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 601 – 679 of 679Perseverance (as such) is already progress on the path.
Anadi-ananta, yes, the more we persevere on this path of self-investigation and self-surrender, the more we progress, and the more we progress, the more we automatically persevere.
So, as Michael says, it is a snow-balling effect. The momentum of the snowball rolling down the hill will carry it to the bottom of the mountain. So we are sure to reach our destination once we have commenced our journey, and we have indeed commenced our journey. So we will reach our destination - 100%.
Sanjay,
as you seem to be convinced, a healthy optimistic view is somehow always beneficial.
And yet, speaking from my own experience sometimes a boulder or a towering tree may stop the snowballeffect.:-)
Who actually is the doer?
A friend: Please speak about the concept that I am not the doer?
Michael James: When we rise as ego, we always experience ourself as the body and mind, and whatever actions as done by the body and mind, we experience as the actions done by us. ‘I am sitting’, ‘I am listening’, ‘I am speaking’, ‘I am thinking’ – all actions of the mind, speech and body are experienced by us as actions done by ourself because the body, speech and mind are experienced as ourself.
But this body, speech and mind is not what we actually are. What we actually are is just pure awareness in view of which there is no body, speech and mind at all. So as pure awareness we are not the doer, but as ego we are the doer. Actually, as ego we seem to be the doer because ego identifies itself with the instruments of actions. Actually, all actions are done only by our body, speech and mind, but because of our identification with them, we seem to be the doer of action. So we cannot give up the sense of doership so long as experience ourself as this body and mind.
So it is only by investigating ourself and thereby by experiencing ourself as we actually are that we can give up the sense of doership, and doership is always accompanied by experiencership. So long as we experience ourself as the doer of actions, we will experience ourself as the experiencer of the fruits of actions. So whatever happens to us, whatever we experiencer in this lifetime is the fruits of actions that we have done in the previous lifetime.
So in order to give up the doership and experiencership, we need to investigate ourself and know what we actually are.
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:33)
We should see what Bhagavan’s words are pointing at
A friend: Why do so many speakers on non-duality speak in dualistic language?
Michael James: All language is dualistic because the language has been developed to communicate with each other. If there was no other person, there would have been no need for any language. So language is developed for the purpose of communicating. And what do we communicate about? We communicate about phenomena.
Bhagavan wrote a small verse saying questions and answers are possible only in the state of duality. In non-duality, there is no question and answers. So inevitably all language is dualistic. However, a real guru like Bhagavan is talking about that which is beyond duality, but when he is talking in words, he can only use dualistic language. So, often Bhagavan talks metaphorically.
So we shouldn’t take the surface meaning of Bhagavan’s words. We need to understand what the words are referring to, or what the words are pointing at. Bhagavan’s words are very important, but we have to see that what Bhagavan’s words are pointing to is beyond words. So we shouldn’t just be caught up in the words. We should see what they are pointing at.
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (01:41)
Sanjay,
it should be: "So whatever happens to us, whatever we experience in this lifetime is the fruits of actions ...".
How do we balance creativity with surrender?
A friend: In other teachings, I have heard that God wants to create and express his creativity. I also want to create and balance my creativity with surrender. We have a natural impulse to create things, but how to reconcile surrender and our urge to create?
Michael James: In the Bible, it is said that God created us in his image. People interpret this in many ways, but the simplest interpretation is that God is ‘I am’, and what we essentially are is also ‘I am’. So we are nothing other than God. In that sense, we are God’s image. Someone once said, ‘God created us in his image, and we have been returning his compliments ever since’. That is, we create God in our image.
Because we like to create this world, we say that God likes to create this world. But why should we put the blame of creation on God? We are the ones who have created it. I understand the context in which you say that God wants to create or experiment or whatever. People whose minds are outward-going will dream of all sorts of wealth and prosperity and all the good things of the world. So their minds are still outward-going.
In Advaita, it is said that there are two paths that a person can follow: pravritti marga and nivritti marga. Pravritti marga is the path of going outwards – that’s a worldly path. Nivritti means returning within. In other words, pravritti is creation and projection. Nivritti is subsidence of everything. We have to decide what is our aim of life – whether we want to go outwards or we want to go inwards? If we want to go inwards, to that extent we will not have big ambitions or dreams in this world.
However, the person we seem to be has a certain prarabdha. We may be a person with certain creative abilities, so as such a person we may have a prarabdha to follow some creative path. We may be an artist or an entrepreneur or whatever. But that is all outward and our outward life is determined by prarabdha. We need not be concerned about that.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (01:32)
How do we balance creativity with surrender? (part two)
Michael James: If we are following the nivritti marga, the path of going within, we have to allow the external life to go on according to prarabdha because our intention is to turn within. Generally, people whose inclination is to turn within will not be given a prarabdha that is a lot of outward-going. But that does not mean that they are completely incompatible. All sorts of prarabdha are possible. Whatever type of prarabdha is most suited to us at our present stage of spiritual development will be given to us by Bhagavan.
So we cannot change whatever is to happen. Whatever is to happen will happen. That’s talking about all the outward events of life. All external events are already predetermined. So if it is our prarabdha to be an entrepreneur, that will happen whether we want it or not. The body, speech and mind will be driven to do that. But what is not predetermined is our will. So if we want to turn inwards, we turn inwards. If we want to turn outwards, then all the vasansas come into play, and we will be doing actions not only according to prarabdha but also according to our will.
But if we are drawn to this path that Bhagavan has taught us, we will be slowly-slowly trying to turn within and thereby detach ourself from the person we seem to be and its prarabdha. So we have to decide what we want. Do we want worldly achievements which are all going to be fleeting? Even if we very successful in a material sense, whatever wealth we may earn, or whatever prestige in society we may earn, or whatever power we gain in this world, it’s all going to pass very quickly.
Human life is very short. Even if we live for a hundred years or so, it still goes pass by very quickly. So if we are wise, we will not attach importance to worldly success. We will be more interested in turning within and surrendering ourself.
If we are trying to follow Bhagavan’s path, our external life will anyway go on according to prarabdha, but we will be less concerned about material success or failure. So long as we have a body and we live in this world, in most cases, it is necessary for us to earn a living in one way or another. So we will do some sort of work, and even if have sufficient money and we don’t have to work to earn a living, still some type of activity will be going on in our life.
Let all these things go on according to prarabdha. They need not concern us. If we are wise, our only concern should be to turn within and surrender ourself. If we do so, anyway our life will go on according to prarabdha. So it will make no difference what happens outwardly.
~ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (01:32)
Sanjay,
as you quote Michael saying,
the fundamental choice we have is between pravṛtti (going outwards) and nivṛtti (withdrawing back within).
Yes, Anandi-ananta, the fundamental choice we have is between pravṛtti (going outwards) and nivṛtti (withdrawing back within). But we are 99% of the time foolishly choosing pravrtti over nivrtti. This is certainly true for me. So we should try to inculcate the habit of choosing more and more of nivrtti because Bhagavan teaches us only nivrtti – that is, turning or withdrawing back within more and more.
Ego is our enemy (part one)
A friend: Can we turn our ego from a dysfunctional ego to a functional ego?
Michael James: It is true ego is our enemy – in other words, we are our own enemy. But when we have an enemy, what is the best way to fight with our enemy? The more we fight with our enemy, the more problems we will create for ourself. The wise thing is to make friends with our enemy and to make the enemy work for us. So long as we allow ego and its attention to go outwards, it is creating problems for us, and therefore it is our enemy. But the same ego which is our enemy when it is going outwards becomes our friend when it turns back within.
The ego is not something other than ourself. We ourself are ego. When we are looking outwards, we are creating problems for ourself. When we are looking within, we are separating ourself from all those problems. The same ego, ourself, who has the potential to be our enemy, also has the potential to be our best friend. It's up to us. If we are turning within, ego is our friend, and if we are turning outwards, ego is our enemy. So we need to turn within more and more.
Regarding what you said about good egos and bad egos, functional egos and dysfunctional egos, Bhagavan has already answered that in paragraph 19 of Nan Ar?:
There are not two minds, namely a good mind and a bad mind. Mind is only one. Only vāsanās [inclinations, propensities, impulses or desires] are of two kinds, namely śubha [agreeable, virtuous or good] and aśubha [disagreeable, wicked, harmful or bad]. When mind is under the sway of śubha vāsanās it is said to be a good mind, and when it is under the sway of aśubha vāsanās a bad mind.
When we look out into the world, we see some seeming god people and some seeming bad people, but most people are a mixture of good and bad. Actually, the mind of all people is only one mind. What makes it seem good in some people and bad in some people is only the types of vasanas they seem to exhibit. We all have a mixture of good and bad vasanas, and both these terms ‘subha’ and ‘asubha’ are just relative terms.
So, a vasana which from one perspective may seem to be a good vasana, from another perspective may not be good. For example, suppose if we have a vasana to always be helping people, from one perspective, it is a good vasana, but from a spiritual perspective, even that is a bad vasana. Why? Because it is driving our attention outwards. So ultimately the only good vasana is what is sometimes called sat-vasana (the liking just to be).
(I will continue this in my next comment)
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:54)
Ego is our enemy (part two)
Michael James: We all have some good qualities and some bad qualities. It all depends upon our vasanas which are driving our minds – whether we appear to be a good person or a bad person.
So, on the spiritual path, the vasanas which we are most concerned about is what Bhagavan calls vishaya-vasanas. Vishaya-vasanas mean any liking or inclination to attend to or to be aware of or experience any vishayas. Vishayas means phenomena – anything other than ourself. So any inclination to turn our attention away from ourself is a vishaya-vasana.
The more we try to turn our attention within and surrender ourself, the weaker our vishaya-vasana will become, and this will have an effect on the type of person we currently seem to be. That is if we have very strong vishaya-vasanas - that means very strong desires and attachments, likes and dislikes - outwardly we will appear to be a very avaricious, greedy, egotistical, greedy person. It’s because selfishness is created by strong vishaya-vasanas. So the more we follow the spiritual path and reduce the strength of our vishaya-vasanas, the less we will tend to be selfish, greedy, unkind etc.
When our vishaya-vasanas are less strong, we will have more sympathy and compassion for other people. We will feel that the difference between ourself and others is less strong. It will be a less pronounced difference. So all the good qualities will come to the extent our vishaya-vasanas are reduced and our sat-vasana strengthened.
That doesn’t mean that our aim on the spiritual path is to become a good person. Our real aim is to separate ourself from the person we seem to be, by experiencing ourself as we actually are. But the more we detach ourself from the person we seem to be, the less that person will be an ego-driven person, and therefore the better that person will seem to be – that is, more virtuous etc.
We cannot do anything to change other people, but we can change ourself by turning within and surrendering ourself. The more we change internally, that means the more we give up the strength of our vishaya-vasanas, the more the person we seem to be will appear to be a good person.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:54)
Asun, you say, ‘This is where truly lies the extreme simplicity and clarity that MJ always ascribes to Ramana´s teachings, not in Ramana´s teachings’. This is not fully clear, so could you please explain more clearly? It is clear when you say, ‘This is where truly lies the extreme simplicity and clarity that MJ always ascribes to Ramana´s teachings’. But what do you mean when you add ‘not in Ramana’s teachings’?
Ego is our enemy (part three)
Michael James: It is the weakening of vishaya-vasanas which is generally called the purification of mind. The purer the mind becomes – that is the less strong its vishaya-vasanas become – the more the mind will come under the sway of subha-vasanas and cease to be under the sway of asubha-vasanas.
There are many bogus ideas going around nowadays in the name of spirituality. A collective name for all these bogus ideas is neo-advaita. One of the ideas is that there is no connection between spiritual attainment and how we behave as a person. Some people use this licence to behave in any way they want – ‘I am a spiritual person. I am enlightened, so it doesn’t matter how I behave’. This is a complete misunderstanding of what spirituality is all about. Any genuine spiritual path will be beneficial only to the extent it helps to purify the mind.
Of all types of spiritual practice, the path that is most helpful in purifying the mind is the practice of self-investigation and self-surrender taught by Bhagavan. So if we are following this path sincerely and correctly, our mind will be purified. That is our vishaya-vasanas will be gradually weakened. So even the person we seem to be will seem to be a better person than that person would otherwise have been.
So to pretend that there is no connection between spirituality and outward behaviour is a complete misinterpretation. In fact, the neo-advaitins don’t talk about the purification of mind at all. They will say, ‘Of course, you are already that – you are already brahman. All you have to do is to see that you are brahman. You don’t have to worry about the purity of mind because there is no mind. There is no ego’.
It is true there is no ego, but you don’t rid of the mind or ego by saying ‘there is no ego or mind’. In order to actually see that there is no ego or mind, we need to turn within and see what we actually are, and in order to turn within, we need to purify the mind. So long as our mind is impure – that is, so long as are under the sway of vishaya-vasanas – we will not be willing to turn within and surrender ourself.
So if you hear anyone saying that purification of mind is not necessary or that outward behaviour has no relevance to spirituality, you can be pretty sure that they are snake oil salesman. That is, they are selling false ideas – ideas that have nothing to do with genuine spirituality.
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:54)
Note: A ‘snake oil salesman’ is somebody that sells an item that claims to have some miraculous powers. This product is usually accompanied by a tremendous amount of hype. In an attempt to help push their products, the snake oil salesman will usually utilize planted accomplices who will claim that the product actually works.
Asun,
may I approach you with the same request made by Sanjay today on 20 August 2020 at 12:10 ?
Sanjay,
many thanks for your good transcription of Michael's recent (Spanish) video of 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo.
By the way, it should be :...so long as we are under the sway of vishaya-vasanas...
Sanjay,
in plural it should be: snake oil salesmen.
Thanks, Anadi-ananta.
The guru has been guiding us slowly-slowly through so many lives or dreams
We are seeking God, but because our mind is turned outwards, it is necessary for God to appear in the human form to tell us, ‘What you are seeking is within you. Turn within and know yourself and then you will know God’. Since God and guru are not different, so guru is necessary – without guru’s teachings, we wouldn’t turn our mind within. The nature of the mind is to look outwards. It is only when we come across guru’s teachings that we know that what we are seeking lies only within.
Bhagavan, for example, told us that we are all seeking happiness, but we are seeking it in the wrong places. We are seeking in the things outside ourself. We think we can get happiness from better circumstances in life. We think we are going to get happiness by having more money or a better job or a nicer house or a better car or a nicer family or whatever. We all think that happiness depends on things outside. But Bhagavan says that there is no happiness in any of the things in the world. Happiness is your real nature, so it lies only within you.
So that is the function of the guru – to turn the outward-seeking mind into an inward-seeking mind. So guru is absolutely necessary. But though guru appears in a human form, he is not that human form. Most of us were not even born when Bhagavan left his body, but that doesn’t mean that Bhagavan is not our guru. It is because his teachings are always available. And not only his teachings, but we have the story of his life. For many people, the first thing that attracted them to Bhagavan was just seeing a picture of his. So Bhagavan has been attracting us in so many ways.
So though Bhagavan’s body is not physically present now, he is still working as effectively as when he was in the body. Even before he was in a body, he was working effectively because though guru appears as a person, guru not a person. Guru is eternal. Guru is our real nature which has been guiding us slowly-slowly through so many lives or dreams. He has been guiding us in order to bring us to the stage of development that we are in now. He has now appeared in the form of Bhagavan to tell us: ‘What you are seeking lies within you. Turn within and then only will you find what you are seeking’.
So, guru is absolutely necessary, Guru must be living but not living temporarily. Sadhu Om used to say, ‘Yes, a living guru is necessary, but if what you mean by a living guru a living body, then that living guru will one day become a dead guru’. What’s the use of such a temporary guru? We want an eternally living guru, and Bhagavan is that eternally living guru.
So, if anyone feels Bhagavan is their guru, that’s 100% true.
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (00:39)
What is inside is only ourself, the pure awareness ‘I am’
When we are following this path, all sorts of anxieties and concerns arise from within. When we look outside, the world is a terrifying place. We see disease, wars, poverty, extreme greed and such things. So many things in the world have the potential to create suffering, but all these things are a problem only to the extent we attend to them. That is, if we look outside, the world is a terrifying place.
But why should we look at the world? If we look at ourself and thereby withdraw our attention from the world, what do we find within? Ultimately, we find only peace within. Some people say that the more they look within, the more the anxieties and fears and so on they feel. But so long as we feel anxieties and fears, we are not looking within.
It may seem to us that fears and anxieties are within, and they are within only in a relative sense – in the sense that the world is outside and these fears and anxieties are within. But that’s taking the standard of inside and outside as the body. The world is outside the body; the mind and all its feelings are inside the body. But that isn’t what Bhagavan meant by inside and outside. According to Bhagavan, even the mind and all its feelings are outside. What is inside is only ourself, the pure awareness ‘I am’.
So if we are looking within in the sense of looking at ourself, the pure awareness ‘I am’, we are ceasing to pay heed or attention to anything else. So to the extent, we turn within and let go of everything else, to that extent we are free from the fears and anxieties that all these things create in us.
It’s easy to say this, but when we put this into practice because we have such strong desires and attachments, it seems to be difficult. It seems to be not so easy to let go.
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:32)
Sanjay,
it should be:...though guru appears as a person, guru is not a person.
Thanks, Anadi-ananta.
Salazar, yes, we need to apply Bhagavan’s teachings throughout the day. Bhagavan’s path is not a part-time job. We need to try to turn within throughout the day and night – even whenever we happen to be awake at night. However, as you imply, we are not able to do so because of our strong desires and attachments to a variety of things.
I agree we have indeed imprisoned ourself to various kinds of belief patterns. However, the root of all our false beliefs is the belief that ‘I am this body’. This ‘I am this body’ idea is ego, and if this comes into existence, all our other false beliefs also come into existence.
Yes, when we follow Bhagavan’s path all kind of garbage does come to the surface of our mind. This is natural and desirable because if they don’t come to the surface of the mind, how can we get rid of them? So the more we try to turn within, the more our deep-rooted fears, desires, anxieties, attachments and such things will arise to the surface. However, our job is to ignore all these things by turning within more and more, by withdrawing within more and more.
All these fears, desires, anxieties, attachments will eventually leave us for us. What will remain is just pure awareness, which is free of all desires, attachments, fears. A jnani is absolutely fearless because he is absolutely desireless.
Ego is trouble, so it sees itself everywhere
A friend: I use Bhagavan’s teachings to complete myself. Though I am not practising Bhagavan’s teachings much, the teaching itself is filling up a big hole in me.
Michael James: If we had not come across Bhagavan’s teachings, our life would have certainly been emptier than it is now. We would still be looking for happiness outside. Now having read and understood Bhagavan’s teachings, we haven’t given up completely looking for happiness outside, but now we understand more clearly that happiness doesn’t lie outside. So what we are seeking doesn’t lie outside. It lies within.
So in this sense, by merely understanding Bhagavan’s teachings a big hole has been filled. But though his teachings have to a very great extent filled a hole in our life, but that hole hasn’t been filled completely because the hole is a very-very big hole. The hole that exists in our life is the seeming lack of infinite happiness and infinite satisfaction. Because our real nature is infinite happiness, so long as we seem to be not experiencing infinite happiness, there is a big-big hole in our life.
Bhagavan’s teachings can fill that hole to a large extent, but nothing can fill the hole adequately until we experience ourself as we actually are. That’s what Bhagavan’s teachings are all about. So it’s true that Bhagavan’s teachings are a great comfort and solace to us, but to get the full benefits of his teachings, we have to put them into practice. We need to turn within and thereby surrender ourself completely.
At first, we may not seem to be so successful in our attempts to turn within because we still have vishaya-vasanas. But slowly-slowly, gradually-gradually, if we persevere in trying to turn our attention within as much as possible, our vishaya-vasanas will thereby be weakened, and we will be able to turn within more and more.
(To be continued in my next comment)
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (01:18)
Ego is trouble, so it sees itself everywhere (part two)
Michael James: So nothing wrong in feeling that your life is somehow filled with Bhagavan’s teachings, but it is important to recognise that even Bhagavan’s teachings as just teachings cannot fill our life completely. The only way to fill our life completely is to put them into practice. We have to put them into practice for as long it takes for us to experience ourself as we actually are.
When we experience ourself as we actually are, then we will find that there never was any hole in our life to be filled. But until then, there will always seem to be a big hole in our life.
The friend: Ego finds trouble and struggle everywhere.
Michael James: Ego is trouble, so it sees itself everywhere. Bhagavan says if ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence. If ego doesn’t exist, everything doesn’t exist. Ego itself is everything.
So, all problems and struggles are only for ego because ego is the root of all problems. So long as ego survives, problems will never come to an end. But in sleep, there is no ego and no problems. So, all that we need to do is to make that state of sleep a permanent state.
We can make it permanent by finding out what we actually are, and when we find out what we actually are, sleep will no longer seem to be a temporary state of darkness. It will shine as our eternal state of pure awareness and infinite happiness because that is what we actually really are.
+ Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (01:18)
Sanjay,
thanks again for your untiring work of writing perfect transcriptions of MJ-videos.
:) I agree to what you said. But I also think evilness/corrupted people is another avenue set forth by Bhagavan to bring the balance in the world and within us.
Anxiety, distress and discomfort (part one)
The friend: Several people are taking seriously the fact that they want to spend more time in self-care [i.e. self-attentiveness] but share with us some cases that a lot of anxiety emerges and they end up feeling distress and discomfort. Could you develop as deeply as possible how those people who start with self-inquiry and try to remain self-aware in these types of situations should approach their practice?
Michael James: When we are turning within, we come up against all sorts of obstacles. The obstacles may be in the form of anxiety or in the feeling of distress or feeling of discomfort or any such feelings, but whatever comes up, this is because we still strongly identify ourself as a person. Because of the strong identification of ourself as a person, we feel anxiety about the person, and when we are trying to separate ourself from this person, that may create the feelings of distress and discomfort.
All such feelings are the manifestations of the strength of our vasanas. Vasanas mean all our likes, dislikes, desires, and so on in their seed form. So long as our vasanas are still strong, we will not be willing to surrender ourself. So all our feelings of anxiety, distress and discomfort ultimately are due to lack of willingness to surrender ourself. If we are willing to surrender ourself completely, we would not be anxious about anything. We will no longer feel distressed because we will no longer be concerned about the person who we seem to be.
In order to go deep within, we have to slowly weaken all our vishaya-vasanas. Vishaya-vasanas are all the outward-going inclinations of the mind. So the spiritual practice is an internal battle – a battle between our love to surrender ourself and all our other desires and attachments which make us unwilling to surrender ourself. This is the battle we all have to fight.
But Bhagavan has taught us a means to deal with these vasanas which is very gentle. That is, slowly-slowly we have to try to wean our mind off its desires and attachments and cultivate the liking to be self-attentive. We can only do so by persistent practice. We may not see immediate results. In fact, after following this path for many years it may seem to us that we have made no progress at all. We seem to be the same we were 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.
But Bhagavan said persistence itself is progress. The very fact that we are persevering means we are making progress. Just like a child cannot perceive its own growth, we cannot perceive our spiritual growth or spiritual development. In the case of a growing child, though they cannot perceive their own growth, after 10 years they can perceive that they are much bigger than they were 10 years earlier.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:00 to 29:00)
Salazar, Jai guru!
Yes, Anadi-ananta, Bhagavan has given me this very pleasant task of writing the transcriptions of Michael’s videos. It’s a task which I never tire of doing.
Anxiety, distress and discomfort (part two)
Michael James: But Bhagavan said persistence itself is progress. The very fact that we are persevering means we are making progress. Just like a child cannot perceive its own growth, we cannot perceive our spiritual growth or spiritual development. In the case of a growing child, though they cannot perceive their own growth, after 10 years they can perceive that they are much bigger than they were 10 years earlier. Not only their body has developed, but their mind has also acquired so much of knowledge and understanding of the world.
But in the spiritual path, we cannot even compare this way. So we need not try to ascertain how much we have progressed. We are on a journey. We have understood from Bhagavan what our destination is. Our destination is the eradication of ego, and the means to do so is self-investigation and self-surrender.
So long as we are following this path we know that we are on the right direction and sooner or later we will reach our goal - today or tomorrow or 10 years’ time or after 10 lifetimes. It doesn’t matter. All that matters is that we follow this path to the best of our ability. So long as we are following this path, we are progressing. We are getting closer to our goal. So we need not be anxious about anything. That is, once we have started on the path we cannot turn back. We may sometimes seem to neglect the practice, but we cannot give it up entirely.
Things will happen in this life that will drive us back to this path again and again because this is the only means we have to deal with all our problems of life. We have no control over what is going to happen in our life. That’s all destined by prarabdha. But we have control over how we view what happens and how we respond to what happens. Whatever is happening is according to prarabdha, and prarabdha is the sweet will of Bhagavan. He has selected our prarabdha is such a way that will be conducive to our spiritual development.
So whatever is happening is happening for our own good according to Bhagavan’s will. So why should we be concerned about what does happen and what does not happen? The path we are following is not only the path of self-investigation but also the path of surrender. Surrender means letting go. So part of the letting go is the letting go of our anxiety and all those feelings that lead to anxiety, distress and discomfort.
How do we let go of all these things? These things are external to ourself. Even our likes, dislikes, attachments, fear and so on, they are all things other than ourself. None of them is permanent. What is permanent is only ourself. So if we recognise the impermanence of these things, whatever reality they seem to have is the reality we give them by attending to them. Impermanence means they are something other than ourself, and they have no reality of their own.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:00 to 29:00)
Sanjay,
"So long as ego survives, problems will never come to an end. But in sleep, there is no ego and no problems. So, all that we need to do is to make that state of sleep a permanent state.
We can make it permanent by finding out what we actually are, and when we find out what we actually are, sleep will no longer seem to be a temporary state of darkness. It will shine as our eternal state of pure awareness and infinite happiness because that is what we actually really are."
Making that state of sleep a permanent state...
Finding out what we actually are...yes,yes, good ideas.
However, in our all experience waking easily triumphs over perpetuating the state of sleep. So there is no other choice than keen and persistent self-investigation although delaying actions and passive resistance of the mind seem not leave off being at work. At least there's the hope that our practice of self-investigation will ultimately emerge victorious.:-)
Salazar,
America is indeed not to be envied having only the choice between plague and cholera.
Nevertheless, I can comfort you - other continents are not a bit better.:-)
Sanjay,
it should be:...He has selected our prarabdha in such a way that will be conducive to our spiritual development.
Anadi-ananta, thanks for your tireless proofreading.
Sanjay,
if you don't raise an objection to making occasional corrections I will continue it. Usually I find that easy.:-)
Anadi-ananta, from my side, you can continue to correct my typos. I find it helpful. I hope Michael James is comfortable with such typo corrections. If he has some views on it, I am not aware of it.
Anadi-ananta, our real nature is eternally sleeping even now - that is, it is sleeping to this phenomenal world. It is not aware of any objects.
Ego is helpless as long as it is turning away from itself
The following is an extract of my Whatsapp exchange with Michael James:
Sanjay Lohia: There are no others to be helped. But there is one entity to be helped, and that is ourself. Ourself means ego, and how can ego help itself? By turning within to face itself alone. Ego is helpless as long as it is turning away from itself.
Michael James: Yes
Reflection: How is ego helpless as long as it is turning away from itself? It is because ego has to experience whatever it is destined to experience as long as it is facing away from itself. So ego is helpless to bring about any change in whatever it is to experience. But ego can help itself by turning within and subsiding within.
Sanjay,
as you write our real nature is eternally sleeping even now - that is, it is sleeping to this phenomenal world. It is not aware of any objects.
However, this teaching alone is of little consolation to the unreal person with which I am still identified most of waking and dream.
As far as I know typo-corrections of comments till now did not incur Michael's displeasure. But always he approved pointing out occasional typos in articles which he corrected at his earliest convenience.
Anxiety, distress and discomfort (part three)
Michael James: When we turn our attention within, we are turning our back, so to speak, on anything other than ourself. When we turn within, we are turning towards ourself alone, and therefore we are turning away from everything else. So by turning away from our likes, dislikes, desires, attachments and all the feelings of anxieties, discomfort that arise as a result of our likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, we are thereby surrendering or letting go of all these things.
That is, when we attend to ourself, we are clinging to what is real and letting go of everything that is unreal. Everything other than ourself is unreal. Likes, dislikes, desires, attachments, fears, discomfort, all these things appear and disappear. To whom do they appear? Only to ourself. So we remain there whether they appear or disappear. So none of these things is ourself – none of them is real.
So as we follow the path of self-investigation, all other things progressively drop off. That is, they are still there, but they have less impact on us. We may still have desires, attachments, likes, dislikes, fears and so on, but these things are less strong than they were in the past. This way we gain vairagya – freedom from desire or passion. So we will be less concerned about things other than ourself. So this is a gentle path. We cannot force the pace. All that is required is gentle perseverance.
So whatever anxiety, distress or discomfort may arise, it will all pass. None of these things is permanent. So nothing really matters. The things that we are anxious about today, we will forget about them tomorrow. Even if feelings of anxieties and distress arise in us, we shouldn’t be concerned. These are all signs of the residual strength of our vasanas, but we shouldn’t be distressed that the vasanas still retain strength. No matter how much strength they still have, they will be progressively weakened as we follow this path of self-investigation and self-surrender.
If we understand what Bhagavan has taught us and if we put it into practice, we will find that the path that Bhagavan has taught us is the path of happiness. That is, our ultimate goal is to be perfectly happy because happiness is our real nature. That is what we all want. Bhagavan often used to say that the nature of the path cannot be other the nature of the goal. If the nature of the path were other than the nature of the goal, it couldn’t lead us to the goal.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:00 to 29:00)
Anxiety, distress and discomfort (part four)
Michael James: Since happiness is our goal, happiness also is the means to that goal. How to be happy? We are happy to the extent we let go of everything. Whatever we are attached to has the potential to create problems for us, to cause unhappiness. To the extent we let go of things, to that extent they can no longer impeach on our happiness.
In Tamil, there is an ancient work called Tirukkural. It has two-two verses about how to live a good life. How to live a life of dharma? How to experience worldly pleasures and material wealth in accordance with dharma? Though superficially it about how to live in the world, it has got many spiritual truths hidden here and there. That is Tirukkural is a work of wisdom. One of its verses that Bhagavan often used to point out is:
From whatever thing you separate yourself or remove yourself, you are free of the suffering caused by that thing.
So this is the path of surrender. We are slowly-slowly letting go of our attachments to things. We are ceasing to be concerned about things because whatever we are concerned about is not real. The only thing that is real is ourself. So we are training ourself to be unconcerned about all other things. So to the extent to which we let go of things, to that extent we are free of the troubles that those things would otherwise cause us. So that verse of Tirukkural has a very simple idea, but it’s an idea that is extremely relevant to the spiritual path.
So even if we get feelings of anxieties or distress, we shouldn’t feel anxious or distressed about these feelings. We should learn to let go of these feelings. The more we detach ourself from them, the more we are free of the trouble they would otherwise bring us.
-•- Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2020-08-16 Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses how to deal with anxiety and distress (00:00 to 29:00)
Sanjay,
with 'two-two verses' you mean obviously the couplets of that Tamil text.
Sanjay,
your comment of 22 August 2020 at 17:21,
it should be:"...the nature of the path cannot be other than the nature of the goal."
Anadi-ananta, thanks. Yes, two-two lines mean couplets.
Bhagavan’s teachings & sattvik mind
Michael James: Reading, thinking and discussing Bhagavan's teachings is conducive to a sattvik state of mind. Happiness comes from a sattvik state of mind. Rajas and tamas make us hanker after other things, and therefore make the mind restless.
My reflection: Michael said the above in one of his videos. What does ‘conducive to a sattvik state of mind’ mean in this context? Since Bhagavan’s teachings are all focussing on ‘I’, the more we dwell on his teachings, the more the mind will automatically return to ‘I’. Since ‘I’ in its purity is pure sattva, the more we dwell on Bhagavan’s teachings, the more our mind will become sattvik.
Sattva means 'beingness' or 'isness', explained Michael. Since our being is peace and calmness itself, the more we read, reflect and discuss Bhagavan’s teachings, the more peaceful and calm we will become. As Michael says in this quote, ‘Happiness comes from a sattvik state of mind’ So we want to be happy, we should either remain turned within or remain dwelling of Bhagavan and his teachings in one or another.
Pearls before the swine (part one)
A friend: Michael, your explanations are simply wonderful, but you are throwing the pearls before the swine. We are no better than a swine, so how do we internalise all this wisdom?
Michael James: I plead innocence. You are blaming me for throwing the pearls before the swine, but it’s not me who am going so. Bhagavan threw the pearls before all of us swines.
The friend: Why did he do that? Evolution has a history, but now I have to go beyond evolutionary history.
Michael James: Your evolutionary history is the evolutionary history of the body, but are you this body?
The friend: Yes.
Michael James: You are the body! Are you satisfied living a life according to your evolutionary history? Are you satisfied being born, growing up, getting married, having children, getting old, dying? This happens to all of us. It happens again and again and again, but are we satisfied with this?
The friend: I mean the birds and bees are satisfied.
Michael James: No, they have their desires and fears. Show me a single embodied creature that is satisfied or content. So long as we take a body to be ‘I’, we have to struggle for the survival of this body. We have to clothe the body, give it shelter and feed it - so many problems.
Embodied life is imperfect, and we all know that. But in spite of knowing that, we keep wallowing in this. So you say throwing pearls before the swine. It is better to throw pearls before swines that it is to throw pearls before human beings. According to Bhagavan, human beings are worse than swines.
(I will continue this in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2017-09-16 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 8 (01:06)
Pearls before the swine (part two)
Michael James: In one verse, Bhagavan says that those who take the body to be ‘I’ are worse than pigs. It is because this body eats pure food and converts it into filth. The pigs eat filth, but at least they are not guilty of turning pure food into filth.
So Bhagavan says we are worse than pigs. However, Bhagavan has thrown pearls before us, but he has done so for a purpose. He knows he has planted a seed now. Like it or not, we are caught in the jaws of the tiger. So we cannot escape now. We may try to struggle, but we will never succeed.
The friend: That’s good to know.
Michael James: So, we may as well give up sooner rather than later. But we are not ready to give up, are we? That’s the problem. So who is not ready to give up? We need to investigate that. Who is not ready to give up?
• Edited and paraphrased extract from the video: 2017-09-16 Sri Ramana Center, Houston: discussion with Michael James on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 8 (01:06)
Yes, "embodied life is imperfect". I remember questioning life in school where I pointed out that life is at least 50% misery. I also remember the shocked reaction of the teacher and some students who immediately exclaimed how great and enjoyable life is and kind of implied that those who are questioning that are 'too negative'.
There was this silent agreement that happiness is a given (in embodied life) and if that is not the case then something is wrong with that person. I intuitively knew that this was wrong and that was one of many incidences where I realized how society is clinging at delusional beliefs.
Bhagavan was already then leading the way, unbeknownst to me.
Sanjay,
"According to Bhagavan, human beings are worse than swines."
Shall we therefore set our sights on being born again as a swine ? :-)
Is it not said that gaining a human body is extremely favourable and beneficial ?
Anadi-ananta, yes, the only use we can make of this human birth is to turn within and experience ourself as we actually are. Otherwise, this human birth will go wasted. We are worse than a swine, says Bhagavan, but I am sure we are in a better position to turn within because we humans are in a better position to understand Bhagavan’s and other spiritual teachings than a swine. At least, so it seems.
Sanjay,
however, a pig usually does not suffer from arrogance and self-important mind. :-)
A swine may not suffer from arrogance however it seems it needs to incarnate as a human being where it has ample time being arrogant. Thus a swine makes experiences as a swine, presumably the main interest is to feed and procreate. The experiences of arrogance, greed, vanity and deceit are reserved for the countless human incarnations after all of the animal experiences :-)
Salazar,
indeed there seem to be no better suitable fields of applications for practising all the mentioned human characteristics than an incarnation as a human being.:-)
Sadhu Om’s classification of five standards of bhakti
Sri Sadhu Om in his book ‘The Path of Ramana – Part Two’ describes our progression in bhakti in terms of the five standards of bhakti. The following is my summary of what he says there:
The school of bhakti has five standards, but only one teacher. We can take the whole of Vedas and Vedanta as one teacher.
Before talking about this school of bhakti, we should know that there are still crores and crores of people happily wandering out of the school of bhakti. They have not even enrolled in the first standard of this school. That is, these people lead a highly undisciplined life. They don’t believe in ethics or values and live a life outside all rules and regulation - whether religious or whatever.
1st Standard of bhakti: When people enrol in the 1st standard, they start believing in the Karma-Kanda of the Vedas. Karma-Kanda is that part of Vedas which relates to ceremonial acts and sacrificial rites and the merit arising from the performance of such rituals. they accept and live according to the instructions in this portion of the Vedas. However, their aim is only to enjoy the worldly objects (vishaya-bhakti). One may spend many births in the first standard before they become dejected with karmas.
2nd Standard of bhakti: Those people are admitted in the 2nd standard who realise karmas cannot yield fruits of their own accord. Karmas are insentient. They yield fruit only according to the ordainment of God. These people are attracted to many different names and forms of God who have great divine powers of bestowing upon the worshipper the many different fruits (results) through the worship of different forms of Gods.
So they will worship a variety of Gods. They may, for example, worship Ganapati to remove obstacles. They may worship Saraswati to bestow learning. They may worship Lakshmi to acquire wealth. But their love and bhakti are only towards the desired objects. So in the 2nd standard instead of various karmas, various Gods become the means to fulfil their dreams or ambitions.
3rd Standard: The worship of one favourite or beloved God is performed in the 3rd standard. 3rd standard is divided into two sections: 3a and 3b. Those in 3a worship God with love for worldly-objects only. So they merely have vishaya-bhakti.
However, those in 3b worship God for the love of God only. In 3b, discrimination dawns on people. They feel ‘Which is greater, gifts or the giver of gifts?’. If God is so gracious as to grant us so many of our wishes, should we not worship God instead of the boons he seems to give us?
4th Standard: His love towards his beloved God ripens into the love for the guru. So a person in the 4th standard has nishkamya guru-bhakti. This is the climax of all dualistic love. No other form of love excels this.
Guru Brahma; guru Vishnu; guru is Maheshwara. Verily guru is supreme brahman. To him my obeisance.
5th Standard: Love for guru matures into love for oneself (svatma-bhakti).
We pass out of school when we become atma-jnani.
In his recent video (of 2020-08-23a Yo Soy Tu Mismo)regarding agamya-karma Michael said amongst other things (up from time-mark 25:27):
"...to the extent that we are practising this path of self-investigation and self-surrender we are curbing our vasanas and are refraining from allowing ourselves to be carried away by our vasanas at least to some extent.
Our vasanas are always dragging our mind here and there, but we're slowly trying to not yield to the inclinations we have because vasanas are just inclinations. Vasanas cannot make us do any action, vasanas urge us to act in certain ways but they can never force us (to do any thing). So it is up to us because we...can either follow our inclinations or we can refrain from following our inclinations. So to the extent we refrain from following our inclinations to that extent we will reduce the amount of agamya we do, but more importantly we'll be thereby purifying our mind. Because to the extent we refrain from allowing ourselves to be carried away by our vasanas we are thereby weakening our outward going vasanas and strengthening the inward going vasanas (sat-vasanas).
We can never completely stop doing our agamy so long we rise as ego. As ego we have a will, likes and dislikes and so on. We may be able to reduce the strength of our likes and dislikes, but so long as we rise as ego we will always have likes, dislikes, desires, attachments and so on to a greater or lesser extent. So by practising self-investigation and self-surrender we are reducing the strength of our vasanas. But eventually we can get rid of our vasanas completely only by destroying their root which is ourself as ego. So only when we cease to rise as ego can we completely avoid doing agamya. [...] as long as we take god to be other than ourselves we cannot completely get rid of these outward going vasanas.
Purification of mind will be complete only when we eradicate/annihilate ego. The only means to annihilate ego is self-investigation... which is both the most effective means to reduce the strength of visaya vasanas and the only means to eradicate their root: ego".
Though ego is not actually what we actually are, it is not something other than what we actually are (part one)
Michael James: Though ego is not what we actually are, it is not something other than what we actually are. If we mistake a rope to be a snake, the snake is nothing other than a rope, but it is not what the rope actually is. If we want to get rid of that snake, how to get rid of it? If we take a stick and start beating it, it is not going to die. The only way to kill the snake is to look at it very very carefully. When we look at it carefully enough, what do we see? We see ‘O it’s just a rope’. So the snake is effectively killed.
Likewise, if we turn our attention within keenly enough, we will see that we are not this ego that we seem to be. We are just pure awareness. As soon we see ourself keenly enough, ego is destroyed and then it’s identification with the person it seems to be will come to an end. So self-investigation means trying to turn our attention back towards ourself. To the extent we turn our attention towards ourself, we are withdrawing it from all other things. Eventually, when we manage to turn our attention fully within ourself, we will experience ourself as pure awareness.
The moment we experience ourself as pure awareness, ego is destroyed, and we have achieved what we have set out to achieve. However, it’s not actually an achievement because we have not set out to gain anything on the spiritual path. What we are seeking is what we actually are. So whether we call it enlightenment or realisation or jnana or whatever, it is not something which we are going to newly acquire.
So, all that is required is to give up our false identification. On the spiritual path, we are going to lose everything. What remains alone is real. So what is called self-realisation is simply the annihilation of ego. So this person or ego is never going to get self-realised. It is a state in which we remain as we actually are.
But when we try to turn our attention back towards ourself, we at once find that there is internal resistance. That is, nothing external to ourself can stop us from attending to ourself, but we ourself are not willing to attend to ourself or not willing to attend to ourself keenly enough. It is because we still have strong likes and dislikes. We are still attached to the person we seem to be. We are attached to the whole life of this person – our friends, our family, our whole identity. We are so attached to that, so we are not yet willing to let go.
(to be continued in my next comment)
• Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (00:09)
Salazar,
I will watch the mentioned video-passage again and use the "Subtitles" too.
Then I will reply to you.
Salazar,
it seems that I have transcribed mainly correctly what Michael said in that video-extract. I think Michael wanted to emphasize that in doing something of our own volition we in any case can or at least should use our (free) will. Therefore, if Michael would find time he could explain his statement "Vasanas cannot make us do any action" in more detail.
Perhaps Sanjay could give us too his opinion about that subject.
As per my understanding vasanas manifests as thoughts which in turn manifests into action. Our deep rooted desires - we may not be aware, but it automatically translates into action. I have observed in myself, when my state of mind changes, automatically my outlook towards world changes, thoughts disappear and then it automatically impacts action. Michael’s view on this is interesting.
Asun,
with the words "So it is up to us..." I think Michael clearly wanted to express that it is not the inclination (vasana) itself but our voluntary decision to follow this inclination what makes us following our vasana i.e. allowing ourselves to be carried away by our vasana(s). Despite of being urged by a vasana to act in a certain way we can and should use our free will to refrain from carrying out that action (towards which we may have a big desire or inclination) by our instruments of body, speech and mind.
So this perception is implying that ‘I’ as ego is powerful enough to be able to refrain from carrying out the action. Everything is predetermined. Instead of focusing our attention on ‘refraining’, which is again an egotistical activity, one should just ‘be’ and not swayed by the thought ‘I should do something to refrain from acting certain way’. Even the effort taken to refrain from doing anything is an action by itself.
Anadi-ananta, yes, as Michael says, ‘Vasanas cannot make us do any action’. What is a vasana? It is our urge or inclination to act using our body, speech or mind. So we can act upon our vasanas or refrain from acting on them. The choice is ours. To what extent we succumb to our vasanas and to what extent we avoid succumbing to them depends upon us. So vasanas cannot compel us to act if we do not want to act on our vasanas.
Regarding the example of heroin addict given by Salazar, yes, addiction to such recreational drugs may exist in someone as a vasana, but they can give up that vasanas if they want to and try to. What do de-addiction centres do? They try to wean the drug addicts off their addiction to drugs or alcohol or whatever. So these centres or clinics work on their vasanas for heroin or whatever and they succeed in weaning the addicts off their vasanas in many cases.
So, yes, we are responsible if we get swayed by our vasanas. Ego is like the owner of these vasanas, and these vasanas are like this owner’s servants. These servants cannot act if the owner does not permit them to act. So we should keep our servants – these vasanas – in strict control. We should try and curb them as and when they rise as thoughts.
The best way to curb and eventually destroy our vasanas is by trying to turn our attention within to face ourself alone. The more we turn within, the more these vasanas are weakened and eventually they die. For example, I have realised that my sexual-vasana has become very weak nowadays. So our practice of self-investigation is the most powerful way to keep our vasanas in check.
However, even when we are turned away from ourself we can try to curb our vasanas by trying to not act on them. We may succeed at times or fail at times, or we may partially succeed at times. So in the spiritual path, whether we know it or not, our fight is against our vishaya-vasanas. People think thoughts are a problem. It could be a problem from one context, but our main fight is with our vishaya-vasanas, which is our urge or inclination to be aware of things other than ourself. Vishaya-vasanas is our urge to attend to vishayas (various objects).
Bhagavan says in Nan Ar? that we should try the stone of vairagya upon our waist and try to sink within. So our vasanas will also be driving us to attend to things other than ourself. Our task is to ignore these outward going inclinations by trying to turn within. However, all our vasanas will only be destroyed when ego is destroyed. The very nature of ego is to have vasanas, so without its vasanas it cannot exist or endure. Ego is the root of all vasanas, so we need to cut this root in order to remove all its leaves and branches, namely the vasanas.
The only vasanas we need to cultivate is sat-vasana – the liking just to be. We should try to give up all our other vasanas. Even subha vasanas (good or auspicious tendencies) are in ultimate analysis asubha (bad or inauspicious) because even our tendencies to do good is taking us away from ourself. So, in the true spiritual path, we should try to give up all our vasansas – whether they are subha or asubha.
Sanjay, thank you for your expert comment.
However, I do not think that "even our tendencies to do good is taking us away from ourself."
Too bad we do not have somebody around like Bhagavan who could talk with authority in that matter. In lieu of a competent teacher (meaning being self-realized) we have to resort to our own biases and assumptions.
Of course we still have the remedy and that is atma-vichara. Any notions beyond that are biases and prejudices due to anybodies past life beliefs and habits. Nobody on this blog including Michael is free from biases, that's why this blog has a limited use and eventually people will just leave. And they must if they truly want to be free ....
Asun and Salazar,
is it really necessary that there are such sharp divisions between you both ?
Anadi-ananda, most of the things I write here pretending that these are my ideas is actually a mere reproduction of whatever I have heard and understood Michael say.
Michael said in one of his videos: ‘even our tendencies to do good is taking us away from ourself’. You do not think this is the case. However, this is clearly the case if we understand Bhagavan’s teachings correctly and clearly. In order to do even something good, we need to first rise as ego and then engage in good or agreeable activities. In order to do something good, we have to attend to things other than ourself. We have to take our power of attention and focus it on good activities.
So our subha vasanas are ultimately not that good because even they keep us bound to activities, and any action is bondage. All our actions keep us bound to ego. They create more and more vasanas to do such good actions again and again. So eventually we need to shun even our good actions in order to turn within. Michael implies all these things in his video: 2020-08-23a Yo Soy Tu Mismo: Michael James discusses what happens to us after death. At 06:00, he says the following:
As Bhagavan says in the 19th paragraph of Nan Ar, there are not different kinds of mind. What are different is the types of vasanas. Some vasanas are what he refers to as the subha vasanas and some vasanas he refers to as the asubha vasanas. Subha vasanas means the vasanas which are good or agreeable, and asubha vasanas means the vasanas that are bad, disagreeable, wicked or harmful.
He says in the next sentence, if the mind is under the sway of subha vasanas, we call it a good mind, and if the mind is under the sway of asubha vasanas, we call it a bad mind. So the differences we see in people, are the differences in the quality of their vasanas, whether they are subha or asubha. Subha and asubha are relative terms. What may seem good from one perspective, may seem bad from another perspective.
So if we are spiritual aspirants, we are trying to turn our mind within and surrender. So from our perspective, vasanas that draws our mind outwards is asubha vasanas. So we can say that for us, there is a very high standard of what is subha and asubha. Ultimately, the only good vasana is the sat-vasana – the vasana that draws our mind outwards.
(The end of the extract)
So do you still feel that even the tendency to do good is not taking us away from ourself?
Sanjay,
it depends with which inner attitude one does a so-called good deed:
if done in selflessness I cannot see any harm. Sometimes one has to help immediately so that you cannot even think of subha quality of vasanas.
For instance if you have to save somebody from drowning what's there to think about ? You will suddenly jump in the water (river, sea or even ocean) without hesitating for a long time.
Not if you can’t swim or are afraid to get pulled down by the drowner. Frankly we cannot know how we would react nor how someone else would react. This is way too much of empty speculation.
It is only one example for a good selfless deed. Of course, a non-swimmer is excepted.:-)
When we try to develop and maintain perfect love for Lord Arunachala we must have a free heart of pure love rich in total surrender and true devotion. Therefore we have to give up our ego-centred little personality, multiple attachments and painful mental agonies.
Though ego is not actually what we actually are, it is not something other than what we actually are (part two)
Michael James: It seems a struggle to turn our attention back towards ourself. The very nature of ego is to attend to things other than itself because we cannot exist as ego without attending to forms. That is, the ego cannot exist without attending to forms, objects other than itself. So when we are trying to turn our attention within, we are so to speak trying to turn against the current of ego or mind. The natural flow of ego or mind is to go outwards – towards things other than itself. We are now trying to turn it back within.
So because of our lack of willingness to surrender ourself completely, we find it to be a struggle. This is natural. That is why Bhagavan said that the only way to succeed in this path is patient perseverance. So how easy or difficult the path seems to depend on the extent of love we have to know ourself. We will be willing to know ourself to the extent we are willing to let go everything else.
We cannot know ourself as we actually are and be interested in other things. It’s one or the other. We cannot know ourself as we actually are - which is pure awareness - and be aware of other things. So we have to make a choice, and at every moment we are faced with a choice – either we attend to other things or we attend to ourself.
So if we are serious about following this path, we should be trying to turn our attention back towards ourself as much as possible, even though we will find that we are up against a lot of internal resistance. That internal resistance is our lack of willingness, the strength of our likes and dislikes. That’s what makes it seem difficult.
We can try to explain this through an analogy. If you got a big balloon and if you try to push it under the water, you try to push it, it will pop up this way or that way. It will always be resisting. As long as it is pumped full of air, it is not possible to push it very far under the water. You can push it a little by little but not very far. As the air starts leaking out – as there is less pressure inside – the easier it will be to push it inside.
Likewise, the air that fills our mind is our desires and attachments. So in order for the mind to sink within, its desires and attachments should start to leak out so to speak. To the extent our desires are weakened, to the extent we are able to go deeper within.
(To be continued in my next comment)
+ Edited and paraphrased extract of the video: 2020-08-02 San Diego Ramana Satsang: Michael James discusses the practice of self-enquiry (00:09)
Sanjay,
the given balloon analogy is a very apt description of the internal resistance put up by ego/mind against turning our attention back towards ourself.:-)
An humble request from Michael James
The following are the last two paragraphs of Michael’s latest article: Praising or disparaging others is ananta-vichara. Many of our friends may not read this long article until the end. So I thought I would reproduce it here as a comment. It has a humble request from Michael:
If a new batch of trolls were to begin commenting as the previous batch did two years ago, it may be necessary for me to begin comment moderation again, but I glanced through the names of those of wrote comments on my previous article and it seems that most of those comments were written by people who have been commenting here for a long time, so most of the inappropriate comments were not written by new trolls but by certain friends reverting to old patterns of behaviour. Therefore rather than me spending undue time reading all the comments and censoring them wherever necessary, it would be more appropriate if all of you who comment here were to self-censor your own comments, making sure that none of them are in any way inappropriate.
Disparaging other people or writing derogatory comments about them is not our வந்த வேலை (vanda vēlai), the work for which we have come, so let us all desist from such petty behaviour, paying due heed to the admonishing advice given to us all by Bhagavan: ‘நீ வந்த வேலையைப் பார்’ (nī vanda vēlaiyai-p pār), ‘Attend to the work for which you have come’.
Sanjay, the correct title of Michael's recent article is
"Praising or disparaging others is anātma-vicāra" - (not ananta-vic...).:-)
Post a Comment