2024-02-24 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Ego, freedom of will, surrender and self investigation
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- In a Zoom meeting with the Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK on 24th February 2024, Michael answers various questions about Bhagavan’s teachings.
A clearer audio copy of this video can be listened to on Sri Ramana Teachings podcast (ramanahou.podb...) or downloaded from ramanahou.podb... and a more compressed audio copy in Opus format (which can be listened on the VLC media player and some other apps) can be downloaded from mediafire.com/f...
A clearer audio copy of this video can be listened to on Sri Ramana Teachings podcast (ramanahou.podbean.com) or downloaded from ramanahou.podbean.com/e/ego-freedom-of-will-surrender-and-self-investigation and a more compressed audio copy in Opus format (which can be listened on the VLC media player and some other apps) can be downloaded from mediafire.com/file/v6rldluii4hliev
Sri Arunachala Aksharamanamalai sung by Sri Sadhu Om, with English translation by Michael James, can be watched here: vimeo.com/ramanahou/am000 . For advertisement-free videos on teachings and songs related to Bhagavan Ramana, please visit vimeo.com/ramanahou and click 'showcases' on the bottom left. Each original work of Bhagavan Ramana has its own showcase with explanations of Michael James.
Thanks sir. Michael James, very useful and helpful understanding the wheel and the fate Destiny
My God the questions submitted to Michael are so elementary. Any links to michaels talks without questions by babies
The egos existence is existence in samsara
In dream there is no ego, there is only awareness of the visual dream
Short Q&A videos from this channel can be watched on youtube.com/@sriramanateachingsqa
🙏
God is not subject to past, present, and future.
The human mind struggles to cope with the concept of "predetermined".
Because it implies that our inheritance in this life was decided in the past.
So...
How is it that God is locked in the past having predetermined our life's path?
Our life's path is indivisible from God.
We live out of God's grace.
We are united with God in the present moment.
To believe that we are subject to time is one thing, but to believe that God is subject to time is pure nonsense.
31:24 thank you 🙏🙏🙏
Please add link to the previous related video. I can't find it. Thanks kindly.
ua-cam.com/video/rnqP2wRtmD0/v-deo.html
Sweet beard bro
Thank You! 🙏
❤
🙏🕉️
In Guru Vachaka Kovai verse 37 it is said, "Like the illusory yellow seen by a jaundiced eye...". I cannot find any evidence for the idea that jaundice causes altered colour perception in patients. What is the explanation?
This is just an analogy to explain why our "sight" as ego is false in seeing the world, it is of course not implying that one actually sees yellow with jaundice.
Here is an excerpt from an article by Michael with a similar analogy from his blog:
[...] That is, however closely we investigate the world, we can never thereby see that it is brahman, just as however closely we look at a white conch through a yellow glass it will continue to seem as if it were yellow. Our ego is like the yellow glass, because so long as we see through the ego we will see only nāma-rūpa (names and forms: the phenomena that constitute the world) and not brahman as it is, which is just pure sat-cit-ānanda (existence-awareness-bliss) uncontaminated by nāma-rūpa. However, if we investigate the ego closely enough we will see that it is not the ego that it seemed to be but only brahman, just as if we look at an illusory snake closely enough we will see that it is not the snake that it seemed to be but only a rope.
The world (that is, the totality of all phenomena, whether in our present state or in any similar state, all of which are just dreams) is a secondary illusion, whereas the ego is the primary illusion that gives rise to this secondary illusion, because the ego alone is what perceives both of these illusions. Without the ego, no world would seem to exist, and so long as the ego seems to exist, some world or other will also seem to exist, because the ego seems to exist only when it grasps a body as ‘I’, and whatever body it grasps as ‘I’ appears along with whichever world it is a part of. The ego is therefore the root of all illusion.
The ego is an illusion that arises without any intervening media, whereas any other illusion such as a world appears and is perceived only through the intervening medium of ego. Therefore seeing a white conch as yellow when it is seen through the intervening medium of a yellow glass is an apt analogy for seeing brahman as all the phenomena that constitute this or any other world when it (brahman) is seen through the intervening medium of ego, whereas seeing a rope as a snake is in many respects an apt analogy for seeing brahman as the perceiving ego, because just as the snake is a direct (unmediated) misperception of the rope, the ego is a direct (unmediated) misperception of brahman, our real nature. However, whereas the snake is perceived by (and therefore seems to exist only in the view of) a separate observer, the ego is perceived by (and therefore seems to exist only in the view of) itself. [...]
happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2018/03/if-we-investigate-ego-closely-enough-we.html
That explains that as long as one sees a world one IS ego! Because ego is the primary illusion and phenomena and the world is the secondary illusion. That means WITHOUT the primary illusion, a secondary illusion is impossible.
Alas many seekers either do not grasp that or refuse to grasp/accept it.
@@johnmcdonald260 Thank you, John. Yes, I understand the actual teaching of the verse (37)..."without the first person, second and third persons do not exist", (similar teaching in Nan Ar 5) - but I must confess I am still surprised that the analogy employed seems to suggest that one with a jaundiced eye would see things with a yellow tinge. The analogy Michael employs is much better, I would say. Why would Muruganar use such an analogy and why would Bhagavan approve it??
...I should have said the analogy employed by John Grimes, as Michael is actually referring to that when speaking of yellow glass.
@@johnmcdonald260 I have my answer! From verse 4 of Ulladu Narpadu - "Can what is perceived be of a different nature than the eye that perceives it?". In the light of this it is clear that if the eye sees yellow the eye is a yellow seeing eye and can be described as "jaundiced". If the eye sees names and forms then the eye is a form with the name "eye". Also Upadesa Saram 16- "Kept back from what is seen, the mind seeing its own knowingness is seeing what is real".
I'm just a bit slow and dull witted haha.
On the subject of annihilation of the ego and there being only one ego, does this mean that nobody has as yet annihilated the ego? If I, as the ego, are the dreamer and I am dreaming and experiencing myself as Nick which is one amongst many characters in the dream and there are characters in that dream who have supposedly annihilated the ego, how come the dream continues?
Its a great question. Lets look at a dream. The "dreamer" is one man lying in his bed. Yet in that dream, a whole world appears. Characters from past, present and future. Multiple people, places, and minds. The dream characters may ask: "How are we all many minds, when there is only one source, the dreamer". Its all illusion, based on "lack of true knowledge".
I blame materialism for these questions rising within us. We feel that if one object is one, how can it be two, or the sum of its parts. But spirit (for want of a better word) doesn't play by materialistic standards. It (one) can appear as the many, appearing as illusionary parts, but its essence, its source is singular. it is one.
If one ego is seen through, and realisation occurs, that part of the dream returns to source (as one). But the source, has the potential or energy, to be continually drawn from, by the next dreamer.
Hope that may help.
Hi Paul. But surely the next dreamer would be the one ego that has just been annihilated, destroyed??@@PaulMcDonagh-rv6vc
I believe you have asked that question before. Your question is inherently confused because it assumes two contradictory things: Firstly it states there is only one ego and secondly it says, why has nobody annihilated it yet?
If there is only one ego, YOU by the way, how could it be annihilated since you are still in delusion?
You have not grasped that all others you see are all projections of the one ego, they are unreal persona.
AND, no character in this dream has ever annihilated ego because all characters, including ego, are not real. That what is only real is atma-swarupa or pure awareness.
That means the form and body of Bhagavan (a character and projection of ego) has not really annihilated ego (that's the story in the phenomenal world and very helpful for us dreamers) since there is only atma-swarupa. It serves as an encouragement that YOU actually are going to practice vichara.
We (or better YOU) seemingly practice atma-vichara and in the "end" the fictitious ego evaporates and that what remains is atma-swarupa. Is there still a "Nicholas Kemp" or anything else? No. Thus from the viewpoint of Nicholas atma-swarupa is like deep sleep, no awareness of any phenomena or a world.
We all suffer from a serious case of mis-identification since we believe to be that character while we are that not at all. However due to our strong attachment to this body and mind and the character we somehow believe that something of it will survive. Sorry bad news, NOTHING of the character Nicholas will survive, it can't.
Then how to know atma-swarupa? Only in practicing atma-vichara and then knowledge will become clearer very slowly over a course of many life times. And that knowledge is not Nicholas' knowledge but only the simple being atma-swarupa itself.
Finally, if YOU, ego has seemingly realized self then there is no ego, no Nicholas, no world, nothing but atma-swarupa what is in pointers nothing and everything, impossible to comprehend.
Is atma-swarupa aware of ego or Nicholas or a world? No.
Hi John and thanks for your long reply. In the Solopsism satasangs Michael has been explaining that there is only one ego ackording to Bhagavan hence my question. Also, according to the stories within this dream people have fully realised the self (if you will pardon that expression). People like Annamali Swami, Papaji, and a few others according to David Godman. Please don.t get me wrong, I am devoted to Bhagavan and his teachings and do my best to practise them diligently but in trying to understand the teachings better and better as Michael recomends I listen to the satsangs and read the books and questions arise. I can accept ajatta (if that is how it is spelt) in that nothing ever happened and what we are is one only without another and that I never existed as Nick but as mIchael has pointed out that understanding doesn't help so I am trying to do what is necessary. I have another query you might be able to help me with as well. It is said that ego can only grasp form/objects but when it turns back on itself it takes flight. So how van it hold onto self-attentiveness. Who is holding on to self-attention?@@johnmcdonald260
@@nicholaskemp4500Let me first say that David Godman cannot know who has realized self or not. I, and many others, do not agree with his assessments and actually, IMO, he got a bit infatuated with some of them which are impostors for me, like Poonja, who distorted Bhagavan's teaching and David's endorsement of Poonja has led many seekers astray. You are in much better hands with Michael's interpretations of Bhagavan's teaching since he, IMO, has the most refined understanding from all current teachers. David actually lacks refinement but got some followers, but also here a keen sense of discrimination is required.
Who is holding on to self-attention? I guess David was unable to clarify that? 😏
The initial step of self-attention is by ego which moves away attention from phenomena (thoughts, feelings, perceptions) as best as possible to the sense of "I am". Once that is done BEING "I am" is effortless and nothing is holding onto "I am" otherwise it would be a subject-object relationship. "I" looks at "I", it's subject only and not a doing but simple being. However in the beginning that being "I am" is only very brief since vasanas move our attention back to phenomena due also to a lack of strength of mind. Mind is very fickle for us beginners and it tends to stray away like a cow looking for grass.
Thus as soon as we notice our attention has strayed away we, ego, move the attention back to "I am". That can happen many, many times throughout the day.
Thus it is ego but soon after it is only "I am". It is certainly not, as some half-baked aspirants say, self attending to self which is nonsense since self does not need to practice, only ego does.
Often People speak about the annihilation of ego without being able to say what it is. Nor where it comes from and how did I get here. If we don’t know what is, how can it be wiped from the face of the earth cx
Before i knew, who or what I was, I had been given a part to play, in a dream.
People reassured me of the dream’s reality. This was real world, it was not make believe. Young dreamers live free from identity of the i thought, at the dreams beginning.
One day I thought who am I, and what is life? I wondered if peoples felt the same as I did.
The planet was here before I was born and Will be here after I die.
But the universe and all of human history is contained within one single thought I am in existence. I thought is the one thinking of reality, dreaming of who, what, where, why, when etc
Is the observer of blank state of mind without thougths our consciousness or ego. I think it would not be correct to say that ego is observer of blank state because this implies duality as nothing exist permanently except consciousness and ego which is initially observing the blank state is temporary arising from the self in dream state (Considering waking state also as dream state) and merging in the self in deep sleep.Can we not consider blank state of mind without thoughts in which ego is observer as a part of dream state ?Can we consider consciousness observing the blank state as sahaj sthiti and other states including the bank state of mind without thoughts observered by ego as dream state?Can the blank state of mind without thoughts and ego being the observer of blank state persist?How can we know that ego is observing the bank state or consciousness?
For me, the crux of this issue is this: Is the Real state, reached by atma-vichara, that of nirvikalpa or sahaj samadhi? Simple. What is the answer? I do not recall Michael ever specifying this clearly. If it is in the sense of the former, then it is incorrect to speak of anything after that. That is, to say that once one has recognized pure awareness one then acts in accordance with God's or pure awareness's will (can there be such a thing?) becomes impossible because in nirvikalpa samadhi, there is no body, no world, no space, no time. Thus, it must implicitly be sahaj samadhi, so perhaps we can make that distinction clear? If you realize that the world is an illusion, doesn't it disappear? Isn't that why Bhagavan sat in caves and said nothing for years? I would like to know if there was a progression in his case from nirvikalpa to sahaj samadhi. My conception of sahaj samadhi is that it allows one to act in the illusion, whereas in nirvikalpa samadhi, one would not see anything, there being only pure awareness itself. Somehow pure awareness can permit the illusion, knowing it to be only itself, whereas before it was black-and-white dichotomy of what IS and what is NOT.
By the way, insofar as Plato was mentioned in this talk, his mentor, Socrates, was recorded as having stood motionlessly, alone, overnight, at least on one occasion. It is generally taken to suggest a deep meditation. The early pre-Socratics, Parmenides in particular, had the philosophy that there is only One which is, all multiplicity, change and motion being illusory. Kingsley argues cogently that Plato and his disciples removed the more mystical aspects in Greek thought in order to make it more logical and precise. As to the Cave Allegory, there are differences of interpretation of course. This gets into epistemology, i.e., what it means to know. Western thought grappled with the same conundrums as Eastern thought, all throughout its history, e.g., German Idealism. And don't get me started with Nietzsche. That would get me evicted as persona non grata for sure.
You are certainly heavily influenced by spiritual teachings other than by Bhagavan. The problem with that is that in approaching and trying to understand Bhagavan's teaching only confusion can arise which is apparent with your many confused questions.
You need to drop all spiritual teachings other than by Bhagavan or dwell on your philosophers (and leave Bhagavan alone) which are irrelevant, forget Socrates, Plato, Nietzsche and so on!
To point out just one of your many confusions picked up from other spiritual teachings: There are no samadhi "hierarchies" from some lower samadhi to a higher samadhi. That is as real as your body and irrelevant with atma-vichara.
According to Bhagavan there is only the "natural state" which is also called "Sahaja samadhi".
However "nirvikalpa samadhi" is manolaya, a temporary absence of mind induced by yogic methods.
Nirvikalpa samadhi is, contrary to what most half-baked yogis and spiritual teachers claim, a state which should not be sought after since it does NOT anything for spiritual progress! Bhagavan told often the story of a yogi who asked his disciple for a glass of water and then went into nirvikalpa samadhi for a thousand years. When he came out of that samadhi the first thing the yogi said is, "where is my water?". Thus the yogi wasted a thousand years since mind was artificially restrained and therefore he could not practice atma-vichara.
Manolaya, like nirvikalpa samadhi, is a state to be avoided at all costs since, according to Bhagavan, it is not a sign of spiritual progress, nor helpful at all for liberation, quite the opposite.
This will unlikely make a change in your confused state and I am stating that just for the benefit for all who are actually and sincerely on Bhagavan's path and have discarded the baggage of concepts of other spiritual teachings and traditions.
So tell me, are you willing to drop your belief about samadhis and especially nirvikalpa samadhi or are you still attached to your belief picked up from half-baked spiritual teachers? It is not easy to let go of beliefs, ego loves to cling at "knowledge".
@@johnmcdonald260 Why should I drop ideas about sahaj samadhi? Didn't Bhagavan refer to this as "the natural state?" Nirvikalpa samadhi I agree is not the endpoint. The question remains no matter what words are used. What is the state of sahaj or the natural state with respect to screen and projection, let's say. Is it screen only is real, or a combination of screen and projection? How did Bhagavan see "the world" after his realization? What would it be like if you realized right now? Would the world disappear for you? Would you not see anything but black? Or, would the world remain, only you know you are not the body-mind? You would still see the multiplicity but know it is only the One? Or, would this illusion disappear altogether? Would you then die, because that would be the appropriate condition to go with that, it seems to me. You note, Bhagavan was all the time dying, repeatedly, not only the event at 16. Further, if there is only one ego, and we accept that Ramana, as ego, was subsumed in pure awareness, then how are we still here? The one ego was already absorbed in awareness and saw its unreality, yet billions of us didn't get the memo. Who is dreaming this, since the ego, as Ramana, woke the hell up long ago? Which state is true oneness: one which includes the world (includes the world in its oneness) or the state in which there is only awareness, excluding the world as unreal? If the latter excludes something and is exclusively something, isn't that dualism? Is the screen alone real, or the screen including the projections on it? Which is oneness, including or excluding the projections? Can the screen include the projections as not things-in-themselves, rather as modifications of the one? I think that should do it for now.
@@jazzsnareAlright, I took your entire comment with the questions and answered them one by one, my answers are in bold.
Of course all answers are according to the teachings of Bhagavan:
What is the state of sahaj or the natural state with respect to screen and projection, let's say. Is it screen only is real, or a combination of screen and projection?
*In that analogy only the screen is real.*
How did Bhagavan see "the world" after his realization?
*He did not since Bhagavan is not a body or form, what we see is a projection. His body looking at Arunachala is a projection of ego.*
What would it be like if you realized right now? Would the world disappear for you?
*Yes, since there is no “John”, that body and form - as much as there was not a body of Bhagavan or Jesus etc. Ego “sees” the world because when it rises it simultaneously “creates” the world with its rising, however it is entirely imaginative. After so-called realization ego vanishes and with that a “world”.*
Would you not see anything but black?
*The “seer” is only ego, when ego disappears “seeing” disappears too. The state of pure awareness is impossible to comprehend. It's existence - being.*
Or, would the world remain, only you know you are not the body-mind? You would still see the multiplicity but know it is only the One?
*Absolutely not, that's neo-advaita BS proposed by half-baked teachers and aspirants! Who "knows"? Only ego can be a "know-er".*
Or, would this illusion disappear altogether? Would you then die, because that would be the appropriate condition to go with that, it seems to me.
*The illusions will disappear. And there is a technical death, that what believes to exist, ego, will vanish forever.*
You note, Bhagavan was all the time dying, repeatedly, not only the event at 16.
*Bhagavan was NOT all the time dying, that is BS. At the age of 16 ego/mind was destroyed and, according to Bhagavan himself, his state never changed after that event. Manonasa is permanent. There is no “settling” or “adjusting” as some half-baked aspirants claim.*
Further, if there is only one ego, and we accept that Ramana, as ego, was subsumed in pure awareness, then how are we still here? The one ego was already absorbed in awareness and saw its unreality, yet billions of us didn't get the memo. Who is dreaming this, since the ego, as Ramana, woke the hell up long ago?
*Yes, there is only one ego and that is YOU. Remember, the body and form of Bhagavan is a projection of ego or YOU! There was no "realization", even realization is a dream since that what always exist cannot be realized, it IS.*
Which state is true oneness: one which includes the world (includes the world in its oneness) or the state in which there is only awareness, excluding the world as unreal?
*The world is and was never real. It is only real from the viewpoint of ego. For atma-swarupa there is only atma-swarupa, no world, no egos, no Ramana Maharshi, etc.*
If the latter excludes something and is exclusively something, isn't that dualism?
*That what you exclude is not real. It is like you fall asleep and dream to meet this beautiful woman and you have sex with her. When you wake up, do you still believe that she and the sex was real? Of course not! Same with the world and phenomena. Thus there is NO exclusion, you cannot exclude that what truly does not exist! Thus pure awareness is non-dual.*
Is the screen alone real, or the screen including the projections on it?
*Sorry, kind of a stupid question. That analogy was told to specifically illustrate that the projections cannot be possibly real. You need to deeply think about that. Don't be lazy and try to get everything served on a platter. That does not work!*
Which is oneness, including or excluding the projections?
*I explained that above. I won't repeat it.*
Can the screen include the projections as not things-in-themselves, rather as modifications of the one?
*How could “One” have modifications which would be multiplicity?*
@@johnmcdonald260 How did Bhagavan see "the world" after his realization?
He did not since Bhagavan is not a body or form, what we see is a projection. His body looking at Arunachala is a projection of ego.
What was Bhagavan's relation to the personage we saw and interacted with?
Or, would the world remain, only you know you are not the body-mind? You would still see the multiplicity but know it is only the One?
Absolutely not, that's neo-advaita BS proposed by half-baked teachers and aspirants! Who "knows"? Only ego can be a "know-er".
I think you are too quick to call it neo-advaita. Actually, there were always schools of qualified non-dualism in Eastern religious thought. It is not solely a corruption of real advaita, but competing schools of thought which found that position untenable.
Bhagavan was all the time dying, repeatedly, not only the event at 16.
Bhagavan was NOT all the time dying, that is BS. At the age of 16 ego/mind was destroyed and, according to Bhagavan himself, his state never changed after that event. Manonasa is permanent. There is no “settling” or “adjusting” as some half-baked aspirants claim.
His physical body kept going through the dying experience, I think you will admit. I think you are saying the real death could only occur once, and after that, it's just his illusory body in our mind. It is unsettling to me that his philosophy required the body to keep dying though. It does not seem very life-affirming, but why should it I guess considering our world is an illusion we all should want to evict ourself from. Remember, that, at least acc. to MJ, Bhagavan was clinically dead for 20 minutes at age 16. So, now we must invoke a miracle since all medical experts know that there would be severe brain damage in such a case, which begins even at a two or three minutes of no oxygen, let alone a full 20 minutes. Are you prepared to endure such an event, given that a miracle might not be in the mix for you?
If the latter excludes something and is exclusively something, isn't that dualism?
That what you exclude is not real. It is like you fall asleep and dream to meet this beautiful woman and you have sex with her. When you wake up, do you still believe that she and the sex was real? Of course not! Same with the world and phenomena. Thus there is NO exclusion, you cannot exclude that what truly does not exist! Thus pure awareness is non-dual.
This is so easy to say with regard to night dreams. It is very hard to take when it comes to trying to believe our waking experience is a dream. How are you doing in this regard, seeing your own personal world as nothing more than a dream, I wonder. I think Dzogchen says that life is "like a dream," which is easier to take, but yes, Bhagavan goes with the extreme view. If you see it this way, why is it so hard to just wake up from what you clearly see as dream? It causes people incredible suffering to try to figure out what to do in the meantime, while waiting for the awakening, you know, one's entire lifetime. How does one live given he believes it's an empty dream but one just can't wake up, almost always for one's entire lifetime. Where would one find the motivation to become, say, a physician? Illusory bodies decomposing, big deal. Better that they die anyway, since life itself is a disease. And so on. How to face the day, knowing that nothing is going to happen that will remotely satisfy you? Why have children, who will only suffer interminably and would be better off not? One may speak of compassion, but where would one find that, given one's own misery and the illusory nature of all others?
How could “One” have modifications which would be multiplicity?
In the sense that phenomena must come from somewhere and thus from the One, where else? Totally denying phenomena leaves a hole most people cannot tolerate. It has to be explained and not just denied. It cannot be easily brushed away. Thus, schools of thought have arisen to try to explain how the One includes appearances, which it does not deny as totally unreal, i.e., degrees of reality. The concept of unity is employed, how two things can be one. All these concepts have their problems, certainly. Christians do this with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, how they are many yet one. Logically, I don't think it works though.
Remember the ancient Greek problem (Zeno's Paradox) of infinite divisibility of space, that one must first get half-way there before reaching the end, and since space is infinitely divisible one can never get anywhere, motion is impossible, logically? Yet, we see movement every day and it takes a special kind of guy to deny all motion, doesn't it? That is, we see a duality of what ought to be, and what apparently is, and it is so hard to live in the world denying motion, so we ignore the conundrum, which to my knowledge has never been solved.
In closing, I think it is an exercise in irony, transcendental humor rather, that Bhagavan calls it "the natural state" whereas it is so far from any natural experience any human ever had that it is truly a transcendent joke on us all that we don't get. Not for a common mortal, but that of course is the point; if we take ourself to be pure awareness or being itself, and not the two-eyed, two-armed, two-legged humans we innocently think we are, then from there it makes sense. What are we doing in these bodies though? Is it really not real at all? In any sense? Can you just toss it away as a mere shadow? It is so easy to say things like "have no preferences," but to actually dwell upon that? Can you imagine ever not preferring a ribeye steak to dogshit? A massage over being burned alive? That is how far we are from taking life to be a little fairy dream. The concept is easy, the carrying it out, something else. If having no preferences in an endpoint, then I can see how infinitely far I am from realization. Taking my human body-mind to be absolutely unreal is as far from me as having no preferences. Remember, Bhagavan had to actually die, in MJ's version, in order to see this, not by reading books. There is a danger in thinking one knows what one merely has read, which can prevent one from ever realizing it for oneself.