Відео

is there consciousness in sleep?

Namaskaram. Yes, as Bhagavan explains in Āṉma-Viddai, sriramanateachings.org/translations.html#av, particularly in verse 4, happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2023/11/anma-viddai-verse-4-self-investigation.html Namo Ramanaya 🙏🙏🙏

@johnmcdonald260 Please don’t comment on this

A jivanmukta does not leave a body but as an imagination of mind. There is no such thing as a jivanmukta, only Jnana or pure awareness or atma-swarupa. *Everything* what is seen, experienced is an imagination of mind including bodies and a "world". Ego cannot kill itself, it never will. It can only be "killed" with total surrender to atma-swarupa and then seemingly atma-swarupa "kills" ego. However since there was never ego in the first place ego could never be killed since all that what truly exists is atma-swarupa. This path is full of contradictions because of the paradoxical nature of ego. It does not exist, it never existed, *BUT* from its own viewpoint! Ponder this for a while. Everything, all phenomena, this world, your relatives seemingly only exist because you, as ego, have risen and that rising gives legitimacy to everything else but that what is real only - atma-swarupa. When ego is annihilated all phenomena and this world vanishes. If you see a "jivanmukta" then ego sees a jivanmukta, not pure awareness. Even a jivanmukta is a projection/creation of mind. Uh, ah, more confusion. Just practice atma-vichara and things will become clear. The intellect will never understand this completely.

@@Ropeorsnake That's not true, the teachings must contradict since it touches reality, viewpoint from the absolute, and unreality, viewpoint from ego. Since we seem to be ego we need to look at both viewpoints and these inevitably must contradict each other, as clear as Bhavavan's teachings are for his devotees.

@@johnmcdonald260 solipsism is a very radical concept and the greatest secret of all is why we risen as ego in the first place. To say; find out who is asking the question, to see that ego never have risen is Brahmastra. Michael says that not even Bhagavan could answer that question. But maybe non duality is Just not my way to go. Someone could now say that I am not ready yet.

⁠@@markocvrljak3681 it is radical to what we are assuming is correct, but if given a chance, it’s quite simple. I think that Bhagavan said the reason for rising as ego was because of our non-attention to ourself. Because we’re still so interested in outward experiences, Bhagavan’s teachings may not be as interesting at this point. But he is ever patient.

@@Ropeorsnake Well, perception is ego only, that means only ego perceives a snake because it attends to phenomena and not "I am". It is as simple as that and no contradiction. Contradictions only arise with mind and its need for explanations. If we could trust Bhagavan then seeming contradictions cannot trouble us. Of course I agree with you and that particular viewpoint. 🙏

Pure awareness can *never* be aware of "something" whatever that would be! That assumption is nonsense and it is apparent you have not grasped what pure awareness entails. Pure awareness is only aware of pure awareness. It IS. Truly - it is not even aware of itself since that would imply duality. Mind cannot truly fathom this only a practitioner of proper atma-vichara could know that.

@@johnmcdonald260 How would one distinguish pure awareness from pure non-awareness? If one experiences oneself as Silence, isn't that in duality with noise? At what point does pure awareness transcend and include objects? I am trying to get specific about what subject-object consciousness has to see in order to be set free. What is the order of things, that the subject-object awareness sees its unreality, then one sees the self-identical/self-sufficient, or the opposite, that one sees the si/ss and then drops the subject/object egoity? Or, are they the same thing and it happens simultaneously?

@@jazzsnare When Bhagavan mentions silence he means atma-swarupa what is no thought, no vritti, but manonasa or an "annihilated mind". Only that is silence or summa iru per Bhagavan. What most aspirants believe to be silence is a pause of the chatter of mind where one seemingly is in a peaceful and quiet state. There seems to be no thought. *However* , there are still subtle thoughts and especially the "unconscious" thought (which we are not aware of), of "I am a body". That thought is the cause for all phenomena and a world. These subtle thoughts are not silence of course since only the complete and eternal absence of thoughts could be summa iru or Silence. Objectified awareness can never and will never see pure awareness. As I said many times before, pure awareness/atma-swarupa and ego/objectified awareness are *mutually exclusive* . Did that ever reach your comprehension? Think about it: if they are mutually exclusive how can there be any connection? You keep asking the same questions and ignore all of the answers given since you seem to not comprehend them.

@@johnmcdonald260 be gentle, he’s trying. The fact that he wrote up his question in that manner means he’s interested and wants to learn why use harsh language and call his ideas “nonsense”. Why not encourage him to continue practicing? Eventually, we all will outgrow our own questions as our love for Bhagavan deepens and that’s fine.

@@johnmcdonald260" Objectified awareness can never and will never see pure awareness. As I said many times before, pure awareness/atma-swarupa and ego/objectified awareness are mutually exclusive . Did that ever reach your comprehension? Think about it: if they are mutually exclusive how can there be any connection?" I think your problem is that you conflate reciting the teaching as comprehension. Bhagavan gave pointers but the individual must come to comprehend them. That is why you cannot grasp what I am getting at with say, the specifics of what the ego must see in order to be free, for example. You notice that MJ gives the analogy of the prisoner who escapes before the judgment can affect him. Note that MJ and Bhagavan say that when the Self shines, the ego flees, or when one looks at the ego, it flees. How is that different from manolaya, where the ego is gone prior to the arrival of pure awareness? In both cases, the ego flees upon arrival of pure awareness, so how is one of them manonasa? You are right, that they are mutually exclusive. But, what is not answered is how this does not make manonasa impossible in that in both cases, the ego never meets the pure awareness; it is not there when pure awareness comes. What specifically must the ego acknowledge in order for the transformation or insight to occur? If they have no connection, then ...? Your problem is you are satisfied with concepts, which remain abstract and inefficacious. If you really understood these things you would have had mukti by now. What is essential for manonasa? That is the question. What in the analogy is the part where the criminal is confronted and charged and executed? The ego absconds in both manolaya and apparently in manonasa by the descriptions given. I am trying to get at what would make for a good manonasa. In the analogy there is a confrontation possible, it is implied, so what would be the equivalent in real terms?

so sorry to hear about lost manuscripts and denied access; what better than to have the person most familiar, far from imperfect instrument! to oversee the arrangement and scan these priceless works for posterity 🙏🕉️

"Emotionally healing" is an illusion since it tries to "heal" an illusion and that is ego. Psychology, psychotherapy, Freud, Jung, etc. are disciplines within illusion and applied for illusions. They are worthless and irrelevant for a sadhaka. Sri Ramana's path goes to the source of all problems and radically eradicates it. Also, *there is no spiritual progress!* Who believes to progress? Only the phantom ego. That what we really are, self or atma-swarupa, does not change or progress. And how could something progress that really does not exist at all (ego)? As long as one identifies with ego and with its seeming problems one looks for solutions to fix these phantom problems like "shadows" and what not. Obviously Sri Ramana's path is not for everyone especially for those who seriously consider psychotherapy and other "solutions" like that.

If you want to see all comments please sort by "Newest first".

The practice of atma-vichara reduces the ego until its "annihilation", it does *not* improve or heal it. The more ego is reduced the more seeming progress is made, all within the dream since, according to Bhagavan, after ego is gone for good it becomes clear that there was never ego in the first place. "Feeling better" or experiencing peace or bliss are not signs of progress, they are rather signs of a flourishing ego.

@@johnmcdonald260 Simplicity and Self-Emptying in the Age of Quantity (Part II). The journal put out by Ramanashram in India, Saranaghati, has an extended article which addresses this point. The author begs to disagree with your view however. There is more to it than feeling better or bliss. Might you read it and respond to that well-written article? I cannot do justice to it.

@@jazzsnare I do not usually read articles from the Mountain Path or Saranagati newsletter because many articles are written by aspirants who give their opinions and interpretations of spirituality. Alas many not only distort Bhagavan's teachings but also completely contradict him like articles by the aspirant James Swartz and others. The sad thing is that aspirants like you read these articles, and since they are published by Sri Ramanasramam, they assume that they must reflect Bhagavan's teaching. Sadly, that is not the case. In fact, many things which come from the management of Sri Ramanasramam are rather questionable, IMO. Back to that article you have mentioned: In my opinion the author has a less refined understanding of Bhagavan's teaching and I cannot recommend this article at all, it will create confusion to all who are not soaked with Bhagavan's teaching.

We subside as ego every night when we sleep. Paradoxically there are no vasanas at that "time" [time does not exist when ego has subsided], however "sleep" and "waking" are not real as much as ego is not real, meaning the idea of ego somehow "subsiding', "attaining", "realizing" that what we really are *does not exist* . Then spontaneously ego seems to rise due to spontaneously and simultaneously vasanas appearing out of nowhere. It is a paradox since even vasanas do not exist, never existed, *BUT* in the viewpoint of ego only. That said, ego can *NEVER* experience 'as we actually are'. Ego does not exist. It only experiences unreal imaginations. When Michael says "we experience us as we actually are" he is *pointing* to "what we actually are" since we are already that and therefore we cannot *really* experience what we actually already are. As long as there seems to be ego we cannot be what we actually are. Ego and self/atma-swarupa are mutually exclusive! There is no link or connection between ego and self since they are One. Any link would imply duality. That's why atma-vichara [a non-dual practice] is essential to transcend the paradoxical illusion of ego. You are one of many here who keep asking endlessly questions however you are still as blind as months ago as you keep asking the same questions. The solution is to actually practice atma-vichara since with the proper practice of atma-vichara all questions are answered in the silence of being.

I do not want to sound callous, if we are not clear, what can we do but ask questions? I hope you will be still asking questions and Michael is graciously going to answer them. We cannot deliberately subside as ego because that would mean that ego is killing itself. Firstly it can't, and secondly it never would since ego is doing everything to keep the illusion of its existence alive. 🙏

@@johnmcdonald260 Once again thankyou for responding. The difficulty I have is understanding how to put Bhagavan's teachings into practice. Nobody seems to be able to explain how to do it. Even Michael says he really only practises Atma Vicara when he goes for a walk. You say you do it throughout the day and always when you sit down. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by practising it though most of the day. You have said before that Atma Vicara is not about sitting down and doing a session but doing it throughout the day . Well I have all day to sit around with nothing else to do except body maintenance and I would love to be able to spend it doing Atma Vicara but I fall asleep so much and I don't find the practise a pleasant practise, so I can't help feeling I am doing it wrong. Hence the questions. The answers I get is "keep practisng" or "stop asking questions and find out who is the one asking the questions." I am . "Investigate yourself". And so we go round and round. Trying and trying and persevering. I have heard many pointers and the teachings over and over. I have read all Ramanas actual teachings. There is a lot of mixed advice about how to practice, about thinking of "I" or "I am" to start with or not, about paying attention to a "sense"of being, just paying attention to yourself and so on. It is said "when the ego seeks itself it will take flight" and this would seem to be the special teaching that Bhagavan is teaching us as the ONLY way to annihilate the ego. So if seekimg itself means looking with intention of trying to find it, does one keep that intention? Apparently not.We just have to keep paying attention to ourself even though we can't be sure that we are actually paying attention to ourself or a gap between thoughts until a thought appears and then we start again or we fall asleep. This can't be right. Sometimes it is said that if we look for the ego we cannot find it because it doesn't exist. How are we suppose to know what an ego is to look for in the first place!! It is only because we are told there is an such a thing as an ego. So without that word ego we would ask ourself the question "what am I? and "where did I come from or am I always ? But it seems we are not supposed to ask ourselves questions as that is not investigating ourselves AKA paying attention to ourselves or practising self-attentiveness. It would make sense to me that once we have ruled out that we ware a body or a mind as we are the ones that are aware of such items or that they disappear in sleep when we don't, that asking the question to ourself and waiting for an answer to be revealed would be quite valid. The fact that no answer comes is the same for our true self not being found either if we take it that we cannot know our true self until the ego is destroyed. BUT, can we know our self temporarily as the empty space of awareness epxperientially by the subsidence of ego (so that we experience nothing like when asleep} in an act of self-recognition, be it only temporary. With practise that could be extended and extended until it eventually becomes permanent with no further rising of the "I thought". I would love to know how you practise Atma Vicara throughout hte day. Do you keep a thread of conscious self- attention going during all your activities or is it rapidly alternating to give the illusion of self-attentiveness? Or are you completley unaware of what you are doing? I look forward to your response John or anyone else's

@@nicholaskemp4500 I understand how that could be frustrating since atma-vichara has no blueprint and "how-to-do" instructions as other spiritual practices and mind feels helpless without it. I believe I tried to give you a more detailed description (how I practice) but that didn't help much looking at your questions. Michael has a bunch of articles about atma-vichara on his blog but they haven't helped much either I suppose. Let me answer some of your questions: I am not completely unaware of what I am doing while practicing atma-vichara, I suppose that will be the case for more advanced practitioners whose mind can be strongly one-pointed. That will happen eventually and it is not a problem if not, we are not looking for progress, simply being is enough. There is a "sinking deeper" with continuous practice until no thought is left to come up. We cannot know ourself temporarily in the sense like Bhagavan since that implies all ego is gone. That will take many lifetimes of practice of atma-vichara. In the mean time we get a better and better clarity of "I am" since it is still obfuscated by ego-awareness until the very end when we completely surrender to Bhagavan. If atma-vichara seems not clear, what about practicing surrender? That is easier to understand and is as good as atma-vichara, deep down it is the same.

Also, your explanations are really really good. Given your understanding and experience, have you ever felt the self and if not what hope can others who are much less experienced have to feel it?

In Arunachala , I felt bliss on a few occasions while staying in hotel and doing girivalam. Is this a taste of self given by local spirits?

It seems more reliable to look for our bliss within than guessing whether others are ‘enlightened’ based on their outward appearances. The only true guru is in our own own heart, investigate that and then we can start to see to trust in that.

In case it’s of interest, this short video addresses yoga practices in relation to Bhagavan’s teachings: ua-cam.com/video/akUqX5zVk1s/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared

Namaskaram. I didn’t say that we shouldn’t be aware of being self-attentive. What I said is that we shouldn't notice that thoughts, breath or speech have stopped, because if we notice that, it means that our attention has been diverted away from ourself towards such phenomena. Our aim should be to fix our attention on ourself so firmly that we are not aware of anything else at all. If we do notice anything other than ourself, we should investigate to whom that other thing has appeared. In other words, whatever else may appear in our awareness, we should turn our attention back to ourself, the one to whom it has appeared. Namo Ramanaya 🙏🙏🙏

@@SriRamanaTeachings thank you for the clarification, much needed 🙏

Namaskaram. Bhagavan’s real teachings are silence, namely the silence of pure being, but because our outward-going minds are not sufficiently attuned to that silence, he also gave us teachings in words. Since we receive and process those words as thoughts, they cannot by themselves enable us to know our own reality, but they do point us in the right direction. Therefore if we follow the direction in which they point us, namely back within, towards ourself alone, we will thereby know ourself as we actually are. As Bhagavan pointed out, awareness is one and indivisible, so the same awareness that is called ego or mind when facing outwards, shines as pure awareness when facing inwards, knowing nothing other than ourself. Therefore the way to bypass the mind is to turn it back within to face ourself alone. As he made clear, the nature of ourself as ego is to rise, stand and flourish by attending to things other than ourself, but to subside and dissolve back into ourself by attending to ourself alone. Therefore when we turn to turn back within to face ourself alone, we as ego subside and cease to exist, and thereby we remain as we actually are, namely pure being-awareness (sat-cit). In this way, by knowing and being what we always actually are, we will see that we are ever unchanging, so we have never actually risen as ego, and hence no such thing as ego, body or world has ever existed or even seemed to exist, as you say. Therefore, what may seem on superficial observation to be paradoxes in Bhagavan’s teachings are not actually paradoxes at all, because if we understand his teachings clearly and comprehensively, we will see that they explain everything that needs to be explained in a perfectly logical, consistent and coherent manner. Namo Ramanaya 🙏🙏🙏

@@SriRamanaTeachings Thank you very much for for the detail response to my questions.yes I agree about the silence,Bhahavan;s famous quote ,the only language that can speak about the truth is Silence.that is absolutely true.the problems arise when we use the words to explain that has no quality or dimension. other observation is when we try to understand "Advaita"paradox is inevitable depending on how we stand as ,As you mentioned in your response ,that awareness and the mind(ego) are made of same substance if we investigate(self inquiry)every moment.if we don't paradox is inevitable.therefore I agree there is no contradiction in Bhahavan;s teaching. I hope my understanding is right my another query is ,as you say to bypass the mind ,we have to turn inwards,does this mean we need cooperation of the mind ,which lead to its own death?or by self inquiry to understand there is no mind or ego ,only existence is sat-cit again thank for you effortless teaching and complete understanding of Bhahavan;s words although its in Tamil!

@@user-xk7mz9ds7e Namaskaram. What is the ‘I’ that needs to investigate itself? The pure ‘I’, which is sat-cit, obviously does not need to investigate itself, because it is always aware of itself as it actually is and is therefore never aware of anything else. Therefore, what needs to investigate itself is only the impure ‘I’ (the ‘I’ that is conflated with adjuncts as ‘I am this body’), which is what is called ego or mind. When you ask ‘does this mean we need cooperation of the mind ...?’, you seem to imply that the mind is something other than the ‘we’ who need to investigate ourself, but how can this ‘we’ be anything other than the mind or ego? We need to investigate ourself only because we now seem to be ego or mind, so self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) is just we as ego or mind turning back within to see ourself as we actually are, namely pure being-awareness (sat-cit). What Bhagavan has taught us is so simple and clear, but by allowing ourself to rise and rush outwards as ego or mind, we confuse ourself with a multitude of ideas and therefore fail to see the simplicity and clarity of his teachings. Instead of seeing simplicity and clarity, we imagine paradoxes and thereby confuse ourself unnecessarily. If we want to follow this path of self-investigation, therefore, we first need to set aside of our confused ideas and thereby allow ourself to see clearly what he has actually taught us, because this path is the path of clarity, so following it entails seeing clearly and thereby cutting through all confusion. Namo Ramanaya 🙏🙏🙏

​@@SriRamanaTeachings🙏🕉️

@@SriRamanaTeachings Thank you again for clear response as Bhahavan's teaching.yes I agree paradoxes only in the mind,mind as such it loves get teeth into unnecessary details instead of seeing its own truth.as in ullathu natpathu verse 3. thank you

Namaskaram, Prārabdha is not allotted for the body but for ego, the ‘I’ that is aware of itself as ‘I am this body’. Namo Ramanaya 🙏🙏🙏

​@@SriRamanaTeachings I misunderstand it probably because of the jiva mukta concept, and how sri Bhagavan had all kinds of body problems, because of his misusing it in his youth. But now I understand that the Ego is that which(who) suffers and not the body as it is insentient.

We have separated ourselves from God n so we r born again n again as we have forgotten ourselves.We have all the vishayavasanas which do not let us progress,these vasanas shd be given up,kama,khrod,Lobha,moha,mada,matsarya,with all this jiva does karma n he fails miserably as he doesnot know the law of karma cz of which the jiva with ahankara is born n thus has to thus go thru prarabdha.Prarabhdha is for spiritual progress only if jiva makes an effort to know God.

But ego an illusion itself? How come an illusion takes the burden?

@@gireeshneroth7127 Namaskaram. Yes, ego is an illusion, but it is an illusion unlike any other illusion, because all illusions appear only in the view of ego, so ego is the only illusion that seems to exist only in its own view. That is, ego is the root of all illusions, because it is the only illusion that is endowed with awareness, so it is the only illusion that is aware of itself and of all other illusions. Without ego, therefore, no other illusion could appear. Ego is a conflation of awareness (cit) with a set of adjuncts, namely a body consisting of five sheaths, which is non-aware (jaḍa), so it is called cit-jaḍa-granthi (the awareness-nonawareness-knot), and hence it is a mixture of what is real (namely sat-cit, ‘I am’) and what is unreal (namely the body). Therefore it is neither entirely unreal (like all phenomena, which are jaḍa) nor entirely real (like sat-cit): as ego it is unreal, and as sat-cit it is real. Since all burdens, including prārabdha, are illusions, which are jaḍa, they exist only in the view of ego, so it is only by rising as ego that we take all burdens upon ourself. Namo Ramanaya 🙏🙏🙏