text:
The Open Thread that has been running since June seems to be malfunctioning today. I can't access it myself, and a reader has emailed me to say that the problem is not mine alone. I am starting a new 'Open Thread' here in the hope that the problem is localised to the June 'Open Thread'.
Apologies to everyone for not adding anything new recently. I am working on several projects and hope to post something soon.
Posted by David Godman at 12:08 PM
Murali said...
I came across the following in Maharshi's Gospel
"If you would deny the ego and scorch it by ignoring it, you would be free. If you accept it, it will impose limitations on you and throw you into a vain struggle to transcend them."
Scorching it by denying it - This has loads of suggestions for me. It was a re-inforcement of what we have discussed in this forum many times. If I am in worries, pressures, uncertainities etc., etc., Bhagavan tells that the way to get rid of them is to ignore them. If we entertain the thought of "doing something about them", they simply flourish.
Regards Murali
Two months ago, a friend of mine who was a practicing yogi for almost a decade, got
a powerful experience and stumbled into Advaita vedanta land. He was recommended
to talk to Ed Muzika, disciple of Robert Adams to solve his doubts. An intense discussion
on practice of meditation followed between the master and disciple. It is now available on
Ed Muzika's site. I would request everyone here to read the document which goes into
advanced practice of atma vichara.
This is the link -
http://itisnotreal.com/Self-Knowledge%20&%20Liberation-Dialogues.pdf
s. said...
salutations to all:
beautiful words, murali... yet, how to ignore, when an 'ego' is required to scorch the ego or deny the ego :-) the 'thing' that wants to effortlessly make the effort of getting rid of the 'ego' is perhaps the ego itself! isn't it?... vichara, i suppose, is the wonder to solve the conundrum... and who does the enquiry? obviously not the 'self' which doesn't need it... so, why does the ego resort to vichara when it is self-destructive?... why does a point come in our life when there is some sort-of a need to attempt self-enquiry?... some may say grace, yet others may say prarabdha etc etc... and this is just one more attempt of the same ego to satiate its need of a justification because when we have a reason for something, we somehow feel good about it, and as long as there is a reason, anything is ok... the simplest answer, at least as it seems to me, is - i don't know :-) again, don't know why but something makes me feel & say, when we have the opportunity, let's do vichara and get done with it :-)
In response to s., that all makes sense from the standpoint of taking the ego to be an existing thing that has relations with other things, subject to logic. In my experience I don't know where the practice comes from, grace??? Why do I feel this urge to be egoless? I realize that I would be happier without all the drama, with being attached to things I know are going to perish. So then I start seeking within for the thing that is imperishable. Disregarding all the perishable. So it doesn't seem to me anyway that the practice is the ego trying to destroy itself, it has to do with the awareness of the Self, the search for happiness starting to be turned within. What the ego is, I have no idea? To think of it is something trying to kill itself seems too imaginary. The real thing seems to be the existence not the ego. the ego is like a collection of suffering states, that mask the Bliss of the natrual state of Being. So it's more maybe, I would guess the real Existence realizing that the thoughts and the person the thoughts take to be me egotistically are imaginary and veil happiness, like a tumor or something, but I realize it to be unreal. It's a bunch of fervent associations with the temporary. What is it that is realizing happiness within? Could those associations realize it? I don't think so. It's myself realizing there is only myself, the Self, not the thoughts.
I had a dream where I was talking to Annamalai Swami in the basement of my dad's house, by the side of the house Annamalai Swami and David Godman were chatting with eachother both deeply immersed in a deeper state. I take those kind of dreams to always be a good thing, it's the Self, and the inquiry stuff infiltrating into my dream-state as well.
Robert Adams 4 principles I find intensely helpful.
1) The conviction that everything, EVERYTHING (he said to stress it twice) is a projection of my own mind.
2) I am unborn
3) All beings are egoless, there are no egos at all.
4) None of these rules exist.
Particularly 3 and 1 resonated with me really strongly as immensely helpful. For instance most of my obsessive ego thinking is about others. (I'm not alone in this-laugh) And in a way when I call attention to the egolessness of others, taht no beings have an ego. Then there are no individuals to consider. SO much thinking is eliminated right there. And experientially it's true, others are just things that appear, they are like moving wood, marionettes as my body is, they talk to eachother, and stuff, like a play.
This seems to be useful for those that i perceive as stupid, great, people I'm infatuated with and worried what they think about me, or respect and worry similarly. They don't exist, I project that there is a person functioning there. There are no people, neither me, nor anyone else. What a wonderous thing to contemplate. And then suddenly I'm abiding in what Robert adams called the natural state of "happiness", which is our nature, those relationships flourish without me being involved in it, the me that doesn't exist. There are no me and others. THe relationships are between marionettes moved by prarabdha karma. It has nothing to do with anybody, because there is nobody.
The 1st one, clearly is big, and the world does appear in my experience. Me, the experiential feeling of existing does not appear in a world, the world appears within me, perceptions and thoughts.
I am unborn, the body was born, and will die, but me, not something I think about or conceptualize, but me just the sense that I am, it's not located anywhere. Not the thoughts about myself, not the thoughts of myself as a persaonlity. These seem like excellent things to contemplate.
And then, I've noticed with most of these practices, is that when things are seemingly more thoughtless and naturally peaceful, then I can just rest in that sense of Being. It's interesting because most religions seem to be saying the same things. Calvin was saying in one of his writings, to just rest in the Lord, I thought it was interesting that he used the word rest, and for a sec. wondered if he was a jnani. Could be? He said a few things I wondered about that I couldn't imagine being Self-abidance except by a stretch. But even when Calvin refers to something like grace and salvation, he's not so far off the mark from what Maharshi was saying.
Interesting to find Christian Jnanis. when I fully permanently Realize the Self in this or whatever life I do, I'll translate a bunch of Christian texts from taht undesrtandings, such as things Jesus said, or Paul wrote.
I have a feeling most translations of the NEw Testement, being not jnanis (or necessarily that mature) translating fall short.
I like Robert Adams and Ed muzika. I read the site with interest and certainly the "yogi" is fervent in his practice but some of the advice has to be looked at again.
Whats the difference between detachment and disassociation?
One has to tread carefully here.
Ramana Maharshi knew instantly he was "the deathless spirit" but of course he was a spiritual giant; others somehow don't compare.
Robert adams, everything he says I find to be as much a gem as anything I've ever heard maharshi said.(I personally have no doubts Robert Adams is/was a jnani) In my opinion they are equals, the same Self. I mean, when I read Robert Adams he so unpretentiously is able to guide me to a much deeper place. Now, in that dialogue transcript with Ed, I have to be honest there were things that struck me incorrect. I'm not judging his state or realization, i have no idea, and maybe he's right, but from everything I've read, practiced, and experienced there were things he said that just did not resonate. I do not feel that way with Robert adams who I feel resonates as clear as a bell, as do Maharshi, Nisargadatta and my own teacher, and others, Shankara, Saradamma, Lakshmana swami. Also Ed did seem sincere too. (nothing personal) But the things that struck me incorrect were he said something about standing apart from all these things, and I feel like it seems more like a merging so there is only one. He also said that in his experience states of bliss he felt were unsubstantial, and I think I disagree and I had this disagreement with Broken Yogi as well, because happiness only comes from teh Self, the ego can never produce happiness. Bliss is one of the ways the Self is described, Maharshi said repeatedly I believe the "Self is Bliss". He didn't say one who abides in the Self is blissful, he equated the two. I find happiness to be the key barometer to whether a teacher's teachings are helpful, whether I'm making "progress", as in deepening into an awareness of my own real nature. So I think dismissing happiness from everything I've read, corresponded, heard, experienced, practiced is about the most wrong thing one could do. And the more the Self is what is experienced it manifests as increasing levels of happiness, and contentment. All the way to Realization when the things that obscure happiness are completely removed. Usually I do take dismissing happiness as a sign that the person does not have more then an intellectual understanding, and not really even that, honestly. I also noticed, that Ed kept telling so and so how close they are to liberation. Honestly, I don't think a jnani would ever do that. Because if you aren't completely liberated, then a greater level of humility is required, and the aspirant, such as myself has to become nothing. I'm never going to become liberated. I (the mental conception) has to cease to exist. I remember actually my teacher responding to a Robert Adams devotee who Robert had told others (not him) was close to Realization. He was writing my teacher for advice on whether that was true. My teacher, noteably did not respond abotu whether he was close, but basically talked abotu what the Self is, and how to Realize it, and said that if this isn't your experience more practice is required. I've noticed that with others, Lakshmana Swami didn't even tell David Godman himself that the book "No mind" is good. My teacher never validates me as an ego, and in that I find great peace, because my ego as I said earlier does not give me happiness. So I was a little skeptical of Ed's constant validation of how close to liberation that person was, not that that person isn't close to Realization and may be more close then me, but I still think even in that case a genuine sat-guru, I would be surprised if they would tell the person, because it's the person that needs to completely be relinquished and the pure existence of the Self left over. I have to say, atleast here I'm not criticising that Ed doesn't wear the right clothes. Several people have used that as their measure of teacher qualifications, which I find funny (laugh)
Also Robert Adams like Maharshi advises giving up all mental worries and cares for the world is merely a projection of the mind, i think they would both agree, so opinions about others would always be in the wrong direction. I've never heard a genuine teacher, someone who was realized deride others. Infact, I think forming opinions about others is always a vasana. There are no "good" or "right" opinions about others (I still deludedly do it occassionally), but it's always an objectification and as Maharshi said in "Who am I?" the I-thought arises and then the pronouns he and she arise and they can't exist without the I-thought. Ed in that transcript actually spoke about how this person was close to liberation and he was so much better then the vast swathes of others who are not because of thei ignorance. That just strikes me as plain out wrong. Infact that is why I supposed Calvin was not a jnani becuase although he said somet really transcendent things he also was talking about how horrible it was that one of his devotees had to live in Egypt where there is all sorts of superstition and idol worship. That kind of cultural judgement I could not see coming from someone who was enlightened. I could see the culture around doing that. But I could never see for instance Maharshi saying "all those muslims" or "all those christians" or "all those idol worshipers", because for a jnani there are no others, there are no individuals and only the Self, so forming opinions about others would be like forming a negative opinion about the color red in a TV program. Robert Adams as I said is clear as a bell, and I highly recommend Silence of the Heart. I think if anyone practices his advice they will realize, it's not a question of when, but he has some good advice for the practice of realizing ones own self, that to me anyway clearly comes from the full on experience of being the Self and only the Self.
@ anonymous
The distiction between detachment and disassociation is very interesting. Do you have any quotes of masters to share with us?
As the Maharishi said, paying attention to the self alone is Karma Yoga and non-attachment.
@ Losing M Mind
As far as imagining that others dont have an ego is concerned, it is easy to follow, but has it had any effect on your professional/personal relationships?
The concern with alot of these new advaitic teachers is that they give the same advice to all comers.
Ramana Maharshi could sum people up and understand there receptivity and ripeness. Often, he would tell them to practice self enquiry but othertimes he would give the nod for mantra and understand if people wanted to sing bajans or worship a local deity. In Madurai he shed tears in front of Nataraja and the 63 Shaivite saints.When he reached Tiruvannamalai he went straight into the inner sanctum and prayed. He thought Arunachela was God itself.
There is a great and wonderful mystery here that lesser teachers lack.
Stephen Wolinsky has more to say about the practice of disassocation. Stephen was with Nisargadatta for awhile.Now he's a therapist and I'm not at all sure
where he's coming from but perhaps he knows more about it then I do.
Alaric jones said...
Did anyone get along to Karthigai Deepam (lighting the lamp) on December 1st this year? I wonder how it went.
One year I will make sure I am there myself! In 1997 I was there the day before but had to leave as there were no rooms left at the inn (so to speak).
Murali/Friends,
Murali's quote from Maharshi's Gospel-a couple of beautiful verses from Thayumanavar expresses the nature of Prarabda and Grace.(From his 'Paripoorana Anandam'-Bliss that is Perfect Full):
1.To have reached the state of impassivity that holds
''Let them come that come,''
''Let them go that go,''
The mind but remaining to witness them.
To have received the inspiration
For attainment of wholesome Truth
In the tradition of Vedanta-Siddhanta Equability (Samarasa);
To have been taught the wisdom's way
Of the truth of body's impermanence;
To have been gifted with a heart that melts in love
Holding that the permanent state of bliss is liberation true -
All these are but by Thine Grace.
If only Thou have a little thought yet more to protect me,
Who hold to Thee as the Refuge,
O! Thou grant me firm the continuous silentness
That the elements five comprehend not.
Oh! Thou who filleth all visible space
In unbroken continuity!
Thou, the Bliss that is Perfect Full!
2.Who was it that converted my heart
Into a chamber of darkness
And then shortened my reason
Into a tiny spark
And submerged that reason by desire?
Who was it that decreed that
As the writing of fate on my head?
Who was it that
Without caring for attainment of Jnana-Bliss-Trance
Made me believe in the permanency of the body bag
And so to indulge in eating and sleeping?
Was it my desire that gave me my father, mother
And all the rest of worldly ties?
Shall I blame my own self, or others?
Shall I blame the present bad actions
Or the past karma for all this worldly bondage?
Forsooth I know nothing of Truth
Thou, the Bliss that is Perfect Full! "
In the above 2 verses,Thayumanavar clarifies the nature of 'Bondage' and the only thing that can liberate as 'Grace'.
In yet another verse Thayumanavar attributes both 'Bondage' and 'Grace' to the same TRUTH!
continued....
....Thayumanavar...
3.Purity and Impurity,
Sorrow and Joy,
Attachment and Detachment,
Gross and Subtle,
Desire and Nondesire,
Word and the finite end of Word,
Living and Liberation,
Sin and Nonsin,
Difference and Nondifference,
Greatness and Littleness,
Difficult and Easy,
Female and Male,
Permanent and Impermanent,
Invisible and Visible,
Formless and Formed,
Justice and Injustice,
Beginning and Beginningless,
Insubstantial and Substantial -
All these art Thou!
Not a tiny bit is anything else.
If so, are we but different from Thee?
Oh! Thou, Param that is Bliss
Encompassing in Pervasive Fullness,
The Universes many and Spaces vast!
'Ego' is not an entity-it is the locus of desire tainted mind.
Sometime last year, in the blog, David described an episode of a publishing drama where he had to surrender at Bhagavan's samadhi. In this episode, he got a hug of Sri Nannagaru also.
Can someone point where this episode is? I am trying to search for this in this blog but could not get it.
One person asked me how imagining others don't have an ego how it has effected my relationship to others. Well, most of my relationships to others based on ego, is generalizing about them, putting them on a pedestal, hating them. this is as an ego, as a mind how i relate with others. There is no good relationships with 'others' that has comme from my ego. So Robert Adams 2nd instruction, all beings are egoless. That is a core of Maharshi's teachings. That the ego does not really exist and that we should find it out through SElf-inquiry. Well I also imagine that other people have egos which are my own projections on to them, and then hate or like these mental images I create, or don't question. So questioning the notion of that these egos, these other individuals exist, these mental images and projections onto 'others', well, inquiry including this, has been nothing but beneficial to my relationships with others, my ability to interacct with them, and love them, or allow love to flourish and exist between my 'person' and another 'person'. As Maharshi said, the 2nd and 3rd person do not exist without the 1st person that they arose from, that it all arose from the I-thought and to inquire and realize the non-existence of that I-thought. I've had alot of mental health issues, including perhaps Asperger's syndrome. It's made nothing but good sound sense to inquire to Realize the Self to surrender unto that power until nothing of the ego remains. Reading Silence of the Heart by Robert Adams, he gives good sound advice for Realizing the Self, not as some abstract mental objective, but because my and all our happiness depends on Realizing ourself. I have not had inquiry cause my life to get worse, because I inquire with an open mind to trying to understand, if I got stuck on some wrong method, then perhaps, but I've allowed the process to deepen so that individuality and ego is actually sometimes relinquished to greater and greater degress and bliss, and inter-personal relatedness flourishes to greater and greater degress. (of course without the desire for it also) I'll tell you when I'm finished (laugh).
"The concern with alot of these new advaitic teachers is that they give the same advice to all comers.
Ramana Maharshi could sum people up and understand there receptivity and ripeness."
Maybe, and have you met them is this your experienc or just some generalization you've conjured. I would definitely say in the case of the relationship I have with the teacher I correspond with, it is as the relationship you describe with Maharshi, giving the perfect answers for me to understand how to transcend and dissolve my own personal concernedness and ego and abide in a deep sense of peace and Bliss and more and more glimpses sometimes that there is no duality and the mirror-like quailty of existence. There are some advaita teachers these days even in the West that are actually Jnanis. but I can't truly speak for any others. I have 0 doubt that Robert Adams was a Jnani, is a Jnani if you take him for what he really was/is always, my real Existence experienced as the sense of I, the true I, not the false imagined I that all world experience arises from. Really, and I love this, something has switched, where I only feel Jnanis are worth listening to for any kind of information or truth. Because then all the messages I get are from the nondual Reality which helps erode or dissolve or whatever happens to this dualistic-sense of personhood. I can honestly say, when I really inquire, there is no worry of that hindering my ability to function or carry on interpersonal relationships. however, I would suppose when duality is realized to not be there, and there isn't a person, and there is only the One, there really wouldn't be a sense at all of existing as a person or of doing anything, it would all go on by itself, but there wouldn't even be anything happening. Because that is all just thought. Thoughts happening. Everything happening is only thought, it's the only thing that gives any 'experience' any validity. It's Bliss, it's peace, it's contentment, it's truth, because those are the One reality and without that veil that is what is experienced. also I get glimpses am having one, that it is like being a mirror.
"Most of us believe that if we have certain things we'll be happy. But I'm saying to you. Be happy first and the other things will come to you on their own volition. Ponder this." Robert Adams (Brahman)
"Since the Self is the reality of all the gods, the meditation on the Self, which is oneself, is the greatest of all meditations. All other meditations are included in this. It is for gaining this that the other meditations are prescribed. So, if this is gained, the others are not necessary. Knowing one's Self is knowing god. Without knowing one's Self that meditates, imagining that there is a deity that is different and meditating on it is compared by the great ones to the act of measuring with one's foot one's own shadow and to search for a trivial conch after throwing away a priceless gem that is already in one's possession." Sri Ramana Maharshi (Brahman).
"I prostrate before the Lord Ramana who is using this instrument for his own work and his own will to exploit the unimaginable, untamable, unknown Light present in every man and woman, and in all beings...." Papaji
I had a theory about Asperger's and maybe autism based on my experience. And I don't know how it applies. But I was thinking that if someone does spiritual practice in previous lives, who knows how close they are to the final Realization, but they start becoming awakened to the Self, like for instancce Papaji's previous lives as a Catholic priest and a Hindu Yogi, he started becoming awakened to the Self egven though his final Realization was in the final life as Papaji. I was thinking in reincarnation, perhaps as someone bcomes awakened to the divine Self even if conceived as an external God in previous lives, becoming more spiritually aware and focused in taht direction, future bodies are taken on that have brains or a neurological set up that is more capable of existing at deeper awareness of the Self, then people operating at a more tamasic level. Maybe the brain is even more intelligent. Now, for someone with this brain, if they try to exist maybe through the influence of peers or parents at a more egoic level, they may have difficulties because the brain they were given in that life is more set up to exist at a deeper spiritual awareness. weird issues, like obsessive interests, pedantic speech, social difficulties with non-verbal communication are perhaps side effects. It interferes with that brains ability to function. It can't funtion at a lower spiritual level well, even though that person may try to. My own life really demonstraets this, when I get deep spiritually, when I inquire deeply, I function very smoothly, sommetimes far better then my neurotypical peers, even socially. But there was alot of being flustered that the people around can have big egos and still function well, apparently. I was also deeply religious as a child, reverent toward religious things, had some interesting experiences that I'm recalling lately.
LMM: Listen, if you are happy with your guru well and good.
I remember Ramana saying'all this talk of guru's but where are the disciples?"
If you are a ripe, sincere disciple there are no barriers, no problems.
On the other hand when Kunju Swami left Ramana to go back to his village thinking he was ripe and ready he faded quickly when he was "out of range" and quickly realised that it was Ramanas effulgence that made him receptive.
Good point, and probably true in my case as well. Honestly, I don't really care if I'm ripe, sometimes I think I am (maybe erroneously), and other times I'm pretty sure I'm not. The only thing I know, is that inquiry works, if I'm suffering I start getting out of it and feeling good again, and my fears dissipate. What was true for Kunju could be very well true for me as well. (and that's amusing and interesting also if it's the case) It doesn't really matter. and really as far as my ripeness, the point of inquiry is to dissolve my ego, my individuality, so ripe or not, that one has to go or be seen as unreal. Also, really I think we're all dependent on the guru until we've completely surrendered, and then actually we are still dependent on the guru, we've just given ourselves up completely so that the guru is the only thing there is, as Papaji's quote demonstrates. Ironically, if I start thinking "I'm ripe", i'm probably quickly losing any ripeness I had. (laugh). Though on the Asperger's thing, that was just something that I thought was kind of interesting, it could been in one of those deluded moments where I thought "gee, I'm almost a jnani" (laugh) That one, will never be a jnani or become Realized, inquiry is to dissolve or see that one as unreal.
I bet Ramana meant in that quote, that there is only the guru, because disciples don't exist (being unreal egos).
My teacher wrote to me (earlier this year)
"A good approach to spiritual practice, in the understanding that its
joy and freedom are surpassed only by the final Realization, is that no kind
of bondage is insuperable, being only illusory, and the true Self is ever
present, yet whatever time is required to completely destroy the bondage is
happily well-spent.
As you deepen the inquiry, the distinction between activity and
inactivity of the body, senses, etc. will completely disappear, for the Self
is ever the same, unborn and imperishable.
It is not difficult to correctly, precisely pursue realization of
the Self, for every step you make in that direction reveals peace and bliss,
just as, contrariwise, a step into delusion yields the suffering that
reminds one to go back the way she came. The Grace is always there; one has
only to inquire to experience it. In one sense, the efforts made are
infinitesimal in contrast to the magnitude of Grace, the Truth of the Self,
of the nature of Sat-Cit-Ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss). So, it is a
case of Grace for the sake of Grace. That is the real Existence; the ego is
May your inquiry continue to deepen so that you abide steadily in
the Self, as the Self, the self-luminous Reality."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjgjT_-i5Hc
Papaji says the same thing.
hi.. just dropping by here... have a nice day! http://kantahanan.blogspot.com/
Could you tell us what projects you are working on right now and when they're likely to be completed?
With inquiry, I was thinking about how I persevere with it for sometimes days without reading any spiritual literature. This doesn't mean I'm successful, but I feel that this aspect is really important. And then I may pick up Essence of Inquiry or Silence of the HEart by Robert Adams or Shankara verses, or ribhu gita, and they are more useful because of that perseverence in the thick of things. Also it seems to me that inquiry, technically is simple and easy. There is nothing complicated about it, or esoteric about it. The I-thought. Thoughts arise, and they are at the same time the thinker beccuase the feeling of being an individual and who I am arises with each thought, and morphs with each thought. And it seems to me, that what is called the Self, is still me, but not the thoughts, not that thinker. and one of the ways I inquire is by realizing the obvious fact that the thinker is only an arising thought and not me, who is always present. Bliss is that me, because it's the thoughts about problems, wants, dissatisfaction, anger that veils the natural and ever-present Bliss. Happiness being within, is the realization that nothing I'm thinking about and wanting can give me happiness which is what I am. So often, I end up back in suffering in that attempt to persevere, but sometimes (even now), I find myself in myself and not believing myself to be a thinker, even though for me, thoughts still arise. I remember Krishnamurti saying htat, "the thinker is the thought".
Sourced from DG's "Be As You Are".
RM: This is the sum and substance of all that an aspirant needs to know. What is imperatively required of him (her!) is an earnest and one-pointed enquiry into the source of the 'I-thought'. (p.59)
RM: Even if one unceasingly meditates upon that name 'I-I' with one's attention on the feeling 'I', it will take one and plunge one into the source from which thought arises, destroying the ego……(p.203)
Clear and succinct directions aren't they!
If only we would do what is advised, instead of allowing our self to be dragged about repeatedly by this undisciplined mind.
Wish you all a Very Merry and Spiritual Christmas.
"First Seek the Kingdom of God And His Righteousness - Everything Shall be Added Unto You"
Does anyone know if Janaka from the Ashtavakra Gita and King Janaka that Ramana talked about are the same person?
@LMM,
Yes, both Janakas are the same person.
Was in Arunachala between the 22nd and the 24th of October, where I finally managed to pick up 'Nothing Ever Happened'.
Even given Papaji's gregarious and often forceful personality, there are places in the book where accounts of his pure love for Bhagavan Ramana left me in tears.
Papaji's forthright nature actually helps slightly thick-headed devotes like me understand Bhagavan better.
The result is that I am now plotting a trip to Lucknow along with my 24/7 plans of sneaking another trip to Tiruvannamalai.
Praying more than fervently to Bhagavan so that He makes it possible for me to buy some land there and build a small place for me and family. So that I can wake up every morning, look out of the window and shed tears of bliss.
Yes, that would do just fine.
Happy Birthday, Bhagavan!
... shed tears of bliss ...
Why can't you shed tears of bliss there where you are now, Anonymous? Dig your own grave and forget your family - there is no secure place for them. Forget yourself and your ambitions. You will find bliss then and a need to search for it no longer exists. Maybe Bhagavan will give you land to buy, but He will do so only to make you understand that one day you need to throw away this land together with yourself.
Dear Clemens,
It is me,Nandu Narasimhan,who made that anonymous post.
I know what you are saying. And don't dispute it. But the desire to be physically there is not something that I can wish or philosophise away.
It is, for want of a better term, a desperate longing. Yes, I do shed tears of bliss whenever an intense thought of Arunachala or Bhagavan comes to me.
I know that Bhagavan said that Arunachala is in the Heart, but I guess, for some of us, physical proximity might just be a way.
I can't explain it any better.
Sankar Ganesh Chandrakumar said...
In the following link, there is a quote attributed to Ramana telling about his bilocation experience i.e., visiting Tiruvotriyur and blessing Ganapathi Muni.
http://www.angelfire.com/indie/anna_jones1/apportation2.html
That is,
"One day, some years ago, I was lying down and awake when I distinctly felt my body rise higher and higher. I could see the physical objects below growing smaller and smaller until they disappeared and all around me was a limitless expanse of dazzling light. After some time I felt the body slowly descend and the physical objects below began to appear. I was so fully aware of this incident that I finally concluded that it must be by such means that Sages using the powers of Siddhis travel over vast distances in a short time and Appear and Disappear in such a mysterious manner. While the body thus descended to the ground it occurred to me that I was at Tiruvottiyur though I had never seen the place before. I found myself on a highroad and walked along it. At some distance from the roadside was a temple of Ganapati and I entered it."
Kindly could someone throw light on the actual source (i.e., recordings in books of his talks) of this Ramana's quote.
The story can be found in Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self Knowledge, pp. 96-7.
Nandu/Friends,
You are blessed in having this sort of longing that cannot be wished away by rationalizations!(trappings of the mind-most rationalizations are just that!).Great ones have had this-Nandanar,Muruganar,etc.
Just Like Nanda,the Pariah saint,we need to nurse this longing and await patiently whatever Providence has to offer;At the same time carrying on our responsibilities,towards those dependent on us.
The Following few sayings of Sri Ramakrishna are quite balanced and Practical(unlike the iconaclastic sayings of a Few Philosophers-who never succeeded in their own Life and consequently could not effectively guide others).
You should remember that the heart of the devotee is the abode of God. He dwells, no doubt, in all beings, but He especially manifests Himself in the heart of the devotee. The heart of the devotee is the drawing room of God.
Pure knowledge and pure love are one and the same thing. Both lead the aspirants to the same goal. The path of love is much easier.
Who is the best devotee of God? It is he who sees, after the realization of Brahman that God alone has become all living beings, the universe, and the twenty-four cosmic principles. One must discriminate at first, saying 'Not this, not this', and reach the roof. After that one realizes that the steps are made of the same materials as the roof, namely, brick, lime, and brick-dust. The devotee realizes that it is Brahman alone that has become all these — the living beings, the universe, and so on.
Live in the world like a waterfowl. The water clings to the bird, but the bird shakes it off. Live in the world like a mudfish. The fish lives in the mud, but its skin is always bright and shiny.
I tell you the truth: there is nothing wrong in your being in the world. But you must direct your mind toward God; otherwise you will not succeed. Do your duty with one hand and with the other hold to God. After the duty is over you will hold to God with both hands.
The breeze of His grace is blowing day and night over your head. Unfurl the sails of your boat (mind), if you want to make rapid progress through the ocean of life.
One should constantly repeat the name of God. The name of God is highly effective in the Kaliyuga. The practice of yoga is not possible in this age, for the life of a man depends on food. Clap your hands while repeating God's name, and the birds of your sins will fly away.
Nandu,I happen to be in Sri Ramanasramam on 25th and 26th and I was looking for a particular CD-Ramananjalai(I had a cassette that worn out)that has a beautiful Ramana Namaavali-it Goes like this-Ramanaaya,Ramanaaya,Ramanaaaaya Namah Om!-Sung beautifully.
This was not available;instead ,I chanced to come acrss a 8 CD set of Sadhu Om's compositions sung by the devoted Ramanajali group.I found this a mixed bag,some of them sung in typical 'Light' Classical style that detracted from the weight of the compositions.
However the CD no 1 has a beautiful 26 minute Chanting of Ramana Mantra-Namo Ramanaya and it is wonderful.I recommend this to you.
Wish you the Very Best.
kandhan said...
@Sankar Ganesh:
I think the english translation is inaccurate. In the original tamil version, Bhagawan never refer to himself such as 'I' or me. The reference is always indirect. It goes something like this:
"While sitting/lying down, there was a feeling of the body rising in the air.... ". I forget the name of the Tamil biography of Bhagawan in which this version appears. Any1 knows it?
Sharing something(not verbatim) that I heard on Nochur Venkataraman'stalk on 'Forty Verses' at the ashram, June '09.
A very learned devotee asked Bhagavan
a question about the feeling of non-doership in jnanis.
Bhagavan did not reply directlyto the question.Instead,he looked at a little girl of around three (G.V.Subbaramayya's younger daughter) who was playing with all the things on Bhagavan's side-table.
Watching her, as she was busily rearranging and occasionally dropping books,Bhagavan's
staff,etc., He asked her what she was doing.
She told Bhagavan, in the manner of all kids, that she was doing nothing. And promptly went back to attacking all the items on the table.
Bhagavan asked her again if she was doing something, and got the same answer.
Bhagavan smilingly told thequestioner that this was the essence of Vedanta,i.e., jnanis, even while outwardly appearing busy,never have the feeling that they are doing anything.
Srik said...
@Nandu,
>>It is, for want of a better term, a desperate longing.
Wow!! Very nice. I am remembering Talk 265:
D: "I long for bhakti. I want more of this longing. Even realisation does not matter for me. Let me be strong in my longing."
M.: If the longing is there, Realisation will be forced on you even if you do not want it. Subhechcha is the doorway for realisation.
M: A Higher Power is leading you. Be led by the same.
D.: But I am not aware of it. Please make me aware of it.
M.: The Higher Power knows what to do and how to do it. Trust it.
>>I know that Bhagavan said that Arunachala is in the Heart, but I guess, for some of us, physical proximity might just be a way.
+1 for what you say. It cannot be told better.
Wishing you all Happy Bhagavan's Jayanthi - 1/1/10 and also a Happy New year!
It will be great if anyone who made a visit to ashram give us an account of the celebrations.
Someone gave me as a present a small book titled THUS SPAKE RAMANA ((c) Sri Ramanasramam) with 125 paragraphs and sayings. I tried to find SOME of this sayings in TALKS or COLLECTED WORKS but unsuccesful.
On which sources this book is based, David? Please be so kind to inform me.
Nandu,
your post reminded me of a recent contemplation
"......all of this is happening, but happening to no one"
how wonderful, ......complete and utter freedom to be fully immersed 'there'
Akira said...
Happy New Year, David & everyone. Last year I read two David's books, 'Living By The Words of Bhagavan' and 'Annamalai Swami - Final Talks', which turned out to be the best books I have ever read. I found a lot of practical teachings on our daily activities from Bhagavan and Annamalai Swami in these two books. Recommended reading for everyone.
@ Ravi,
Thanks for your encouraging words. And I think I picked up a CD which has that and 'Arunachala Siva' chanting.
@ All,
Want to share this on the subject of longing. I have a friend in Bangalore (4 hours from Tiruvannamalai), who for certain reasons cannot visit Tiru as often as he would like to.
Buses to Tiru pass by outside his place of work. He told me that he goes down during lunch hour, and touches a few buses as they leave for Tiru, in the hope that some part of him will go with the bus to Tiru. His account moved me to tears.
Your friend In Bangalore and his watching and touching the buses that go to Tiruvannnamalai!This is like Thayumanavar's PIngKiLikkaNNi(Green Parrot Wreath)-Where he says-
"As you fly over the green landscape
I too flew (searching for Him);
Pray convey my heart's desires to my Lord,
And come back;
O Green Parrot!"
M(Sri Mahendranath Gupta),the disciple of Sri Ramakrishna used to visit Howrah Railway Station!
To see people coming back from their pilgrimage-he would pay his obeisance to them. He would ask for prasad from them, take it himself and also give it to his companions saying 'the prasad brings you in contact with Bhagavan Himself.'.
Wonderful are the ways of the Devotees!
Clemens,
I read your post on 'Thus Spake Ramana'. I dug out my copy of the book.
Unless David says otherwise, I think this is a compilation of some of Bhagavan's cardinal teachings, in the words of the compiler.
does any one know the english translation and meaning of the chanting?? which plays when this site is opened http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/
i quite like it and often play it on low volume in my office
It is a simple chant of the Divine name as 'Arunachala Siva'.You may find the 'meaning' of Arunachala in this article:
http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/arunachala.html
More than knowing the literal meaning-it is the feeling that it engenders -like what Sri Bhagavan felt as a boy, intuitively, that Arunachala was something grand, mysterious and almost unreachable-This is the true meaning of the Chant.
thanks Ravi, i appreciate you responding
The latest issue of the newsletter 'The Maharshi' has a moving article of Sri.Ramana devotee, T.R.Kannakammal. Here is the link:
http://www.arunachala.org/newsletters/2010/?pg=jan-feb#article.3
David, did you meet her or know about her? Did you have anything to share about this devotee?
Om Namo Bhagawate Sri. Ramanaya
Anbazhagan said...
i am not trying to say anything conclusively. i am intent to share an incident.
To take a stand of marvelling at things and have a good laugh is all that i intend.
I was in the asram on the 1st of january 2010. After a darshan of Bhagwan, i went to the book shop.
I actually wanted to buy a book which I saw during an earlier visit. i remembered color of the front cover only! It was blue.Even after a few rounds I could not locate it. Instead I picked up David Goldman's 'Living By The Words Of Bhagavan'.
At home while reading the page239 I recollected what CarlJung has mentioned about the unconscious mind in the book 'Man and His Symbols'! And I wondered whether Jung knew about Bhagavan's words!
In the evening of the same day while discussing about Goldman's book with my daughter, she located this homepage and to my pleasant surprise Jung has written about Bhagavan and he knows well about him. What a coincidence, I thought!
I hope readers of this thread would find "Man and his Symbols" by Carl Jung would be a good companian!
With warm regards!
Anbazhagan
I think I saw that person in the documentary Ramana Maharshi Who am I? which is featured on youtube. It's really good. It's interviews with devotees, in otherwords primary literature.
With laa due apologies to Daphne du Maurier's immortal opening line from 'Rebecca' -
Last night I dreamed I was in Arunachala.
And to detail it just a bit, helped this blog's owner out with some gardening.
Peter/Friends,
I wish to share this wonderful excerpt from professor(A Great Devotee!)TMP Mahadevan's commentary on Sri Bhagavan's Arunachala Pancharatnam:
arulnirai vāna vamudak kadalē
virikadirāl yāvum vizhungum – aruna
giriparamān māvē kilarulappu nandrāy
viripariti yāha vilungu
arul - grace; niraivu - fullness; āna - which is; amuda - ambrosia (amrita, the nectar of
immortality); kadalē - O ocean; viri - spreading; kadirāl - by rays; yāvum - all, everything;
vizhungum - who swallow; arunagiri - Arunagiri; paramānmāvē - O supreme spirit, supreme
self; kilar - which is swelling; ula - mind, heart; pu - flower; nandrāy - well (i.e. completely or
fully); viri - which will open, unfold, untie, expand, cause to blossom; pariti - sun; āha - as;
vilungu - shine.(This Transliteration is From Michael James pdf on Arunachala Pancharatnam)
Ocean of nectar, full of grace, swallowing up
the entire universe by successive waves of light!
O Arunachala the supreme Self! Dawn on me
so that the heart-lotus may blossom.
This is the first verse in Bhagavan Sri Ramana's
Arunachala Pancharatnam. Here the prayer is for the
blossoming of the heart-lotus. The heart is compared to the
lotus because it is what is fit to be offered to the Lord. The
blossoming of the heart can be effected only when the Lord's
grace descends on it, even as the lotus opens at dawn when
the sun rises. The Lord is the Sun of suns; and it is by His
Grace that the heart of the individual soul should attain
maturity and purity.
The Lord is Arunachala, the changeless and constant
Light; He is the Supreme Self. He is the ocean of grace and
immortality. It is He that destroys all that is evil, and imperfect.
To whom but Him will the devotee turn for spiritual
illumination that brings in the Life Eternal? It is by the Grace
of Arunachala that perfection is gained.
...continued.
Arunachala Pancharatnam...continued.
Going through the commentaries of Sri Sadhu OM (Michael James version)and Prof TMP Mahadevan's commentary,I find that the PROFESSOR-PHILOSOPHER has a distinct devotional Flavour,whereas the DEVOTEE Sadhu Om's is full of THOUGHTS,PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS!!!
I prefer the wonderful version of TMP Mahadevan.Those who are not familiar with Tamil may use the Transliteration/Translation provided by MJ.
The Version by TMP Mahadevan is available as a pdf downloadable Document.This also has his commentary on Sri Bhagavan's Magnum Opus-The Marital Garland of Letters.
I had done this earlier, but I got a new CD player walkman and earphones and now as I'm walking around and doing things I listen to satsang or meditations with my guru, Nome. And it's interesting because his words resonate with the Self. I have to say as soon as I take the earphones out and try to inquire on my own, immediately the mind/ego imagination, dreams start taking over in a way that my inquiry is feeble in comparison to. (problems galore, in other words) But when I'm listening to my teacher, he'll say things that will grab my attention and I'll realize all this, my whole experience is just like dreams, or mirages, pure imagination. It's interesting because both the internal and external experience of a vasana it is as much external as internal, much like dreaming at night, but awake. And when I'm listening to Nome, the things he says will awaken me to the fact that i'm dreaming, when my attention has been grabbed in such a manner, and I'm listening. But I'm not listening to the verbal words, I may hear them, I may not, it doesn't even matter, this silence, this stillness takes over, and the world, without the dreaming faculty being so active, there is much less fear, and problems. and if I have thse earphones in, listening to this jnani, but it could be others, but amybe it helps that it is a jnani that has been met. Because even in my correspondence with Nome, that has been enough, because it's the interaction with a jnani. It doesn't matter the medium, it is profoundly effective. There has been that having my very being touched by the Self in an external form, which is not external at all. The guru, the jnani is not external even remotely. I guess it's not internal either. But my sense of existing, the core, untouched pure sense of existing is exactly, not metaphorically the same as the jnani, and the external presence of the jnani speaks or resonates with that very clearly. Oh I should add, I just let my friend borrow (probably have) my hour long archival footage DVD of Maharshi. It is as he said, the most beautiful video ever made. Both the surroundings and hour long silent footage of Maharshi. But I was going to say, even though I never met the physical form of Maharshi, and he is no longer embodied, when I watched that, if Maharshi looked at the camera, I was immediately filled with radiant bliss. So, I have to say, teh darshan of Maharshi in that form was still potent. It wasn't just concentrating on a form, that power was still very much active. As blissful as Cds of my teacher. I would feel radiant bliss. Definite deeper awareness of my own Self. Oh one more thing, and that is that, it seems like in this practice, I may want to get kind of enlightened so I function better, but in that, the world, circumstnace, the mind, grace will force on me, I can't just go halfway, it will push me more and more that my only refuge is in this practice, in dependence on the guru, on the dependence on being totally commited to this path, and a having to give up other commitments. (mentally).
One more thing, my friend in watching the DVD of maharshi said when he looked at the camera, it almost knocked him out of his chair. That power in that video is very much real. That's something, in the continued practice of this stuff, the doubts in the supernatural aspects of this stuff go away, because it is directly experienced, and in that, there is sometimes even an enhancement of faith and conviction and joy, in knowing that this supernatural power that Maharshi represents will assuredly rescue us from samsara.
I have to say, I don't know what the depth this teaching points to. I only know that I prefer to be in a state of grace instead of being out of sorts. There is that preference, that causes me to use what tools work to stay in a state of grace. I've found by my own efforts, I don't think that is very easy to do, because even on my own when I do it, it becomes more an act of concentration, and as soon as the concentration is let up, the bliss is covered up by lots of thoughts and worries. Not that that isn't useful. But in this listening to my teacher via CD player as I walk around, I'm finding that I'm in a much more effortless state of grace, which makes me continue using this tool. I also don't know how common or uncommon it is Self-Realization, or jnanis. Out of the thousands of people I've met, honestly, I think there is only one jnani that I have personally come in contact with. So that is atleast one in thousands. There are differing levels of wisdom I've encountered in people, but I've never experienced mind silencing power or grace emanating from anyone else. (or not that I was aware of). But sometimes when I'm watching different videos of people, there are people I believe could be a jnani but I don't really know. Because I haven't had those kinds of experiences, but I haven't been in there presence. For instance in the U.S. Byron Katie, Don Miguel Ruiz, President barack Obama. I experience something when I watch them, and there seems to be a very strong clarity, or inspiring sattvic quality about them, even well articulated wisdom that sounds good by me. It may sound arrogant, to say that being in the presence of someone I can tell if htey are a jnani. Like I am one, or like Papaji. But it's not that, it's just that intense grace, where you are aware that this person is omnipresent and is your own real existence, and the other stuff falls off as a hallucenation, I assume they must be one. Especially, in the dependence on them for that experience.
I Love Ramana's teachings, and i also Love Zen teachings, here is a wonderful Zen documentary to watch free on the net http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/amongst-white-clouds/
Any idea where the documentary, 'Who Am I?' that was made by South African Television is available for purchase, or for viewing?
>>In the fourth year of my stay in Palakottu Bhagavan advised me to restrict my diet.
'Each day,' he said, 'you should eat only one coconut, a handful of peanuts, one mango and a small lump of jaggery(brown sugar). ...
(from 'Living by the Words of Bhagavan', p.197)
This is nearly fasting.
He lived without rice and salt for one year?
I personally feel that much salt would make your mind rajasic.
Email me and I'll tell you what your options are.
In continuation of Akira's post on fasting: You can notice that the food is frugal,uncooked(therefore, full of prana) except jaggery which is to nullify the pitha toxicity of peanuts. Such frugal food amounts to almost fasting which helps the ojas accumulate in higher chakras. I heard of some acquitances of mine who take only coconut as food.
My friend who I loaned my hour long footage of Maharshi said that he saw someone he is certain is Papaji in this part with Yogananda. I was skeptical. But I remember he said that it panned to the left, and he was there. But I was wondering, is it the guy sitting there? I'm not saying it is Papaji, but I was wondering if I could find who he was referring to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71OloCDXuHg
Yogananda visited Bhagavan in 1936. Papaji didn't see him until 1944.
cool, thanx David.
a few month ago someone asked a question concerning Nisargadatta's and Sri Bhagavans "I am".
I think this was a really interesting question. What do you think about it? I hope you have enough time for an answer.
Many thanks for your website and your books.
Here is the question again:
"Dear David,
I re-read your interview on Nisargadatta Maharaj recently. You say in the interview that you first
had some resistance for some aspects of Maharaj's teaching, and you give the example of the fact
that Maharaj said the "I am" is not ultimately real, which was not what Maharshi taught.
I was wondering about this difference between Maharaj and Maharshi's teachings. Maharshi says "I
am" is the ultimate, and Maharaj says it is not, he says the Absolute is prior to the "I am" or maybe
we could say 'above' the "I am".
Considering this difference, do you think it would be true to say that Maharaj's teaching are from a
higher standpoint than Maharshi's. That Maharshi talks about the establishment of oneself in
Brahman, but Maharaj talks about the establishment of oneself in Parabrahman. Of course I don't
mean to say that Maharshi's teaching didn't in the end conduce to the final realization of
Parabrahman, but only that his verbal teachings did not mention the highest realization. In other
words, Maharshi would just lower his teaching, but Maharaj would not. Do you think it is so ?
And whatever, I would be happy to know how you managed to end your resistance on this
particular point of the teachings of Maharaj, and how you could reconcile Maharaj and Maharshi's
teaching (on this particular point).
Thanking you."
It strikes me that the apparent difference between Maharshi's and Maharaj's 'teachings', is use of words. Kind of a potato, potato kind of difference. Maharaj says Parabrahman, Maharshi says Brahman. My understanding is that anything objective, anything with a beginning and an end, anything that arises as something separate from awareness is not the Self which is Brahman and Parabrahman. I remember reading Ultimate Medicine which was dialogues with Maharaj and he alot of times would say "Being-ness", and if I remember correctly, Being-ness is the sense of existing as an ego. And he also referred to consciousness, I believe and was referring to ego. And referred to the Consciousness of the Self as Awareness. So my feeling is that the difference between their teachings is only if it is believed that the intellectual can touch on teh truth that they are articulating. The belief that what the Self is can be grasped by the mind, when the Self is the inherently non-objective sense of existing. My guess is what Maharaj was referring to about "I am", is that the thought "I am" is definitely not the "I am" that is the Self. If I think "I am", that is just a thought, but the sense of "I am" that even the thought "I am" arises in, is perhaps, maybe, I'm guessing the real Self. So it's not the concept "I am", and my guess is that Maharaj was saying that, in the same way that Maharshi responded to someone practicing "I am Brahman" that "I am Brahman is only a thought". Whereas, I am Brahman as mentioned in Ribhu GIta for instance, is not referring to the thought I am Brahman. In the same way if Maharshi was referring to "I am", he was not referring to that thought, but the Consciousness, the ever existent sense of existing that it arose in. That's my interpretation.
You have put this question to David;I will respond to some of the points raised:
1."do you think it would be true to say that Maharaj's teaching are from a
higher standpoint than Maharshi's. "
If there is a standpoint,how it can refer to the "absolute",for the absolute can have no reference point outside of itself.
2."That Maharshi talks about the establishment of oneself in
Brahman, but Maharaj talks about the establishment of oneself in Parabrahman "
Sri Bhagavan never talked about 'Establishing' oneself in either Brahman or Parabrahman;He simply asked one to recognize Self by enquiring 'Who Am I' and not identifying oneself with what 'one' thinks of 'Oneself'.
Brahman and ParaBrahman are one and the same,conceptually;The addition of 'Para' does not elevate it ,but only refers to its Transcendent Nature.
3."how you could reconcile Maharaj and Maharshi's teaching (on this particular point)."
a.By recognizing that all apparent differences are due to our wrong understanding only.
b.By Recognizing once and for all that Truth is one and 'Expressions' and 'Explanations' are many.
c.By recognizing that there is no such thing called the 'Highest' Teaching;only that which is 'appropriate' and answers to one's genuine need.
d.By Recognizing that what is 'appropriate' to oneself, need not be a Reference standard for another and vice versa.
Being around Papaji, essentially having a friendship with him, that must have been a really beautiful thing! I find Papaji very awe inspiring, I would say in some ways as much as Maharshi. There is something heroic about him, and from reading Nothing Ever happened, his life is supernaturally heroic, almost out of a fairy tale.
With inquiry, my inquiry lately has been successful in the sense that I'm keeping this CD walkman in my coat pocket, and my teacher keeps catching my attention with words that resonate with something deeper than my mind and my imagination. Over time, I've just realized, things go so much better with the earphones in, though I do take them out to interact with people. One of the things that becomes apparent is how much 'deeper experience' is so beyond the mind, and the mind, or ego cannot access it. I would say, that the burning funeral pyre analogy that Maharshi used, and my teacher quoted to me. The one in Who am I? It's that the I is used to burn itself up, so to speak. But I was thinking, or am perhaps realizing that that isn't just in an internal direction, that isn't just concentration or asking Who am I? repeatedly (or discernment as to what is real and eternal which is my own existence), though maybe that is part of it. It's also what is chosen for association, when I read writings of Maharshi, correspondence with my teacher, write my teacher, (perhaps even participation on this blog and reading David Godman's wonderous comprehensive essays) all these things that i do both external and internal, they are the I so to speak being used to stir the burning funeral pyre. But one of the things I've realized is that my own efforts at attempting inquiry so pale in comparison to the direct buzzing experience I get from listening to my teacher continuously, which I've also noticed also allows me to get things done with some semblance of non-doership. And serendipity then starts to work in my favor as well. "God never forsakes one who has surrendered"
I thought I'd share something from Sufism that is fairly congruent with Self-Enquiry, 'I am' and the 'neti' teaching in the Vedanta.
This is a pop video - the lyrics are from a poem by Bulle Shah, a Sufi saint who lived in what is today Pakistan.
The video has sub-titles, so it's fairly easy to get the meaning of the lyrics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTxZy32Fv_0&feature=related
That is a well made video and a very Good song as well-in Punjabi.
It recalled this beautiful song of Kabir:"moko kahan doondere bande…"
Oh Man! Where dost thou seeketh Me? I am very close to you.
Neither in places of pilgrimage,
nor in idols of worship, nor in solitude
Not in temples or mosque, Not in Kailash [1] or Kaabaa [2] do I reside
Oh Man! I am very close to you, I am indeed very close to you!
Neither in japa nor in penance or fasting (do I exist)
Neither in rituals do I exist nor in yoga or renunciation am I
If you but search for me in earnest, I will be obtained in a trice.
Says Kabir: O wise man listen to me!
Where your faith is, there I am !!
[1] Kailash : Abode of Lord Shiva as per the puranas.
[2] Kaabaa: Islamic place of worship.
That was a wonderful documentary on the Buddhist monks.Truly wonderful people.Thanks very much.
Thanks so much for the Kabir post. Very beautiful.
'If you but search for me in earnest, I will be obtained in a trice.'
This line reminds me so much of Papaji and his 'just for one fraction of a second' exhortations.
yes Ravi, i wonderful documentary, beautiful like Kabir's poem
For some reason I thought that Papaji got that fraction of a second thing from Kabir, had said that he did.
Reflections on the Talks-by SS Cohen is a wonderful little book-available as a pdf download.There is no better way to absorb the Teachings of Great Masters than to learn it through the devotees who have spent lifetime sitting in that presence.In the introduction to this Book,Cohen makes this observation on 'Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi' :
For roughly half of this period it was written in
the Darshan Hall itself by the diarist, or recorder, Sri M.
Venkataramiah, the late Swami Ramananda Saraswati, at the
end of each particular conversation at which he was present.
Sri Bhagavan scarcely ever answered in English, but invariably
in Tamil, which very often the diarist himself translated
into English to the questioner within the hearing of the
whole audience. But questions in Telugu and Malayalam,
iv Reflections on Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi
Bhagavan answered in the same languages, and the answers
in the latter language may be said to have been lost to the
diarist, who did not understand Malayalam.
Therefore the language of this diary is of the recorder,
more often it is a paraphrase of the Master's answers, occasionally
His very words, rendered into English, for it was
impossible to write down afterwards all He had said, or to
keep pace with Him even if the answers were to be taken
down verbatim on the spot. What we want is the Truth as
expounded by Bhagavan, and this Truth is all here, which
is all that matters.
As for the teaching of Sri Bhagavan, it has by now acquired
a worldwide recognition, and has attracted earnest
seekers from all the five Continents, as much for its fresh
simplicity as for its sturdy rationality, which appeal both to
the head and the heart. It can, however, be summed up in
the ancient dictum "Know thyself ", or "Seek the seeker",
which the Master dins in one form or another in practically
every answer he gives. Find out the questioner, he insists,
and you will know the truth, which will solve all your
problems and remove all your doubts."
...Continued
...Reflections on Talks continued...
"1. "How to avoid misery?" The Master answers: "Has misery
a shape? Misery is only an unwanted thought. The mind
is not strong enough to resist it. It can be strengthened
by worship of God." 241*
Note: Bhagavan at the very outset drives to the heart of the
human problems, which are the consequences of man's
delinquencies, thoughtlessness, desires, sins, etc., namely,
misery. He tries to open men's eyes by asking, "Has misery a
shape?" Surely misery is not a solid, heavy object which can
descend on our heads and crush us. It is a purely mental
phenomenon, a mere thought, which can be driven away
with a little effort by a strong mind. But unfortunately the
minds of men are generally weakened by lack of control,
strong attachment, selfishness, and ignorance, so that they
stand always at the mercy of every calamity that comes their
way. Bhagavan suggests some methods of strengthening the
mind. The worship of God is probably one of the easiest.
The contemplation of the highest, purest, and most sublime
ideal elevates the mind, and for the time being shuts out all
other thoughts, including those that cause misery. By degrees
the mind acquires purity and balance, and so, permanent
peace, which no calamity can shake."
Sri Bhagavan has composed works like Ulladhu Narpadhu akin to Upanishads;He has also graced us with some of the most moving deeply devotional outpourings ever composed like 'The Marital Garland of Letters' and other Hymns on Arunachala.
Appropos to 'Anonymous' who wondered how Teachings of 'Maharshi' compared to 'Maharaj',I wish to add that Great Masters like Sri Bhagavan cannot be pigeonholed into a 'Stereotype'.
Sri Ramakrishna says:"You must know that there are different tastes. There are also different powers of digestion. God has made different religions and creeds to suit different aspirants. By no means all are fit for the Knowledge of Brahman. Therefore the worship of God with form has been provided. The mother brings home a fish for her children. She curries part of the fish, part she fries, and with another part she makes pilau. By no means all can digest the pilau. So she makes fish soup for those who have weak stomachs. Further, some want pickled or fried fish. There are different temperaments. There are differences in the capacity to comprehend."
Sri Ramakrishna says:
'Common men talk bagfuls of religion but do not practise even a grain of it. The wise man speaks a little, even though his whole life is religion expressed in action.'
To understand sri Bhagavan's Teachings,we need to contemplate the wonderful life that he lived;particularly the seemingly trivial things he did like using the usually discarded sheaves of the Banana Flower for preparing a tasty dish.using coconut shells as a ladle,etc.
In like manner we can convert our seemingly small attempts into something vastly momentous avenues of Sadhana.
Speaking of this nature of Sri Bhagavan to put to use the things that are usually discarded,like used pencils that are hard to hold,one of his devotees observed perhaps in jest-'You cannot make him accept a Full Pencil.Just make it small somehow and offer it to him,he would accept it gladly'!Ofcourse Sri Bhagavan would accept it-Why?atleast that bit which is all that is left can still be put to use.In it is also implied the Teaching 'o man. take care of the Full pencil;if you can do that,there will not be any need to offer the leftover'.
sada said...
Where can I download the Reflection on the Talks
Please find it here under the Title-Works by other Authors on Sri Ramana Maharshi's Teachings:
http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/bookstall/downloadbooks.html
You may also like to checkout other books available as Downloads-Guru Ramana by S S Cohen ,Letters From Sri Ramanasramam by Suri Nagammma(One of the most beautiful and intimate accounts ever written-one that can transport you into Sri Bhagavan's presence),etc.
I read about Papaji's life in "Papaji Interviwes". I have a feq Qs as regards to His personal life. Plz let us know the ans., in case u r aware of it:
1. How did He come to be called as "Papaji"?
2. How and when did he become a teacher, after leaving Bhagavan?
Thanks a lot for the pointers.
Papaji acquired his affectionate nickname quite late in life. Until the middle or late 1980s he was generally referred to, by those who knew him well, as 'Poonjaji'. I don't know who began to call him 'Papaji', but once it happened, everyone began to call him that, and the title stuck.
The question of when he became a teacher is an interesting one. While I was compiling information for 'Nothing Ever Happened',I gave him a written questionnaire, and one of the questions was 'When did you first become a spiritual teacher?' I expected him to say in the middle or late 1940s, after he had left Bhagavan for the last time. Instead he said that he had started teaching when he was eight years old, and cited the Buddhist lectures he used to give as a child as proof of his early teaching career.
I then asked Sivani, his daughter, if she remembered him teaching before he went to see Bhagavan in 1944.
She replied, 'Wherever we were, people would always come to him for spiritual talks. My earliest memories go back to about 1940, and even then people were swarming around him. He never went looking for them. they just seemed to find him.'
Sivani was recently interviewed for The Mountain Path. Her account of being with Bhagavan as a child is published in the most recent issue.
How do I subscribe to The Mountain Path? If it doesn't violate any copyrights, can you post the article on Sivani here? I remember reading in 'Nothing Ever Happened' about her deep spiritual experience in the presence of Bhagavan. Did she attempt to put the experience into words in the interview?
That is really interesting about Papaji. it makes sense that that would be the case, and it also makes sense that to him, in his bigger goal of seeing Krishna full-time, he might not have mentioned it, because to him his being a spiritual teacher since 8 almost seems peripheral to his main story. It is very interesting. I'd guess that of the people who Realized the Self culminating in Maharshi's presence, that was probably a crowd that was very graceful and near-enlightened for much of their current or last life.
I have a question, and of course I'm not expecting an answer, just asking the question. I printed out for myself and a friend the interview about Nisargadatta Maharaj because when I gave him this bad documentary that also had archival footage as an option. He wasn't impressed, but he loves Maharshi. But I thought I'd give him this interview, because it's pretty fascinating. But my question is, it seems like you (David Godman) spent time around Nisargadatta Maharaj shortly after you arrived in India, but I also thought your time around Lakshmana Swami and Saradamma was also not long after you arrived. Did your association with them overlap? And I thought your association with Papaji and Annamalai Swami was more the 90s and maybe late 80s. Not that any of this matters that much, or has much relevence to the teachings, or inquiry. I do like the last paragraph of that interview where you said that Nisargadatta never died and was never born and his words as you real Self are waiting to describe your individuality and the circumscribed world around it. (paraphrasing).
I first met Lakshmana Swamy in 1978 on one of his visits to Sri Ramanasramam. In those days he used to come twice a year. I met Nisargadatta Maharaj later the same year and continued to visit him in Mumbai until late 1980. I first went to Lakshmana Ashram in Andhra Pradesh in 1981, and stayed there for about nine months in 1982. That was when I wrote the first draft of No Mind - I am the Self. I interviewed Annamalai Swami for the material that appears in Living by the Words of Bhagavan in 1987, although he did not agree to have the book published until 1994. I first met Papaji in 1992, although I had corresponded with him for about a year before I finally went to see him.
Dear Losing M. Mind
I have just discovered your notes in David's page and I believe you may find the following information useful. I have been a student of Robert Adams for over 20 years receiving deep transcendent blessing before and during the Los Angeles Group and Sedona Satsang Group.
In reading your accurate perception of the immense contrariness between the teaching of kind Robert Adams imbued with a deep respect and humility for all life and this erroneous 'ajnani' site of dramatically incorrect information and strange self acclamation of a specific E. Muzika "disciple of Robert " that you refer to.
As his original students know, I can assure you Robert Adams had absolutely nothing to do with this troubled man other than attempting to compassionately help him as he did everyone who crossed his path. E. Muzika's site was removed for copyright theft and slander in addition to fraudulently claiming to be a psychologist and treating patients. He was one of hundreds of audience members.
Actually E.Muzika was no longer a student during the last few years of his life and did not attend his open memorial service where international guests and hundreds attended in pure white. I was honored to speak at this service.
From your instinctual oneness with all, you are close to the very truth as it is known in the inner most sincere Advaita circles of those who embrace fully the teachings of Ramana and Robert in the clear sameness of spirit and dispensation of truth.
I am reminded of Robert Adams words: "Your true spiritual stature is revealed by the words that come out of your mouth. The thoughts and deeds towards others. For God sees the Heart. That is all that matters. Everything else is secondary." In love, compassion and humility.
this is a favourite
Those who realize true wisdom
rapt within this clear awareness
see Me as the universe's origin, imperishable.
All their words and all their actions
issue from the depths of worship;
held in my embrace they know Me.
Creatures rise and creatures vanish;
I alone Am Real, Arjuna,
looking out, amused, from deep
within the eyes of every creature.
I Am the object of all knowledge,
Father of the world, its Mother,
Source of all things, of impure and
pure, of holiness and horror.
I Am the goal, the root, the witness,
home and refuge, dearest friend,
creation and annihilation,
everlasting seed and treasure.
I Am the Self, Arjuna, seated
in the heart of every creature.
I Am the Origin, the Middle,
And the End that all must come to.
Those who worship Me sincerely
with their minds and bodies, giving
up their whole lives in devotion,
find in Me their heart's fulfillment.
Even those who do no know Me,
if their actions are straightforward,
just, and loving, venerate Me
with the truest kind of worship.
All your thoughts, all your actions,
all your fears and disappointments,
offer them to Me, clear-hearted;
know them all as passing visions.
Thus you free yourself from bondage,
from both good and evil karma;
through your non attachment, you
embody Me, in utter freedom.
I Am justice: clear, impartial,
favouring no one, hating no one.
but in those who have cured themselves
of selfishness, I shine with brilliance.
Even murderers and rapists,
tyrants, the most cruel fanatics,
ultimately know redemption
through My love, if they surrender
to My harsh but healing graces.
passing through excruciating
transformations, they find freedom
and their hearts find peace within them.
I Am always with all beings;
I abandon no one. And
however great your inner darkness,
you are never separate from Me.
Let your thoughts flow past you, calmly;
keep Me near, at every moment;
trust Me with your life, because:
I am you, more than you yourself are.
- The Bhagavat Gita -
thanx David Godman for the reply to my question. And thanx John for your validation in response to earlier things I said. Definitely flattered.
I noticed that I earlier said Saradamma, but I was thinking on reading her bio on mathrusrisarada.org, that her correct name is Mathru Sri Sarada. I was thinking it might be wrong to call any swami by their birth name when it was changed upon Realization.
I was actually thinking about the fascinating topic of jnanis. And the more I dive into these teachings, how it becomes clear to me that all jnanis are the same jnani. It seems that while there may be differences in certain words used, the essence is exactly the same. For instance with Nisargadatta Maharaj I was noticing from that interview with David Godman, one of the ways he referred to the egoic life or experience was as being-ness, which was not what Maharshi used.
But still in essence he is saying the same thing, to seek out the real existence or awareness that the being-ness or ego, arises in, it seems. I was also speculating, that what one jnani gives in advise to a particular seeker and their problems, had it been a different jnani the advice would have been exactly the same. They would see the exact same delusions and the exact same course or things that that particular seeker should be focusing on in their sadhana to become happy, or aware of the real existence.
I was also speculating, or wondering whether some of the so-called differences in the teachings of jnanis, both historically such as Jesus and the Buddha, and more contemporary Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj, there are apparent differences. A few of those differences may be brain and experiential differences that effect the way they explain the exact same principles, but I was wondering, or speculating if most of the differences are really the kinds of devotees and their problems, who is asking the questions. What kind of group of people is associating with them.
I was thinking that the advise to one devotee may differ dramatically with taht given to another devotee. The teachings aren't altered, but what aspect of the teachings is emphasized. For instance, as an ajnani, as someone who has not fully Realized the Self, one of the many reasons a living guru is required and certainly in this correspondence or association I've had with master Nome this has been the case, there may be aspects of the teachings I overlook because I don't really want to give up those attachments, but the Self-Realized Jnani can see clearly that I'm overlooking that crucial aspect of the teachings. And if I cease to overlook it, I will start to become aware of my real Existence.
To the degree that if a jnani directs the course of someone's sadhana, tells them what to do, or what to focus on, if that devotee focuses on it, I would imagine they would surely Realize the Self, and if they don't, it has to do with what part of the advice is that devotee unwilling to put into practice, even lack of faith in the guru, etc.
The real cannot fake it and the fake cannot realize it: http://itisnotreal.com/whoisreal.html
This is so beautiful and worthy of sharing on Mathru Sri Sarada.org. This is her 50th birthday message. There are somethings there that are so incredibly profound.
"DETACHMENT:
· You can do or be involved in anything but you don't get stuck or attached to it. You should be like a drop of water on a lotus leaf. It looks like the drop is touching the leaf but really it is not.
· You want something, but you can't get it. However, you are not concerned; therefore, you are not in pain.
· Someone is sick. You help all you can with kindness and without any selfishness. You encourage the person; however you yourself are not in any pain, shocked, having reactions or tensed.
· You treat people in the world as "outside people" not feeling they are in "your circle" and "your own."
· Feeling: My car, My thing, My computer, My people. Then worrying or in pain if it is broken, lost, or stolen. You can't bear damage to your car for example. The opposite of this does not mean that we are careless; to the extent that we can take care of something we should take care of it, however, we should not feel like wanting to be dead if we lose something or someone.
· Attachment mostly gives rise to Selfishness. For instance caring or being concerned only when "our people or family" has trouble and not caring about other "outside" people and their troubles.
· Most every Family is like that-- a circle surrounding a group of attachments: "our people, our land, our name."
· Most people think that sex is happiness but it is really unhappiness. Just think of the amount of trouble people go through in order to get sex. They want a girl but they can't get that girl. They worry, they get sad, they get angry and lose their intelligence, they don't know what they are doing and some even commit murder in that state. All these troubles just to get a girl.
· After all these troubles they then get the girl, but how long is the pleasure going to last? How long is that enjoyment going to stay with them? They then get bored and tired. After sex where has the passion gone? After enjoying passion, dispassion sets in for a while. After eating too much food you can't eat any more, and food loses its taste. Sex is also like that.
· People know sex is not really happiness but still they want it for passing time. They think "I can't get happiness but at least with sex I can get some enjoyment." Like the camel eating thorns which make its mouth bleed, but continues to eat them for their taste.
· People see beautiful scenes in nature (prakriti). They listen to nice music and get enjoyment, but they still want sex included in this! Bhagavan tells the traditional Indian story of how the five senses (indrias) lead to downfall. The deer likes the sound of sweet music and the hunter uses this to attract and kill the deer. The fisherman puts tasty bait on the hook and the fish is caught and dies because of its liking for nice tastes. The moth sees the beauty of the joyti, the candle light, and wants to possess that beauty so it flies into the flame and perishes. Similarly, some insects are attracted to the smell of poison plants and consequently die. The he elephant is attracted by the touch of the she elephant. Hunters train she elephants to lead the he elephants by the touch of their trunks to fall into the pits prepared for trapping them. In these examples one sense alone is sufficient to cause the animal to lose its life.
Bhagavan laughs, telling this story and says that merely because of one sense these animals lose their life but people go to movies in order to enjoy all five senses at the same time! They see sexy scenes on the screen and hear enticing songs and dance. They like the taste of the popcorn and the smell of the perfume of the girl in the next seat and they also like to touch her.
Mathru Sri Sarada continued:
"· People having kama (lust) are blind. They can't see age or AIDS or anything.
· A person who has turned vegetarian cannot stand the sight of meat after a time. It is similar with a life that has truly turned from sex to sadhana.
· People waste their time running after these pleasures. Then old age starts creeping on them and they begin to think why am I wasting my time for these things?
DISPASSION:
· Dispassion sets in temporarily when somebody close in the family is seriously injured or dies.
· What is really dear to you? Buddha told the story of a man whose son committed murder. The son was arrested and about to be hanged. The father went to the authorities and offered all his money and property to save the son but the authorities refused. They said somebody has to hang for this crime. If you allow yourself to be hanged in your son's place we will release your son. But the man said "oh no! he's not my son." Money is dear to people, their children are more dear, but their own prana (life) is most dear! People have passion for wife, children, and wealth but mostly for their own life and body.
· For the Jnani--Self Realization is even dearer than life. In Samadhi, the happiness of the Self is much more than anything in the world. At that time you know your body will die if you don't come out and take care of it, but you don't care because the Self is everything to you.
" Buddha was born into a life full of passion. His father, the king, arranged every sort of pleasure for him--ladies, drinking, and fashion. Everything required for his enjoyment was provided, however, he was kept from leaving the palace and seeing the world. As time passed, the full dispassion that was ripening inside Buddha began to blossom. One day he saw a hunter kill a bird. He tried to save the bird and saw how it suffered and understood what pain is. After that he asked his attendant to secretly take him outside the palace and show him the world. First he saw one man on the ground and asked "what is that." His attendant replied "that is a sick man." They went further and he saw a withered and bent, white haired man. Buddha asked "what is that?" and the attendant said "that is an old man." Further on they came upon the body of a man that didn't move. What is that asked Buddha and the attendant said "that is a dead man, no one can escape from these three-- sickness, old age and death." Buddha was shocked when he realized that these three come to all people. Further on the road they met a sadhu and Buddha asked him "is there no escape from sickness, old age and death?" The sadhu replied that only upon Self Realization does one escape from needing to be born again and again to suffer pain, sickness, old age and death.
· Buddha was a rich man. He had many palaces and could enjoy all the girls he wanted.
· He had a beautiful wife and child, everything. Why did he leave all these and seek Self Realization alone? It was because he was an intelligent person, who was waking from maya, that he could take the correct path.
JNANIS:
· Everyone has a Self. If a person surrenders to that Self in the heart and wants it to clean his mind, the Self can bring him to a Jnani, who has "no mind" and that Jnani can teach him.
· If a person has at least some qualifications and if it is in his parabdha (fate) to stay with a Jnani, then that satsang with the Jnani can give him dispassion and clean his mind of thoughts.
· When a person is ripe and has complete qualifications, at the final stage before Self-Realization, the Jnani can help if the mind rises up and tries to escape and come out. Then the Guru's Grace can push the mind back into the heart and kill the mind.
· For peoples' sins and merits God will automatically give punishments and rewards. But people blame God because they are in maya. They don't know the sins which they have committed. If anyone knows their sins and really repents it will make their punishments a little less.
· Many people in maya say there is no rebirth. They say we won't get sick or if we do the doctor can easily cure us. They feel maybe we will die but that isn't until we get old and that is a long way off. Let's enjoy ourselves that is what life is for. No one can help people who are in such maya.
· It is difficult for people in the world to understand what spiritual life is. People cannot be saved, nor can their bad karmas be removed by performing special pujas or ceremonies. Good and bad karmas will ripen and bring their rewards and punishments. Nobody can cancel or change that. No one can give moksha to another. It is for this reason that people have difficulty identifying who a Jnani is and who is not. Everybody has to carry his own weight. You have to do your own sadhana yourself. A Jnani can show you the way but you have to walk the walk yourself."
"I first met Papaji in 1992, although I had corresponded with him for about a year before I finally went to see him"
There is an oriental saying: The real cannot fake it and the fake cannot realize it. So let this be:
http://itisnotreal.com/whoisreal.html
was interesting to read Johns input.I don.t know much about Edward Muzika but found on Robert Adams website that family members were happy to water down the advaitic teaching of Robert and prayer was suddenly very important and prayers for soldiers at war. It smacked of a Christianization of the teaching. How sad!
@ David Godman.
It really is amazing and inspiring the ammount of time you have spent around jnanis. That must have had an incredible benefit as far as sadhana. Even unrealized I would think that you must have gained an incredible sense of peace from being around such sages.
@ myself
More and more I feel it's like what else is there to do? It seems like I can do to benefit the life, and the spiritual happiness.
"There is an oriental saying: The real cannot fake it and the fake cannot realize it."
And I can't think of anything easier or more easily accomplished then not being fake. I don't know how easy Self-Realization is, though perhaps I'm trying to find out. But sincerity is one of the easiest and simplest choices. And if we are sincere we can sense who else is sincere and is a benefit to us. I also think sincerity and honesty with oneself and others is probably one of the most beneficial things I can choose to be and a great aid in pursuit of the Realization of who I really am. For instance, it seems to me int he pursuit of Realization it is simple, and when jnanis speak it is always clear. In some of the ways I don't measure up per se, or am stuck in vasanas, it actually seems rather obvious. It's my attachment to, or feeling of need for that particular delusional error that keeps me pursuing it. But deep down I know it's a delusional error. A jnani reminds me taht it is a delusional error (and often it's not a surprise which things he calls out, but alwas a welcome relief that someone sees it so clearly, and I feel that way with the Mathru Sri Sarada thing I posted), as much as I want to rationalize that I don't need to stop engaging in it. It seems like perhaps, the inquiry Ramana was teaching was once I cease to engage in delusional errors that I deep down know they are, and have relinquished many of my strong attachments, I can investigate into the supposed individual, that he is but a figment of imagination, and the real Existence that that root delusion appeared in will remain as it always was, my existence that always was, it seems.
On Ed, and David godman can decide whether to post it. (it may be a result of one of my aforementioned, delusional errors-laugh)) But just giving my impression of the link posted. Nothing against the person. But it is noteable that he really felt he had to validate that he was qualified, giving examples and even pictures. I don't think someone that is actually qualified would feel that need. Oh yeah, and he said that he had awakened from being around Robert from the terrible world. I do remember specifically reading in a satsang transcript of Robert Adams that one should not hate the world, and that to reject anything in one's experience is to reject a part of oneself. Robert also seemed to recognize that all religions were really the same, including Christianity. Granted, like advaita, there are many Christian to use Papaji's euphemism "false coins". But I'm learning that, and Ramana said this in Who am I?, that one should not despise those one views as evil or deluded. Mathru Sri Sarada said that in her sadhana she pictured people who angered her as her guru. I have to say angry and despising others is something I have really struggled with, and much of my latest correspondence with my guru has been about that, and him lecturing me on basics such as ahimsa (non-harm) with body, speech and mind. What's so awesome about such a relationship with a jnani, is that the advice they give may be humbling, it may call attention to what a beginner I am, how deluded, but if I simply put into practice, they gave the right advice and will my life will be so much better, my happiness so much greater, my behavior so much kinder and attractive, and ultimately Realization of my real existence.
"family members were happy to water down the advaitic teaching of Robert and prayer was suddenly very important and prayers for soldiers at war. It smacked of a Christianization of the teaching."
How nice! Jesus was a jnani, is the Self!
we should all thank Ed Muzika for transcribing Robert Adams talks, putting them in the internet and let the world see Roberts true teachings.
Concerning your comments I would suggest to follow the example of our sadguru Sri Bhagavan. He never spoke bad about anyone.
Hi David, It was delightful meeting you on the hill on the way to Skanda Ashram.
I have given my son The final talks of Annamalai Swami plus DVD.
Whilst in Tiru I learned it was the death anniversary of Rama Swami Pillai. My last sight of him was when he was in his late nineties, he was doing pradakshina in a rickshaw. He was sitting bolt upright with a turban wrapped around his head. He looked very grand, like a maharaja.
Best of luck with the upcoming biography.
Fond wishes
For the mortal who are involved with this mortal dream, the explanation like below is needed:
"I keep this page up because any attorney that would take their case would do due diligence and find most of their claims are bogus and thus less likely to go after me or this site's host."
Nonetheless, I do find some of Ed's advice, as I said nothing against the person, I did read some of the stuff on the site, not helpful for myself. This isn't about the person, since all people I suppose are the same Self, and it is important for the sadhaka in earnest ot REalize the Self to recognize this, and not hate or despise others. In the midst of many tenacious vasanas, this may not seem easy, I can testify. There were things like Ed advised, or I think it was Ed, on another site about self-inquiry, that if someone was having recurring depression they should take psychiatric medication.
Honestly, in my own experience, inquiry, and guru/devotee relationship are superior to anything psychiatry or psychology thinks it understands about happiness, the mind, or even functioning in the world. In my own experience all problems are spiritual, and the worse thing I could have done for depression and anxiety and hallucenations was take medication for it. But I do recognize that i'm glad that he has a site that has stuff with Robert Adams stuff on it. Th at's all I care about.
That's all I visited his site for anyway. I'd skip over his introductions to recordings of Robert Adams, I didn't find anything he said helpful, and I don't think Robert Adams needs such introduction or commentary, let the jnanis speak for themselves. Read Silence of the Heart. I do believe from my own experience that only a jnani is qualified to teach, and no one else really is. And an ajnani could only confuse people.
But Robert Adams was adamant that if you were sincere, you would find a sincere teacher. So it's really up to everyone to judge who is a help or hindrance, and the only person who has any control over one's own sincerity is oneself.. I may be absolutely convinced that my teacher is a jnani, and he is, but that doesn't mean that someone else is going to see that, or understand that, and there would be no point in trying to convince them. If someone chooses to be insincere, they will find themselves with teachers who tell them what they want to hear. What they think they want to hear. Validate their prejudices, not undermine them.
I do think that it's a mistake to believe that any of one's opinions, beliefs or prejudices can be maintained in the attempt to realize one's self as the Self.
"was interesting to read Johns input.I don.t know much about Edward Muzika but found on Robert Adams website that family members were happy to water down the advaitic teaching of Robert and prayer was suddenly very important and prayers for soldiers at war. It smacked of a Christianization of the teaching. How sad!"
Just wanted to say that you may want to consider how you are talking about others, before you tell someone else to do the same thing.
There is inspiration and satisfaction in the truths represented in these pages, for this I am grateful.
In response to " Anonymous said... " please ponder the following if you wish,
No defense is necessary where there is nothing to defend.
For further clarification -while it is good to get the message of truth out to those seeking it is equally important to correct an untruth that distorts and misaligns the light on the path. While it is the nature of Maya to pull the ego back to separateness, the Yama and Niyama ethical precepts, as set forth in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras were created as a foundation of right action to assist the aspirant out of the delusion of separateness. A prescription of sorts to stop the pain and to help reset the basics of human behavior to align the heart and mind (in a separate sense…) and better enable one to discern the company we keep.
By now I believe this is fairly common knowledge to most of us. Often it is humbling to review this alignment if a slip occurs - if even in the thoughts. From my experience it is impossible to consistently experience the attributes of pure awareness while one muddles with the satisfactions of the ego and flesh consciousness.
As we know only too well, Laws of Karma will balance the wheel of wrong doing over time - or this can be softened by those that care and have been fortunate enough to have found themselves in oneness with the pure bliss awareness - if even for short uninterrupted periods.
By sharing this light and a peaceful truth (as so many do on this site) or by giving a humble guidance and support to those who have discerned an untruth from their inner voice – we gently expand our compassion in alignment with our true self and affirming this becomes an important part of expanded awareness. The Self Inquiry path is a very elevated and advanced path that many who misunderstand it unconsciously make it an excuse to reinforce the ego consciousness.
Once this is realized we start again and the heart opens and life in that moment is a continuous thread of self knowledge. … resting in the I thought in deeper self inquiry, the smile of a child becomes you, a flower ..or an inspired poet speaks your words or the beautiful selfless doctor that remains in Hattie to assist the torn bodies lost in the Maya's play of life and death is an extension of your own compassion. As we follow the I thread back to the illumined heart of awareness, the consciousness of love, compassion and humility as apart of our true nature become apparent and the veils are lifted.
Hopefully this helps to convey my experience on this issue further.
Loyalty is the highest law it has been said, sometimes we need to question who we are loyal to and why. - "Everything is unfolding as it should" Robert
lars said...
i can only be deeply grateful to ed muzika
for taking the time to transcribe robert adams's talks and making them available to seekers who didn't have the privilege to attend robert's satsangs in person .one may not like his own speculations but i find that irrelevant and certainly not a reason to disrespect him.
John, very well put, and very inspiring. I have a question, is that still true for you, because what you described as far as sadhana rings very true for where I'm at. Is it still true for you, these delusions coming up, and taking you back into the wheel of karma, and then feeling the sting, or have for the most part have things gotten quiet? One of the things I wonder about, is even for the unrealized, does there come a time, even long before full on Self-Realization where the gross suffering and delusions stop really recurring? Or does it keep popping up, unless the ego has completely dissolved, or been realized to be non-existent? With the real Existence, the Self, Brahman remaining? I agree with what you said, and I didn't take it that you were bringing down Ed, but calling attention to what is incorrect or misleading and not helpful in this life and death necessity of deepening in inquiry/spiritually.
Also I suspect, from what I've read, and experienced, that some of the devotees of any jnani who may not even be known about have Realized the Self. I asked my spiritual teacher, and he confirmed in his usual impersonal way that the person who lives as his wife had fully Realized the Self. I could believe that you had fully Realized it, but I guess that you haven't fully, but nonetheless I can sense that atleast in some striking ways you are at a deeper maturity level then I currently am sometimes experiencing. I can feel it, from the transcendent clarity you express. Of course anybody who has spent 20 years with a jnani is going to have some transcendent clarity going on.
I was thinking a good analogy and relating with what John was saying, Aslan from Chronicles of Narnia versus the White queen. How Edmund was seduced by the power that he would get from aligning himself with the queen, and the queen's apparent goodness and her validation of him in his jealous relations with his siblings. I quickly re-read the dialogues with Ed Musika (not to harp on it), but it reminded me a little of the white queen. (although the analogy goes so far, as I'm not saying that Ed is evil) In the sense that in some of the things he said there was the seduction of elitism, a you and me are better for being involved in this, then the majority of false spiritual aspirants who haven't got a clue. Then there was Aslan, who I think very much represents the Self, the divine, the jnani, Maharshi, Christ. He only spoke truth, flowers grew at his feet, and he validated what was satyam, sivam, sundaram (true, good and beautiful) in the Pevensie children, while chasing away what was unholy, cheating, adharma, jealous, dishonest, betraying within them. Also I believe Maharshi used the analogy of the Lion to represent the jnani awakening jivas from teh dream of samsara, awakening them to the better angels of their nature. I would say, what I've noticed in the false advaita, that I've seen, or surmised to be so, including Ed's "teachings", is that there is a belief that Realization can be somehow intellectually achieved, that bad tendencies and habits do not have to be given up, it is kind of without that feeling of spiritual strength or fortitude, that inspires with bliss. It's hollow, like eating ash instead of good food. Whereas I think true Advaita, or true Religion, or true anything, or what is true, is that it always fills one up with inspiration, and happiness, and kindness. In the false advaita it is believed that enlightenment can somehow be intellectually achieved, exploited, doesn't involve happiness, is a nothing, instead of a perfect fullness. All of the true jnanis I've heard them speak, there message is extremely clear, and extremely simple, in a sense extremely obvious to an honest conscience. I get that from my correspondence with my guru, I get that from dialogues with Maharshi. I get that from what Buddha and Christ said, I get that from Robert Adams, and Sri Lakshmana Swami and Mathru Sri Sarada.
I don't care for Edward Muzika one way or the other.
Nevertheless why does Robert Adams Institute of compassionate living have a legal representative?
Why does his teaching have copywrite?
Why was his daughter Laila "MA" chosen for public conveyance?
Why not let his teaching speak for itself and unfold naturally through his books.
Yes, let it unfold in a natural way.
You can not own a teaching
This is attributed to Robert Adams:
You are always you. Only you can know your true self. No one can do it for you. Nothing matters but this.
The following are from Maharshi through Sri Narayana Iyer:
You look into the mirror and then shave your face; you don't shave the image in the mirror. Similarly, all the scriptures are meant only to show you the way to realisation. They are meant for practice and attainment. Mere book learning and discussions are comparable to a man shaving the image in the mirror.
...Just mind your own business!
Well, I can pick up Silence of the Heart and read his actual dialogues and be inspired, I can download Cosmic Joke, which is a satsang with Robert Adams somewhere online, or listen to Good for Nothing Man on Ed's site. So, what is important is that it is available. We can read or listen to his words.
"Why was his daughter Laila "MA" chosen for public conveyance?
You can not own a teaching"
Yeah, but it seems more like the law of gravity. Someone can say they defy it, but it still keeps them on the ground, or their spaceship in orbits. Someone can "own" the teachings, but do they actually own them? The good thing is that they are available, that is the important thing. I guess to phrase it another way, clearly the Self not being objective experience, or an experience, or an object, it clearly cannot be owned. And it is ever the same. If I'm wise I'll realize it is who I really am, and what really exists, and everything superfluous and perishable (including people and their apparently varied delusions) is transient and unreal. Of course I don't mistake this that jnanis are unreal also. Because jnanis are the Self and the Self alone, and so in all of my objective experience if I'm wise, I will consider actual jnanis to be real, and everyone else, and everything else to be a mere figment of my imagination. i.e. the Maharshi (and the many sages who are the same Self) is what is real, and is indestructable, and it cannot be effected, much less owned by an unreal person.
I've wondered if jnanis ever reincarnate, but then it occured to me, that all jnanis are the same jnani because they are all the Self, so in a sense they are all incarnations of the same sage. every jnani is maharshi.
I posted on my blog, this post, which is my dialogue (with pictures) between me and Master Nome on August 2nd, 2009. I thought there was some good advice there.
http://cephalopodmollusks.blogspot.com/2010/01/me-and-nome-in-dialogue-pics.html
Of course saying "all is illusion" can for some be a handy way for the priests of neo-Advaita to garner wealth (fiduciary, power, prestige, etc.) for themselves. For the world - particularly the west - loves an easy answer, and will pay for it. Hence the world tours for many of these neo-Advaita teachers some of whom stay in five-star hotels, luxuriate at fancy 'retreats', purchase homes, etc.... all paid for by those little donation boxes at the door. And by a few wealthy private sponsors, who in return for their tax-free large donations get to spend much more quality time with the 'teacher' than those unable to fund the corporate enterprises they form.
To cement home their message of 'do nothing, you are already enlightened' any number of tricks and techniques are used. One popular 'teacher' uses NLP hypnosis techniques, others use verbal pacing, considerable peer pressure, stories ad nauseam, relationship therapies, and so on. But rarely is there anything requiring discrimination, attention, and discernment such as Shankara recommended. And certainly nothing even close to the effort which Ramana Maharshi said was essential. No, that would frighten off the customers. As would intelligent discussion. For the one thing sadly common to most of the neo-Advaita crowd is a strong subcurrent of anti-intellectualism. As though nothing of merit could ever come of using the intellect and learning. Rather thay abandon it for a blissed out absolutism. "Listen only to the heart" they say. An instruction which you may have noticed, is utterly tautological. The difference between neo-Advaita in this regard and rigid fundamentalism ("God tells me what to do"), is picayune.
Neo-Advaita packages an idea for mass consumption - the idea that enlightenment, awakening, Truth with a capital 'T' is easily within the one's reach. Aspirants gladly pay for the show, for the idea, that they are on the right path, that it is easy, and that they cannot fail if only they keep coming to satsang, buy the books, and parrot back the mantra "I am already awake", "I am That", "All is illusion", "Who am I", and similar such meaningless phrases. Please note: Those who truly awoke such as Ramana Maharshi, ibn el'Arabi, Rab'ia, and such also used these phrases - but only in specific contexts and only in instructing specific individuals. There is a universe of difference between Nisagardatta saying "I am That" and someone setting themselves up as an "enlightened teacher" then saying the same thing. True Awakening is very rare. It is not available at some corner store satsang. Regardless of the immense propaganda to the contrary. Thinking you are awake does not make it so
Peters pages
Nome's latest response that filled my heart with joy. It had relevence to a bit of my deluded dialogues here, even though I didn't mention this in my letters to him, and the particular individual is someone else.
Dear Scott,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste. The Bhagavad Gita says: For that which has birth, death is certain; for that which has death, birth is certain. If there is the individual, incarnation will follow. Is there the individual? Ask yourself: Who am I? For the Self, unborn and immutable, there is no incarnation, no death, and no rebirth. If you consider the nature of Self-Realization, that is, its nondual nature in which the Knowledge is only Being, itself, why the scriptures declare the absence of rebirth for a jnani is clear.
As for the supposed blackness, blankness, or nothiingness, there must be one who knows such. Who is he?
The individual mentioned in your other email is of no concern, and my indifference toward defamation has already been explained previously. He cannot be considered of any relevance to the teachings, history, etc. of SAT. The involvement with defamation, dishonesty, malice, aggression, etc. speak for themselves, and even a simple statement of facts would represent a significant condemnation of that person's behavior and manner of thinking. It would neither be worth the time and effort to write about such nor would it serve any purpose.
We should abide as That in which there is no ego and which is reached by those who embrace what is true, good, and beautiful. We should not waste our breath or even a thought on the peculiar karma-producing activities of deluded egos. To say this bluntly in, perhaps, an overly simplified manner: there are are plenty of good people to speak of, why bother about those who insist on wrong-doing? Abidance in the Knowledge that perceives the true Self of all is best.
Know that within you which is the perfectly full, immortal Bliss. In That, all fears are gone, all desires are dissolved, and that which is real is self-evident.
Ever yours in Truth,
shiba said...
Hello.Long time no see.
Did ''Maharshi's Gospel'' is checked by Bhagavan himself?
I want to know how it was compiled.
Maharshi's Gospel was compiled and edited by Maurice Frydman. Part one contains conversations that he took from the 'Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi' manuscript which had not been published at that time (1939). Part two is mostly his own dialogues with Bhagavan. Bhagavan edited and corrected the proof copy of the book himself. The manuscript with his handwritten corrections is in the Ramanasramam archives.
Losing M Mind
'There are no jnanis. Jnana alone is' A remark of Bhagavan's recorded by Narayana Iyer.
Jnanis do not reincarnate
'Gnanis do not reincarnate'...
Here is an interesting excerpt from 'The Letters from Sri Ramanasramam':Page 379
(171) KAILASA
This morning a devotee brought an old copy of the Peria
Puranam and gave it to Bhagavan. Reading the story about
Sundaramurti going to Kailasa, Bhagavan said, "It seems that
Sundaramurti found that after his own arrival, the Chera Raja
had arrived on horseback almost immediately. The Raja asked
him, 'How did you come here without my calling'?" So saying
Bhagavan read a verse from it. A Tamil youth, who was
present, said, "Where is that Kailasa, Swami?" "Kailasa! It is
at the very place where we are. First of all, tell me where we
are?" said Bhagavan.
"That's not it, Swami. The Kailasa of which you have
just read, that Sundaramurti had gone to; does it really exist?
If so, where is it? Please favour me with a proper reply," said
the young man.
"I have told you already," said Bhagavan. "We have come
here now. From here we will go to some other place. If all
this is true, then that also is true. There, also, a Swami will
be found seated on a raised pedestal. Just like this there will
be devotees around. They ask something; he replies
something. That will also be like this. If you look at the thing
from the point of view of the body, that is how it is. If, however,
you look at it from the point of view of truth, wherever we
are, it is Kailasa. There is no question of its being born or
growing or dying. When we realize that there is nothing
real in this world, Kailasa is everywhere."
'Last Birth' for the Jnani is an Oxymoron.
In the Bhagavad Gita ,Chapter 4 verses 5-10,Sri Krishna says-'Krishna said:
Both you and I have taken many births.
I remember them all, O Arjuna,
But you do not remember.
Though I am eternal, imperishable,
And the Lord of all beings;
Yet I manifest
By controlling My own material nature
Using My Yoga-Maya.
Whenever there is a decline of Dharma
And the rise of Adharma, O Arjuna,
Then I manifest Myself.
I incarnate from time to time for protecting the good,
for transforming the wicked,
and for establishing Dharma,
the world order.
The one who truly understands
My transcendental birth and activities,
Is not born again after leaving this body
And attains My abode, O Arjuna.
Freed from attachment, fear, and anger;
Fully absorbed in Me, taking refuge in Me,
And purified by the fire of Self-knowledge,
Many have attained Me."
Thank you for your reply,Mr.Godman.
Then, were both Part one and two checked by Bhagavan or only Part one?
And, the proof of the book was originally written in Tamil?
And I found no infomation about Maurice Frydman in Maharshi's Gospel .What is that reazon?
Ravi; This from Letters is nice too:
31st January, 1946 (33) ASTRAL PATHS — HIGHER WORLDS
(...) All these places are in Tiruvannamalai, within this short time. It is the same way with the other worlds. You have only to turn your minds to them. You can see them all in one moment. But what is the use? You merely go about from place to place get tired and disgusted. (...)
Similarly someone enquired of Bhagavan some time back, "People talk of Vaikunta, Kailasa, Indraloka, Chandraloka, etc. Do they really exist?"
Bhagavan replied, "Certainly. You can rest assured that they all exist. There also a Swami like me will be found seated on a couch and disciples will also be seated around him. They will ask something and he will say something in reply. Everything will be more or less like this. What of that? If one sees Chandraloka, he will ask for Indraloka, and after Indraloka, Vaikunta and after Vaikunta, Kailasa, and so on, and the mind goes on wandering.
Both parts were checked by Bhagavan.
The original text was written in English. The Tamil version that is available is a translation of this English version, not the original text. Most of the dialogues in Talks were recorded in English. Frydman took some of these and used them for Maharshi's Gospel.
Frydman did not like to take credit for many of the things that he did during his life. He often went to extreme lengths to avoid being publicly associated with work that he had done.
In the 1940s he started and ran a community for ex-prisoners in Aundh, a princely state in Modern-day Maharashtra. This was such a success, a Hindi film was made about the project. Maurice agreed to work a a technical advisor since the project was started by him, but he refused to have his name appear on the credits. When the director insisted, Maurice threatened to sue him if his name appeared, and the director eventually had to back down.
' He often went to extreme lengths to avoid being publicly associated with work that he had done.' Maurice's desire to remain anonymous reminds me of Papaji's desire to be secretive about his location so that he could meet with only a chosen group at a time. Of course, that changed as he became older. I guess Maurice, like Papaji, was able to accomplish more and minimize hassles as a result of his secretiveness.
Thank you for your reply, Mr.Godman.
Was it very rare for Bhagavan to check the proof which were written in English?
And I think Maharshi's Gospel is the most reliable book among English books, because English sentences of the book was checked by Bhagavan himself.
About Maurice Frydman I can't understand the sentence 'ran a community for ex-prisoners' clearly.Did he try to free prisoners in Aundh?
Maurice Frydman is somehow mysterious person, isn't he?
Here is an excerpt from 'The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna' ,Chapter 34 where the Master brings out the topic of Rebirth in his conversation with Bankim Chandra Chatterjee,The Bengali Novelist:
"Life after death:
MASTER (to Bankim): "I understand you are a great pundit and have written many books.
Please tell me what you think about man's duties? What will accompany him after death?
You believe in the hereafter, don't you?"
BANKIM: "The hereafter? What is that?"
MASTER: "True. When a man dies after attaining Knowledge, he doesn't have to go to
another plane of existence; he isn't born again. But as long as he has not attained
Knowledge, as long as he has not realized God, he must come back to the life of this earth;
he can never escape it. For such a person there is a hereafter. A man is liberated after
attaining Knowledge, after realizing God. For him there is no further coming back to earth.
If a boiled paddy-grain is sown, it doesn't sprout. Just so, if a man is boiled by the fire of
Knowledge, he cannot take part any more in the play of creation; he cannot lead a worldly
life, for he has no attachment to 'woman and gold'. What will you gain by sowing boiled
paddy?"
BANKIM (smiling): "Sir, neither does a weed serve the purpose of a tree.'
MASTER: "But you cannot call a jnani a weed. He who has realized God has obtained the
fruit of Immortality-not a common fruit like a gourd or a pumpkin. He is free from rebirth.
He is not born anywhere-on earth, in the solar world, or in the lunar world.
"Analogy is one-sided. You are a pundit; haven't you read logic? Suppose you say that a
man is as terrible as a tiger. That doesn't mean that he has a fearful tail or a tiger's pot-face!
(All laugh.)
"I said the same thing to Keshab. He asked me, 'Sir, is there an after-life?' I didn't commit
myself either way. I said that the potters put their pots in the sun to bake. Among them you
see both baked and soft pots. Sometimes cattle trample over them. When the baked pots are
broken, the potters throw them away; but when the soft ones are broken they keep them.
They mix them with water and put the clay on the wheel and make new pots. They don't
throwaway the unbaked pots. So I said to Keshab: 'The Potter won't let you go as long as
you are unbaked. He will put you on the wheel of the world as long as you have not
attained Knowledge, as long as you have not realized Him. He won't let you go. You will
have to return to the earth again and again; there is no escape. You will be liberated only
when you realize God. Then alone will the Potter let you go. It is because then you won't
serve any purpose in this world of maya.' The jnani has gone beyond maya. What will he
do in this world of maya?
"But God keeps some jnanis in the world of maya to be teachers of men. In order to teach
others the jnani lives in the world with the help of vidyamaya. It is God Himself who keeps
the jnani in the world for His work. Such was the case with Sukadeva and Sankaracharya."
This is the same as what Sri Krishna has said in the Gita.
Birth and Rebirth are of no consequence to the Jnani.
The point is that if we are willing to admit the reality of 'birth' of a Jnani,there is no reason not to admit 'rebirth' of a Jnani along the same lines.
It may equally be said that a Jnani does not have 'rebirth' because he was never 'born'in the first place.
More on this later.
Maurice persuaded the Raja of Aundh to abdicate and hand over all authority to the village panchayats in his state. This was in line with Gandhi's beliefs that villages should be independent entities, subject to no higher political authority. When the apparatus of the state was dissolved, there was the problem of what to do with the state's prisoners. Maurice, who had been commissioned by Gandhi to aid the transition to village rule, volunteered to look after them and train them to live normal lives. So, they were all released on a kind of parole into his custody. They earned their full freedom by building their own village under Maurice's supervision, by learning useful professions, and by staying clear of criminal activities.
I wrote a blog in April or May 2008 about the authenticity of the various texts that contain Bhagavan's teachings. You can find a list there of all the books that Bhagavan checked and corrected.
Thank you very much, Mr Godman.
I have understood Maurice's role.I want to know more about Maurice, but he is so humble that maybe I can't find infomation about him.
'Monday, May 5, 2008' is the date of the article. Thank you.
To Shiba and others interested in the life of Maurice Frydman:
I found a fantastic two-part article by Apa Pant on Maurice in the May/June and December 1991 editions of the mountain path. Scanned copies are available at this link:
http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/mountainpath.html
I didn't know that Maurice's last few days in Sikkim were spent in the presence of Nisargdatta Maharaj. I thought Maharaj never left Bombay! Maurice's spontaneous love and compassion comes through in these wonderful articles.
Maurice passed away in Bombay in March 1976. If the article says Sikkim, it is not correct.
There is an interesting story about his final days. A few days before he died, a nurse came to his door and said she had been sent to look after an invalid. The people there looked at each other because no one had discussed getting any outside help. After it was ascertained that no one had sent for her, the nurse was told that no one there there had asked for a nurse.
She replied by pointing at a photo on the wall and saying, 'He's the one who told me to come'.
It was a photo of Bhagavan, and it turned out that he had appeared to the nurse in a dream and told her to come and look after one of his devotees. She was, of course, allowed to stay.
My bad. The article says Bombay, not Sikkim. The story about the nurse is very interesting and touching. Thanks!
"Neo-Advaita packages an idea for mass consumption - the idea that enlightenment, awakening, Truth with a capital 'T' is easily within the one's reach. Aspirants gladly pay for the show, for the idea, that they are on the right path, that it is easy, and that they cannot fail if only they keep coming to satsang, buy the books, and parrot back the mantra "I am already awake", "I am That", "All is illusion", "Who am I", and similar such meaningless phrases. Please note: Those who truly awoke such as Ramana Maharshi, ibn el'Arabi, Rab'ia, and such also used these phrases - but only in specific contexts and only in instructing specific individuals. There is a universe of difference between Nisagardatta saying "I am That" and someone setting themselves up as an "enlightened teacher" then saying the same thing. True Awakening is very rare. It is not available at some corner store satsang. Regardless of the immense propaganda to the contrary. Thinking you are awake does not make it so"
Who are you trying to convince? Who do you think does not understand what you are saying? What fraudulent neo-advaita teachers are you talking about? Generalizations are so lazy intellectually. Are there specifics? Is there a specific teacher you are trying to get at how they are faking enlightenment? Or is what you are talking about a prejudice, a generalization that is in your imagination based on very little data?
"Whenever there is a decline of Dharma
Then I manifest Myself. "
I still strongly have this suspicion, and haven't been able to rid myself of it that President Barack Obama is an example of this.
I love that quote, thank you Ravi!
"Losing M Mind
Jnanis do not reincarnate"
Thanx for your reply. That's kind of what I think I'm learning. Jnana is what is real and that alone really matters. I'm getting better at not prioritizing other things. One source of confusion on this, was other then lack of faith, which may have also been an issue, that if I realized the Self, I may still reincarnate as an unrealized person. Jnanis (or Jnana) don't seem to agree with this. But also an anecdote Robert Adams told that this one jnani he spent time with said that he would die the next day, and take the body of a man who tripped and fell accross the street because he had to finish his tasks in the world. (It transpired) But perhaps, that was really the Self, or jnana taking that body that fell and hit his head, and because of htat the jnani who is the Self was aware of this, that a man would hit his head accross the street and lose his ego. So in a sense, couldn't it be said that all jnanis are incarnations of the same jnana? So they are all the same entity which is the same Existence?
"For the world - particularly the west - loves an easy answer, and will pay for it. "
If those were my ideas, I'd probably want to examine them. Because the West as you put it, is many millions of people. If I take one person, they are sometimes so extraordinarily complex, let alone to generalize about a whole country, or people who live in a whole hemisphere of the world.
Maharshi did say when asked to compare India and the United States, "India is in the same place as the United States, the plane of thought".
Robert stated in his last hours during his recorded visions of Ramana, Jesus and other illumined ones;
"…my daughter Laila has a pure heart and this is the heart of God. She will help to provide the evolution of advaita to all.",.. "the depth of her devotion will enable many to achieve deeper states of pure awareness - Sahaja Samadhi."
"Why not let his teaching speak for itself and unfold naturally through his books?"
"Yes, let it unfold in a natural way." "You can not own a teaching"
Robert stated in his final hours that "… the beautiful subtleties of the teaching may be lost and misunderstood….this is an advanced path ….the teaching must be a higher vision for the future…. the few that will make the effort, will understand it ….by their own experience. … remember these things, it will carry many across the ocean of samsara, into the land of Self Realization."
The true heart of the teaching is often transposed and presented differently by the limitations and general evolvement of those who may have a lesser experience of it. The mirror we look into is often clouded by our own misconceptions and limitations. This has been my experience. Clearly this is part of the natural unfoldment of awareness, but those who wish to go deeper may be limited by the expressions and limitations imposed by thoughts and feelings of the somewhat misaligned to the pure intended truths. Does this make since?
This is in no way a judgment but a historical fact over time. Maya has its way and even clarity and truth are diminished over time if even unintentionally. Those on David's blog can intuit opinions and ego mixed with the truths, and sort this out due to personal experience, many novices can not.
Experience of the Self is again the only crystal clear measure of actual truth.
It is often said Out of 1000's one seeks out of 1000's that seek one knows. Hopefully this helps to unite us all in the compassionate spirit we seek to be immersed.
"there are no jivanmuktis, there is only mukti" Sri Muruganar.
Losing M,Mind said: I have a question, is that still true for you, because what you described as far as sadhana rings very true for where I'm at. Is it still true for you, these delusions coming up, and taking you back into the wheel of karma, and then feeling the sting, or have for the most part have things gotten quiet? One of the things I wonder about, is even for the unrealized, does there come a time, even long before full on Self-Realization where the gross suffering and delusions stop really recurring?
Robert cut straight to the point during one personal encounter with me– and he said after I requested life direction,
"Do you know what your problem is?
Your compassion is not big enough."
This truth cut to the core.The combination of this sage advice along with the focus of unbroken self-inquiry is the knife that breaks the chain of Maya. I hope this helps answer.
The deeper we go into the self the deeper our senses are aware of the subtleties of the attraction for Maya attractions - to keep the separateness going on. From Roberts words…
"What prevails? Who prevails?" You will see that it is the mind that prevails. The mind wants existence, wants strength, wants power. It makes you believe you are the body. Ask yourself, "to whom comes the mind? Who gave it birth? What is its source?" then keep still."
"In the beginning, when you are finding your SELF, you realize that I exist. "I AM THAT I AM" means, I exist. Same thing. But then you find out who is the I that exists, and you follow it through. And that has got to go. Everything has got to go. Now the average person will think, "If everything goes, what is left?" What is left, is Everything! YOU are left, as your SELF. And that is beyond explanation. Then you turn back to your SELF, and you become humble, compassionate, loving, because you are aware that you are the whole universe. And you can say:
"All this is the SELF, and I AM THAT." It is beyond experience. It is a revelation, that stays with you all the time."
"All is well"
It is very moving story.
Thank you, Mr.Godman.
And thank you for infomation about Maurice, Mr.anonymous.
What a wonderful story of Maurice Frydman and the nurse sent by Bhagavan; just too beautiful.
The narrow ridge of life on Martin Buber was that written by a different Maurice Frydman?
Dear LMM, You actually want data on
fraudulent teachers?
Perhaps being alert and useing discrimination is the way to go.
Not everyone who teaches is a Jnani. It you believe that Obama is a jnani, thats ok. He is a good man but it's a quantum leap to say that he is a jnani!
'The narrow ridge of life on Martin Buber was that written by a different Maurice Frydman?'
I should like to read this. Where is it available?
The only other Maurice Frydman who has a major presence on Google searches is a Belgian artist. This is more likely to be 'our' Maurice Frydman, given the subject matter.
Scott/Friends,
The Bhagavad Gita is truly magnificient-unparalleled in its all comprehensive approach that scales the Highest heights and broadest sweep that covers all,an all inclusiveness that harmonises all seemingly conflicting viewpoints.
One of the most Original and inspiring commentaries on this 'Song of God' is by The Great Master,Sri Aurobindo.There have been different commentaries on the Gita by champions of different schools of Philosophy,each colouring it to suit that particular school.Sri Aurobindo takes a more straight forward approach that brings out the Synthetic,multidimensional aspect of this Great Scripture-without any over emphasis or deemphasis of any aspect.His marvellous 'Essays On the Gita' is available as a Pdf download.
....continued....
...'The Bhagavad gita'....
Chapter X of the Gita is most inspirational-'The Opulence of the Absolute' as it is called.Here is an excerpt from Sri Aurobindo's Translation:
"God in Power of Becoming (Chapter X)
1. The Blessed Lord said: Again, O mighty-armed, hearken to my supreme word, that I will speak to thee from my will for thy soul's good, now that thy heart is taking delight in me.
2. Neither the gods nor the great Rishis know any birth of Me, for I am altogether and in every way the origin of the gods and the great Rishis.
3. Whosoever knows Me as the Unborn, without origin, mighty Lord of the worlds and peoples, lives unbewildered among mortals and is delivered from all sin and evil.
4-5. Understanding and knowledge and freedom from the bewilderment of the Ignorance, forgiveness and truth and self-government and calm of inner control, grief and pleasure, coming into being and destruction, fear and fearlessness, glory and ingloriousness, non-injuring and equality, contentment and austerity and giving, all here in their separate diversities are subjective becomings of existences, and they all proceed from Me.
6. The great Rishis, the seven Ancients of the world, and also the four Manus, are my mental becomings; from them are all these living creatures in the world.
7. Whosoever knows in its right principles this my pervading lordship and this my Yoga, unites himself to me by an untrembling Yoga; of this there is no doubt.
8. I am the birth of everything and from Me all proceeds into development of action and movement; understanding thus, the wise adore Me in rapt emotion.
9. Their consciousness full of Me, their life wholly given up to Me, illumining each other, mutually talking about Me, they are ever contented and joyful.
10. To these who are thus in a constant union with Me, and adore Me with an intense delight of love, I give the Yoga of understanding by which they come to Me.
11. Out of compassion for them, I, lodged in their self, lift the blazing lamp of knowledge and destroy the darkness which is born of the ignorance.
12. Arjuna said: Thou art the supreme Brahman, the supreme Abode, the supreme Purity, the one Permanent, the divine Purusha, the original Godhead, the Unborn, the all-pervading Lord.
13. All the Rishis say this of Thee and the divine seer Narada, Asita, Devala, Vyasa; and Thou Thyself sayest it to me.
14. All this that Thou sayest, my mind holds for the truth, O Keshava. Neither the Gods nor the Titans, O blessed Lord, know Thy manifestation.
15. Thou alone knowest Thyself by Thyself, O Purushottama: Source of beings, Lord of beings, God of gods, Master of the world!
16. Thou shouldst tell me of Thy divine self-manifestations, all without exception. Thy Vibhutis by which Thou standest pervading these worlds.
17. How shall I know Thee, O Yogin, by thinking of Thee everywhere at all moments and in what pre-eminent becomings should I think of Thee, O Blessed Lord?
18. In detail tell me of Thy Yoga and Vibhuti, O Janardana; and tell me ever more of it; it is nectar of immortality to me, and however much of it I hear, I am not satiated."
What Arjuna expresses -"I am not satiated" is representative of all devotees as well.
......Continued......
Regarding "The narrow ridge of life" on Martin Buber it was written by Maurice S Friedman. Different spelling, different person.
....The Bhagavad Gita....
19. The Blessed Lord said: Yes, I will tell thee of my divine Vibhutis, but only in some of My principal pre-eminences, O best of the Kurus; for there is no end to the detail of My
self-extension in the universe.
20. I, O Gudakesha, am the Self, which abides within all beings. I am the beginning and middle and end of all beings.
21. Among the Adityas I am Vishnu; among lights and splendours I am the radiant Sun; I am Marichi among the Maruts; among the stars the Moon am I.
22. Among the Vedas I am the Sama-Veda; among the gods I am Vasava; I am mind among the senses; in living beings I am consciousness.
23. I am Shiva among the Rudras, the lord of wealth among the Yakshas and Rakshasas, Agni among the Vasus; Meru among the peaks of the world am I.
24. And know Me, O Partha, of the high priests of the world the chief, Brihaspati; I am Skanda, the war-god, leader of the leaders of battle; among the flowing waters I am the ocean.
25. I am Bhrigu among the great Rishis; I am the sacred syllable OM among words; among acts of worship I am the worship called Japa (silent repetitions of sacred names etc.); among the mountain-ranges I am Himalaya.
26. I am the Ashwattha among all plants and trees; and I am Narada among the divine sages, Chitraratha among the Gandharvas, the Muni Kapila among the Siddhas.
27. Uchchaisravas among horses know me, nectar-born; Airavata among lordly elephants; and among men the king of men.
28. Among weapons I am the divine thunderbolt; I am Kamadhenu the cow of plenty among cattle; I am Kandarpa the love-god among the progenitors; among the serpents Vasuki am I.
29. And I am Ananta among the Nagas, Varuna among the peoples of the sea, Aryaman among the Fathers, Yama (lord of the Law) among those who maintain rule and law.
30. And I am Prahlada among the Titans; I am Time the head of all reckoning to those who reckon and measure; and among the beasts of the forest I am the king of the beasts, and Vainateya among birds.
31. I am the wind among purifiers; I am Rama among warriors; and I am the alligator among fishes; among the rivers Ganges am I.
32. Of creation I am the beginning and the end and also the middle, O Arjuna. I am spiritual knowledge among the many philosophies, arts and sciences; I am the logic of those who debate.
33. I am the letter A among letters, the dual among compounds. I am imperishable Time; I am the Master and Ruler (of all existences), whose faces are everywhere.
....continued...
....The Gita...continued...
"34. And I am all-snatching Death, and I am too the birth of all that shall come into being. Among feminine qualities I am glory and beauty and speech and memory and intelligence and steadfastness and forgiveness.
35. I am also the great Sama among mantras, the Gayatri among metres; among the months I am Marga-sirsha, first of the months; I am spring, the fairest of seasons.
36. I am the gambling of the cunning, and the strength of the mighty; I am resolution and perseverance and victory; I am the sattwic quality of the good.
37. I am Krishna among the Vrishnis, Arjuna among the Pandavas; I am Vyasa among the sages; I am Ushanas among the seer-poets.
38. I am the mastery and power of all who rule and tame and vanquish and the policy of all who succeed and conquer; I am the silence of things secret and the knowledge of the knower.
39. And whatsoever is the seed of all existences, that am I, O Arjuna; nothing moving or unmoving, animate or inanimate in the world can be without me.
40. There is no numbering or limit to My divine Vibhutis, O Parantapa; what I have spoken, is nothing more than a summary development and I have given only the light of a few leading
indications.
41. Whatever beautiful and glorious creature thou seest in the world, whatever being is mighty and forceful (among men and above man and below him), know to be a very splendour, light, and energy of Me and born of a potent portion and intense power of my existence.
42. But what need is there of a multitude of details for this knowledge, O Arjuna? Take it thus, that I am here in this world and everywhere. I support this entire universe with an infinitesimal portion of Myself"
...continued....
The Gita concludes on this supremely inspirational Note(Chapter 18):
"64. Further hear the most secret, the supreme word that I shall speak to thee; beloved art thou intimately of Me, therefore will I speak for thy good.
65. Become my-minded, my lover and adorer, a sacrificer to Me, bow thyself to Me, to Me thou shalt come, this is my pledge and promise to thee, for dear art thou to Me.
66. Abandon all dharmas and take refuge in Me alone. I will deliver thee from all sin and evil, do not grieve.
67. Never is this to be spoken by thee to one without askesis, not to one that is not devoted and not to him who does no service; nor yet to him who despises and belittles Me (lodged in the human body).
68. He who with the highest devotion for Me, shall declare this supreme secret among My devotees, without doubt he shall come to Me.
69. And there is none among men that does more than he what is most dear to Me; and there will be none else dearer to Me in the world.
70. And he who shall study this sacred discourse of ours, by him I shall be worshipped with the sacrifice of knowledge.
71. The man also who, full of faith and uncarping, listens to this, even he, being liberated, attains to the happy worlds of the righteous.
72. Hath this been heard by thee, O son of Pritha, with a concentrated mind? Has thy delusion, caused by ignorance, been destroyed, O Dhananjaya? "
To this Arjuna replies:Destroyed is my delusion, I have regained memory through Thy grace, O Infallible One. I am firm, dispelled are my doubts. I will act according to Thy word."
We can truly feel what Sanjaya expresses to Dhritarashtra,The Blind King:
" Sanjaya said: I heard this wonderful discourse of Vasudeva and of the great-souled Partha, causing my hair to stand on end.
75. Through the grace of Vyasa I heard this supreme secret, this Yoga directly from Krishna, the divine Master of Yoga, who himself declared it.
76. O King, remembering, remembering this wonderful and sacred discourse of Keshava and Arjuna, I rejoice again and again.
77. Remembering, remembering also that most marvellous form of Hari, great is my wonder. O King, I rejoice, again and again.
78. Wherever is Krishna, the Master of Yoga, wherever is Partha, the archer, assured are there glory, victory and prosperity, and there also is the immutable Law of Right."
Concluded.
...Ravi;
MASTER: "True."
That's the point. All this discussions about rebirthing happen only because reality is taken to be something personal.
As long as we take ourselves as a person it should be clear that such a person is submitted to personal experiences.
We should say like this master: "'My' life? What is that?"
Mr,Godman
I have finished reading 'The authenticity of Bhagavans writing and dialogues'. It is very interesting and useful information for me.
About 'Sri Ramana Gita', was the commentary by Kapali Sastriar checked by Bhagavan? Was English version of the book by Sri Sankaranarayanan checked by Bhagavan?
After 'Sri Ramana Gita' was edited by Ganapati Muni, someone who questioned to Bhagavan to convert him to their teachings published the book without permission. Is it right understanding?
And, was the all questions in the book done by that rude someone?
"All this discussions about rebirthing happen only because reality is taken to be something personal."
Ramos,yes,this is quite true.What I had pointed out is this interesting facet:
Birth,Death and Rebirth are there as long as the bundle of Karma is not exhausted-This is the Traditional view and all Jnanis hold this view.
Another ,equivalent view is that they exist as long as attachment in the form of 'I' and 'mine' exists.
This leads to the so called 'last Birth' premise for the Jnani ,who having transcended the duality of Karma is not drawn back to the 'manifested' cycle of Existence.
The deep implication of this is the Age old question-Is this 'manifestation' just a 'Dream'?Is there no 'Significance' to it once the 'awakening' is there?Is there no 'intrinsic' value in the empirical Reality?
In other words-What is 'maya'?Is this a power of 'Delusion'?Or is it the Power of 'Projection'?(yoga maya)
This is a deep question and The Gita does seem to admit that the 'Enlightened' one still has a Role to play in the 'manifestation'.This is what Sri Ramakrishna also says-That God keeps the Jnanis in the world to be teachers of Men.
These Jnanis do not do so under any sort of Karmic 'compulsion'.
About 'Sri Ramana Gita', was the commentary by Kapali Sastriar checked by Bhagavan?
Yes. The original Sanskrit version was read out to Bhagavan in the hall. Kapali Sastri himself has written about this himself.
Was English version of the book by Sri Sankaranarayanan checked by Bhagavan?
Sri Sankaranarayanan did this work long after Bhagavan passed away.
I have no idea what these two paragraphs are all about. I think you have misunderstood something from the 2008 post. If there is something I wrote there that you need clarification on, please cut and paste the quote and then ask your question about it.
Super story and nice try! Always with '… the last hours of …' from a body supposedly unable to talk audibly is a very interesting hearsay even in and by the standard of this earthly dream world, so to speak.
This one is credited to Lao-Tsu (over 3000 years old): Whoever talks the most knows the least.
I have a couple of questions:
1. Question about manolaya. I have long wondered what is manolaya, as Maharshi has many times warned us not fall into it. I guess I am not there yet, still would like to know what exactly is laya. I was reading "Final Talks". There Annamalai Swami has mentioned that it is nothing other than sleep. In that was is the difference between sleep and manolaya, if there is one? Have you experienced it?
2) Question as regards to "Summa iru" of Bhagavan. I rememeber in one of the Talks Maharshi says, since we cannot "keep quiet", He recommends Enquiry. Does it mean that if we are able to maintain awareness without any thoguth as such, it is still good; good enough? Is it same as the "give me one second of your time" that Papaji has talked about in "Papaji interviews"?
"Dear LMM, You actually want data on
Not everyone who teaches is a Jnani. It you believe that Obama is a jnani, thats ok. He is a good man but it's a quantum leap to say that he is a jnani!"
I was being a little obnoxious, on the first part, my point more was, based on my own (falliable) intuition on these things, was yes, there probably are pseudo-teachers of all religions, and philosophies. There are certainly pseudo-advaita teachers, and there always have been, there always will. So in a sense, (not that I'm always good about this), it seems kind of futile and wrong to spend anytime thinking about that, as my spiritual teacher pointed out, but also I should add, when I asked about the data. While there may be data on pseudo-teachers. (although it's hard to judge in an empirical way), what I was perhaps objecting to, is the utter belief in your worldview. I do think from my understanding, that all worldviews are wrong, all generalizations are wrong, and they are safe, and intellectually lazy.
On pseudo-teachers: Even in the Power of the Presence it mentions the pseudo-vedantins that would come to outwit the Maharshi. There are pseudo teachers, and when I first got into this, I really got off on the hatred of them. I also thought that the guru that I now correspond with, and listen to as I'm walking was a pseudo-teacher, I can emphatically say that I was wrong. He is a fully established sat-guru (and I'm not saying that to convince you), but I pretty much know that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The discrimination that Shankara talked about, I believe was really internal, and not judging others. It was judging what is real, and what is not real. I haven't fully understood what the Self is, and am not consciously abiding as That all the time, so I don't feel qualified to talk about Shankara's discrimination.
On Barack Obama, I do not know, you are correct whether or not he is a jnani or not. But I definitely (not to brag), have been since I was 22 effected by things in a hallucenatory kind of way, there was definitely a deeper intuition I had after that. And obviously, as I said, I haven't fully comprehended these teachings, I'm not even saying I have comprehended these teachings even remotely near as deep as they go. And most of what I initially thought was wrong, thank God for genuine guidance that I'm getting.
But I really do think that there is something more transcendent about Obama then just, he is a nice guy, or smart. Even listen to his address on Deepavali, or his speech in Cairo. There is some understanding (infact I suspect maybe full understanding) of principles such as are apart of these teachings.
After the mountain path articles, I also found this today:
http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/currsci/5/619.pdf
It is an article on a suitable currency for India, written by Maurice Frydman, in 1937. It is interesting that his idea for a food-based currency is probably as relevant today as it was in 1937.
Honestly, I am maybe the only preson I know, who while I do my homework, I play youtube clips of Barack Obama as well as Papaji and my own teacher, because i do believe it is darshan with the "I"-less Self.
Cairo speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BlqLwCKkeY
Mr.Godman
''However, he was not so happy with the questions themselves or with the motives that lay behind them.''
''Then Bhagavan told him, 'They came to me, not to get knowledge of my teachings, but to convert me to their own. They tried to get me to agree with them, but I refused. Even though I wouldn't say what they wanted me to say, they went ahead and published the book. This is a bit like a high-wire circus artist who falls off the wire, does a somersault on the way down to the safety net, and then pretends that falling off was all part of the act.'''
From these sentences I thought so.I thought questioners in the first sentence were 'they' in the second sentence.
To Anonymous said...
An open heart will perceive the truth.
...let the experience of the absolute be your guide.
We are one and the same and always will be. I wish not to deceive but inform.. When you see the higher vision all is unveiled.
All is well my friend and everthing is unfolding as it should.
Only the best to you in myself
Another question I have: There is kind of a seeming paradox for me. In Nothing ever happened, Papaji would claim to recognize other jnanis, on several occassions. The implication being a jnani can recognize a jnani. I believe it. At the same time, there is the question, how could this be? Because a jnani recognizes that this Self they talk about is the only thing that exists, and that there are no ajnanis. Nonetheless, jnanis seem to be able to recognize that someone is fully established, and not identified with someone else. But the SElf knows there is only the SElf, so the jnani knows there is only itself. So who is recognizing someone to be a jnani, and others to be ajnanis?
My teacher in this note, in reference to his wife, when I asked said:
"Sasvati's name, which means eternal or everlasting, was suggested to her conjointly by Dr. Ramamoorthy and Nome. As for her, it is self-evident that what need be known is known, what need be experienced is experienced, and that which is to be realized is realized. That is the Self of all, in which there are no individuals of any kind, and which is Knowledge itself."
He is evidently recognizing that his wife in the manifest life has fully Realized the Truth of the Self.
Another seeming paradox to me, Sri Lakshmana Swami and others I believe too, said the mind is destroyed in the jnani? So there is no one to act or make choices. I've read this throughout my interest in inquiry. However, when someone says the mind of a jnani is destroyed , it implies that the jnani is somehow incomplete or lacking something the ajnani has.(or I have previously wrongly taken it) I suspect that maybe this isn't waht is meant.
The jnani is not in some disfunctional state such as if say there was a head injury. It implies almsot that a jnani is without a brain, and the body is carrying on the actions autonomously. I don't think this is what is meant either. Because if that were the case, it would not be worth striving for.
What I think is meant (perhaps), is that the thinker has dissolved because it has been recognized to be an illusion, as has thought. So that the individual (which is a delusion, a pathology) is recognized to be unreal, and therefore evaporates and really didn't ever exist. So there is not a person doing things, thinking, carrying out plans, actions. (which is really the case for everybody)
The jnani recognizing the Truth of this situation has actually superseded the ajnani in recognizing that there is no thinker, no doer, no individual, which really is the case for everyone.
All this stuff that normally a person thinks they are doing, the so called doer (individual) has been recognized to be unreal. But the jnani is actually more functional then the ajnani, more in tune, more in touch even with the 'manifest' reality.
Maybe there isn't the manifest reality, but even if there isn't, the so called choices the jnani seems to make are the perfect ones, the most intelligent choices within that illusory manifest reality. When I say intelligent, I don't mean because of genius, or being informed, but because of not having the individual delusion, and all that comes from that, which is actually a hindrance to acting appropriately to any given situation.
That is my understanding, but I'm posting this as a question, whether what I'm saying is a correct understanding.
This is my spiritual teacher's commentary on Self-Inquiry.
The Maharshi: If one meditates for a long time, without disturbance, on the Self ceaselessly with the "I am He" thought, which is the technique of reflection on the Self, the darkness of ignorance, which is in the heart, and all the impediments, which are but effects of ignorance, will be removed, and the plenary wisdom will be gained.
Thus, realizing the Reality in the heart-cave, which is the city (of Brahman), viz. the body is the same as realizing the all-perfect God.
In the city with nine gates, which is the body, the wise one resides at ease.
The body is the temple; the jiva is God (Siva). If one worships Him with the "I am He" thought, one will gain release.
The body that consists of the five sheaths is the cave; the Supreme that resides there is the Lord of the cave. Thus the scriptures declare.
Since the Self is the reality of all the gods, the meditation on the Self, which is oneself, is the greatest of all meditations. All other meditations are included in this. It is for gaining this that the other meditations are prescribed. So, if this is gained, the others are not necessary. Knowing one's Self is knowing God. Without knowing one's Self that meditates, imagining that there is a deity that is different and meditating on it is compared by the great one's to the act of measuring with one's foot one's own shadow and to search for a trivial conch after throwing away a priceless gem that is already in one's possession.
In the abundance of his Grace, Sri Bhagavan continues to bestow the essential spiritual instruction consuming all doubts and answering all questions in the process. Such a gracious Guru leaves no trace of even the possibility of delusion. He is Brahman itself, revealing itself. He is Siva himself, destroying all the unreal and remaining himself as the Being.
He is Daksinamurti, conveying the whole Truth in transcendent Silence. He is Nataraja, whose blissful dance destroys the demon of forgetfulness and, granting grace and illumination, reveals the Infinite. He is the one who is the identity of all sages. He lives as their wisdom and peace and shines as their Bliss. He is the Self, which dwells in the hearts of all, the beginning, middle, and end of all beings. He is the one to be worshipped, and He is beyond all worship.
He is the one upon which to meditate, and He is that in which meditator and object of meditation are absent. He is th Liberator of the fettered, the copious spring of ever-fresh direct experience for those who thirst for Truth, the awakener of those who are dreaming, the revealer of Truth for those blinded by delusion, the Beloved and savior of the devotee, the Mahayogi, the timeless Rishi, and the perfect Jnani.
The Maharshi tells the disciple to meditate, without the disturbance of misidentification and attachment, ceaselessly on the Self. Why ceaselessly? When the meditation of identity is ceaseless, it reveals itself to be the continuous, natural, innate state of Being. When meditating, if one feels the mind's urge to concoct a concept or one thinks, "that is long enough for meditation; now I must return to my usual (deluded) state of mind", or if in the midst of intesne, focused meditation, it seems as if one's effort is about to come to an end or the urge for the mind to become inadvertent and to commence illusion occurs, one should apply onself unreservedly and maintain the meditation, destroying all time barriers. This is meditation "for a long time." The implication is also one of diligence, perseverence, and continuity in spiritual practice. Meditation should be maintained for as long as one wishes to be blissful and free. If one says, "I desire to be blissful always and ever free," his meditation should be perpetual. The meditation must always be that of identity as previously described by Sri Ramana.
my teacher's commentary:
"Ignorance is like darkness. Self-Knowledge is like the sun. Inquiry is the dawn. By it, all impediment, the obstacles to happiness and peace, are removed. All obstacles are but ignorance. There are no obstacles from external sources, and there are no obstacles inherent in the Self. The obstacles, and any limitation or bondage, are all composed entirely of ignorance. Self-Knowledge destroys ignorance, like the sun darkness, and the limitless, perfectly full state of true Wisdom remains. This is the supreme attainment, the attainment of which leaves nothing more to be attained, the bliss of which leaves no other happiness to be desired.
Attaining Self-Realization, realizing the Reality of the Self to be one's own identity, the bodily form is felt to be inconsequential. Abiding as the all-perfect God, the wise one is free of the body, referred to as the city of the nine gates in Bhagavad Gita 5:13, and of what pertains to the body. The Gita verse, quoted by the Maharshi according to B.V. Narasimha Swami reads, "sarvakarmani manasa samnyasyaste sukham vasi/ navdvare pure dehi kurvanna karayan." "Renouncing all actions, by the mind, self-controlled, the embodied one rests happily in the city of nine gates, neither acting nor causing to act." Thus, regardless of whether or not the body acts, the wise one, no longer under the influence of ignorance and thus no longer believing that the senses determine his identity or reality, knowing that he never does anything, abides in the happy transcendence of both the body and the mind. He is at ease, knowing he is not in the body when alive, and not exiting it when the body is dying. Disidentified from the temple of the body, he is identified with the indwelling God, with individuality effaced. He has inquired into the nature of the jiva and has found Siva alone is. If one worships Him--Siva--with the spirit of identity and the utter effacement of the ego, one gains release, that is Liberation from all of the imagined bondage. "
Wonderful,inspirational commentary.Thanks very much.
"If one meditates for a long time, without disturbance, on the Self ceaselessly with the "I am He" thought, which is the technique of reflection on the Self...."
Dear LMM,
from which text is this quote? In my understanding meditating with the thought "I am He" is not self-inquiry/atma-vichara.
"Question : Is soham (the affirmation `I am he') the same as `Who am I?'
Ramana Maharshi : Aham [`I'] alone is common to them. One is soham. The other is koham [Who am I?]. They are different. Why should we go on saying soham? One must find out the real `I'. In the question `Who am I?', `I' refers to the ego. Trying to trace it and find its source, we see it has no separate existence but merges in the real `I'."
(from "Day by Day with Bhagavan", also in "Be as you are", page 75)
"Another question I have: There is kind of a seeming paradox for me. In Nothing ever happened, Papaji would claim to recognize other jnanis, on several occassions. The implication being a jnani can recognize a jnani. I believe it. At the same time, there is the question, how could this be? Because a jnani recognizes that this Self they talk about is the only thing that exists, and that there are no ajnanis. Nonetheless, jnanis seem to be able to recognize that someone is fully established, and not identified with someone else. But the SElf knows there is only the SElf, so the jnani knows there is only itself. So who is recognizing someone to be a jnani, and others to be ajnanis?"
Jnani also has his opinions .This is the Human aspect and in this he is as fallible as any other person.To say that Jnani has 'No Mind' means that his mind is purged of all attachments.This does not mean that the Jnani would forget his 'Name',Address , other Particulars,memory of all things learnt,etc that are helpful in the normal Human Functioning in this empirical World.He may also have a preference for a certain Eatable-Like Bhagavan Relishing the 'Rasam' prepared by a certain Devotee and asking for a second Helping!In other words,he continues to be as Human,Perhaps more Intensely Human like what you have mentioned.
All Jnanis have displayed Amazing Powers of Memory-Like Vivekananda Reproducing Exact Passages from Encyclopaedia Brittanica after a Single Reading of 10 Volumes in about 20 Days!Like Sri Bhagavan Picking up Sanskrit and composing Poems in that language!
Some jnanis say that there is no 'I';Others prefer to call this as a 'Different I'.This is only a difference in Language,that is all.They both mean that there are no Attachments;that is all.
For Example-Papaji saying that 'I criticise Other Teachers Occassionally',etc.This is a matter of Opinion.In what way this 'I' is different than any other 'I'of an Ajnani that Criticises.Here the distinction between Jnani and AJnani evaporates.Only a Jnani soon comes out of this the very next moment,whereas an Ajnani would perhaps hold onto it for the Rest of His Life.That is all.
Everything else you said seems true enough, and I agree with it. However this statement, I wonder about.
"Jnani also has his opinions .This is the Human aspect and in this he is as fallible as any other person."
The reason I say that, is I would guess for the most part a jnani does not have opinions. Because opinions often, are an egoic interpretation of the so-called world. So, as Mathru Sri Sarada said, she may not know the capital of some country she has never heard about, but she is completely infalliable if asked about the Self, or spirituality. Although, a jnani I guess could be a Green Bay Packers fan, and not a Minnesota Vikings fan.
But that would be apparent. In the Self, which is what the jnani experiences there would be no preferences, is my guess. But overall, I would think a true jnani if someone expressed opinions about some worldly phenomenon they would question the reality of their statement all the way down to the root assumption of individuality.
And I'm thinking to have an opinion requires that root assumption of individuality. Although, I would guess, if there is an apparent opinion the jnani has, for instane on some serious manner. For instance, for the sake of argument, and I'm not saying this is true, Barack Obama is a jnani. He certainly appears to have an opinion on certain worldly things, but those are worldly things he has some power or influence over in the manifest world, and he may say certain things that are part of the worldly agenda that is being enacted by his person. If he is a jnani, it is to influence the world into going in the most true, good and beautiful direction.
If he is a jnani, and he were not in a position to directly influence things I would expect that he would not have an opinion on it. His opinions are useful as part of that bodies apparent life. Carrying out the dharma effectively.
So, I guess what I'm saying, is I suspect that a true jnani would not have superfluous opinions. I'm distinguishing here between opinion, and taste. A jnani because of the body, may appear (like Papaji I think) to like certain foods as opposed to other foods.
Ravi, you are welcome on the commentary
Oh yeah, Papaji criticizing other teachers, I would think might fit under my hypothetical Barack Obama being a jnani. He is criticising other teachers only because that serves a purpose for the people he has spiritual influence over. I'm guessing that, that is not just a matter of superfluous opinion. Everything a jnani does has some spiritual purpose. When I say purpose, I don't mean because the jnani is the doer, but because the Self is doing everything in the jnani, and they are only speaking and acting from the point of view of complete merger in that one Reality, and so the apparent world, people are egoic often, and out of touch with the true, good and beautiful, so a jnani's actions in the world would only bring about the true, good and beautiful. Ajnanis may not recognize it, or even recognize that so and so is a jnani, or understand why he/she did that particular thing. So when Papaji criticized other teachers, maybe it was only because those teachers would mislead devotees, and to in a sense demolish the obstacles preventing his grace acting on particular devotees in his space. It's said that Ramana Maharshi would not criticize other teachers, I don't know whether that is true. But I'm almost sure that Ramana had someway of accomplishing the same thing, even if non-verbal if a devotee was drawn to a teacher who was egoic and misleading, he had some way to breakdown that delusion. In my interaction this teacher I've been interacting with, a jnani, there are times where sometimes some seemingly harmless, statement is made, or questions is asked (non-spiritually related), but it has the effect of unraveling other delusions. So Ramana may not have needed to criticize other teachers but he had ways of demolishing people's core delusions, so that their vision was clearer.
"Dear LMM,
from which text is this quote? In my understanding meditating with the thought "I am He" is not self-inquiry/atma-vichara."
That is from I believe Maharshi's first work, Self-inquiry. And I believe, because it said in the preface that it is the Arthur Osborne translation, so maybe it's the same as the version in Collected Works. Maharshi did say it, nonetheless.
From intro: "For this present publication, the original version translated into English, in question-and-answer format, which appears in the 1968 Indian edition of the Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi, edited by Arthur Osborne, has been selected."
I thought since Ravi liked it, I'll share more of that book with my teacher's commentary on Self-inquiry. The book is called Essence of Inquiry. It was originally published, I believe with a forward by A.R. Natarajan. -Ramana Maharshi Centre for Learning, Bangalore
Disciple: Why is it said that only the mind, which is the internal organ, shines as the form of all, that is, of soul, God, and world.
The Maharshi: As instruments for knowing the objects, the sense organs are outside, and so they are called outer senses; and the mind is called the inner sense because it is inside. But the distinction between inner and outer is only with reference to the body; in truth, there is neither inner nor outer. The mind's nature is to remain pure like ether. What is referred to as the heart or the mind is a collocation of the elements (of phenomenal existence) that appear as inner and outer. So, there is no doubt that all phenomena consisting of names and forms are of the nature of mind alone. All that appear outside are, in reality inside and not outside; it is in order to teach this that in the Veda-s, also, all have been described as of the nature of the heart. What is called the heart is none other than Brahman.
It is only in reference to the body that the world of sense objects is regarded as external and the mind with its objects of conception regarded as internal. When one ceases to misidentify with the body, the notions of inner and outer vanish.
The phenomenal world is experienced soley as the knowledge of it. The knowledge of it is soley of the nature of sense perception. It is by such sense perception that one has an experience or knowledge of an object, inclusive of the objects of the body and the sense organs themselves.
The sense perceptions are known by and in the mind and nowhere else. Therefore, one and the same mind manifests as the senses and the objects and conceives of such differences.
In reference to the body, the mind is considered inner because of its more subtle nature. The mind itself, though, conceives of the body, the outside and the inside, and the gross and the subtle. None of these have any existence apart from the mind itself.
As in a dream, all the names and forms, the "outer perceptions" and "inner thoughts", the gross and the subtle, etc. are entirely contained within the dreaming mind, have no existence apart from the dreaming mind, and are composed soley of the dreaming state of mind, so is it with all that appears in the waking state in relation to the waking state of mind. It may be said that all of these elements and factors of experience (tattva-s) together compose the experience of that state, or it may be said the state is itself that which composes all of these. The meaning is the same: all is in the mind alone. The wise know all names and forms, all thoughts and perceptions, to be only the mind itself. So, in a passage contained within Who am I?, the Maharshi reiterates this wisdom, saying, "Nor is there any such thing as the physical world apart from and independent of thought. In deep sleep there are no thoughts; nor is there the world. In the wakeful and dream states, thoughts are present, and there is also the world. Just as a spider draws out the thread of the cobweb from within itself and withdraws it again into itself, even so out of itself the mind projects the world and absorbs it back into itself. The world is perceived as an apparent objective reality when the mind is externalized, thereby forsaking its identity with the Self. When the world is thus perceived, the true nature of the Self is not revealed; conversely, when the Self is realized, the world ceases to appear as an objective reality."
The Maharshi proclaims the Truth that there is, in reality, no inner or outer. He declares the nature of the mind to be pure like space. Pure means unalloyed, while like space means it is inherently boundaryless and untouched by form. As space pervades all but remains unconfined by all, so the mind pervades all but is unconfined by that which is conjured up within itself. The mind remains pure, which means it is unalloyed--unmixed with anything else.
If the mind does not mix with any object, then, negating the notions of objectivity as being delusions, what remains of the mind?
The dissolution of the mind is by Knowledge of the Self. Self-inquiry reveals it. The dissolution of that primary illusion, of a supposedly existent mind, is also the dissolution of subsidiary illusions within and based on it, such as the objective sphere of experience termed "the world." Thus, in Who am I?, the Maharshi reveals this wisdom in a manner similar to this section of Self-inquiry,
"If the mind, which is the instrument of knowledge and is the basis of all activity, subsides, the perception of the world as an objective reality ceases. Unless the illusory perception of the serpent in the rope ceases, the rope on which the illusion is formed is not perceived as such. Even so, unless the illusory nature of the perception of the world as an objective reality ceases, the Vision of the true nature of the Self, on which the illusion is formed, is not obtained."
The nature of the mind is known by the wise. The knowledge of the nature of all is known by the wise. This entire universe and the entirety of the mind are completely of the nature of pure Consciousness. Consciousness is our quintessential Being. That is the Self. It is called the Heart. The Heart, the Self, is all in all at all times. It is One without a second. There is no duality at any time. The one Self, or Heart, alone is, eternally.
The one Self alone is imagined to be divided into jagat-jiva-para, the world, the individual, and the Supreme. The one Self alone is imagined to be a jivatman (individual self) and Paramatman (Supreme Self). In Self-Knowledge, differentiation is realized to be unreal, and forever unmodified, nondual Being is realized to be what is real.
That Self is Brahman. Brahman is ineffable, formless, nondual, inconceivable Absolute Being. It is, and alone is.
From the Vedic rishi-s to the Maharshi, the Truth of the Self---of Brahman---has been revealed to be the nondual Reality.
Whoever receives and understands, by his Grace, this perfect Knowledge revealed by Sri Bhagavan, transcends the senses and their objects, dissolves the notions of inner and outer, and, becoming ethereal like space, realizes the Self, the Heart, and thus abides in infinite Wisdom and Bliss.
Om Sri Ramanarpanamastu
Om May this be an offering to Sri Ramana
I have just scanned 'Sri Ramana Gita'.The qustioners to Bhagavan seems to be good and sincere men according to the book.It is inconsistent to the description in the 'The authenticity of Bhagavans writings and dialogues'.
My teacher, Nome's translation of 40 verses on What Is -Ramana Maharshi.http://books.google.com/books?id=oDUAVSqA_PsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=saddarsanam&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Prayer 1.
Can there, indeed, be the belief of existence without that which exists? In the Heart devoid of thoughts, this is called the Heart.
How to remember that immeasurable one? Remembrance of that, there for, is, indeed, firm abidance.
2. For those who have taken refuge, out of fear of death, in the Conquerer of death,
The "I" notion is the first to attain death.
Thereafter, in them who are naturally immortal,
How again can there be space for the thought of death?
1. By all, a first original essence of the universe and of the "I"
It is said, the Lord, someone with boundless power.
Variegated in this, the seeing one and the seen, and
The screen, and the Light, also. He, the One, became.
2. With naming the individual, the world, and the Supreme Self
Principles, all doctines began.
The triad is so long as the "I"-notion will be.
The best of all abidance is void of the "I"-assumption.
3. True or false, this is consciousness or inert,
Suffering or happiness, thus vain is the quarrel.
The world is not seen, clear ascertainment of no "I",
Abidance without doubt, the Supreme, is dear to all.
4. With-form belief the world and the Lord are
So long as the with-form idea in oneself is.
If the Self is formless, who is to see?
That beholding is single, limitless and perfectly full.
5. The body is of the nature of the five-fold sheaths.
Without that does the world shine?
Without the five-fold body, that, this here,
Who at all see the world? Let them speak.
6. Of the form of sound and others is the entire world.
The existence of sound and others is a mode of the senses brought to light.
The existence of the senses in the mind's control is.
Composed of the mind is that world, we say.
7. With the intelligence rises, with the mind sets The world. Therefore of thought's light is this.
The splendor in which the mind and world are destroyed is the perfect fullness,
The true Reality, devoid of birth and perishing, the One.
8. Let them be spiritual practices for the vision of Truth,
Worship of the Supreme with name and form. Abidance in the true Reality, the Attainment of that Self-Being Alone is the true vision. Thus understand.
9. All dualities and all triads On some Reality depending shine.
When that is sought, all are loosed and dropped. For them who see Being, there is no movement ever.
Grimes had an interesting comment in the thread 'Reincarnating Jnanis'-
Why discuss so many Jnanis,etc.The answer perhaps is that they speak about the same thing in different languages with different expression.This way it does help.
The other interesting perspective for me is this-It is like the relationship between Sugar and Sweets.(Jnana and Jnanis)
Ramos said that Satchidananda only is and in this the appearance of the universe is unimportant.FOR WHOM?The moment we ask this question or even give room for this question,we understand that all Standpoints are 'SUBJECTIVE' only.Any philosophy that rests only on subjectivity-however lofty and however verified in the experience of a few 'Enlightened ones' is incomplete and partial only.
Ramos mentioned about the 'Crow alighting and the Coconut falling'-How this has a specific context,which if not understood would lead to a distorted view of the Analogy.I would say that the same is true when it comes to the description and view of PHYSICAL EXISTENCE in Hindu Philosophy and Thought as it had been LIVED BY THE SAGES.To try to understand the 'Thought' part of it while Ignoring the 'Living' part of it-This is the basis for all confusion and one sided views.
Let me give one example-Ms Noye observing Sri Bhagavan picking up 3Grains of Rice that lay on the Floor.If we are Satisfied with the explanation-"Bhagavan never did any of this.Only the Self did this"!Godspeed to our new found Wisdom.
All the Sages had a profound respect for LIFE-be it a worm in the pig shit.
This is what Vivekananda says-"More and more the true greatness seems to me that of the worm doing its duty silently, steadily, from moment to moment and from hour to hour."
"The touch of earth is always invigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supra physical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness -- to its heights we can always reach -- when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. 'Earth is His footing' says the Upanishad. whenever it images the Self that manifests in the universe." -- Sri Aurobindo.
The Saying 'Advaita in Thought' and 'Dvaita' in Practice-is proof enough that no philosophical thought is comprehensive or Final.
The Basic question that one needs to ask if one is interested in spiritual Living is this-
1.Am I looking for an escape from the job of Living?
2.Am I seeking a Remedy for some of my fears?
3.Am I after some supraphysical Experiences?
If the answer is not an Emphatic NO,one needs to examine one's quest.
It is only then one may appreciate why 'Human Birth' is considered so very precious-not by some 'Feel Good'enthusiasts,or some social activist Good Samaritans-but by one of the Foremost among the Jnanis,by one of the Foremost among the exponents of 'Ajata vada'-SRI SANKARA and indeed by all Great ones.
All 'Negations' are only to exorcise the 'Ghost' in us.That is all.
Namaskar
"I am a Rama Bhakta...I do not have any Experiences...Offlate, I am observing that when I think of Bhagavan or if I listen to "Ramana Sadguru Rayane", a kind of melting happens and eyes become moist. This is new to me. Even this, I cannot explain to anything else but for perhaps sitting before the samadhi of Bhagavan."
To Have Bhakti is a Great Blessing.You are indeed blessed.
This is a subject that interests me, but may not interest anyone else.
Before I was exposed to this stuff, early in my twenties I was exposed to alot of green-anarchy, primitivist stuff. It's a fringe leftist movement in the U.S. To me, it was compelling to me, that fall from grace was the beginning of agriculture, and the beginning of heirarchical systems, was where it all went wrong. I remember in that literature there was alot of stuff about how civilized people are somehow limited in thier consciousness from hunter-gatherers.
Some of the reputable writings of Jared Diamond agree with this, that life became much harder with the agricultural revolution and farming and cities. So of course, a question that would perhaps arise to me in light of these teachings is, what if it is agriculture, civilization and authoritarian societies that alienated us from our consciousness. So, then the question arises, well what if all non-civilized peoples and wild animals are jnanis, enlightened, sages. (No doubt if civilized people attain enlightenment, pre-civilized people would also, and even within these teachings non-human animals have been enlightened or attained enlightenment even according to Maharshi, who knows perhaps there were enlightened dinosaurs and trilobites occassionally)
But (on this assertion that wild animals and pre-civilized humans are enlightened)... there is some clear experiential evidence to me anyway that this is not the case, and that jnana is something far grander, more transcendent and supernatural then simply being feral. First thing, if wild animals were all in touch with the Self, then certainly if a pigeon wondered near me, it would be darshan. I would experience grace if I was ripe, in other words, why go to see Maharshi or read his writings, why not frequent with the squirrels and pigeons and sparrows, even the insects and spiders.
This doesn't work. I can say from first hand experience. Second, not only people but animals were drawn to the presence of Maharshi, saying that his grace effected them as well. The cow Lakshmi even merging or surrendering into states of pure Nirvakalpa and ultimately Moksha, correct? In the presence of the Maharshi this happened because of Maharshi's grace.
Maharshi would call attention, or say that for instance a jaguar that scared some his devotees was a jnani and that they shouldn't have been afraid of him/her.
Another thing I have been in contact with a jnani, even been in the presence of a jnani, there are things that I experienced in his presence that I have not experience anywhere else, far grander, far easier to experience in his presence then anywhere else. Which suggests to me that perhaps the teaching that reincarnation progresses and that humans are the highest form of birth, is probably correct.
I was also thinking about how, a jnani will let their devotees know that they are a jnani. Nome never said that he was a jnani to me, he let me know in other ways, because he could sense that if he outright said he was a jnani that would have turned me off, the Self that the jnani is, the omnipresence knew exactly how to respond to me, to guide me in, and let me know this is an association that I should continue associating with. But I really like Papaji's statement that you can't see a master with the eyes.
True, but a jnani will make sure that his/her devotees know that they are a jnani, so that the divine current can flow freely from them to you. Nome looked at me in satsang early in satsang, and the intention was direct, I was looking at the picture of Maharshi and saw a flame around the picture of Maharshi, so I kept looking at it. Nome had his eyes closed but opened them like a statue or gargoyle with a smile and looked at me, and I my Being was completely stilled in the Self, and he was radiating white light flowing out of him and white radiating ribbons were flowing out of him vividly. His point, or the Self's point was do not take my eyes off of him. So far no pigeons or squirrels have done this with me.
Joseph Benner
Quote from "The Impersonal Life":
To think of a Master is to create one.
This idea of a Master, by your thinking, becomes what you desire and imagine a master to be.
In other words, by your thinking you build around this idea, all the qualities you imagine a master possesses. Your human mind, through Desire, through aspiration, through worship, must needs create these qualities in some imaginary being, who is still a personality, for you cannot as yet conceive of an Impersonal being.
Therefore, according to the intensity of your desire and thinking, must this idea sooner or later come into actual manifestation., either by attracting to you such a personality in the flesh, or one entitized in the realm of visions and dreams.
As your human mind is constituted, it at certain times thinks it needs a Master, one to whom it can turn with its human trials and problems for explanation and advice, thinking life's problems can be settled that way. If I draw to you one who fails you or deceives you and throws you back finally upon Me, your own Self, discouraged, disillusioned and humiliated, it is only that perhaps then you will be ready to turn to Me within, and will listen to My Voice, which all these years has been speaking to you, but to which your proud and egoistic mind has not deigned to listen.
You who have not yet had this experience, who have not yet met the Master of your aspirations, either in human or spirit form; you, within whom My Words have failed to awaken a quickening response to their truth, - for you I have in store certain experiences which will surely lead you to Me later on, and then you will be brought to know that I AM the Master, the inspiring Idea back of and within every thought of and every aspiration towards a Master that enters your mind, whether coming from within or without.
It is taught, "When the pupil is ready the Master appears." And this is true in a sense; but not as you have interpreted it.
Your secret desire for a Master will bring him to you, but only when I have prepared you for such an appearance. But such will be only an appearance of a Master. The true Master or Teacher, when He appears, you may never recognize; for He may be hidden in an interesting friend, a business associate, your next door neighbor, or in your own wife or husband or child.
You, who have risen above Desire, you who no longer seek a Master or Teacher, or even Me, but are abiding alone in the faith of My Eternal Presence and Promise, - for you I have in store a meeting and a communion, which will bring to your Soul such joy and blessings as your human mind is incapable of conceiving.
Clemens' comment inspired this response:
It's funny because I found a Master when I least expected it, I was not looking for gurus, did not believe in the idea of gurus, and that is why my reaction was so negative initially to the one I had found.
I didn't recognize him by sight, and he certainly unlike the note Clemens quotes, did not fit my idea that I expected. But it is not a surprise that I encountered a master, a jnani, a sat-guru at that particular moment. My spiritual practice was intense, because my fear of death was intense, and fears of alot of other things, it was very life or death.
Vipassana was the practice that I did, observing the breath. Not controlling it. My friend and martial arts teacher took me to SF then Santa Cruz to a meditation he did not tell me anything about. My fears were intense, and I didn't want to be there, I wanted to escape, I think that on some level my mind could sense the presence of something that could destroy it.
Society of Abidance in Truth (SAT) is built by grace (literally is SAT)--> same as Ramanasramam. (I'm not preaching, you don't have to believe me), but my negative reaction was partly because of the 'frightening' lack of ego gratification or soothing quality to the environment, and I believe this is something that probably happens to alot of people who encounter a jnani for the first time, especially more immature souls. (which I was, atleast in certain respects)
Because the world, or what we experience of it, is the mind, a projection, a jnani has the power to pop the world bubble in their presence with great ease because they are the omnipresent Reality often called Brahman, eternal and infinite. The mind focuses on the jnani, and the jnani appears supernaturally terrifying, like a demon, a devil, impish, evil. Until the mind realizes this is all a superimposition.
Then after that, it seems to me, the mind prostrates, why my second voyage to SAT, Nome seemed supernaturally angelic, kind, and was literally, vividly radiating white light, and was a completely benevolent presence. No doubts, no doubts. A jnani lets you know they are a jnani, a jnani will do anything to desttroy the concepts that get in the way of the flow of divine grace. Honestly this last time, I had no doubt, no doubt, that I was in the presence of Brahman itself.
I just had a quick look at the first eight verses of Saddarsanam (Nome's translation of Ganapati Muni's Sanskrit rendering of Ulladu Narpadu) that were posted by Losing M Mind. I feel that the strange language might be a bit too much for casual readers, or even for devotees who want to study the text in English.
Some of the original teachings that appear in Ulladu Narpadu are not present (or are presented differently) in the Sanskrit text by Ganapati Muni. This new translation covers up the original Tamil teachings even more.
To give an example or two...
In the original Tamil of verse one (Kali Venba version) Bhagavan wrote:
'Because we, who are joined to sight, see the world, accepting one principle which has a manifold power is indispensable...'
Bhagavan himself does not 'see' the world, which is why he says that only those 'who are joined to sight' see it. The phrase 'one principle' (in Tamil 'or mudalai')is a neutral term. It does not denote God or any other divine agency. However, Ganapati Muni chose to interpret the Tamil as meaning that God's sakti was the cause of the world and the individual. In the original Tamil, the cause of the individual was not being discussed at all; he was merely there as an observer of the world.
In Kapali Sastri's translation of the Sanskrit the idea is presented as follows:
'Of myself and the world
All the cause admit - a Lord of limitless power...'
Meaning, 'Everyone accepts that the cause of myself and the world is a God who has limitless sakti'.
The 'Because we see the world' idea is absent. Leaving it out, to my mind, negates the logic of the original idea: that we see the world and therefore want to understand how multiplicity has manifested.
Nome's rendering of the Sanskrit seems to be unnecessarily elliptical and obscure:
If you happen to know Sanskrit or a good translation of the original text, then these words might make sense, but if you don't, these opening lines might well be impenetrably obscure. At least with Kapali Sastri you get an understandable English version of the original mistranslation.
I don't think I have room to do another verse in this post, so I'll start a new one...
(Continued from the previous post)
This is Nome's version of verse four:
With-form belief the world and the Lord are
Even Yoda from the Star Wars movies didn't garble or invert English phrases as badly as this.
Here is Kapali Sastri's more intelligible version:
To him who holds the Self as having form
God has form and so has the world.
But who is there to see in the formless self?
Itself is the Eye - limitless, one and full.
While this idea is fairly understandable, it is still some distance removed from what Bhagavan wrote in Tamil. Here is Robert Butler's rendering of the original:
If one's self is a form, then it follows that the world and the Supreme will have form also. If one's self is not a form, who is there to see their forms, and how? Is there anything that is seen whose nature is other than that of the eye [that sees]? That eye is in reality the Self, the infinite eye.
Lakshmana Sarma, who received private lessons from Bhagavan on the meaning of each of the Ulladu Narpadu verses, was given the following explanation of this verse by Bhagavan:
If the eye that sees be the eye of flesh, then gross forms are seen; if the eye be assisted by lenses, then even invisible things are seen to have form; if the mind be that eye, then subtle forms are seen; thus the seeing eye and the objects seen are of the same nature; that is, if the eye be itself a form, it sees nothing but forms. But neither the physical eye nor the mind has any power of vision of its own. The real eye is the Self; as he is formless, being the pure and infinite consciousness, the reality, he does not see forms. (Maha Yoga, p. 83)
Or, as Bhagavan put it more succinctly in Padamalai (p. 274, v. 25) 'The nature of things seen will be according to the nature of the one who sees.'
(To be concluded in the next post)
The logical progression of the verse - that objects which are seen share the same nature as the one who sees them - is lost in the third line of the Sanskrit: 'Is there anything that is seen whose nature is other than that of the eye [that sees]?'in the original Tamil becomes 'But who is there to see in the formless self? in Sanskrit.
The infinite eye is closely related to jnana-drishti: the seeing that takes place when there is neither seer nor seen, just the knowing and being of the Self.
This concept of the infinite eye just about makes it into the Sanskrit, but it almost disappears in Nome's final line: 'That beholding is single, limitless and perfectly full.'
This is unfortunate because the Infinite Eye has very specific connotations in Bhagavan's teachings. Here are three verses from Guru Vachaka Kovai:
878 The Self alone is the true eye because it exists and shines as mere being. Therefore, only that Self which is known by that eye, and which is not aware of anything else, is in truth directly experienced [aparoksha]. Even though this is the truth, those ignorant people who are actually the Self but in whom the Self-vision is veiled will think, to the contrary, that the non-Self objects, which become perceptible to the non-Self ego through the senses, have been directly perceived by them, and they call this 'aparoksha'.
879 Is the appearance comprising the triputis consistent with the Self that exists and shines as the infinite eye? The Self, by viewing with the powerful eye of jnanagni [the fire of jnana] all the non-Self objects that are in front of it, burns them and transforms them into Self alone.
880 The infinite eye is only being-consciousness. As it has no fraction [within itself], nothing whatsoever exists in its [perspective] to be known as 'another'. It is devoid of the vision of the pairs of opposites such as good and evil, [and also devoid of] space, time, cause, effect, karma, and so on.
The following two verses from Guru Vachaka Kovai can also be taken to be an elaboration on the basic theme that is found in Ulladu Narpadu, verse four:
52 If one corrects one's gross vision, transforming it into the eye of jnana, and if one attentively views [the world] with that eye of truth that is wholly jnana, then the world which was previously seen as the form of the five elements, beginning with space, will be only the Brahman that is wholly consciousness.
54 The jnani's vision matures into being-consciousness-bliss, the eye of truth, because the mischievous movements of the ego-mind have ceased completely. Since the nature of the seen is not different from the nature of the eye that sees, to the true jnani the world too is definitely being-consciousness-bliss.
For those who want to know what Bhagavan actually wrote in his verses, and who don't know Tamil, I would suggest Sadhu Om's recently published word-for-word translations: Sri Ramanopadesa Noonmalai and Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam. For those who want to access the teachings via an English version of a Sanskrit translation, I would say 'caveat emptor'.
Thanks for the clarification of your question about Bhagavan's views on Sri Ramana Gita.
Sadhu Natanananda's memories of what Bhagavan told him about Sri Ramana Gita were recorded in a conversation he had with Sadhu Om around 1980. The tape no longer exists, but I still have a transcript.
Bhagavan said that his questioners in Sri Ramana Gita wanted to convert him to their own philosophical point of view. That was the only problem he had with them. He was satisfied that the replies he gave were accurately recorded and printed, and he later took a keen interest in bringing out the text in other languages.
Your comment was good, but I thought I'd write the 4th verse out just in case my own typing, I did choose alternative words. Nome left alternative words in, and in the book there is the transliteration? I think.
4. With-form idea (belief) the world and the Lord [are]
So long as the with-form idea the Self is (the with-form idea in the Self is) (in oneself is)
That vision (eye, wisdom, beholding) is one (single), limitless, [and] certainly perfectly full.
David Godman says, "With-form belief the world and the Lord are
Itself is the Eye - limitless, one and full."
Fair enough, as a non-expert on these matters. One advantage that i see to the Nome translation versus the Kapali Sastri version (as a non-expert). As i quoted one of the alternative translations of a line that had a profound impact on me. Nome left in the alternative translations. It was "So long as the with-form idea the Self is".
While less intelligible that really fits with my experiences of deeper states. This idea in the form of thought that I have form arises, and the Self (or myself) seems as if it has form. Experientially in the other version it causes me to objectify these thigns.
For instance in the Nome translation it says, "That (eye, wisdom, beholding) is one (single), limitless and perfectly full." Whereas the Kapali Sastri version says "Itself is the eye -limitless, one and full" I feel like the Nome version has more potential to actually engender experientially the state.
Nome's language seems to me to be less dualistic. Less something I can conceptualize, and then go, "oh now I've got it", and believe my own interpretation. Whereas the other verson causes me to try to imagine a limitless eye. But that limitless eye is existence, it's not an object.
Another thing I notice in the first sentence of Kapali Sastri's version "To him who holds the Self as having form, God has form and so has the world."
That makes sense logically, but that's the problem for me. It also admits of a him who holds the Self or himself as having form. The Self is, so I understand, and I believe articulated in one of the Upanishads, where words and thoughts turn back unable to grasp.
So in these teachings, it seems counter-productive if it is intelligible in a way that causes me reading it to think I understand and believe my interpretation.
Whereas Nome's version just says,
"With-form idea (belief) the world and the Lord are" I think that perhaps gets more at the experience then the other version, which is why I'm excited about it.
When there is the idea of form, those things, the Lord and world are real, or seemingly so. So it's getting it seems like more at the subjective experience then the Kapali Sastri version, I think.
Mabye Bhagavan said the comments about Sri Ramana Gita casually, and he didn't intend to criticize 'them' seriously.If he said the comments with a smile the impression of the comments would be very different.
Other possibility is that the author changed the questioners into better man than they really were.
In any case I satisfied with the fact that Bhagavan checked the book.
"Even Yoda from the Star Wars movies didn't garble or invert English phrases as badly as this."
David, terrific! We need to laugh sometimes.
also, do not be offended LMM, Nisargadatta, i am told, couldnt read or write......either ;-)
About 'Taks with Ramana Maharshi', according to the differences between transcript of the court stenographer and note of Munagala Venkataramiah,the dialogues in Talks will be rather different from what Bhagavan actually said.
But acoording to the first half of 'Maharshi's Gospel' which comprises conversations that were lifted verbatim from the Talks, Bhagavan made only the small number of alterations.
Two facts seems to be a little contradictory for me.
And, is it right to think that 'Maharshi's Gospel' is the only English book that Bhagavan not only read but also collected by himself?
And I would like to know to what kind of corrections Bhagavan made.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl