Wednesday 8 June 2016

Can our mind be too strong for our actual self to dissolve it completely?

In a comment on one of my recent articles, We can separate ourself permanently from whatever is not ourself only by attending to ourself alone, a friend called Viswanathan cited an extract from an interview in which David Godman said, “This is a key part of Bhagavan’s teachings: the Self can only destroy the mind when the mind no longer has any tendency to move outwards. While those outward-moving tendencies are still present, even in a latent form, the mind will always be too strong for the Self to dissolve it completely”. Citing the final sentence from this statement an anonymous friend wrote another comment in which he asked: “David Godman, did you say ‘mind stronger than the Self’? I can’t get this. Is ‘the Self’ (our essential self) waiting for the mind to grow weaker so that it can dissolve it completely? How then was the partial dissolution taking place till then? Further, why did not the mind, while strong, dissolve ‘the Self’, if it all boils down to strong dissolving weak?” Since I doubt whether David would have read these questions, in this article I will reply on his behalf, though I may do so in somewhat different terms than he would.

Though the questions asked by our anonymous friend seem quite reasonable, I understand what David was trying to say in that passage, and I think the problem with what he says is the way he says it rather than what I assume he means when he says it, so I will start by trying to clear up a serious conceptual confusion that seems to be underlying this rather puzzling statement of his. That is, there are not actually two separate things, ‘the Self’ and ‘the mind’, but only one thing, namely ourself, just as a rope and the snake that it seems to be are not two separate things but only one. What is called ‘the Self’ is ourself as we actually are, and what is called ‘the mind’ or ‘the ego’ is ourself as we seem to be whenever we are aware of anything other than ourself.

As Bhagavan says in two passages recorded in Day by Day with Bhagavan, ‘The mind turned inwards is the Self; turned outwards, it becomes the ego and all the world’ (11-1-46: 2002 edition, page 106), and ‘The mind, turned outwards, results in thoughts and objects. Turned inwards, it becomes itself the Self’ (8-11-45: 2002 edition, page 37). That is, when we are aware of ourself alone, we are aware of ourself as we really are (which is what the English term ‘the Self’ refers to in this context), but when we are aware not only of ourself but also of anything else, we seem to be this ego or mind.

Therefore we seem to be this mind only when we allow our attention to go outwards — this is, away from ourself even to the slightest extent — so as long as we are aware of anything other than ourself we cannot experience ourself as we actually are. Hence what seemingly prevents us from being aware of ourself as ‘the Self’ (the pure self-awareness that we actually are) is our outward-going tendencies — this is, our inclinations or urges to be aware of anything other than ourself.

However, our mind and its outward-going tendencies are not real and have no actual substance of their own, so how can they be strong enough to prevent us from being aware of ourself as we actually are? The truth is that they never prevent this, because as we actually are we are always aware only of ourself as we actually are. It is only because we seem to be this ego or mind that we seem to be not aware of ourself as we actually are, but we seem to be this ego only in its own view, so since this ego is not real we are never not aware of ourself as we actually are.

However, because we now seem to be this ego, albeit only in the view of ourself as this ego, it seems to be necessary for us to make effort to turn our attention back within, towards ourself alone, but when we try to do so, we find that our strong outward-going tendencies make us resist our own efforts to turn within. Therefore the battle that is now going on is not exactly between ‘the Self’ (ourself as we actually are) and this ego or mind, but rather between our love to be just as we actually are — that is, aware of nothing other than ourself — and our desires to be aware of anything else (which are the ‘outward-moving tendencies’ that David refers to).

So long as our desires to be aware of other things are stronger than our love to be aware of ourself alone, we will not be willing to surrender our ego entirely by allowing it to dissolve completely in the pure self-awareness that we actually are, and until we are willing to surrender ourself, God or guru will not force us to give up this false ego, which we are now clinging to with such strong attachment. Therefore Bhagavan taught us that we must persevere in trying to be attentively aware of ourself as much as possible until our outward-going tendencies are thereby weakened and our love to be aware of ourself alone is correspondingly strengthened to such an extent that the latter becomes stronger than the former, whereupon we will finally be willing and thereby able to let go of everything else and merge effortlessly back into our actual self, the source from which we rose as this ego.

Since this is therefore a battle going on in our own mind between our opposing urges (vāsanās), namely our love to be aware of ourself alone and our desire to be aware of other things, does our actual self (‘the Self’) have no part to play in this? In one sense it has no part to play at all, because it is just as it is, and it never does anything, being eternally immutable and hence motionless (acala). However in another sense it is playing the major and only real role, and it will certainly be victorious in the end, because it is infinite love, and hence since it does not see anything as other than itself, it loves everything as itself. Therefore whatever love we as this ego or mind may now have to be aware of ourself alone is a reflection of the infinite love that we as we actually are have for ourself, so without doing anything but just by loving itself — and thereby loving us as itself — our actual self is steadily but unfailingly feeding us the love that we require to surrender ourself entirely and thereby dissolve back into ourself, like ice melting in water.

This dissolving of ourself in the infinite love that we actually are is what Bhagavan referred to in verse 101 of Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai:
அம்புவி லாலிபோ லன்புரு வுனிலெனை
      யன்பாக் கரைத்தரு ளருணாசலா.

ambuvi lālipō laṉburu vuṉileṉai
      yaṉbāk karaittaru ḷaruṇācalā
.

பதச்சேதம்: அம்புவில் ஆலி போல் அன்பு உரு உனில் எனை அன்பா கரைத்து அருள் அருணாசலா.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ambuvil āli pōl aṉbu-uru uṉil eṉai aṉbā karaittu aruḷ aruṇācalā.

English translation: Arunachala, like ice in water, lovingly melt me as love in you, the form of love.
Just as it is the nature of water to melt ice in itself, so it is the nature of Arunachala, our own actual self, to melt us in itself, and just as even the largest and hardest piece of ice cannot forever resist being melted in the warm waters of the ocean, so our ego cannot forever resist being melted back into Arunachala, the infinite ocean of love from which it originated. The colder and harder our ego happens to be, the longer it will take for us to melt, but gradually we will be warmed and softened until eventually we will dissolve entirely, as we must inevitably do sooner or later, as Bhagavan assures us in verse 8 of Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam:
கடலெழு மெழிலியாற் பொழிதரு நீர்தான்
      கடனிலை யடைவரை தடைசெயி னில்லா
துடலுயி ருனிலெழு முனையுறு வரையி
      லுறுபல வழிகளி லுழலினு நில்லா
திடவெளி யலையினு நிலையிலை புள்ளுக்
      கிடநில மலதிலை வருவழி செல்லக்
கடனுயிர் வருவழி சென்றிட வின்பக்
      கடலுனை மருவிடு மருணபூ தரனே.

kaḍaleṙu meṙiliyāṯ poṙidaru nīrdāṉ
      kaḍaṉilai yaḍaivarai taḍaiceyi ṉillā
duḍaluyi ruṉileṙu muṉaiyuṟu varaiyi
      luṟupala vaṙigaḷi luṙaliṉu nillā
diḍaveḷi yalaiyiṉu nilaiyilai puḷḷuk
      kiḍanila maladilai varuvaṙi sellak
kaḍaṉuyir varuvaṙi seṉḏṟiḍa viṉpak
      kaḍaluṉai maruviḍu maruṇabhū dharaṉē
.

பதச்சேதம்: கடல் எழும் எழிலியால் பொழிதரும் நீர்தான் கடல் நிலை அடைவரை தடை செயின் நில்லாது. உடல் உயிர் உனில் எழும் உனை உறு வரையில் உறு பல வழிகளில் உழலினும் நில்லாது. இட வெளி அலையினும் நிலை இலை புள்ளுக்கு; இடம் நிலம் அலது இலை; வரு வழி செல்ல கடன். உயிர் வரு வழி சென்றிட இன்பக் கடல் உனை மருவிடும், அருண பூதரனே.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): kaḍal eṙum eṙiliyāl poṙidarum nīr-tāṉ kaḍal-nilai aḍaivarai taḍai-seyiṉ nillādu. uḍal-uyir uṉil eṙum uṉai uṟu-varaiyil uṟu pala vaṙigaḷil uṙaliṉum nillādu. iḍa veḷi alaiyiṉum nilai ilai puḷḷukku; iḍam nilam aladu ilai; varu vaṙi sella kaḍaṉ. uyir varu vaṙi seṉḏṟiḍa iṉba-k-kaḍal uṉai maruviḍum, aruṇa-bhūdharaṉē.

அன்வயம்: கடல் எழும் எழிலியால் பொழிதரும் நீர்தான் கடல் நிலை அடைவரை தடை செயின் நில்லாது. உனில் எழும் உடல் உயிர் உனை உறு வரையில் உறு பல வழிகளில் உழலினும் நில்லாது. இட வெளி அலையினும் புள்ளுக்கு நிலை இலை; நிலம் அலது இடம் இலை; வரு வழி செல்ல கடன். அருண பூதரனே, உயிர் வரு வழி சென்றிட இன்பக் கடல் உனை மருவிடும்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): kaḍal eṙum eṙiliyāl poṙidarum nīr-tāṉ kaḍal-nilai aḍaivarai taḍai-seyiṉ nillādu. uṉil eṙum uḍal-uyir uṉai uṟu-varaiyil uṟu pala vaṙigaḷil uṙaliṉum nillādu. iḍa veḷi alaiyiṉum puḷḷukku nilai ilai; nilam aladu iḍam ilai; aruṇa-bhūdharaṉē, varu vaṙi sella kaḍaṉ. uyir varu vaṙi seṉḏṟiḍa iṉba-k-kaḍal uṉai maruviḍum.

English translation: Water showered by clouds, which rise from the ocean, will not stop even if obstructed until it reaches its ocean-abode. [Likewise] the embodied soul, which rises from you, will not stop even though it wanders along many paths that it encounters until it reaches you. Though it wanders in the vast sky, for a bird there is no place of rest [there]; except the earth, there is no place [for it to rest]; what it must do is to go the way it came. [Likewise] Aruna-mountain, when the soul goes back the way it came, it will merge in you, the ocean of happiness.
To return to Arunachala, the source from which we originated, what we need is ‘வரு வழி சென்றிட’ (varu vaṙi seṉḏṟiḍa), ‘to go back the way we came’, and since the way we came was by rising up from ourself as this ego, going back the way we came means subsiding back into ourself. But how can we do so? Since we rose as this ego only by ‘grasping form’, which means by being aware of anything other than ourself, in order to subside back into ourself we must cease grasping anything other than ourself, which we can effectively do only by trying to be aware of ourself alone.

The reason we continue grasping things other than ourself is that we still have desire to be whatever finite entity we currently seem to be, because we cannot survive as such without being aware of other things, so in order for us to go back the way we came, our love to be as we actually are must be greater than our desire to be whatever we seem to be. The infallible means by which we can cultivate such love is by persistently trying to be aware of ourself alone, thereby steadily weakening all our viṣaya-vāsanās — our urges, inclinations or tendencies to go outwards to experience anything other than ourself.

We start to go back along this வரு வழி (varu vaṙi), the path or way we came, only because the seed of love to return to our source has somehow been planted in our heart, and by making effort to follow this path we are nurturing this seed and allowing it to grow within us. But from where did this seed originate? From the same source from which we originated, because our source is our own infinite self, which is what is called Arunachala, and it is not only our source but also our true substance — what we actually are — so since its nature is infinite love, the seed of such love is always present within us, even though we have till now been neglecting it. However, like a seed that has been lying in frozen soil for thousands of years and that sprouts as soon as the soil begins to thaw, this seed of love for what we actually are sprouts as soon as our heart begins to thaw, as it inevitably does due to the working of grace (aruḷ), which is the same infinite love that we as we actually are always have for ourself.

Therefore no matter how strong our mind and its out-going tendencies may seem to be, they are fighting a losing battle, because the ‘enemy’ they are unwittingly fighting against is the supreme power of infinite love, which can never be defeated, no matter how many deceitful tricks our mind may play on itself. The very moment that we first rose as this ego or mind, we were doomed to ultimate defeat, so the sooner we reconcile ourself to this fact the better, because knowing that our ultimate defeat is assured should make us more willing to surrender ourself here and now. Why and for how long are we to continue fighting this losing battle with ourself? Why should we not just give up now itself and rest in peace for ever after?

Bhagavan cannot fail to conquer us, because he conquers us only by his infinite love for us, and there is no power greater than that. However he conquers us in the gentlest possible fashion, not by opposing us in any way but by attracting us and thereby bringing us round to fight willingly and lovingly on his side of the battle by gradually letting go of our attachments to anything other than our own fundamental self-awareness. In his conquest, therefore, he never uses compulsion or coercion of any kind, and he never has any need to do so, because he works from within us, patiently feeding us with his own love and thereby making us love what he wants to give us, which is the pure, eternal, infinite and indivisible self-awareness that we actually are.

Therefore the battle that is going on within each one of us between the love that he is cultivating in our heart for pure self-awareness (which is what is called sat-vāsanā or svātma-bhakti) and our opposing desires to be aware of other things (which are what are called viṣaya-vāsanās or out-going tendencies) is being fought primarily by his grace, which is his all-consuming love for us, and hence he calls it ‘அருள் போராட்டம்’ (aruḷ-pōrāṭṭam), the ‘warfare of grace’, in verse 74 of Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai:
போக்கும் வரவுமில் பொதுவெளி யினிலருட்
      போராட் டங்காட் டருணாசலா.

pōkkum varavumil poduveḷi yiṉilaruṭ
      pōrāṭ ṭaṅkāṭ ṭaruṇācalā
.

பதச்சேதம்: போக்கும் வரவும் இல் பொது வெளியினில் அருள் போராட்டம் காட்டு அருணாசலா.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): pōkkum varavum il podu veḷiyiṉil aruḷ-pōrāṭṭam kāṭṭu aruṇācalā.

English translation: Arunachala, show [me] the warfare of grace in the common space devoid of going and coming.
To see the end of this war of grace, all we need do is surrender ourself by letting go of everything to which we have till now been attaching ourself — or in other words, by giving no room in our heart to the rising of any awareness of anything other than ourself. If we feel unable to do so, that is only because we have not yet cooperated willingly enough in his work of cultivating love for pure self-awareness in our heart, so we just need to persevere in watering the sprouting seed of that love with our attention. The more we cooperate with him in this work of his grace by persistently trying to be self-attentive, the sooner the required overwhelming love will blossom in our heart, enabling us to finally surrender ourself entirely to him.

Therefore when David said, ‘While those outward-moving tendencies are still present, even in a latent form, the mind will always be too strong for the Self to dissolve it completely’, I assume that what he was trying to say was that as long as our inclinations to attend to anything other than ourself are still too strong, our mind will not be willing enough to yield itself entirely to being dissolved in the all-consuming light of pure self-awareness.

242 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 242 of 242
Sanjay Lohia said...

Michael’s Video: date 24-4-2016 (50 minutes onwards) Topic: Shraddha Ceremony

Shraddha ceremony is an age-old custom among Hindus. Michael talked about this in the above mentioned video. What he says here can change our attitude towards these ceremonies, so I thought I will post its transcript. Bhagavan never objected when people performed these ceremonies; however, I recall an incident when Bhagavan explicitly asked Muruganar not to continue doing these.

Muruganar used to do these ceremonies every year and Bhagavan knew about it, but Bhagavan never asked Muruganar to stop doing these. Muruganar continued doing these for many years. As usual after many years, Muruganar was again preparing to perform one these yearly rituals when Bhagavan suddenly appeared on the scene and said, ‘what! are you still doing this. I thought you would have abandoned these by now’, or something to this effect. Muruganar felt so ashamed that he immediately stopped the preparations and never did it again. Now the transcript:

Devotee: I believe some prayers are good for the one who prays...

Michael: Yes, [for example, let us take] shraddha ceremonies, the Hindu ritual for the ancestors. If your forefathers, especially your parents passed away, every year on their death anniversary you should do some rituals. One particular time they do for all their infinite number of past ancestors.

Why we do this? Because we want the blessing of our ancestors, and we also hope that our children will do the same for us. We believe that our ancestors are there in pitra-loka or wherever in some other world, and the food offerings and things we give will go to our ancestors. Because we are feeding them they bless us, and in the same way we want to be fed when we go, so we hope our children will do it.

So all this is kamyata. It is done for the fulfilment of our desires. Asked about that Bhagavan said, ‘yes, it is good for the one who is doing it’. It is not that Bhagavan is recommending it. If you do a good karma it is good for you.

Devote: Ya....

Michael: Because the karma is good for us we are doing it, but we doing it with the wrong motivation, so it ceases to be good karma. We can forget these things as they are unnecessary. Bhagavan never told people don’t do these things, because these are social customs. If he told people: ‘O! Don’t do all these ceremonies for your ancestors’, their relatives will angry with them. So Bhagavan isn’t going to upset social customs, because that’s not the point.

The problem is the ego, not these social customs, so Bhagavan didn’t try to reform any social custom, or say, ‘this is right’ or ‘this is wrong’. He let the things go on, but who is the one who wishes to experience all these things, and who asks is this right or is this wrong? So Bhagavan is always intent on dealing with the root – which is the ego. That is the only thing Bhagavan is really concerned with.

Conclusion: Most of the Hindus will not understand what Michael is trying to say here, therefore it will difficult abandon these customs all of a sudden. But at least we can tell our children not to do these in our memory when to proceed beyond.


Roger said...


Maya says: "The problem with advaita these days is almost everyone talks about giving up the sense of doership but not the sense of enjoyer-ship."

Venkat says: I'd totally agree. Shankara, Gaudapada, Bhagavan, Nisargadatta et al, all lived and talked about giving up desires, about living day to day, by what comes from chance.


Ah, I see: by "giving up enjoyer-ship & doer-ship" you propose being in "choiceless awareness", that is, to cease taking ownership of events, to step out of the projection of "what about ME!" or "that [thing] is MINE", and give up demands that the flow of life go the way that the ego wants. To simply be aware and conscious of the natural flow.

The "enjoyer" cannot be given up? Only the attachments, identification to objects?
From a particular angle one could argue for giving up the "enjoyer", but to me it seems that by the "enjoyer" at a deep level is our essential nature.

Sivanarul said...

Regarding: Shraddha Ceremony
"Conclusion: Most of the Hindus will not understand what Michael is trying to say here, therefore it will difficult abandon these customs all of a sudden. But at least we can tell our children not to do these in our memory when to proceed beyond."

First we should ask the question, why should these customs be abandoned by us? For those who are in continuous non-dual absorption like Bhagavan or Muruganar, it certainly makes sense to abandon these. But for us, let's see...

Have we abandoned watching 20/20 cricket or football or baseball or tennis week after week?
Have we abandoned watching Television drama day after day?
Have we abandoned watching movies week after week?
Have we abandoned constant craving that arises frequently within us?

The Shraddha ceremony is done once a year and takes roughly half a day. A lot of people are fed that day and sometimes things are given away. It is a long standing tradition in Sanatana Dharma. It is done with love, affection and gratitude towards our forefathers (whether good karma,bad karma or no karma or whatever).

So when we have not abandoned any of our zillion ways how we waste time on a weekly basis, why should we even consider abandoning a core tradition of Sanatana Dharama that takes only 1/2 day, once per year.

Let us first try not to do any Karma in the zillion things we do on a daily basis before we worry about the possible Karma in doing Shraddha ceremony.

Sivanarul said...

Venkat,

Sorry I don't have any recommendation for an English translation of SivaJnanaBotham. What I have is a Tamil version. I will keep my eyes open and will let you know if I find a good one. In case you come across a good one, please let me know also, as I would like to read an English version too.

Roger said...

Venkat says: I got this the quote that you asked about from David's book. He sources it to Paul Brunton's "A search in secret India".

I am not surprised, the quote has a distinctly western character which might indicate Brunton.

If found it page 156 "A Search in Secret India".

PB asks: "The Yogis say that one must renouce this world and go off into secluded jungles or mountains, if one wishes to find truth. Such things can hardly be done in the West; our lives are so different. Do you agree with the Yogis?"

The Maharishee turns to a Brahmin disciple of courtly countenance. The latter translates his answer to me.

M: "The life of action need not be renounced. If you will meditate for an hour or two every day, you can then carry on with your duties. If you meditate in the right manner , the the current of mind induced will continue to flow even in the midst of your work. It is as though there were two ways of expressing the same idea; the same line which you take in meditation will be expressed in your activities."

--- skipping a couple of pages --

M: "The realization of truth is the same for both Indians and Europeans. Admittedly the way to it may be harder for those who are engrossed in worldly life, but even then one can and must conquer. The current induced during meditation can be kept up by habit, by practising to do so. Then one can perform his work and activities in that very current itself; there will be no break. Thus, too, there will be no difference between meditation and external activities. If you meditate on this question, Who am I? -- if you begin to perceive that neither the body nor the brain nor the desires are really you, then the very attitude of enquiry will eventually draw the answer to you out of the depths of your own being; it will come to you of its own accord as a deep realization."


I have not read Paul Brunton for decades, but I just picked up new copies of "The Hidden Teaching Beyond Yoga" and "The Wisdom of the Overself". Both recently re-released with new material.

But if I don't get around to reading them in depth, I can fall back on the preface:
PB's summary of The Hidden Teaching Beyond Yoga, as dictated to a visitor.
"The more men study words, theories, and Beyond Yoga intellections,
the less they gather insight, Revelation, and wisdom.
Look Within."


There was a similar quote from Nisargadatta Maharaj that I can't find but can relate from memory:
'Books? Enough books, look within.'

Sivanarul said...

http://www.dlshq.org/download/afterdeath.htm#_VPID_76

The Sraaddha ceremony comes under Pitri Yajna. It is the sacred duty of the householder. Every householder should perform the Sraaddha ceremony for his ancestors. Pitris are forefathers who dwell in the Pitriloka. They possess the power of clairvoyance and clairaudience. When Mantras are recited, they exercise tremendous influence through their vibrations. The Pitris hear the sounds through the power of clairaudience and they are pleased. They bless those who offer the oblation. In Sraaddha, the essence of food offerings is taken up by the Sun’s rays to Suryaloka and the departed souls are pleased with the offerings. Even in Germany and other foreign countries many persons perform Tarpan and Sraaddha. They have scientifically investigated the beneficial effects of such oblations. It is the imperative duty of all householders to perform Sraaddha and Tarpan to please the Rishis and Pitris. The Gita and the Upanishads clearly bear testimony to the fact that the performance of Sraaddha is very important. It is only the deluded souls with perverted intellect who misconstrue things and neglect to perform the sacred ceremonies and consequently suffer. They are misguided by false reasoning and logic. Satanic influences affect them very easily. Ignorance is the root cause for this state of affairs.

Sraaddha ceremony is done once in every year. A day of the Pitris is equal to one year of human computation. This is the reason why we have to perform Sraaddha ceremony once in a year. If we perform Sraaddha ceremony once in every year, it is equal to daily performances of Sraaddha for the Pitris. In their calculation we, their sons, live only for a few days, because the longest period of human existence of 100 years is merely 100 days for them.

Some people entertain the doubt, “When the Jiva undergoes transmigration and takes another birth after leaving this physical body, is it necessary that we should perform Sraaddha ceremony for him? He is no more in the heavens. To whom will the oblations reach?” In the ninth chapter of the Gita, Lord Krishna has made it very clear that those virtuous persons who perform sacrifices for the attainment of heaven attain to those worlds of enjoyments. “They having enjoyed that spacious world of Svargas, their merit (Punya) exhausted, enter the world of the mortals; thus following the Dharma of the triad, desiring objects of desires, they attain to the state of going and returning.” This establishes the theory of attainment of heaven after death, and rebirth in the mortal world after the exhaustion of virtuous acts. The enjoyments in heaven and peace of the soul are enhanced by the performance of Sraaddha ceremony. The suffering in worlds other than heaven according to the merits of one’s own actions is mitigated by the performance of Sraaddha ceremony by his sons. So in both cases the performance of Sraaddha is a great help. The Pitris remain in heaven (Pitriloka, Chandraloka) for a very long period.

Continued in next comment....

Sivanarul said...

Continued from previous comment....

Swami Sivananda on Sraaddha ceremony:

According to the theory of transmigration, even if the individual is to take another birth immediately after his death, the performance of Sraaddha adds to his happiness in his new birth. So it is the imperative duty of everybody to perform Sraaddha ceremony for his parents and forefathers. Sraaddha ceremony should be performed with great Sraddha (faith) as long as you live. Faith is the main support for religion. In olden days the question “whether to perform Sraaddha ceremony or not” did not arise at all. Then people were full of faith and had reverence for the scriptures. In these days when faith is almost-dwindling into an airy nothing and when the list of non-performers of Sraaddha has increased, others of wavering faith begin to doubt whether it is necessary to perform Sraaddha or not, and whether any good will accrue out of it. This lack of faith in the Sastras has degraded us to the present deplorable condition. “Sraddhavan labhate jnanam...the man of faith attains knowledge and thereby immortality and eternal peace” is the declaration of the Gita.

Some people argue and say that if a man once performs Sraaddha ceremony to his forefathers at Gaya and other places of religious importance, he need not do it every year thereafter. This is not a general rule and does not apply to all. It applies only in certain exceptional cases. If people take shelter under this exception and discontinue Sraaddha ceremony by once offering Pinda, etc., at Gaya, they do so out of sheer ignorance. They consider it merely a burden to perform Sraaddha ceremony and avoid it. They have not discharged their duties properly.

The various religious observances imposed upon mankind by the Sastras tend to purify the ignorant man. The goal of Karma Yoga is purification of the mind. Sraaddha ceremony, being one of the obligatory duties, as per the injunctions of scriptures, also tends to purify the mind. Besides this, the forefathers are also pleased and their good wishes and blessings tend to our material and spiritual growth.

maya said...

Regarding Shradddha ceremony, its just yet another classic case of conveniently writing Bhagavan's teachings that one finds suitable and use the phrase "According to Bhagavan" as is done often

Here is an excerpt from the life of Ramanatha Bramhmachari from the "The Power of Presence part 3" by David Godman. Again proves that a Jnani's answers are to the questioner and most people just assume that they belong to the most ripe and the highest strata of devotees while they are still filled with ego to the brim.

/**
Ramanatha Brahmachari gave up his family and a potential career to be with Bhagavan, and Bhagavan responded by taking full responsibility for him. This is brought out in a story that is told by the descendents of T. S. Rajagopala Iyer:

Bhagavan noticed one morning that Ramanatha Brahmachari was not eating his morning iddlies.

He asked him, ‘Why are you not eating today?’

He answered, ‘Today I have to perform ceremonies for my ancestors. On days such as these one should fast.’

Bhagavan responded by saying, ‘Now you have come to me you need not perform these ceremonies any longer. Eat your breakfast. In fact, eat two extra iddlies. You are not bound by these rituals any more.’

Rajagopala Iyer heard about this conversation and he too began to ignore such anniversaries. One of his relatives came to Bhagavan and complained that he was no longer willing to participate in these functions.

The next time Rajagopala Iyer came to the ashram, Bhagavan asked him why he was not participating in these family rituals.

‘Because you told Ramanatha Brahmachari that they were no longer necessary,’ he replied.

‘His case is different,’ responded Bhagavan. ‘He has given up everything to be with me. What have you given up?’

Bhagavan generally did not approve of householders who decided to give up their family responsibilities. When Bhagavan said that Ramanatha Brahmachari had ‘given up everything’ he may have been indicating that he had also given up his mind. One who is in such a state is no longer obliged to perform traditional rites and rituals.
***/

http://davidgodman.wix.com/ramanamaharshibooks#!ppthree-2/ccu9

Sanjay Lohia said...

More on Shraddha ceremony:

As I wrote yesterday, Bhagavan had asked Muruganar to discontinue these ceremonies. He gave the same advice to Ramanatha Brahmachari: ‘Now you have come to me you need not perform these ceremonies any longer. Eat your breakfast. In fact, eat two extra iddlies. You are not bound by these rituals anymore.’

What did Bhagavan mean when he told Ramanatha, ‘Now you have come to me you need not perform these ceremonies any longer’. One, it can mean Bhagavan’s physical presence. Two, it could also mean Bhagavan's teaching, especially that of atma-vichara - that is, those who are following his path of self-attentiveness need not do these ceremonies.

For example, Bhagavan says in paragraph eleven of Nan Yar: 'If one clings fast to uninterrupted svarupa-smarana [self-remembrance] until one attains, svarupa [one's own essential self], that alone [will be] sufficient'. Therefore, we can interrupt this mean that if we are practising self-remembrance we will need no other spiritual practices - including ceremonies like Shraddha. Why did Bhagavan ask Rajagopala Iyer to continue with this ceremony? It was because his relative complained to Bhagavan about this, and Bhagavan did not want to disappoint his relative.

Therefore, we can safely infer that in general, Bhagavan was not in favour of these ceremonies (example, Muruganar, Ramanatha), but if devotees' relatives objected to this, he asked the devotee to continue with these ceremonies.

Shraddha ceremonies are kamya-karmas (that is, done with the desire for blessings, good wishes, or whatever), as Sivanarul has also confirmed in the extracts he quoted here. Therefore, these actions will push into more karmas, and hence will not be conducive to our liberation.

Hindus are not allowed to eat or even drink water during solar-eclipse and lunar-eclipse. It could be a sastric injunction, and some say that it has some scientific basis too – like food becomes impure during such eclipses and so on. Whatever the reason, but Bhagavan clearly asked his devotees, in many cases, to eat during such times.

This is just to illustrate that Bhagavan at times went against the social customs, if he felt this was necessary for our spiritual growth. So, do we want that everybody reading this comment should stop doing these ceremonies? Absolutely not! We have to decide for ourself: whether we want to perform these ceremonies or not?

Yuvaraj said...

Sivanarul,

In an earlier essay you say, "Some portion of this is full joke, some is half joke rest half serious. The reader can determine which is which."

Reading what followed I thought it was Sarcasm.

Unlike this I have read some beautiful comments from you. People like you give this forum a rare and important slant (very nice that Michael allows this)...allowing people coming to this blog more and varied thoughts to engage in and paths to explore...to the moon.

Just wondering...the things that you accuse Michael of. Why not just pick the things you like and ignore the rest? If you do not agree with him at all these days then why not exit?

If you do not agree then excuse, Sivanarul. I was taken aback reading this comment from you...ultimately my problem.

Like you say all this is anichya!

What a fine Satsang your blog is, Michael.

Yuvaraj

Anonymous said...

GVK, verse 805 says:
“When the parents are alive the sons will not protect them [by providing them with food and other necessities], but after the parents pass away those noble and charitable sons will celebrate their annual requiem ceremonies with pomp and glory. How strange is the nature of this world!”
I live in India. A guy known to me, working as software engineer in US, slowly decreased his frequency of his visits to his parents. Even with his sporadic visits, he arranged it in such a way that he and his wife would alternate the visit cycle to save travel expenses. When his family expanded, he invited them for baby-sitting (to save expenses towards nanny) and sent them back promptly when their services were no more required. Eventually he dumped them in an old age home and always complained about their ‘maintenance charges’. One of the parents is no more and he does this annual requiem with pomp and glory in US. I have heard one can find Brahmins (upper caste Hindus) who have migrated to US, just specializing in annual requiem ceremonies and earning their livelihood (I may be wrong). If this is true, I would expect more such sons abroad. This is just one case. I have seen many cases.
Ultimately how we treat our parents when they are alive and how we remember them when they are dead matters. Other things are just add-ons. There are people in other cultures who do not have these ceremonies. But they do love and care for their parents. I doubt if they would go to hell for having not done this annual requiem.
By the way, this forum I thought was more focused. Of late I find bitter feeling among each other (as evidenced in this Shraddha topic) keeps getting amplified. Suggesting (through the choice of quotes) people who voice their opinion as misguided by logic and influenced by satan is too much. It is not in good taste. Another thing I don’t like is someone throwing a temper tantrum and announcing he would leave and others pacifying him. He is in tears and later decides to come back. This is childish, to put it mildly. If one does not like, why not leave once for all? One may go to a forum where one is comfortable. It is not the differences in opinions, it is being comfortable with our differences. When comfort is not felt, why stay? What is the point in saying ‘I agree to disagree’ just through the lips? Even occasional readers like me are put off. I am not here to preach. I am here to learn by reading more and commenting less (most of the time I have nothing significant to say). This is just a request. I know people will say ‘Don’t read this if you don’t want’ etc. but that is not the point. If people don’t like what I expressed, I would like to apologize in advance and I won’t even comment in future.

maya said...

"Two, it could also mean Bhagavan's teaching, especially that of atma-vichara - that is, those who are following his path of self-attentiveness need not do these ceremonies. "


"Why did Bhagavan ask Rajagopala Iyer to continue with this ceremony? It was because his relative complained to Bhagavan about this, and Bhagavan did not want to disappoint his relative."

Right above is the problem. All these are just your interpretations. Can you say for sure why Bhagavan said this? If you can say that for sure you are Bhagavan. All here are speaking our own interpretations of his teachings through our ego and mind and presenting this as Bhagavan's teachings with complete authority. Its is true for me too and thats the whole point.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Maya, Bhagavan had said that we interpret his teachings based on the relative purity or impurity of our antarkaranas (inner organs). Did Bhagavan approve of these shraddha ceremonies? Some of us believe, yes, while others believe, no, he implicitly or explicitly, was against such kamya-karmas. Therefore, it is only our ego or mind which interprets his teachings in different ways.

Yes, I wrote, 'Two, it could also mean Bhagavan's teaching, especially that of atma-vichara - that is, those who are following his path of self-attentiveness need not do these ceremonies', but please look at the word 'could' in this sentence. The meaning of 'could' is 'used to indicate possibility; used in making suggestion or polite request' as stated in Online Oxford Dictionaries. Therefore, by the use of the word ‘could’, I was suggesting that my interpretation may be true, but I was not stating this with absolute certainty.

'Why did Bhagavan ask Rajagopala Iyer to continue with this ceremony? It was because his relative complained to Bhagavan about this, and Bhagavan did not want to disappoint his relative'. When I wrote this I was simply restating what you wrote in your comment dated 19 June 2016 at 2:58. Did you not write that Rajagopala's relative wanted him to continue with these ceremonies, and Bhagavan interceded on behalf on his relative and requested Rajagopala to continue with these ceremonies?

Sivanarul said...

Yuvaraj,

It was nice hearing from you. Hope your sadhana is going well.

"Reading what followed I thought it was Sarcasm."

Sorry you feel that way. It was written in a joking manner in response to the notion that Bhagavan's triple gem has replaced all religions (by containing their goodness in it). I was just saying that in 2100, it is very possible that future disciples of Michael might do the same thing by replacing Bhagavan's triple gem with Michael's triple gem (HAB, Articles and Comments). The key point I wanted to get across is that even spiritual teachings are subject to anicca (impermanence). What is replacing something today will itself be replaced by something else in the future. I don't know which part appears as Sarcasm to you. But I do consider Michael's works as triple gem. That was not a joke or sarcasm.

"If you do not agree with him at all these days then why not exit?"

Because of the realization that wherever I go, there will disagreements and difference of opinions. I am not even in agreement with myself all the time (sometimes my Sattva reigns, sometimes it is Rajas and some other times it is Tamas). Exiting is moving from one form of external disagreement to another. The goal is first to come to inner agreement all the time (firmly established in Sattva). As spiritual aspirants, we are all well versed that peace cannot be found by rearranging outer circumstances, but only by rearranging inner attitude.

"Unlike this I have read some beautiful comments from you."

Thank you. That comment was a helpful reminder that as humans we are all capable of both ugly and as well as beautiful actions and attitudes. I am very much a human :-)

"I was taken aback reading this comment from you."

I can relate to that very much. I was also taken aback by reading many comments earlier on. But with participation in the Satsang, reflection and snail pace progress, the taken aback has significantly reduced. My responses are lot more impersonal now, from a state of calmness. Not fully there yet. Just better than before, That's all.

Roger said...

Maya says:

Again proves that a Jnani's answers are to the questioner and most people just assume that they belong to the most ripe and the highest strata of devotees while they are still filled with ego to the brim.

Right above is the problem. All these are just your interpretations. Can you say for sure why Bhagavan said this? If you can say that for sure you are Bhagavan. All here are speaking our own interpretations of his teachings through our ego and mind and presenting this as Bhagavan's teachings with complete authority. Its is true for me too and thats the whole point.


IMO Maya (who seems to speak my mind better than I do) is exactly correct in the statements above. Rather exciting!

There is endless speculation here that does not seem to be very useful, other than perhaps for entertainment. What about actual practice rather than speculation? I imagine that some people may find ritual useful (especially if it is of their own personal design, maybe having to do with family or nature etc..) where others maybe not. What works for you?

An applicable quote from Lahiri Mahasaya. Love that statement "theological debris".

Solve your problems through meditation. Exchange unprofitable speculation for actual God-communion. Clear your mind of dogmatic theological debris; let in the fresh, healing waters of direct perception. Attune yourself to the active inner Guidance; the Divine Voice has the answer to every dilemma of life. Though man's ingenuity for getting himself into trouble appears to be endless, the Infinite Succor is no less resourceful.

Sivanarul said...

Anonymous,

I am very sorry that my posts have created so much anger and frustration within you that you have chosen to focus on even my expression such as 'Agree to Disagree'. That expression is simply a positive way of conveying disagreement and is very commonly used in the West. Focusing on that is like focusing on how one talks or walks or expresses oneself. There must have been so much frustration built up for one to focus on such things.

"Ultimately how we treat our parents when they are alive and how we remember them when they are dead matters."

I agree 100%. Neglecting parents when they are alive and then doing Shraddha ceremony when dead does not make sense. I fully agree with GVK verse 805 that you posted. Since the topic was only related to Shraddha, I did not feel the need to write about living parents. Since this is a Spiritual forum and participants are spiritual aspirants, I assumed that everyone is fully aware taking care of parents well goes without saying. If we are not compassionate and loving to our own living parents, how can we ever be compassionate to strangers?

With respect to the "misguided by logic and influenced by satan is too much" observation, I did consider removing it ,as I also felt it was too much. But I also did not want to censure how Swami Sivananda felt about it. Swami Sivananda of Rishikesh is a highly respected saint and teacher and I did not feel comfortable censuring his strong opinion on this subject.

"Another thing I don’t like is someone throwing a temper tantrum and announcing he would leave and others pacifying him. He is in tears and later decides to come back. This is childish, to put it mildly. If one does not like, why not leave once for all? One may go to a forum where one is comfortable. It is not the differences in opinions, it is being comfortable with our differences. When comfort is not felt, why stay?"

Sorry that you feel it was a temper tantrum. It was simply an expression of how I felt at the time of posting. Each of us go through various emotions from time to time. Thank you for your compliment of saying that I am childish. Yes that is a big compliment, because to be childish at heart during adulthood is a wonderful gift. A child is pure at heart, carefree and joyous. It also does not carry any frustration or anger for more than a few minutes. With regards to not leaving once and for all, please see my reply to Yuvaraj regarding exiting.

Continued in next comment....

Sivanarul said...

Continued from previous comment...

"Even occasional readers like me are put off."

I am very sorry that my posts have put you off. I don't know what part has been putting you off. Disagreements and voicing opinions (sometimes heated) are part of the spiritual process and unfoldment. Each of us approach spirituality with different backgrounds, goals and aims in mind. Inward stillness does not happen in a day.

"I am not here to preach. I am here to learn by reading more and commenting less (most of the time I have nothing significant to say)."

Some of us learn by reading more and commenting less (like yourself). Others learn by both reading and commenting. Diversity is woven in the fabric of creation.

"I know people will say ‘Don’t read this if you don’t want’ etc. but that is not the point."

I understand and your point is well taken. As one spiritual aspirant to another, let me just say, that the only true solution to wanting the world to behave as we want it to, is to realize that it is never going to happen. That is the naivety we have (including myself) that, "If only this problem in my life disappears, then everything will be fine". Once that problem goes away, a new one comes along and we start wishing that needs to go away too. My exiting this forum will not solve any of the perceived problems.

Finally, for your own spiritual progress, I request that you find compassion in your heart to let go of the built up frustration and anger towards my posts. To develop compassion, it might be helpful to remember that the same Ishvara that shines in your heart also shines in my heart. I also get frustrated and angry more often than I would like. I have found using the tool of compassion, dissipates the frustration and anger quickly.

Peace, my friend. Take care.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Though we have had enough discussion on the subject of shraddha; however, a few thoughts have come to my mind which may be worth reflecting on.

If we examine Bhagavan’s teachings, we can infer that after our physical death our body and the person we take to be ourself will be destroyed forever, never to appear again. Then what exists after death? Our ego continues its journey, until it is annihilated. After death, this ego can rest for a while (in a sleep-like state), or immediately grasp another body and consider this body to be itself. The tenant (my ego) leaves one house (my body and the person ‘Sanjay’) and becomes a tenant in some other house (a new body and a new person, say ‘John’).

After death our ego does not stay in some pitri-loka or wherever. As it cannot exist without attaching itself to one form or another, soon it attaches itself to a new body (John), and, therefore, exists only as John now. It cannot exist as John and also simultaneously exist in some other pitri-loka, or wherever.

Therefore, after our death if we offer oblations, will it be offered to ‘John’, because presently our ego exists only as John? It sounds absurd, and why should he bother to bless our descendants when he does not even know us!

This reflection is not intended to hurt the sentiments of those who have faith in such ceremonies. I myself have been performing these ceremonies, because in our social context it is not easy to give up these things all of a sudden. May be a time will come when these can be phased out. Moreover, what ever I have written is my reflections, and I don't claim to be representing true facts.

Sanjay Lohia said...

Sir, I wrote in my above comment: 'after death, this ego can rest for a while (in a sleep-like state), or immediately grasp another body and consider this body to be itself'. Paradoxically, I myself do not understand what exactly does 'after death, this ego can rest for a while (in a sleep-like state)', means. I had read Bhagavan say this somewhere (may be in Talks or DBD), and I merely repeated it here without fully understanding it.

As per Bhagavan's teachings if the ego leaves one form, it should immediately grasp another form, because without grasping or taking a form to be itself it cannot survive. Therefore if after the body dies the ego rests in laya, how can it exist without clinging to a form? It is confusing therefore please clarify what Bhagavan was trying to say here, if he really said this.

With regards.

Roger said...


Sanjay says:
As per Bhagavan's teachings if the ego leaves one form, it should immediately grasp another form,


Bhagavan also says "Why should you trouble yourself about the future? You do not even properly know about the present! Take care of the present; the future will then take care of itself." (A Search in Secret India, PB)

Sanjay Lohia said...

Roger, what Bhagavan says is very true. We should take care of the present by attending tenaciously to the thought called 'I', and thereby, eventually, our ego will dissolve in the eternal presence - our essential intransitive awareness.

In one of his recents videos, Michael said: All questions we ask are wrong questions, and the only correct question is - 'who am I?' or 'what am I'.

Sivanarul said...

More than liberation, for some of us on the Spiritual path, the key focus is on minimizing/ending suffering to the maximum extent possible. At the least, we do not want to add to the suffering. One of the ways we add to the suffering is by placing our liking and disliking on things over which we have no control over.

Our Anonymous friend's recent posting has some good lessons that we can learn from (I certainly learned from it). He writes:

"Another thing I don’t like is someone throwing a temper tantrum and announcing he would leave and others pacifying him. He is in tears and later decides to come back. This is childish, to put it mildly. If one does not like, why not leave once for all?"

In the above, our friend has placed his dislike on an action of mine (what he perceives as temper tantrum) and the action of others (what he perceives as pacification). Then he states he does not like someone else being in tears. Then he suggests, why not I leave? Then he expresses his dislike on how I express my disagreement: "What is the point in saying ‘I agree to disagree’ just through the lips?". Because of all these dislikes, his posting reveals a level of frustration over something he has no control over.

This is a good example of how we can add unnecessary frustration to our lives. Since he is not the blog owner, he has no control on how I or others act on this forum. He has no control over whether tears come in my eyes or not. He has no control over whether I leave or stay. He also has no control on whether I express my disagreement as 'I disagree' or 'Let's agree to disagree'. What is even more interesting is, that he is trying to change the behavior (not content, but behavior) of a complete stranger and he placed his liking/disliking dependent on my change of behavior and my leaving the blog. Do you see the irony of that?

Now coming to the point of this comment which is, many of us do the same thing as our Anonymous friend. I spent sometime reflecting on the projections I do, over which I have no control over and came up with several things. We cannot see our own faces. But a mirror helps us to see it. Our Anonymous friend was the mirror. To give an example, one of my projections, is to have concern over not suffering too much during the last years of my life and passing away without getting bed ridden or in pain. This concern obviously adds to the suffering experienced now. The problem with this concern of mine is that, I have no control over how my last years of life will be.

I have my work cut out on eliminating my projections (thanks to our anonymous friend, who helped identify it) over which I have no control over. May be it will help you to identify your own projections (if you have any) and eliminate them. Of course eliminating the ego is the only real way of eliminating them. But we can certainly eliminate a significant portion even with the ego.

Sivanarul said...

Roger,

"Attune yourself to the active inner Guidance; the Divine Voice has the answer to every dilemma of life. Though man's ingenuity for getting himself into trouble appears to be endless, the Infinite Succor is no less resourceful."

Your above quote of Lahiri Mahasaya is wonderful. It is a beautiful saying. Is this from Autobiography of a Yogi?

Sivanarul said...

It looks like you took the quote from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahiri_Mahasaya

Found this one also which is a good thing to remember frequently.

"Always remember that you belong to no one, and no one belongs to you. Reflect that some day you will suddenly have to leave everything in this world–so make the acquaintanceship of God now. Prepare yourself for the coming astral journey of death by daily riding in the balloon of God-perception. Through delusion you are perceiving yourself as a bundle of flesh and bones, which at best is a nest of troubles. Meditate unceasingly, that you may quickly behold yourself as the Infinite Essence, free from every form of misery. Cease being a prisoner of the body; using the secret key of Kriya, learn to escape into Spirit.[2]"

Roger said...

Hi Sivanarul,
Yes, that quote is from Autobiography of a Yogi.
I found it online here: http://www.yogananda.com.au/gurus/mahasaya01.html
Lahiri Mahasaya: born 30 sept 1828, died 26 sept 1895. A powerful inspiriational voice!!!
There is a photo and article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahiri_Mahasaya

quoted from http://oaks.nvg.org/uow.html

He turned out to be such a great unionist (yogi) that his mind would remain in peace all the time even while engaged in common household duties. Or he could rove other places as a mystic light:

A nebulous light was rapidly floating over the Ganges; the strange luminescence was reflected in the opaque waters. It approached nearer and nearer till, with a blinding flash, it appeared . . . and condensed itself instantly into the human form of Lahiri Mahasaya.

I am ever with those who practice Kriya," he said . . . "I will guide you to the Cosmic Home through your enlarging perceptions.

"Even when Lahiri Mahasaya was silent, . . . I discovered that nonetheless he had transmitted to me ineffable knowledge." [Sri Yukteswar in Autobiography of a Yogi, chap 12]

Roger said...

Do not confuse understanding with a larger vocabulary. Sacred writings are beneficial in stimulating desire for inward realisation, if one stanza at a time is slowly assimilated. Otherwise, continual intellectual study may result in vanity, false satisfaction, and undigested knowledge. Sri Yukteswar Giri

All the following from Anandamayi Ma:

When by the flood of your tears, the inner and the outer have fused into One, you will find Her whom you sought with such anguish, nearer than the nearest, the very breath of life, the very core of every heart.

Enquire: 'Who am I?' and you will find the answer. Look at a tree: from one seed arises a huge tree; from it comes numerous seeds, each one of which in its turn grows into a tree. No two fruits are alike. Yet it is one life that throbs in every particle of the tree. So, it is the same Atman everywhere.

Reality is beyond speech and thought. Only that which can be expressed in words is being said. But what cannot be put into language is indeed That which IS.

Who is it that loves and who that suffers? He alone stages a play with Himself; who exists save Him? The individual suffers because he perceives duality. It is duality which causes all sorrow and grief. Find the One everywhere and in everything and there will be an end to pain and suffering.

http://www.azquotes.com/author/27988-Anandamayi_Ma

Roger said...

From the wikipedia article on Anadamayi Ma:

She did not advocate the same method for all.
"How can one impose limitations on the infinite by declaring this is the only path—and, why should there be so many different religions and sects? Because through every one of them He gives Himself to Himself, so that each person may advance according to his inborn nature."

boy of sixteen in1896 said...

Disciples,
if only the mind is kept under control...
But can we (as the mind) expect that the mind will control itself ?

atisaya sakti said...

There is some truth in your question, you boy of sixteen in 1896 :
Although giving up the false self is true renunciation,
which ego will give up actually itself ? Perhaps one of 8 billion.

spurious offshoot said...

Yippee,
I am the pain-suffering mind. But why should I dig my own grave ?
I will never yield to temptation to give right of way to the self.

careful observer said...

Roger Isaacs,
you should name our 'Bliss Permeated Mother' correctly Anandamayi Ma, not Anadamayi.
Take care.

Michael James said...

Sanjay, regarding your question ‘but in what way is our being (sat) reflected as doing (kriya)?’, in order to do anything we must be, but in order to be we do not need to do anything. Whether we are doing anything (as in waking and dream) or not doing anything (as in sleep), we always exist, so being or existing is our natural state, and doing is a transient adjunct or superimposition.

Doing occurs only when we rise and stand as this ego, and since it is temporary, it is not real. Rising as this ego is the first action (doing or kriyā) and the root of all other actions. When we rise as this ego, we seemingly leave our natural state of just being and assume the illusory state of doing, so in order to subside back into our source we must cease doing anything and thereby just be.

Since doing is not real but just an illusory appearance, we should consider what it is that appears as doing. In other words, what is it that we mistake to be doing? What is real is just being, so being is what we mistake to be doing. Doing is therefore a distorted reflection of being.

What is real is only ‘I am’, but we now experience this ‘I am’ as ‘I am doing this or that’, so if we remove ‘doing this or that’ to see what underlies it, what we will see is only ‘I am’, which is our ever-actionless being (sat).

Sanjay Lohia said...

Sir, I thank you for your comment addressed to me. Yes, as you say, we should exist in order to act, or rather we should seemingly exist as the ego in order to seemingly act. Therefore, our being sat is reflected as doing kriya in our ego.

With regards

peanut-breeder said...

Michael,
regarding your comment of 5 July 2016 at 11:18 in reply to Sanjay:
1. "Whether we are doing anything (as in waking and dream) or not doing anything (as in sleep), we always exist, so being or existing is our natural state, and doing is a transient adjunct or superimposition."
2. "When we rise as this ego, we seemingly leave our natural state of just being and assume the illusory state of doing, so in order to subside back into our source we must cease doing anything and thereby just be."
How can it be said that in order to subside back into our source we must cease doing anything and thereby just be when in the above former statement is clearly stated that we always exist whether we are doing anything or not doing anything ? Does that not entail/imply that our uninterrupted existence is never restricted by any doing or not doing ? Is the later statement not in contradiction to the former ?

Could you please give short/further explanation about
3. "doing is not real but just an illusory appearance"
4. "doing is therefore a distorted reflection of being" and
5. " 'I am' is our ever-actionless being (sat)" ?

. said...

Michael,

How to deal with it when this desire of being aware of other things goes as far as to turn what is found out as practicing self-investigation into another “thing” to be aware of?

I think this is the most “deceitful trick our mind may play on itself” because what had to be an advantage , so to speak, it is turned into one more obstacle to be overcome and what could be a “progress” or a step forward becomes its opposite and one gets stuck, or so it seems.

Is there a way to avoid this to happen?

. said...

No, it can´t be avoided but can be seen.

It´s the same old ego only that becoming more subtle with the practice, isn´t it?



. said...

Just one last question:

I´ve never understood what is meant by the dissolution of the ego as a process since I couldn´t see how it could be possible but now I´m wondering: does this process of dissolution refers to ego becoming more and more subtle?

anadi-ananta said...

AsunAparicio,
as you correctly assume the dissolution of the seeming ego is mostly a process of becoming more and more subtle - till the moment that it would never arise again.

. said...

Thank you, anadi-ananta. Now a lot of things make a lot of sense.

And thank you, Michael :)

Michael James said...

Asun, in answer to your comment of 25 June 2019 at 14:11, as ego we may find so many ways to avoid focusing our entire attention on ourself alone, but the only way to avoid this is to patiently persevere in trying to be self-attentive as much as we can. We rise as ego by attending to anything other than ourself, so we will subside to the extent that we attend to ourself. By far and away the most effective means to keep the rising ego in check to watch it (ourself) vigilantly.

As ego we have countless defects and shortcomings, but we need not concern ourself about them, because the root of all of them is only ourself as ego, so if we tackle their root by being vigilantly self-attentive, we will thereby free ourself from all of them.

Regarding your comment of 25 June 2019 at 18:12, in which you ask what is meant by ‘dissolution of ego’, it depends on the context in which the term is used. In most cases it means the same as eradication or annihilation of ego, but if it is spoken of as a process it is the process by which ego is eradicated. That is, like ice melting in water or butter melting in the sun, we as ego are gradually dissolved by self-investigation in the sense that our desires, attachments and so on are weakened and diminished, leaving us increasingly willing to subside and surrender ourself entirely.

anadi-ananta said...

Asun,
so Michael finally gave the perfect explanation to your question about 'dissolution of ego'.:-)

. said...

Yes, Michael. It is not easy but it is the only way: being constantly alert and vigilant, checking arising ego when it is required as going back the way we came since the “desire to be whatever finite entity we currently seem to be, because we cannot survive as such without being aware of other things”, will be there till the very end, despite of being our own experience that only when we give in and remain as self-awareness peace prevails which is by itself an indication that “we are doomed to defeat” and so “the sooner we reconcile ourself to this fact the better”.

Yes, anadi-ananta :)

Truth is that the whole article is a gem. It makes quite clear what we are doing, or what is going on. The goal as much as the path and its process in a beautiful way. There is not turning back so, we only have to accept it.

Thank you so much indeed and may all have the strenght, because what is called our strenght as ego is only weakness, actually.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 242 of 242   Newer› Newest»