves to satvic food only?
M: (Pointing to Mr. Evans-Wentz) You have been taking our food. Do you feel uncomfortable on that account?
Mr. Evans-Wentz: No. Because I am accustomed to it.
D: What about those not so accustomed?
M: Habit is only adjustment to the environment. It is the mind that matters. The fact is that the mind has been trained to think certain foods tasty and good. The food material is to be had both in vegetarian and non-vegetarian diet equally well. But the mind desires such food as it is accustomed to and considers tasty.
D: Are there restrictions for the realised man in a similar manner?
M: No. He is steady and not influenced by the food he takes.
D: Is it not killing life to prepare meat diet?
M.: Ahimsa stands foremost in the code of discipline for the yogis.
D: Even plants have life.
M: So too the slabs you sit on!
D: May we gradually get ourselves accustomed to vegetarian food?
M: Yes. That is the way
The friend: Bhagavan says, ‘The weaker the body the stronger the mind grows’. How do you interpret this statement?
(To be continued in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (01:16)
Bhagavan said ego is the primary disease and the body is the secondary disease, and any disease that comes to that body is a tertiary disease (part two)
The friend: Bhagavan says, ‘The weaker the body the stronger the mind grows’. How do you interpret this statement?
Michael: Whether the body is strong or not is according to prarabdha. When we are young, generally the body is strong, but as we grow old, the body becomes weaker. Regarding the strong mind, maybe something was misunderstood or misinterpreted by the recorder.
Bhagavan did say in the context of fasting: if you fast, your body thereby becomes weak and your mind will thereby become strong – meaning more outward going. It is because you will be thinking about food and such things. Bhagavan discouraged people who wanted to fast or do severe tapas. The fasting which is required is not feeding the mind with phenomena. So turning the mind within is the correct fasting. As he says in verse 16 of Upadesa Undiyar:
Leaving external phenomena, the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness.
So withdrawing the mind from the seen and turning it back to the seer – that is the correct fasting.
The friend: The following is an extract from: Letters from Sri Ramanasramam, Letter no 35, DISEASE:
Two years back, when our elder brother came to the Ashram, Mr. Manne Venkataramayya, retired Judge, was here. It seems he was sick some time back and got cured, but not completely. After listening to the details of the sickness from early morning till 8-30 p.m., Bhagavan said, ‘Yes, indeed! The body itself is a disease. If the body gets a disease, it means that the original disease has got another disease. If you really want this new disease not to trouble you, you must first take the required medicine for the original disease so that the later disease — that is, the disease of the disease — does not affect you. What is the use of worrying about the secondary disease instead of trying to find out a method of getting rid of the primary disease? Therefore allow this new disease to go its own way, and think of a medicine for the original disease’.
How do you interpret this?
Michael: When Bhagavan was in his final illness and people were asking him to cure himself, Bhagavan said, ‘This body is a disease. If a disease come to the disease, it is good for us’. So a lot of things Bhagavan said in a particular context, but we shouldn’t try to extrapolate it beyond that context.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (01:16)
Bhagavan said ego is the primary disease and the body is the secondary disease, and any disease that comes to that body is a tertiary disease (part three)
Michael: Bhagavan generally was not either for or against taking medicines because according to him, the disease comes according to prarabdha and if the medicines come, that’s also according to prarabdha. So we shouldn’t concern ourself too much about these things. It is natural that when we are sick, we go to a doctor and he gives us medicines, and we take the medicines.
A lot of people become overly concerned about physical health. Obviously, Bhagavan didn’t encourage that. As he said in verse 12 of Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham:
Cease considering the wretched [base, deficient, defective or impure] body to be ‘I’. Investigate [or know] yourself, who are ever unceasing [or imperishable] bliss. Thinking [intending or trying] to know oneself while cherishing the perishable body is like grasping a crocodile [as] a raft to cross a river.
So Bhagavan never said ‘don't take medicines’ - Bhagavan never went to extremes. He would advise not to attach too much importance to these things. We should ensure that we don’t let our health become an obsession because there is nothing like perfect health. And we know that the body is going to die one day. Whatever disease is to come to the body is according to prarabdha, and whatever cure is to come is also according to prarabdha.
Obviously, when we have a body, we take care of it. We feed it, we give it sufficient exercise, but we shouldn’t be obsessed with our bodily health. We shouldn’t attach too much importance to it.
About the passage you read, actually, Bhagavan said ego is the primary disease and the body is the secondary disease, and any disease that comes to that body is a tertiary disease. The original disease we have to deal with is ego. So this may be the missing link in that passage from Letters. Maybe it was not perfectly recorded because Bhagavan wouldn’t have said that the body is the first disease.
Regarding diet, Bhagavan very clearly encourages a sattvik diet because a sattvik diet increases the sattvik quality of the mind, and the sattvik quality of the mind is favourable to self-investigation. But what determines whether the food is sattvik or not is partly the quality of the food, but it is also how the food is produced. So in the passage from Talks, Bhagavan considers milk to be sattvik, but today’s milk is produced in factories with a lot of cruelty, so it cannot be termed sattvik. Today’s dairy industry is anything but sattvik.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (01:16)
Salazar, you say, ‘Even quoting Ulladu Narpadu is stupidity when it is kept on the level of mind’. Michael says in his latest video that Bhagavan’s original works, like the verses of the Stuti Panchakam, Ulladu Narpadu and Upadesa Undiyar, have the power of mantras. So even if we do not understand them, even if they are kept at the level of the mind, it is beneficial to quote them or remember them or chant them.
It may be particularly beneficial to remember them in their original form because his original words cannot be matched. But those of us who do not know Tamil, it is still beneficial to remember the translations - especially when they are word to word translations without additions or deletions of words. Such translations, I am sure, still have the mantric power albeit in a somewhat diluted form.
My next comment will say exactly what Michael said on this topic.
Bhagavan’s verses of Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, Ulladu Narpadu, Upadesa Undiyar and other original words of Bhagavan have mantric powers (part one)
A friend: Do you believe that certain words when chanted before the food changes the nature of the food we eat – like the Vedic chants and so on? Do you chant them?
Michael: I don’t do it. Mantras have their own power – not all words but certain words. I think the words that have the mantric powers are the words that come from the jnani. Bhagavan’s original works like Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, Ulladu Narpadu, Upadesa Undiyar and so on – these words have their power. The power is not in the words themselves but is in the source from which they arose.
So I think there is such a thing as mantra-shakti. All Bhagavan’s original works are for the annihilation of ego. The very first verse of Aksaramanamalai says, ‘Arunachala, you eradicate ego of those who think of you in the heart (or those think Arunachala is only ‘I’)’. So the very first verse he is connecting with the annihilation of ego. The whole of Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, Ulladu Narpadu, Upadesa Undiyar and so on – all his original works – have one aim in mind: the annihilation of ego. So these are mantras which are conducive to the annihilation of ego.
Someone couldn’t understand the verses of Aksaramanamalai and asked Bhagavan, ‘Bhagavan, I recite these verses every day but am not able to understand the meaning. Could you explain the meaning?’ Bhagavan said, ‘Recitation of it is itself the meaning’. It is because even if we do not understand the meaning, these words have certain power – but the power of these words is for the annihilation of ego.
But there are many tantric-mantras, the aim of which is just to gain power. They have that power, but that is not the power we are seeking. If we are following Bhagavan’s path, our sole aim is the annihilation of ego.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (01:31)
Who says that the mind does not exist ? The mind.
Bhagavan’s verses of Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, Ulladu Narpadu, Upadesa Undiyar and other original words of Bhagavan have mantric powers (part two)
The friend: When I was in Vaishnavas temples, they chanted mantras when they prepared food. They chanted mantras like Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya Namah…
Michael: Those are bhakti-mantras. Those mantras are conducive to the path of self-surrender, so those are good. They are not chanting those mantras to gain shakti or siddhis or anything. It’s to cultivate more devotion, so that is good.
The friend: They believe that when they chant such mantras on the food, the Lord purifies the food because they invoke the Lord.
Michael: Yes, yes, again this is a matter of belief, but if they believe that then that belief has its own power.
The friend: So, do you chant anything?
Michael: I used to chant Arunachala Stuti Panchakam when I used to go around the hill every day. Nowadays, I don’t regularly chant anything, but sometimes I do chant certain verse of Arunachala Stuti Panchakam or even a verse of Ulladu Narpadu if it comes to my mind. I just go through that in the mind, but I don’t take that as a practice or anything. The problem with regular recitation is that it can become very mechanical. The verses appeal to me, but the regular recitation doesn’t appeal to me so much.
But sometimes when the verses come to the mind, it can have a very good effect on the mind. We can’t generate that effect. So, yes, words have their power. They are so beautiful verses - the whole of Stuti Panchakam is a gem.
However, the practice that appeals to me the most is self-investigation and self-surrender. But all of Bhagavan’s works are connected with these practices, so sometimes these verses come to my mind. There are so many verses of Arunachala Stuti Panchakam that I really love, but I don’t regularly recite them.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (01:31)
Salazar, the sole aim of whatever Bhagavan wrote is to motivate us to turn within. But even if we do not understand his original words, the mere recitation of them have their power. Of course, if we chant his works with love, that will give us extra points so to speak.
"One can lose oneself in Ulladu Narpadu ....".
However, the aim of Ulladu Narpadu is to find oneself...
Salazar, I also believed that mere recitation of mantras can have no powers, but I have changed my views. As you imply, all power resides in ourself – that is, since only atma-svarupa exists, all power exists only within atma-svarupa. However, as long as we experience ourself as ego, we seem to derive power from mantras and such things. All these could be our beliefs in worst cases, but in some cases, it could have some relative reality.
The following is what Michael wrote to me in an email yesterday:
As I mentioned in one of my recent videos, when someone once told Bhagavan that they regularly recite Aksharamanamalai but are not sure whether they understand the meaning of all the verses correctly (or something to that effect) and therefore asked him to explain their meaning, he replied: 'Recitation of them is itself their meaning'.
It is up to each one of us to understand what he meant by saying this, but it does seem to imply that the words have their own power even if we do not fully understand their meaning.
[The end of Michael’s email]
What power can Bhagavan’s words have? They have the power to stop our mind in its tracks. They have the power to prompt us to turn within. Obviously, we need to act on the prompting, otherwise, the prompting is of no use.
God saves us by promoting us to follow his path
Bhagavan teaches us in paragraph 12 of Nan Ar?:
God and guru are in truth not different. Just as what has been caught in the jaws of a tiger will not return, so those who have been caught in the look [or glance] of guru’s grace will never be forsaken but will surely be saved by him; nevertheless, it is necessary to walk unfailingly in accordance with the path that guru has shown.
Today morning, I was listening to one of Michael’s videos. In this video, he said that God or guru saves us by prompting us to follow his path. Michael said this while explaining paragraph 12 of Nan Ar. And how do we know whether we are caught in the look of guru’s grace or not? Michael explained that if we are attracted to Bhagavan and Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation or self-surrender, we are well and truly in Bhagavan’s net of grace – now there is no escaping.
God saves us by promoting us to follow his path. Why is God so sure that we will follow his promoting? It is because he knows that his promoting has so much power and love that we cannot resist it for long. Sooner or later we will do what he is so lovingly asking us to do.
What does Bhagavan want us to do? He wants us to turn within and experience ourself as we actually are. If we are wise, we will do as he wants us to do because there is no safely outside. There is coronavirus and death outside, whereas there is fearlessness and immorality inside.
Sanjay,
of course you mean "immortality".
Sanjay, you mean "there is no safety outside".
Is there any outside or inside for Bhraman?
Anadi-ananta, yes, it should have been 'immortality' and 'safety'. I thank you for pointing this out to me.
Saravanapavan, you have asked, ‘Is there any outside or inside for Bhraman?’ It is usually spelt as 'brahman'. Brahman in Indian spirituality means God without forms and attributes. Brahman is distinguished by the term Ishvara in the sense that Ishvara is usually taken to mean a God with a form and attributes.
So Brahman is what actually exists, and since what actually exists is only atma-svarupa, brahman is therefore nothing other than atma-svarupa. Bhagavan says in verse 28 of Upadesa Undiyar that our real nature is anadi, ananta, akhanda sat-chit-ananda. That means our real nature is beginningless, infinite, unbroken being-awareness-bliss. So in this sense, nothing exists outside or inside brahman, because brahman alone exists – ekam eva advitiyam (one alone without a second).
However, Bhagavan teaches us in paragraph seven of Nan Ar?:
What actually exists is only ātma-svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself]. The world, soul and God are kalpanaigaḷ [fabrications, imaginations, mental creations, illusions or illusory superimpositions] in it, like the [illusory] silver in a shell. These three appear simultaneously and disappear simultaneously. Svarūpa [one’s own form or real nature] alone is the world; svarūpa alone is ‘I’ [ego or soul]; svarūpa alone is God; everything is śiva-svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature of śiva, the one infinite whole, which is oneself].
Therefore, the world, ego and God are merely imaginations or mental creations which exists within brahman or atma-svarupa, but these imaginations or mental creations are actually nothing other than brahman or atma-svarupa in substance. So in this sense, we can say that the world, ego and God exist inside brahman but as mere projections of ego or mind.
However, in the context of our practice of atma-vichara, we have to take that the world, ego and God (as a separate God) are something which our outside brahman or atma-svarupa. All this – that is, the world, ego and God are thoughts or mental phenomena – are external or extraneous to ourself. Why this is important is that when we practice atma-vichara, we need to completely reject all such thoughts or mental phenomena and attend only to our fundamental awareness ‘I am’.
So everything is inside brahman or atma-svarupa from one perspective, whereas everything is outside brahman or atma-svarupa from another perspective.
Do you find this reply useful?
Sanjay,
How is Michael so confident that the guy who interpreted Bhagavan in Talks may be wrong and his interpretation is right? I do see Michael’s mind playing some tricks and there is a chance that he may in the process getting more delusional.
Strength of mind by Bhagavan from talks(could be right too, implies Michael’s understanding is wrong):
M: What do you mean by strength of mind?
D: The power to eliminate worldly attachment.
Sanjay,
You being indian know very well how fasting is prescribed by certain type of physicians. So there is a higher probability of Talks being right.
Anonymous, you say, ‘You being indian know very well how fasting is prescribed by certain type of physicians’. Firstly, let us recollect what Michael in that extract said which I had paraphrased. He said there:
Michael: Whether the body is strong or not is according to prarabdha. When we are young, generally the body is strong, but as we grow old, the body becomes weaker. Regarding the strong mind, maybe something was misunderstood or misinterpreted by the recorder.
Bhagavan did say in the context of fasting: if you fast, your body thereby becomes weak and your mind will thereby become strong – meaning more outward going. It is because you will be thinking about food and such things. Bhagavan discouraged people who wanted to fast or do severe tapas. The fasting which is required is not feeding the mind with phenomena. So turning the mind within is the correct fasting. As he says in verse 16 of Upadesa Undiyar:
Leaving external phenomena, the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness.
So withdrawing the mind from the seen and turning it back to the seer – that is the correct fasting.
[End of the extract from Michael’s video]
In this context, we can refer to the verses of GVK which talk about diet and fasting. The following are verses 678 and 679 from GVK:
Introduction to verse 678: The word ‘upavasa’ has two meanings, namely (1) its literal meaning, ‘living near’ (upa=near; vasa=living), that is, living near God or self, and (2) the meaning which is generally applied to it, ‘fasting’. In this verse, however, Sri Bhagavan uses upavasa in its literal sense, and he uses another word, unna-vratam, for fasting.
verse 678: Wise people, knowing that not yielding to the taste for the five sense-pleasures is the truth of fasting and that abiding unceasingly in self is the truth of upavasa [living near God], will always observe [both fasting and upavasa] with great love.
Sadhu Om: The true fasting is not refraining from feeding the stomach, but refraining from feeding the five senses [by not providing them with the objects of pleasure]. Since the word ‘upavasa’ literally means ‘living near’, the true upavasa is ever abiding in self without leaving it.
(I will continue this reply in my next comment)
In continuation of my previous comment in reply to Anonymous:
Verse 679: Since diet-regulation develops the sattvic quality of the mind, it will help a long way in self-enquiry. Therefore, what is the need for one, due to confusion, to long for any other observances [niyama]? Diet regulation alone will suffice.
Sadhu Om: Diet-regulation [ahara-niyama] means taking only sattvic food in moderate quantities.
Sri Muruganar: Aspirants on the path of self-enquiry often concern themselves about the many other observances [niyamas] which may aid their sadhana. But diet regulation alone will be sufficient, since it is the highest of all observances.
So I believe there is the common consensus here that Bhagavan doesn’t recommend extreme fasting. He does recommend refraining from feeding the five senses by not providing them with the objects of pleasure. So we can say that in this sense Bhagavan does recommend fasting to a limited extent. However, Bhagavan’s teaching is clear. We need to consume sattvik food in limited quantity, and as sadhakas that is the only thing we need to be concerned about.
However, fasting is beneficial if we want to get over some bodily disease. It is said in Ayurveda ‘langanam param aushadham’, which means fasting is the best medicine. So fasting (no intake of food for long durations – one, two, three days and more) can be extremely beneficial as a medicine. It really works. However, severe fasting is not recommended as an aid to our sadhana.
However, I do intermittent fasting every day. That is, I am without food and water until 12 noon every day. So there is no harm in such limited fasting, but I believe Bhagavan was against long fast of many days and such things as an aid to our sadhana.
Bhagavan did say that we should ensure that our digestive tract is kept clean. So limited fasting can help us in this regards. We can turn within with relative ease if our stomach is clear.
Moreover, as sadhakas, we should not be too concerned about our food and such things. Ideally, we should eat what we are given to eat according to our prarabdha. So some days we may enjoy a feast and some days we may have to fast. We shouldn't be concerned about our food and such things beyond a point. Our main concern should be, are we putting into practice what Bhagavan has taught us - rest everything is of secondary importance.
Sanjay
You seemed to have missed my point. May be I was not clear. My point was to not blindly use Michaels posts as the most authoritative source, but use our intellect to what to follow and what not to follow. I see many of them here who don’t consider Michael as Guru still referring to ‘only’ Michael’s posts as reference and ascertaining their understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings. And then , also insisting how other sources cannot be relied on , because it doesn’t conform to ‘their beliefs’ and ‘their interpretation’ of Bhagavan’s teachings.
Michael’s favourite verses from Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam (part one)
Michael: There are so many verses of Arunachala Stuti Panchakam that I really love. It is difficult to put in words, but words have their power.
A friend: Would you recommend certain verses which you enjoy chanting?
Michael: Yes, in Arunachala Stuti Panchakam there are certain verses which are particularly appealing. But it also depends on the time and the state of mind. In certain states of mind, certain verses are particularly appealing. In other states of mind, other verses are particularly appealing.
The friend: Does anything come to your mind?
Michael: [laughs] So many of verses from Aksaramanamalai come to my mind. Some of my favourite verses are:
(a) Turning within daily see yourself with your inner eye, and it will be known; thus you said Arunachala
(b) Like ice in water melt me as love in you, the form of love
(c) So that this mind that wanders around the world may subside, show your beauty
(d) Completely removing all my defects, giving me all good qualities, take me as your own and shine as guru, Arunachala
Defects mean the rising as ego and good qualities means subsidence of ego.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (01:37)
My reflection: One of Michael’s favourite verses is: ‘So that this mind that wanders around the world may subside, show your beauty’. If we see the real beauty of Arunachala our mind will remain with that beauty, and therefore it will become absolutely still. A still mind actually means no mind.
So Bhagavan is prompting us through this verse to see or experience our own inner beauty. Once we experience what we actually are, our mind will give up its infatuation with the things of this world. So the only way to give up our desires and attachments is to have more and more love for our real nature. The more we turn within, the more we will become captivated with our own inner beauty. Eventually, nothing outside will seem beautiful to us.
Michael’s favourite verses from Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam (part two)
Michael: There are many other verses from Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam – verse 7 of Arunachala Navamanimalai comes to my mind:
Sri Arunachala Navamanimalai verse 7 (as it appears in the book ‘Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam’ by Sri Sadhu Om)
O Annamalai, the very moment you took me as your own, you took possession of my soul and body. Therefore, is there now any shortcoming (defect, want or grievance) for me? (Since my shortcomings and virtues cannot exist apart from you) I will not think of them, my shortcomings and virtues but only of you. O my life, whatever be your will, do that alone. O beloved, bestow upon me only ever-increasing love for your two feet.
[In the video, Michael translated this verse as follows]
The very day you as Annamalai took me as your own or took possession of me, you took my body and soul, so now is there anything lacking? Both my lacks and good qualities are not apart from you. I will think only of you and not think of the shortcomings or defects or good qualities. My soul [that is, Bhagavan is addressing Arunachala as ‘my soul’], whatever you think, do that [your will be done]. O my eyes [he is addressing Arunachala as ‘O my eyes’ – that is something precious. ‘Eye’ means the physical eye], do whatever you will. Just give me an ever-increasing flood of love for your two feet.
So do whatever you want. Just give me ever-increasing love for you.
So beautiful verses! The whole of Arunachala Stuti Panchakam is full of gems.
Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (01:37)
My reflection: So we should also likewise pray to Arunachala. In the context of our practice of self-attentiveness, we should not worry about what is happening in our outward life. As long as we are turning within and attending to ourself with more and more love, our outward bodily existence should not concern us. Bhagavan is taking care of everything outside. Our only - I repeat 'only' - responsibility is to turn back within and attend to ourself.
Anonymous, yes, I agree. We should use our intellect to decide what to follow and what not to follow. But more often than not our intellect is driven by our will: that is, we follow what we like to follow. So more often than not our heart rules over our head.
Even Bhagavan does not ask us to blindly follow his teachings. So we are free to decide whom to believe or what to believe.
Why do we wake up in the morning?
A friend: We say the world is being projected by ‘I’, but I don’t see any autonomy. I don’t see myself as an autonomous being having the power to control and project.
Michael: Why do we wake up in the morning?
The friend [silence] Why do I wake up? [laughs] That’s a good question. Why do I wake up at all?
Michael: That’s where the will comes in. We may not like the particular thing we project – now we have projected this world and there are so many things in this world that we don’t like. There is so much injustice, suffering, coronavirus pandemic – so many things that we don’t like in this world. But why do continue to wake up every morning to see this world with all its problems?
It is because we have a liking to experience form, a liking to experience phenomena. We have a liking to rise as a separate entity and see all these things. The fundamental of all desires is the desire to rise as ego. Of course, it is only as this ego that we have this desire. I am not saying that there is a desire before we rise as ego. We rise as ego of our own volition.
# Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (00:15)
My reflection: When Michael asked this friend, ‘Why do you wake up in the morning?’, it was like a koan to me. The friend who asked this question had no answer to this so he kept quiet for a few seconds, and I also was not able to formulate the answer to this question. If we project this world, and if this world is full of problems, misery, dissatisfaction and such things, why to project this world in the first place? It’s a koan-like puzzle. Such question stops our mind in its tracks because we cannot immediately answer this question.
However, Michael answered this question. We project this body and world because of our fundamental desire to rise and exist as ego, which is a desire to exist as an individual entity. Without rising and grasping a form as itself, this ego cannot come into existence. Since this ego wants to exist, it rises and grasps a form and takes it to be itself.
Obviously, ego’s desire to exit as ego comes into existence along with the rising of ego, because even this fundamental desire cannot exist before ego comes into existence.
As Michael says, ‘Of course, it is only as this ego that we have this desire. I am not saying that there is a desire before we rise as ego. We rise as ego of our own volition’.
1)My simple answer is, morning is waking time for most of our egos, but shift workers egos wake up according to their shift!
Will this analysis help us to turn with in?
2)May be A reminder for us to “turn with in” for the day.
Saravanapavan, whatever our shift may be and whatever time we wake up in the day or night, why do we wake up? When this dream comes to an end, we will stop identifying ourself with Saravanapavan or Sanjay or whatever, but sooner or later we will wake up with a new identification. I may become John or Saraswati or whoever. The basic question is if all this is our projection, and if we know that we do not like many of things we project, why do we still continue projecting this world? Why should we create a Frankenstein when we know this Frankenstein will only give us endless troubles and will eventually kill us.
This world which we have projected and created is nothing but a Frankenstein. It will give us endless problems, endless miseries and will eventually disappoint us thoroughly. It is because there is no happiness or satisfaction in this creation. Happiness or satisfaction is our real nature, so if we want happiness or satisfaction, we need to turn within and experience it as our actual nature.
So back to our original question: why do we wake up from sleep or death? As Michael says, ‘It is because we have a liking to experience form, a liking to experience phenomena. We have a liking to rise as a separate entity and see all these things’. So, all our desires and attachments drive us to wake up, to rise as ego, whenever we rise as ego after a state of laya. The most basic or fundamental desire we have is the desire to exist as this ego. However, all these desires come into existence along with this ego.
So first this ego comes into existence, but why does this ego come into existence? It is because it has a desire to exist as ego. So we have to say this ego rises along with this most fundamental desire for its self-preservation. Once this ego and its fundamental desire for its self-preservation come into seeming existence, all of ego’s other desires also come into play as and when their seeds, our vasanas, get the opportunity to raise their head.
You ask, ‘Will this analysis help us to turn with in?’ Yes, in Bhagavan’s teachings whatever analysis we do will help us to turn within provided we do the analysis correctly. If we keep things to the basics of Bhagavan’s teachings, all our sravana and manana of Bhagavan’s teachings will eventually prompt us or motivate us to turn within. So our above analysis will also help us to turn within because it shows that we are unnecessarily creating a Frankenstein by rising and creating this world.
So it is foolishness to rise as ego and bring all this unnecessary trouble upon us? The best thing is not to rise as ego, or in other words, the best is to turn within and be as we really are.
As we get a greater and greater degree of clarity, we will automatically be able to see through all these transient experiences
A friend: Some people go a little bit along this spiritual path, have some experience, take that experience to be the real thing and think they have achieved everything. They think they have become jnanis and they try to become gurus, and they want to teach others. How can we guard ourself against making similar mistakes?
Michael: To avoid that, I think, a deep and clear understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings is possibly the best protection. If we understand Bhagavan’s teachings, we will not take any phenomena and mistake it to be ourself. So whatever great experience we have, it is something which has come, and it will also go. It is not real. What is real is what is always present.
Bhagavan often used to say there is nothing new to be achieved. That jnana is always shining within us as ‘I’. All we need to do is to give up ajnana. If we give up awareness of everything other than ourself, we remain as pure awareness. If we understand this correctly, our aim is not to attain any experience. Our ego is to get rid of the experiencer – that is this ego.
So if we have a clear understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings, we will not be misled by whatever experiences may come. We will not attach importance to them because who is it who is experiencing all this? So we will try to go deeper within.
Moreover, if we are following this path correctly, the more we turn our attention within, the more clarity will shine in our heart. This clarity is already within our heart, so we are uncovering the clarity so to speak. The more we follow this path, the more we are turning our attention back to ‘I’. This ‘I’ is the original light that illumines the mind, thereby illumines the whole world. So the original light is the light of pure awareness that is ever-shining in our heart as ‘I am’.
So if we are constantly trying to turn our attention within, our mind is purified and clarified. As we get a greater and greater degree of clarity, we will automatically be able to see through all these transient experiences. So only the more superficial aspirants will be misled thinking that some experience is the final thing. So long as there is an experiencer, we haven’t yet reached our goal.
What we are seeking is beyond experience – experience in the sense of an experiencer and something that is experienced. So our aim is to go beyond that triputi – that triad of knower, knowing and known.
# Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-12 Michael and Kijan discuss the nature and role of the will (01:06)
My reflection: Yes, indeed, correct understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings will protect us in all possible ways. Obviously, we are not aiming to become gurus because there is only one guru – Bhagavan Ramana. He is the eternal guru and real guru-tatva in all other manifested gurus.
Somebody commented that I am trying to act as a teacher. I do not think this is my aim in posting all these comments or why I try to answer some of the questions put on this blog? I am clearly a student of Bhagavan’s teachings. I just love to dwell on Bhagavan’s teachings – it has become my passion. I am sure this passion is keeping me away from doing many unnecessary things.
Moreover, the more one dwells of Bhagavan’s teachings, the more one will be inspired to turn within. This is the main benefit of trying to keep our mind constantly on Bhagavan’s teachings.
Sanjay, today you write at 12:42:
"So, all our desires and attachments drive us to wake up, to rise as ego, whenever we rise as ego after a state of laya. The most basic or fundamental desire we have is the desire to exist as this ego. However, all these desires come into existence along with this ego."
Certainly our destiny (prārabdha) has considerable influence on our wake up from sleep.
If a baby's or a child's mother would not wake up every morning, what fate would take its course ?
Anadi-ananta, you say, ‘Certainly our destiny (prārabdha) has considerable influence on our wake up from sleep. If a baby's or a child's mother would not wake up every morning, what fate would take its course?’
Does our destiny (prarabdha) make us rise from sleep? No, our destiny comes into existence only when we rise as ego and look away from ourself. Bhagavan used to say that prarabdha is only for an outward turned mind. The mind which is in-turned is not affected by prarabdha.
So we rise as ego due to our own volition and not due to prarabdha. Only when we rise as ego, do we experience our own prarabdha and also the prarabdha of our baby or child or whoever. So we should take responsibility for our rising as ego and not blame it on prarabdha.
When this ‘I am this body’ is a false awareness, all our knowledge about the world is equally false because it is based on this false awareness 'I am this body'
Michael: Why does this world seem to be real? So long as we are dreaming, the dream world also seems real. Why does it seem to be real? What is real is only ‘I’, but as long as take a body to be ourself, that body seems to be real. It is because if this body is ‘I’, then this body is real. Since this body is part of the world, the whole world seems to be real.
When we wake up from our dream, our identification with that dream body is severed. So when we wake up from that dream, that dream world no longer seems to us to be real. Why? It is because the dream body no longer seems to be ‘I’. So likewise what makes this so-called waking world seems to be real is only our identification with this current body.
Though this body has changed so much since we were a small baby, throughout that time, all those years in the waking state we have been experiencing this body as ‘I’. Though this body is changing and ‘I’ remains unchanging, we still take this body to be ‘I’. So this body cannot be what we actually are.
Moreover, if I were this body, I cannot be aware of myself without being aware of this body. But when I am dreaming, I am not aware of this body. I am aware of some other body as myself. So neither of these bodies can be what I actually am. And in sleep, I am aware of myself without being aware of any body, without being aware of any phenomena. So I cannot be any of these phenomena. I must be that which is aware in all the three states. I must be just that fundamental awareness ‘I am’.
All our experiences are based upon this fundamental experience ‘I am this body’. Only when we are aware of ‘I am this body’, are we aware of this world. So when this basis of all our awareness ‘I am this body’ is a false awareness, all our knowledge about the world is equally false. That’s why Bhagavan says in verse 13 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Oneself, who is awareness, alone is real. Awareness that is manifold is ignorance. Even ignorance, which is unreal, does not exist except as oneself, who is awareness. All the many ornaments are unreal; say, do they exist except as gold, which is real?
So the real awareness is only the fundamental awareness ‘I am’. That alone is real.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-11 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Michael James answers questions on Bhagavan’s teachings (01:43)
My reflection: So true. If the awareness ‘I am this body’ is a mistaken awareness of ourself, and if our awareness of this world is entirely based upon this mistaken awareness, everything we know about this world has to be false. Simple, simple logic!
Salazar, ego and its volition to rise appears simultaneously. Obviously, the buck stops with ego because, without ego, there can be no volition of the ego. However, if we investigate this ego keenly enough, we will see that this ego has never risen. So ultimately ego and its volition are false. They don’t actually exist even when they seem to exist.
Dear Salazar
You may be correct. But this way of communication keep the people with the same vibration to share the views and avoid our mind to deviate from Bahawan teaching. Finnaly may help us to reach the destiny. My opinion is to limit one comment per day and concentrate on Athma vichara in the rest of the time
What may be the reason for the remarkable procedure that Salazar deleted more than 140 of his comments on Michael's article of 7 October 2018 ? (When Bhagavan says that we must look within, what does he mean by ‘within’?)
Ah, Salazar engineered a big general covering his tracks on many MJ-articles. I'm not all surprised.
next time write: ad hominem
Asun, Karen or whoever it may concern:
I don’t remember his or her name, but one of our friends had asked me about the particular video where Michael talks about the analogy of our vasanas being like the soldiers in an army and this ego being its General or Commander-in-chief. Michael has talked about this analogy in detail in the first half an hour of the following video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās
What is love for God? (part one)
A friend: I get from your lectures that love for God is the key, but can love for God itself be defined, or is it just abstract and subjective? In other words, what is love for God?
Michael: [laughs] Some things cannot be expressed in words. We all know ‘I am’ – that is, ‘I am’ is an expression of our self-awareness. But can we describe self-awareness? We can’t even describe a gross thing like the taste of chocolate or taste of mango. We can’t really describe it because only when we experience it, can we know it. So if we can’t describe even such gross things, we certainly can’t describe ‘I am’.
Love is our real nature according to Bhagavan, so to know love, we must know ourself. How can we describe love? To the extent we surrender ourself, to that extent we will know what love is. However, though I cannot say what love for God is, I can say what the measure of true love is. If we truly love any person, whether a friend or a relative or whoever, we are not looking to what we can get from that person. We want to give to that person, not to take from them. Love is all about giving, and the highest form of love is to give ourself.
So what is love for God? True love for God is nothing but self-surrender. To the extent we are willing to surrender ourself or give ourself wholly to God - that is the indicator of true love for God. So love for God is our willingness to surrender ourself. Even when we are doing anya-bhava worship like puja, japa and dhyana, the same principle is true.
Puja, japa and dhyana are not bhakti. They can be expressions of bhakti, but bhakti means love. Most people who do puja, japa or dhyana are not doing it for the love of God. They have some kamya motive – it’s kamyata. So it’s not the action that determines whether it is love for God. Only if the actions are done without desire for any personal gain, purely for the love of God – that is bhakti.
If we are practising nishksmya puja, japa or dhanya, we are trying to give to God whatever we can. When we are doing puja, a lot of ritualistic puja entails offering things to God. You offer food to God. You give a bath to God. You give clothing to God. You may garland God and finally, you wave light. So all this is symbolically giving to God. It is because surrender is about giving.
However, we must be willing to surrender not only everything which is 'mine', but we must finally be willing to surrender 'I' - the 'I' whose 'mine' it is.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 3 to 8 (01:14)
My reflection: As Michael implies, if we love a person or any other jiva or any cause, we will be willing to give to that person or jiva or that cause whatever we can without expecting anything in return. Suppose my country is under occupation by some imperialist forces, if I really love my country, I will be willing to make any sacrifice to free my country from these imperialist forces. I will give my time for this cause, and I will give my money for this cause without expecting anything in return. So we give in love. This is the true measure of love.
If I love my daughter, I will try to give her whatever I can. I will give her care, attention, money, food without expecting much in return. Likewise, if we love God, we will try to give to God and not expect things from God.
I have not had time to read most of the comments that have been posted here recently, but a friend has written to me pointing out that of late many of the comments have been blatantly transgressing the Guidelines for Comments, so could I please ask you all the abide by these guidelines for the sake of all who read your comments. That is, please do not allow any discussion about Bhagavan’s teachings to deteriorate into a series of ad hominem attacks and abuse. If you disagree with any idea expressed by anyone else, you are welcome to explain why you disagree with it, but please do not criticise personally whoever has expressed whatever ideas you disagree with.
Unknown,
I was only by chance flicking a bit through the Article Archive 2018 and then I was astonished how many comments were deleted with the note "This comment has been removed by the author". In doing so the mentioned author did a good job.:-)
What is love for God? (part two)
Michael: When we start on the bhakti-marga, we become aware why we are not thinking of God. It is because we have so much desire for other things. So we try to give up our desires and attachments and have love only for God. So slowly, slowly we try to give up our desires and attachments. As we progress on the path, we are seeking to give more and more to Bhagavan. But how can we give up all our desires so long as we retain this separate individuality? So the path of bhakti comes closer and closer to surrendering ‘I’.
First, we surrender the gross things. In puja, we offer material things to God. In japa, we try to focus our love on God. We are trying to give our love to God. In meditation, we try to focus even more on God. We try to give our love to God even more. But our mind gets distracted when we try to meditate on God because we are more concerned about other things than about God. So we keep leaving our meditation on God and keep on thinking of other things.
So as we progress on the path of bhakti, we come closer and closer to giving up our desires and attachments and thinking only on God. But then we understand, if God is everything, who am I separate from God? If God is all eight forms, who am I separate from God? As Bhagavan says in verse five of Upadesa Undiyar:
Considering all the eight forms [the aṣṭa-mūrti, the eight forms or manifestations of Siva, namely the five elements (earth, water, fire, air and space), sun, moon and sentient beings (jīvas)] [or all thought-forms, namely all forms, which are just thoughts or mental phenomena] to be forms of God, worshipping [any of them] is good puja [worship] of God.
So in the initial verses of Upadesa Undiyar, Bhagavan beautifully describes how the love for God matures in different stages and is expressed in different stages. But our surrender is not complete with the surrender of 'mine'. It will be complete when we become willing to surrender ‘I’. That is the ultimate self-surrender. But how do we surrender ‘I’?
(To be continued in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 3 to 8 (01:14)
My reflection: If bhakti means giving, what are we giving to God? In puja, japa and dhyana, we are giving our love to God? We are focusing more and more on the name, form and other stories about God. Thus, in effect, we are giving up our desires and attachments for other things. So this element of giving is what gives meaning to any of the forms of worship, whether our worship is anya-bhakti or ananya-bhakti.
What is love for God? (part three)
Michael: When we want to surrender our ego, Bhagavan shows us the correct way to do so. He teaches us in verse 25 of Ulladu Narpadu:
[By] grasping form [that is, by projecting and perceiving the form of a body (composed of five sheaths) as itself] the formless phantom-ego comes into existence [rises into being or is formed]; [by] grasping form [that is, by holding on to that body as itself] it stands [endures, continues or persists]; [by] grasping and feeding on form [that is, by projecting and perceiving other forms or phenomena] it grows [spreads, expands, increases, ascends, rises high or flourishes] abundantly; leaving [one] form [a body that it had projected and perceived as itself in one state], it grasps [another] form [another body that it projects and perceives as itself in its next state]. If it seeks [examines or investigates] [itself], it will take flight [because it has no form of its own, and hence it cannot seem to exist without grasping the forms of other things as itself and as its food or sustenance]. Investigate [this ego] [or know thus]
This is something that is nowhere emphasised as clearly as Bhagavan has done it. I don’t know if it has been explicitly stated in any of the old texts. Since ego has no form of its own, if it tries to grasp itself, it subsides. Bhagavan says it takes flight. So ego can surrender itself only by self-investigation. That is why Bhagavan says in the first sentence of the 13th paragraph of Nan Ar?:
Being ātma-niṣṭhāparaṉ [one who is completely fixed in and as oneself], giving not even the slightest room to the rising of any cintana [thought] other than ātma-cintana [thought of oneself], alone is giving oneself to God.
That is if we attend to ourself so keenly that we give no room to be distracted by anything else, no thoughts can arise. Thoughts can arise only when we attend to them. Without our attention to them, no thoughts can arise. So when we attend only to ourself, we thereby remain fixed in ourself. That alone is giving ourself to God.
So that’s why Bhagavan says in verse 8 of Upadesa Undiyar that ananya-bhava is the best of all. All that Bhagavan said about puja, japa and dhyana is to show us how they gradually purify our mind and lead us to self-investigation.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-04 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: Michael James discusses Upadēśa Undiyār verses 3 to 8 (01:14)
My reflection: If we want to understand Bhagavan’s teachings clearly, we should try to understand verses 25 and 26 of Ulladu Narpadu as clearly as possible. These verses are not only the heart of Ulladu Narpadu but the heart of the entire Advaita-Vedanta.
Ego comes into existence by grasping a form of a body, and it stands by grasping the very form of this body. Ego grasps other forms through this body – that is, ego grasps other thoughts or phenomena through the five senses of this body. Such grasping of phenomena makes the ego fat and strong. Ego leaves the form of one body and grasps the form of another body in its other dreams. However, if ego tries to grasp itself, it subsides and dissolves back into pure awareness from it arose.
Since ego is a formless-phantom, it cannot exist without grasping any form as itself. So the only way to make this ego subside is to attend to it so keenly that it has nothing left to grasp.
Rhetorical impact of some of the verses by Bhagavan (part one)
A friend: This verse of Aksaramanamalai says, ‘when will these waves of thoughts cease, O Arunachala’. So Bhagavan not only shows us the path, but he is also so kind as to depict our mind-set and get us back in a surrendered mode.
Michael: Yes, yes, because he knows the practical difficulties that we face. But all difficulties arise only when we rise as ego. So how do we rise as ego? We rise as ego by clinging to forms, which is the very nature of ego. How to prevent the rising of ego? If we seek it, it takes flight.
The friend: I believe we are unnecessarily giving a huge responsibility to the ego. We know that ego does not exist.
Michael: Even the distinction between ego and our real nature is useful only in certain contexts. But in atma-vichara what is that atma? We think in terms of two things, but there is only one thing there. That is why Bhagavan repeatedly emphasised that there are no two selves. There is only one self.
So when I wrote to you that ‘mind or ego is present in sleep, but only as pure awareness, not as mind or ego’, what does that mean? The real nature of ego is pure awareness, and in sleep, ego remains as pure awareness. Bhagavan often used to express things in this way. Though there is a seeming contradiction, it is expressed this way to make the reader stop and think.
So a lot is conveyed when I wrote, ‘mind or ego is present in sleep, but only as pure awareness, not as mind or ego’. What it actually says is that what ego actually is is just pure awareness. It is only in waking and dream that it seems to be ego, but even when it seems to be ego, what it actually is is just pure awareness. They are not things.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~+~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (9:00)
My reflection: Michael says, ‘mind or ego is present in sleep, but only as pure awareness, not as mind or ego’. This indeed has a rhetorical impact. It does have a koan-like impact. What is a koan? A koan is ‘a paradoxical anecdote or riddle without a solution, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and provoke enlightenment’.
Perhaps the most famous Buddhist koan is, ‘Two Hands clap and there is a sound, what is the sound of one hand?’ This koan illustrates how difficult it is for us to reduce dualistic things (the two hands) into a singular whole (the sound of one hand). Buddhist koans are meant to be contemplated and focused on completely.
However, though koans may be paradoxical anecdote or riddle without a solution, what Michael says does have a logical base. So it is much simpler than a koan.
The following are some excerpts from Guidelines for Comments:
Though I would prefer to keep this blog as a free and open forum for discussing Bhagavan’s teachings, during recent months the comments on each article have been increasingly dominated by trolls and others making ad hominem attacks rather than engaging in serious and reasonable discussions of his teachings, thereby deterring others who may wish to engage in (or just read) such discussions, […]
All comments are welcome provided that they are relevant to Bhagavan’s teachings and do not contain personal criticism or abuse. Since we do not all understand his teachings in exactly the same way, any open discussion of them will naturally involve disagreement, but any disagreement should be expressed in a polite, respectful and reasonable manner. By all means criticise ideas that you disagree with, but please explain clearly why you disagree with them and do not allow your criticism to deteriorate into an attack on the supposed character, motive or other qualities of any person who expressed them.
My note: I have reproduced the above so that we read it carefully and respect the Guidelines for Comments laid down by Sri Michael James. Michael has requested us through his comment earlier in the day to adhere to these simple guidelines. These guidelines were laid down a few years back, so when Michael formulated these guidelines he was not referring to our recent comments on the blog. However, I believe we have again started making ad hominem attacks on each other. These attacks should stop!
Unknown,
yes, I too would approve of removing "the option of deleting comments made by us because it damages the sense of the entire thread. If there is no option to delete then the original purport of that thread remains intact."
Additionally it would have some effect of education to write with greater care.
Rhetorical impact of some of the verses by Bhagavan (part two)
The friend: I got the point: ego is ourself. That is why I don’t like the term ‘ego’. It seems it is something other than ourself.
Michael: But Bhagavan has clearly defined what this ego is. Ego is the false awareness ‘I am this body’, but in that false awareness, the real awareness is there. The real awareness is ‘I am’. In our practice of self-investigation, we have to focus on the chit aspect of ego. However, we need to remember that there are no two things there. That is, what seems to be ego is what we actually are. Bhagavan expresses things in a very clear and precise manner. Ego is not something other than ourself. In verse 24 of Upadesa Undiyar, Bhagavan refers to ego as jiva and he refers to our real nature as God. He says:
By their existing nature, God and souls are only one substance. Only their awareness of adjuncts is different.
So the difference between ego and our real nature is not a difference in substance. It's a difference in appearance. When we talk about ego, we have to remember that ego is a false awareness, but that false awareness doesn’t exist apart from our true awareness. Bhagavan describes this beautifully in verse 13 of Ulladu Narpadu:
Oneself, who is jñāna [knowledge or awareness], alone is real. Awareness that is manifold [namely the mind, whose root, ego, is the awareness that sees the one as many] is ajñāna [ignorance]. Even [that] ignorance, which is unreal, does not exist except as [besides, apart from or as other than] oneself, who is [real] awareness. All the many ornaments are unreal; say, do they exist except as gold, which is real? [In other words, though ego or mind, which is the false awareness that sees itself as numerous phenomena, is ignorance and unreal, the real substance that appears as it is only oneself, who is true knowledge or pure awareness, so what actually exists is not ego or mind but only oneself.]
So the reality of ego is only that pure awareness. So if we look within, what is shining as ego is nothing but pure awareness. Just as what is shining as a snake, if we look at it carefully, we will find it is just a rope. So, there are no two things there – only one thing. So that’s why I emphasised in that sentence: ‘mind or ego is present in sleep, but only as pure awareness, not as mind or ego’.
It is true that the mind or ego is not present in any forms in sleep: that is, the mind or ego is not present in either of its gross, subtle or causal aspects in sleep. But mind or ego is present in sleep as pure awareness, which is its reality.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~+~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (9:00)
Rhetorical impact of some of the verses by Bhagavan (part three)
Michael: I can point out two examples where Bhagavan said very similar to this – verses 17 and 18 of Ulladu Narpadu:
For those who do not know themself [their real nature] and for those who have known themself, the body is actually ‘I’ [or only ‘I’]. For those who do not know themself, ‘I’ is [limited to] only the extent of the body, [whereas] for those who have known themself within the body, oneself [called] ‘I’ shines without limit [boundary or extent] [as the one infinite whole, which alone exists and which is therefore the sole substance that appears as the body and everything else]. Consider that the difference between them is only this.
For those who do not have knowledge [of their real nature] and for those who have, the world is real. For those who do not know [their real nature], reality is [limited to] the extent of [the forms that constitute] the world, [whereas] for those who have known [their real nature], reality pervades devoid of form as the ādhāra [support, foundation or container] for [the appearance of the forms that constitute] the world. This is the difference between them. Consider.
Bhagavan’s fundamental teaching is ‘I am not this body’ and ‘this world is not real’, but he begins verse 17 by saying, ‘For those who do not know themself [their real nature] and for those who have known themself, the body is actually ‘I’ [or only ‘I’]. Likewise, he begins verse 18 by saying, ‘For those who do not have knowledge [of their real nature] and for those who have, the world is real’. Why does he speak in these terms? He speaks in such terms to make us think.
What he says in verse 17 is that for the jnani the ‘I’ shines without limits. If it shines without limits, that means it has no external limits and no internal limits – internal limits means division. So for the jnani ‘I’ is undivided. So Bhagavan is not saying here that the jnani is aware of the body and world. What he is implying is that what we see as the body, he sees as himself: himself means just pure anadi, ananta, akhanda sat-chit-ananda.
Many people take these verses to mean that the jnani is aware of the body and he is aware of the world. That is not what Bhagavan means. He says ‘oneself [called] ‘I’ shines without limit [boundary or extent] [as the one infinite whole, which alone exists and which is therefore the sole substance that appears as the body and everything else]’. So it means there is no body, there is no world.
In verse 18 he says even more clearly, ‘reality pervades devoid of form as the ādhāra [support, foundation or container] for [the appearance of the forms that constitute] the world’. So if the reality shines devoid of forms, there is no world, there is no body. What we mistake to be body and world, the jnani sees as pure awareness.
(To be continued in my next comment)
~+~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (9:00)
When one tells us "This blog gets more comical every day ....." he overlooks evidently himself acting as the stage director in this comic theatre performance. :-)
Rhetorical impact of some of the verses by Bhagavan (part four)
Michael: That is like saying that both the jnani and the ajnani the snake is real. But for the ajnani, the snake is real as the snake but for the jnani, the snake is real as rope. The jnani doesn’t see the snake. He sees only the rope. But what we see as a snake, he sees it as a rope. So what we see there is real but not as a snake but only as a rope.
So that is what Bhagavan is implying in these two verses of Ulladu Narpadu. He is not implying that the jnani is actually aware of the body or actually aware of the world. What we mistake to be a body or a world is what he sees as himself, as ‘I’, as what is real.
So what I said there, ‘mind or ego is present in sleep, but only as pure awareness, not as mind or ego’, if you think carefully, Bhagavan is saying the same thing in these verses.
Bhagavan is saying there the world is real but not as the name and form but as the adharam (the base or substratum or container). Only that adharam is real. That adharam is pure awareness, our real nature. So the world is real as brahman. The world is not real as the world.
~+~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-08 Michael and Murthy discuss the oneness of ego and pure awareness (9:00)
Sanjay,
"So the world is real as brahman. The world is not real as the world."
Because we see the world wrongly as the world we have first to examine our pair of glasses. In order to get the right view only the best optician in town will be able to repair our glasses. :-)
Sanjay,
many thanks for your recent video-transcription.
"What we mistake to be body and world, the jnani sees as pure awareness."
Is there anyone who not wants to be the jnani or at least to have the view of such one ?
Sanjay,
"...ego is a false awareness, but that false awareness doesn’t exist apart from our true awareness."
It's a mystery to me why I/we cannot immediately convert that advantage.
Sanjay,
"So the reality of ego is only that pure awareness. So if we look within, what is shining as ego is nothing but pure awareness. Just as what is shining as a snake, if we look at it carefully, we will find it is just a rope. So, there are no two things there – only one thing.
...‘mind or ego is present in sleep, but only as pure awareness, not as mind or ego’."
So if I examine the world-appearance or ego under the microscope of my attention ...
my real nature must remain. However, that did not happen at all ...
Perhaps my microscope is heavily soiled. Where is my cleaning cloth ?
Anadi-ananta, you say, ‘Because we see the world wrongly as the world we have first to examine our pair of glasses. In order to get the right view, only the best optician in town will be able to repair our glasses’. Who is this ‘best optician in town’? The best optician in town is also the best optician in the entire world. He is none other than our Bhagavan.
Bhagavan says since we are seeing this world through the glasses of ego, we see this world as world. If we remove this ego-glasses, this same world will appear as brahman. What is brahman? It is anadi-ananta-akhanda sat-chit-ananda.
How to remove this ego-glass? We can do so only by turning within and looking at ourself very very keenly. This best optician in town has given us such a simple and direct method of freeing ourself of this ego. Namo Ramana!
Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation and self-surrender will cure all the diseases of our body, mind and emotion
A friend: How to get over traumatic experiences which are deeply embedded in our psyche since our childhood? These traumatic experiences may manifest in us as strong likes and dislikes, strong desires.
Michael: Traumatic experiences as a child can have a lasting effect on us as a person. But ultimately, all desires, all attachments, all passions, they may be of different degrees and they seem to have different causes, but they all present essentially the same problem. That is, any desire, attachments or strong passion is drawing our attention away from ourself towards other things. So the way to deal with all types of desires, attachments, traumas, everything is the same practice of self-investigation and self-surrender.
That is, traumas from our childhood can leave scars until long after the trauma is over, but the more we turn our attention back towards ourself and surrender all our likes and dislikes, the more the scars from the past will heal. The root of any problem is ourself as ego. Who has a traumatic experience? It is ourself as ego. So if we want to completely heal the trauma, we can do so only by eradicating ego.
So Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation and self-surrender will solve the root of all diseases. If we get rid of ego, we get rid of all our problems along with ego. So self-investigation is the only medicine that will cure all the diseases of our body, mind and emotion – everything will be completely healed.
~*~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (02:00)
Sanjay,
"If we get rid of ego,then...".
If---------------------------then...
Without if there will be no then.
Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiffffffffffffffffff is the keyword.
It is very iffy whether I will be ever able to fulfil that condition - to practise sufficiently keen self-investigation.
Anadi-ananta, someone came to Bhagavan and said something to the effect, ‘Bhagavan is there any hope for me? I have not done any spiritual practice, so I am asking this question’. Bhagavan kept quiet and then looked at this person with eyes full of love and just said, ‘Yes, there is hope, there is hope’, and he went out for his walk.
So we also hope to practise sufficiently keen self-investigation one day and merge in Bhagavan. This will surely happen if not today then tomorrow. We start with self-investigation, then this self-investigation becomes keen, then it becomes sufficiently keen.
So whatever stage of practice we may be in, we just have to unfailing walk at our own speed. Bhagavan has assured us we will reach our destination by his grace. If we are moving in the right direction, how can we not reach our destination? It is impossible not to merge in Bhagavan.
Pure love is not a problem; the problem is impure love or selfish love in the form of strong attachments and strong expectations
It is natural that we love our children, but if we have a strong attachment to them, it can be harmful. We see parents who are strongly attached to their children and they have a strong expectation of their children. They want their children to be as they want them to be, and if their children turn out against their expectations, they are not happy. They may want their children to follow the same profession or follow a career path or whatever it is.
So it is natural to love our children, but our love should be as selfless as possible. Our children may not want to live a sort of life we want them to live. We need to respect their choice. They have their own life, so we shouldn’t have a high expectation of them. As parents, we give so much to our children – not only material things but we give them our time, we give our attention. But if have the expectation that our children should return our love, they should be as we want them to be, then our love is not pure love.
Many many parents are disappointed by their children - may be the children live a life that the parents are not happy with, or maybe when the children grow up, they lose interest in their parents. So it is naturally very disappointing for a parent after giving so much love to their child. But if our love is selfless, we will not expect anything from them. If they want to keep up friendly relation with us, well and good, and if want to ignore us, we have to accept that also.
So even the love and attachment we have for our children can be more or less selfish. The more selfless our love is, the less expectation we have of getting anything in return, and therefore our love is purer. Pure love is not a problem. The problem is impure love or selfish love – which is love in the form of strong attachments and strong expectations.
~*~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (01:51)
Yes, Salazar, as you say, 'it is impossible to not merge with Bhagavan'. We all will eventually merge in Bhagavan. Bhagavan illustrates this through two analogies in verse 8 of Sri Arunachala Ashtakam:
The water showered by the clouds, which rose from the ocean, will not stop even if obstructed until it reaches its abode, the ocean. Similarly, the embodied soul (the soul which rises as 'I am this body') rises from you and will not stop, though it wanders on the many paths which it encounters, until it reaches or unites with you. Likewise, the bird though it wanders about the vast sky, in that sky, there is not any abode or place of rest for it. The place for the bird to rest is not other than the earth; therefore, what it is bound to do is to go back the way it came. O Aruna hill, when the soul goes back the way it came, it will unite with you, the ocean of bliss.
Salazar,
it is surely more accurate that Bhagavan said "whatever is destined to happen will happen"...
Sanjay,
thanks for your reply. Hope springs eternal in the human breast.:-)
Karen,
what Salazar recommended:
Sri Ramana Maharshi Ashramas in the USA & Canada
Home/Books/Records and Dialogues/Maharshi’s Gospel
Maharshi’s Gospel: A collection of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s answers to questions that cover a vast range of spiritual topics, arranged and edited by subject into thirteen chapters. This forms a brief but comprehensive record of his oral teachings. p. 78
Salazar,
you say "you may want to get over your dislike of me resulting into all of these confused comments by you addressed to me."
My dislike was always directed not to you personally but to your evident behaviour never reflecting upon your own behavioural patterns and even disturbances.
However, as we all know, to critisize oneself needs a lot of courage. :-)
If we sincerely practise self-investigation, a subtle inner process will go on internally – a slow breaking down of our attachments and identification (part one)
So long as we are living in this world, we need to do certain actions. But it is not the actions that we do that matters, but the passion with which we do them that matters. We may have to take certain disciplinary actions against some persons in certain cases. Taking that appropriate action is not a problem, but we shouldn’t get angry and upset while taking that action. That is, if the actions we do disturbs our peace of mind and we feel agitated by it, then we are succumbing to our vishaya-vasanas.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do what is necessary, but we have to do it with inward detachment. We shouldn’t allow ourself to get angry. Sometimes we may have to show anger but inwardly we shouldn’t feel anger.
As we follow this path of self-investigation and self-surrender, slowly, slowly we are reducing the importance we attach to outward things. The more we try to wean our mind away from its concerns for these outward things, the more we are weakening our likes and dislikes – weakening their strength. So actually the outward actions that need to be done, we will do it better because we will be doing it without being swayed by our individual likes and dislikes. To the extent our likes and dislikes are reduced, we will be able to act in a more appropriate way.
What I am now saying is just generalisations, but if we follow this path, we will find that all these things will automatically take place.
Yes, as long as we act in this world, we should try to behave in an appropriate manner. Sometimes it becomes clear that we need at times to do things that we ourself are not naturally inclined to do. But sometimes being soft-natured is not appropriate, so at times we may have to take a firm stand. But we can take the firm stand in outward things without it being detrimental to our inward practice.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
~*~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (00:52)
Dear Sanjay
Can you clerify to the viewers about the "we" in the explanation whether it is pure awareness or the ego
Pure awareness doesn't have any anger, stress or worries (emotions). Ego only got all these. Do the real nature or "I"concern about the ego?
So only way to destroy the troublesome ego by using it to distroy itself.
If we sincerely practise self-investigation, a subtle inner process will go on internally – a slow breaking down of our attachments and identification (part two)
Who is acting? It is the body and mind that are doing the actions, and each of us has a certain role. We may be a parent, and we may have parents of our own. So, as children, we have certain duties to our parents, and, as parents, we have certain duties to our children. We may have a job, so we may have certain duties to our employers, certain duties to our clients, certain responsibilities to our colleagues and so on. So all these are outward roles, and we have to act in these roles in an appropriate manner.
But though we have a certain role as a child, as a parent, as a teacher, as an office worker or whatever, that is not what we actually are. So, in the spiritual path, we are trying to separate ourself from the person we seem to be. The person that we seem to be has to act outwardly in an appropriate manner, but we have to inwardly separate ourself from that person.
So all this is a subtle inner process that is going on - the slow breaking down of our attachments and identifications. If we follow sincerely what Bhagavan has taught us, all these things will happen automatically. If we follow self-investigation and self-surrender to the best of our ability, everything else will fall into place. That is, we will be able to allow the person that we seem to be, continue acting in an appropriate way, but inwardly we are separating ourself from that person.
This will all happen naturally and automatically the more we follow the path. So we don’t have to concern ourselves with these matters. The only thing we need to be concerned about is turning our attention within, and thereby surrendering our likes and dislikes. If we surrender our likes and dislikes, or rather to the extent we surrender our likes and dislikes, to that extent the actions of our body and mind will be according to the will of Bhagavan.
So our job is just to surrender our will to him. Everything else he will take care.
~*~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2019-05-26 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how it is possible to overcome vāsanās (00:52)
Saravanapavan, Michael said, ‘So long as we are living in this world, we need to do certain actions. But it is not the actions that we do that matters, but the passion with which we do them that matters. We may have to take certain disciplinary actions against some persons in certain cases’.
Whenever Michael says ‘we’ here, he is talking about ego. Why? It is because only ego seems to be living in this world. Only ego needs to do certain actions and so on. Yes, only ego has anger, stress, worries and emotions.
You ask, ‘Do the real nature or "I" concern about the ego?’ I would say the answer is both ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Firstly, why ‘no’? It is because our real nature is not even aware of the ego, so how can it be concerned about ego. Why ‘yes’? It is because ego in its real nature is one with our real nature. Since our real nature has infinite love for itself, it loves ego as itself. So in this sense, our real nature has infinite concern for ego. So our real nature wants ego to subside back within because it wants ego to be happy because happiness is only in our real nature.
Yes, we need to use ego to destroy ego, and this where the difficulty lies. Though ego may have understood that happiness lies only in its real nature, but it is still not willing to kill itself. It has become extremely fond of its separate existence, and it has become attached to so many other things. So it is finding it extremely difficult to abandon all these attachments. So though it is trying to turn back within, it is still holding on to many of its attachments.
Ego has to give up holding to itself and all these things if it wants to experience itself as it really is. Every time it turns towards itself, it is giving up its desires and attachments to some extent. This is a very subtle process which is taking place, but ego is slowly but surely moving towards its own destruction.
Bhagavan expressing his unworthiness in his heartfelt prayers to Arunachala
The following is an extract of my email to Sri Michael James:
In your latest video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence, you say something to the following effect from around 00:29:
As we progress along the path, the mind becomes purer and purer, but at the same time, we become more clearly aware of the strength of our desires and attachments. If we read what Bhagavan has written in some of the verses of Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, Bhagavan is lamenting so much in these verses. He says he is so unworthy, and he is talking about what low state his mind is in. Like that, so many great poet-saints have sung songs deploring their unworthiness.
In Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, Bhagavan is reflecting the state of mind of a very advanced spiritual aspirant. When one is very advanced, one will be very painfully aware of their unworthiness. That we can see clearly expressed by Bhagavan in many of the verses of Stuti Panchakam. Bhagavan is expressing that with so much feeling there.
[End of the extract from the video]
I scanned through the verses of Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam and found the following verses where Bhagavan is seen lamenting about his unworthiness. Bhagavan sings such verses quite freely in Aksharamanamalai and Padigam, but I found one such verse in Navamanimalai also.
Aksharamanamalai: In verse 18 Bhagavan prays to Arunachala to destroy his lowness (his impure nature). In verse 19 and 38 he prays to destroy his defects. In verse 42 he called himself a blemishfull wretch (a contemptible person). In verse 58 he calls himself an ignorant person lacking spiritual knowledge. In verse 78 he calls himself a person of little intelligence. In verse 81 he calls himself a noseless (ugly) person. In verse 84 Bhagavan prays to Arunachala to remove his dense delusion.
Navamanimalai: In verse 5 Bhagavan prays to Arunachala and asks for forgiveness for all the great wrongs he, the insignificant person, has done.
Padigam: In verse 1 he prays to Arunachala to remove his darkness (ignorance or mental delusion). In verses 3 and 4 he again calls himself a wretch. In verse 8 he calls himself worthless because Arunachala has destroyed his intelligence to know the way of making a living in the world. In verse 9 Bhagavan calls himself the foremost among those who do not possess the supreme wisdom to cling to Arunachala’s feet without having other attachments.
Sanjay,
regarding Bhagavan's lamenting so much in some verses of Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, and deploring his spiritual unworthiness we safely could comfort him: "there is hope, there is hope". :-)
Asun,
many thanks for your recent video-transcription (2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence).
Because it is not clear to me, could you please explain the meaning of the last clause "..., confidence doesn´t enter the matter." (35:02)?
Asun, I had written by hand whatever Michael had said in his talk 2020-07-19 (23:54), but before I could type it and post it, you have already posted it. So thank you. But after Michael said, ‘so the more our desires and attachments are weakened, the purer and clearer our mind will become and the purer and clearer it becomes, the more clearly we will be aware of the strength of our desires and attachments’, Michael had given an analogy to explain this. You have not mentioned this analogy in your transcript. So what he said after this was as something to the following effect:
To give an example, if you got a white cloth that is entirely stained with mud. Because it is stained with mud, it all looks just one big stain. Only when you begin to clean it can you begin to see more deeply rooted stains. Against a very dirty background, the deeply rooted stains were not visible. But the more you clean the cloth and more the superficial dirt is removed, the deeply rooted stains will then become clearly visible.
[End of the extract]
I think it is a very apt analogy.
Sri V. S. Ramanan, the former President of Sri Ramanasramam, was absorbed in Bhagavan at 9:21 am today (IST).
Asun, ah, that is meant, thanks.
What are we yielding ourself to? To infinite love, infinite happiness and infinite peace
A friend: I felt unworthy of Bhagavan’s love and this path, so I tried abandoning the path. I turned away from this path to lead a normal life, but the path has come back to me. This seems to be happening over and over again. Please help me with this situation and pinpoint my mistakes.
Michael: Firstly, we can try leaving Bhagavan, but Bhagavan will never leave us. Bhagavan has said we are the prey in the jaws of the tiger – so we cannot now escape. We can delay things, we can struggle, and so long as we are struggling the tiger will not swallow us. The tiger will swallow us only when we surrender ourself. But however much we struggle, the tiger will not leave us because the tiger is the embodiment of love.
You said how unworthy we are of Bhagavan’s love. No one is worthy of Bhagavan’s love, but Bhagavan’s love is infinite, all-embracing. However unworthy we may be, Bhagavan loves us because Bhagavan doesn’t see us as this unworthy ego or the person we seem to be. Bhagavan sees us as himself and therefore loves us as himself. Bhagavan’s very nature is infinite love, so how can he ever not love? Sadhu Om often in his songs refers to Bhagavan’s love as ‘love (or grace) without any cause’ or ‘causeless compassion (or love)’. So Bhagavan doesn’t need any cause to love us because he is love.
Once we have come to Bhagavan’s path, the nature of ego is to struggle, to try to resist. But by slowly, slowly practising Bhagavan’s path, we are slowly but surely learning how to give up resisting his grace. His grace is always abundantly available because his grace is his love. So that love is always there, but we are resisting it by rising as ego and desiring so many things that seem to be other than ourself. So we are turning our back on his love so to speak.
But however much we ignore his love, his love is ever-shining in our heart as ‘I am’. So if we want to surrender ourself to his love, we need to cling firmly to ourself, to ‘I am’. The more we cling to ‘I am’ and thereby surrender ourself, the more he will swallow us, until finally there will be no one left to surrender anything.
So now we have started on Bhagavan's path of self-investigation and self-surrender, we cannot turn back. We may delay things by our struggling, but we are on our death row. Our death is assured. So all we have to do is to yield ourself to Bhagavan because what are we yielding ourself to? To infinite love, infinite happiness and infinite peace.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence - (01:02)
Sanjay,
thanks for your information regarding V.S.Ramanan, absorbed in Arunachala.
Sanjay,
"No one is worthy of Bhagavan’s love,...".
Do I read correctly ?
Yes, Anadi-ananta, you read correctly.
Sanjay,
is it not said that in our real nature we are just Bhagavan ?
Who has created this world?
A friend: My doubt is who has created this world? Bhagavan says ego has created it, but according to my view, God has created this world. How can this ego create this vast, unfathomable world? Seems impossible!
Michael: Who says there is creation? Creation is in whose view? Creation seems to exist only in the view of ourself as this ego, so why should we blame God for this creation? Every time we dream, we are creating a whole world and when we dream not only do we create a world, we seem to create ourself which seems to be part of the world we have created. That is, we as ego have created the world and we project ourself as if we are a person in that dream world. Then we lament, who has created this world which is giving me so much trouble?
Bhagavan says our present state is also just a dream. When people asked Bhagavan about creation, he said, ‘first investigate and find out what you actually are. If you still find the world or creation, then you can come to me and we can talk about it’. The dream world is a problem only as long as we're dreaming. When you wake up from the dream, where is the dream world?
Likewise, if we wake up from the present dream by knowing what we actually are, no creation will remain. Creation exists only in our mind, just like the dream exists only in our mind. This whole universe exists only in our mind. It seems to exist only because we see it. That is why Bhagavan taught us, ‘investigate to whom does this world appears?’ It appears only to us, ourself as this ego.
If we investigate this ego keenly enough, then we will see ourself as we actually are. Consequently, we will wake up from the sleep of self-ignorance in which this dream seems to exist. Then we will see that what exists is only pure awareness. Ego never existed, and therefore creation never happened. In other words, our current state is just another dream. We can wake up from this dream only by knowing ourself as we actually are.
So let us not worry about the creation. Let us worry about ‘who is aware of this creation?’ Who am I?
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence - (01:26)
How to experience the one without a second?
A friend: Bhagavan and Advaita say the reality is one without a second. How do you experience this one reality which is without a second?
Michael: If we attend to anything other than ourself, we are perpetuating duality. When we attend to anything other than ego, we ego are there as the subject or the perceiver, and whatever we are attending to is there as the object or the thing perceived. So we have the basic duality of the subject and the object, but when we attend only to ourself, to our ego, the subject is attending to itself. So, only one thing exists there, not two things.
So if we want to bring an end to all duality, the only way to do so is to attend to ourself. Duality cannot come to an end so long as we are attending to anything other than ourself. The ultimate reality is described as eka eva adviditya, which means ‘one only without a second’. But by attending to anything other than ourself, we are perpetuating the illusion of duality. If we attend only to ourself, we are putting an end to that illusion. If we truly attend to ourself alone, there is absolutely no duality.
But the problem is we are not yet willing to let go of other things entirely. So even when we attend to ourself, we are still clinging to a greater or lesser extent to the awareness of other things. So long as we are aware of anything other than ourself even to the slightest extent duality remains because there is ourself and whatever we are aware of. Only in that state in which we are aware of nothing other than ourself is there no duality at all.
In sleep, we not experience duality because we are not aware of anything other than ourself. In waking and dream, we experience duality because we have risen as ego and are consequently aware of other things. The very nature of ego is to look at other things. So if we want to destroy ego, we have to train ourself to look at ourself. The more we look at ourself, the more the ego subsides, and the more the ego subsides, the more al duality subsides along with it because duality exists only in the view of ego.
So the means to bring an end to duality is to attend to ourself alone. This is Advaita in practice.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence - (01:17)
Why does God allow so much evil in this world?
A friend: We see so much of evil in this world – so much violence. If everything is happening according to God’s will, how can God allow all this to happen?
Michael: Firstly, what is God’s will? God is infinite love, so what will God want? He will want us to be happy, so God’s will is that we should be happy.
What is called evil is what obstructs what God wants us to experience. The root cause of our seeming lack of happiness is our rising as ego. So if we want to say something is evil, the root cause of all evil is ego. In sleep, we don’t rise as ego, and we are perfectly happy. We have no complaints in sleep, but when we rise as ego is waking and dream, we experience pleasure and pain. We have so many problems. We are dissatisfied. So the root of all problems is our rising as ego.
So if we want to put an end to all evil, the only way is to cease rising as ego. The nature of ego is such that we rise as ego by attending to things other than ourself. If we attend to ourself, ego will subside.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence - (01:15)
Sanjay,
thank you for your video-transcription of 21 July 2020 at 15:19;
incidentally it should be:...‘investigate to whom does this world appear'.
(because that instruction is no question put with an interrogative clause, therefore no question mark stands at the end).:-)
Salazar said: One can Bhagavan's pointer use in many forms,[...]If you still find love, then you can come to me and we can talk about it".
Can one really adapt (t)his instruction "first investigate and find out what you actually are" for any (old) experience ?
Salazar,
"Once we've found who we actually are, we won't be "finding" or experiencing...
Yes, then, only then, not before. To one's/our great dismay.:-)
That ego does not want to die is quite natural. The thought of its total annihilation strikes fear into it. Who or what could dispel its severe misgivings/doubts about the sage's assurance that in the moment of its eradication then it will be embraced and absorbed by heaven ?
Salazar,
I mean absorption in the sense of total annihilation or getting swallowed up, eradication/vanishing without trace, burning without remains/ash - as it is metaphorically symbolized in India by the burning of camphor.
Which other viewpoint do you seem to prefer ?
Asun
Nice explanation. I always understood self enquiry to be : purify the mind and with the mind turn inwards. The only instrument we have is the mind . But at the end, this instrument itself will be found to be non existent, as it keeps getting purified. The more purer mind becomes, more it becomes insignificant.
How to respond to trolls and ad hominem comments?
If Michael prefers keeping this blog to be a free platform for everyone to express their views, and if some of the people commenting here still continue to post ad hominem comments, what is the way out? According to me, the best is not to respond to such comments. Trolls usually enjoy the attention they receive, but if we deprive them of our attention and response, how long can they keep trolling us?
We should not be put off by their personal attacks but should continue discussing Bhagavan’s teachings with as much freedom as we can. In other words, we should not stop commenting on the blog just because we are being personally criticised for our comments. If we stop commenting, this is again playing into the hand of our abusers. Bhagavan says that our desires and attachments thrive the more attention we pay to them. If we ignore our desires and attachments, they will lose their strength and eventually die. Why not use the same principle here? Why engage in tit for tat with the trolls?
Do you agree?
Asun, I am glad you agree with my views. At times, Bhagavan gives us a good opportunity to practice self-restraint. Why not use such opportunities and gain inner strength?
Asun,
thanks for giving this really appropriate comments of 21 July 2020 at 23:56 and 22 July 2020 at 00:00.
As the river never knows its ultimate fate of merging in an unknown basin/pool/sea/ocean the formerly separated individual does not know its fate.
Declaring all its experiences as to be a waste of time or all for nothing makes the individuality feel rather uneasy, because the jiva anyway loses his/her most valuable treasure namely its own consciousness never to be seen again.
[If I would figuratively compare my life with the waters of the river for instance of the second-longest river of the Iberian peninsula, Ebro, pouring more than 900 kilometers from its source in the Cantabrian Mountains/Cordillera Cantabrica till its fusing/merger at its mouth in the Mediterranean/Balearic Sea in Cataluña/Costa Daurada/provincia Tarragona/Comarca Montsià/Parque natural del Delta del Ebro), how can I be now really happy about losing my form and now considering my life as all for nothing or even as never happened.:-)]
At least in the moment of my melting into the sea of pure awareness I must trust the assurance of the sages that I now and herewith have achieved my destination which is my own death in favour of remaining in my real nature. We must, can and do safely have confidence that real sages, particularly our Bhagavan Sri Ramana of Arunachala, are definitely never wrong.
As you beautifully write (or quote), "When with the pure mind, which alone can turn selfwards, the real 'I' is clearly known, the false 'I' will disappear, merging in that real 'I' like a shadow disappearing in the light.
Our only duty is to keep a careful eye on the rabbit hole, to make sure the rabbit doesn’t pop out (part one)
Rahul: I am a singing teacher. Bhagavan says we shouldn’t worry about the things which we feel we need to do. I agree at some level but I get confused. It seems to me that I need to make decisions and I need to do certain things. It’s hard for me to let go of that control. So to what extent do I have to intervene in worldly matters?
Michael: Control is an illusion. We have no control over the outward events in our life. The only thing we have control over is our rising as ego and our likes, dislikes, desires and attachments. That is, Bhagavan has made it very clear that whatever is destined to happen will happen, however much we choose to avoid it. Whatever is not destined to happen will not happen, however much we choose to achieve it. So we can leave all outward things to take their own course.
That doesn’t mean that the body and mind have to become inactive because in order for certain things to happen, certain actions of our body, speech and mind are required. So we will be made to do those actions which are necessary for us to experience our prarabdha. For example, in order to become a singing teacher, you must have studied, practised and developed your skill in that field. Without all that qualification, you wouldn’t be qualified to teach singing. So because it was your destiny to become a singing teacher, you had to do all those preparations which were necessary to become a teacher.
Likewise, in order to become a successful singing teacher, you have to continue doing certain actions. You may sometimes have to discipline your students and expect high standards of them because you want to get the best out of them for their own sake. So if you destined to be a successful music teacher, you will naturally do whatever is necessary to help your students to be the very best they can. All these actions of body, speech and mind are driven by destiny.
But we have a problem. The problem is we rise as ego, and as ego, we have endless likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, hopes, fears, aspirations and so on. So though everything is happening according to destiny, with our desires and attachments we are trying to achieve things which are not destined to happen and to avoid things which are destined to happen. In other words, the problems lie within us.
Those actions which you are destined to do, you will be made to do. So you should not be concerned about such actions. All you need to be concerned about is not rising as ego and your likes and dislikes. That is what needs to be given up, and the means to give it up is the path of self-investigation and self-surrender that Bhagavan taught us. Bhagavan says we can deal with ego and its desires only by turning within.
So let the outward life take its own course because anyway it’s going to take its own course, whether we interfere in it or not. Our work lies within.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
~ Edited and paragraphed extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence (00:41)
Asun, I believe we should simply ignore all comments which are not relevant to Bhagavan’s teachings. We should take it that they are not meant for us.
Our only duty is to keep a careful eye on the rabbit hole, to make sure the rabbit doesn’t pop out (part two)
Michael: We can curb our desires and attachments to a certain extent by following the path of outward devotion to an outward God, but that is only a partial solution. It doesn’t solve the root of the problem. However much you try to surrender your will to God, so long as you remain separate from God, you will have likes, dislikes, desires, attachments and so on to a greater or lesser extent. So even these likes, dislikes, desires, attachments and so on are your secondary problems.
The primary problem is you, but you are the problem and you are also the solution to the problem. That is, our rising as ego is the problem, and the way to deal with this problem is to investigate this ego: who am I? So we can curb this ego only by investigating it.
I will give you an example to illustrate the nature of ego. Supposing you see a rabbit hole, and in that rabbit hole, there is a rabbit living. If no one is watching the rabbit hole, the rabbit will come out and play. But the rabbit is very shy, so it will only come out to play when no one is watching its hole. So if you don’t want the rabbit to come out of its hole, all you need to do is to keep a careful watch on this rabbit hole. The rabbit is this ego, and the rabbit hole is ‘I am’. If we constantly keep our attention on ‘I am’, this ego won’t pop out. As soon as you allow your attention to be distracted here and there, this ego pops out as ‘I am Rahul’. So you are the problem, and you are also the solution.
You don’t have to worry about the outward actions or the work you do. That work is not done by you but by the body, speech and mind, and that body, speech and mind will do whatever they are destined to do. The only thing you need to be concerned about is yourself: the rabbit that keeps popping out. Keep a watchful eye on yourself and the rabbit-ego will not pop out. This is the path of self-investigation and self-surrender taught by Bhagavan. This is also so unique about Bhagavan’s teachings.
I don’t think anyone before Bhagavan has explained the nature of ego. That is, as soon as we allow our attention to go away from ourself, ego rises and flourishes. That is, the nature of ego is to rise when we don’t watch it, but if we keep a careful eye on this ego, it won’t come out of its rabbit hole. This is the unique clue that Bhagavan has given us. If we understand this secret, this is the only secret we need to know. This is the key to the whole spiritual path.
So let the body, speech and mind continue to do whatever they are destined to do. Your only duty is to keep a careful eye on the rabbit hole and make sure that the rabbit doesn’t pop out and starts playing mischief.
~ Edited and paragraphed extract from the video: 2020-07-19 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to follow the path with confidence (00:41)
Sanjay,
as you say ego must keep a watchful eye on itself. So let us be a fierce watchdog with sharp claws and teeth.:-)
Post a Comment