The following is the full text and meaning of this fourteenth paragraph of நானார்? (Nāṉ Ār?), Who am I?: சுகமென்பது ஆத்மாவின் சொரூபமே; சுகமும் ஆத்மசொரூபமும் வேறன்று. ஆத்மசுகம் ஒன்றே யுள்ளது; அதுவே ஸத்யம். பிரபஞ்சப்பொருள் ஒன்றிலாவது சுகமென்பது கிடையாது. அவைகளிலிருந்து சுகம் கிடைப்பதாக நாம் நமது அவிவேகத்தால் நினைக்கின்றோம். மனம் வெளியில் வரும்போது துக்கத்தை யனுபவிக்கிறது. உண்மையில் நமது எண்ணங்கள் பூர்த்தியாகும்போதெல்லாம் அது தன்னுடைய யதாஸ்தானத்திற்குத் திரும்பி ஆத்மசுகத்தையே யனுபவிக்கிறது. அப்படியே தூக்கம், சமாதி, மூர்ச்சை காலங்களிலும், இச்சித்த பொருள் கிடைக்கிறபோதும், வெறுத்த பொருளுக்கு கேடுண்டாகும் போதும், மனம் அந்தர்முகமாகி ஆத்மசுகத்தையே யனுபவிக்கிறது. இப்படி மனம் ஆத்மாவை விட்டு வெளியே போவதும், உள்ளே திரும்புவதுமாக ஓய்வின்றி யலைகிறது. மரத்தடியில் நிழல் சுகமா யிருக்கிறது. வெளியில் சூரியவெப்பம் கொடுமையா யிருக்கிறது. வெளியி லலையு மொருவன் நிழலிற் சென்று குளிர்ச்சி யடைகிறான். சிறிது நேரத்திற்குப் பின் வெளிக்கிளம்பி வெப்பத்தின் கொடுமைக் காற்றாது, மறுபடியும் மரத்தடிக்கு வருகின்றான். இவ்வாறு நிழலினின்று வெயிலிற் போவதும், வெயிலினின்று நிழலிற் செல்வதுமாயிருக்கிறான். இப்படிச் செய்கிறவன் அவிவேகி. ஆனால் விவேகியோ நிழலைவிட்டு நீங்கான். அப்படியே ஞானியின் மனமும் பிரம்மத்தை விட்டு நீங்குவ தில்லை. ஆனால் அஞ்ஞானியின் மனமோ பிரபஞ்சத்தி லுழன்று துக்கப்படுவதும், சிறிது நேரம் பிரம்மத்திற்குத் திரும்பி சுக மடைவதுமா யிருக்கிறது. ஜக மென்பது நினைவே. ஜகம் மறையும்போது அதாவது நினைவற்றபோது மனம் ஆனந்தத்தை யனுபவிக்கின்றது; ஜகம் தோன்றும்போது அது துக்கத்தை யனுபவிக்கின்றது. sukham-eṉbadu ātmāviṉ sorūpamē; sukhamum ātma-sorūpamum vēṟaṉḏṟu. ātma-sukham oṉḏṟē y-uḷḷadu; aduvē satyam. pirapañca-p-poruḷ oṉḏṟil-āvadu sukham-eṉbadu kiḍaiyādu. avaigaḷilirundu sukham kiḍaippadāha nām namadu avivēkattāl niṉaikkiṉḏṟōm. maṉam veḷiyil varum-pōdu duḥkhattai y-aṉubhavikkiṟadu. uṇmaiyil namadu eṇṇaṅgaḷ pūrtti-y-āhum-pōdellām adu taṉṉuḍaiya yathāsthāṉattiṟku-t tirumbi ātma-sukhattaiyē y-aṉubhavikkiṟadu. appaḍiyē tūkkam, samādhi, mūrccai kālaṅgaḷilum, icchitta poruḷ kiḍaikkiṟa-bōdum, veṟutta poruḷukku kēḍuṇḍāhum-bōdum, maṉam antarmukham-āhi ātma-sukhattaiyē y-aṉubhavikkiṟadu. ippaḍi maṉam ātmāvai viṭṭu veḷiyē pōvadum, uḷḷē tirumbuvadum-āha ōyviṉḏṟi y-alaikiṟadu. marattaḍiyil niṙal sukham-āy irukkiṟadu. veḷiyil sūriya-veppam koḍumai-y-āy irukkiṟadu. veḷiyil alaiyum oruvaṉ niṙaliṯ ceṉḏṟu kuḷircci y-aḍaikiṟāṉ. siṟidu nērattiṟku-p piṉ veḷi-k-kiḷambi veppattiṉ koḍumaik kāṯṟādu, maṟupaḍiyum marattaḍikku varugiṉḏṟāṉ. ivvāṟu niṙaliṉiṉḏṟu veyiliṯ pōvadum, veyiliṉiṉḏṟu niṙaliṯ celvadum-āy-irukkiṟāṉ. ippaḍi-c ceygiṟavaṉ avivēki. āṉāl vivēkiyō niṙalai-viṭṭu nīṅgāṉ. appaḍiyē ñāṉiyiṉ maṉamum birammattai viṭṭu nīṅguvadillai. āṉāl aññāṉiyiṉ maṉamō pirapañcattil uṙaṉḏṟu duḥkha-p-paḍuvadum, siṟidu nēram birammattiṟku-t tirumbi sukham aḍaivadum-āy irukkiṟadu. jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē. jagam maṟaiyum-bōdu adāvadu niṉaivaṯṟa-bōdu maṉam āṉandattai y-aṉubhavikkiṉḏṟadu; jagam tōṉḏṟum-pōdu adu duḥkhattai y-aṉubhavikkiṉḏṟadu. What is called sukha [happiness, satisfaction, joy, ease, comfort or pleasantness] is only the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature] of ātmā [oneself]; sukha and ātma-svarūpa [one’s own real nature] are not different. Ātma-sukha [happiness that is oneself] alone exists; that alone is real. What is called sukha [happiness or satisfaction] is not found [obtained or available] in even one of the objects of the world. We think that happiness is obtained from them because of our avivēka [lack of judgement, discrimination or ability to distinguish one thing from another]. When the mind comes out [from ātma-svarūpa], it experiences duḥkha [dissatisfaction, discomfort, uneasiness, unpleasantness, unhappiness, distress, suffering, sorrow, sadness, pain or affliction]. In truth, whenever our thoughts [wishes or hopes] are fulfilled, it [the mind] turns back to its proper place [the heart, our real nature, which is the source from which it rose] and experiences only ātma-sukha [happiness that is oneself]. Likewise at times of sleep, samādhi [a state of manōlaya or temporary dissolution of mind brought about by prāṇāyāma or other such yōga practices] and fainting, and when anything liked is obtained, and when destruction [damage, elimination or removal] occurs to anything disliked, the mind becomes antarmukham [inward facing] and experiences only ātma-sukha. In this way the mind wanders about incessantly, going outside leaving oneself, and [again] turning back inside. At the foot of a tree the shade is pleasant [comfortable or delightful]. Outside the heat of the sun is severe [or harsh]. A person who is wandering outside is cooled [literally, obtains coolness or cooling] [by] going into the shade. After a short while emerging outside, [but] being unable to withstand [or bear] the severity of the heat, he again comes to the foot of the tree. In this way he remains, going from the shade into the sunshine, and going [back] from the sunshine into the shade. A person who does thus is an avivēki [someone lacking judgement, discrimination or ability to distinguish]. But a vivēki [someone who can judge, discriminate or distinguish] will not depart leaving the shade. Likewise the mind of the jñāni [one who is aware of one’s real nature] will not depart leaving brahman [that which alone exists, namely pure awareness, which is infinite happiness and one’s own real nature]. But the mind of the ajñāni [one who is not aware of one’s real nature] remains experiencing duḥkha [dissatisfaction or suffering] [by] roaming about in the world, and for a short while obtaining sukha [satisfaction or happiness] [by] returning to brahman. What is called the world is only thought [because like any world that we experience in a dream, what we experience as the world in this waking state is nothing but a series of perceptions, which are just thoughts or mental phenomena]. When the world disappears, that is, when thought ceases, the mind experiences happiness; when the world appears, it experiences duḥkha [dissatisfaction or suffering].
Because I am not a native speaker of English for me it is evidently necessary to manage a better sound recording-quality. Therefore I would like to recommend to the RMF UK to henceforth use a better microphone. The content of Michael's talk deserves to be clearly understood. Should it be necessary to buy a good microphone and if there is a need to collect donations for this purpose of purchase I would certainly give a special contribution.
As it is discussed in this video, the following is a sentence-by-sentence transliteration and translation of this fourteenth paragraph of நானார்? (Nāṉ Ār?), Who am I?: சுகமென்பது ஆத்மாவின் சொரூபமே; sukham-eṉbadu ātmāviṉ sorūpamē; What is called sukha [happiness, satisfaction, joy, ease, comfort or pleasantness] is only the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature] of ātmā [oneself]; சுகமும் ஆத்மசொரூபமும் வேறன்று. sukhamum ātma-sorūpamum vēṟaṉḏṟu. sukha and ātma-svarūpa [one’s own real nature] are not different. ஆத்மசுகம் ஒன்றே யுள்ளது; ātma-sukham oṉḏṟē y-uḷḷadu; Ātma-sukha [happiness that is oneself] alone exists; அதுவே ஸத்யம். aduvē satyam. that alone is real. பிரபஞ்சப்பொருள் ஒன்றிலாவது சுகமென்பது கிடையாது. pirapañca-p-poruḷ oṉḏṟil-āvadu sukham-eṉbadu kiḍaiyādu. What is called sukha [happiness or satisfaction] is not found [obtained or available] in even one of the objects of the world. அவைகளிலிருந்து சுகம் கிடைப்பதாக நாம் நமது அவிவேகத்தால் நினைக்கின்றோம். avaigaḷilirundu sukham kiḍaippadāha nām namadu avivēkattāl niṉaikkiṉḏṟōm. We think that happiness is obtained from them because of our avivēka [lack of judgement, discrimination or ability to distinguish one thing from another]. மனம் வெளியில் வரும்போது துக்கத்தை யனுபவிக்கிறது. maṉam veḷiyil varum-pōdu duḥkhattai y-aṉubhavikkiṟadu. When the mind comes out [from ātma-svarūpa], it experiences duḥkha [dissatisfaction, discomfort, uneasiness, unpleasantness, unhappiness, distress, suffering, sorrow, sadness, pain or affliction]. உண்மையில் நமது எண்ணங்கள் பூர்த்தியாகும்போதெல்லாம் அது தன்னுடைய யதாஸ்தானத்திற்குத் திரும்பி ஆத்மசுகத்தையே யனுபவிக்கிறது. uṇmaiyil namadu eṇṇaṅgaḷ pūrtti-y-āhum-pōdellām adu taṉṉuḍaiya yathāsthāṉattiṟku-t tirumbi ātma-sukhattaiyē y-aṉubhavikkiṟadu. In truth, whenever our thoughts [wishes or hopes] are fulfilled, it [the mind] turns back to its proper place [the heart, our real nature, which is the source from which it rose] and experiences only ātma-sukha [happiness that is oneself]. அப்படியே தூக்கம், சமாதி, மூர்ச்சை காலங்களிலும், இச்சித்த பொருள் கிடைக்கிறபோதும், வெறுத்த பொருளுக்கு கேடுண்டாகும் போதும், மனம் அந்தர்முகமாகி ஆத்மசுகத்தையே யனுபவிக்கிறது. appaḍiyē tūkkam, samādhi, mūrccai kālaṅgaḷilum, icchitta poruḷ kiḍaikkiṟa-bōdum, veṟutta poruḷukku kēḍuṇḍāhum-bōdum, maṉam antarmukham-āhi ātma-sukhattaiyē y-aṉubhavikkiṟadu. Likewise at times of sleep, samādhi [a state of manōlaya or temporary dissolution of mind brought about by prāṇāyāma or other such yōga practices] and fainting, and when anything liked is obtained, and when destruction [damage, elimination or removal] occurs to anything disliked, the mind becomes antarmukham [inward facing] and experiences only ātma-sukha. இப்படி மனம் ஆத்மாவை விட்டு வெளியே போவதும், உள்ளே திரும்புவதுமாக ஓய்வின்றி யலைகிறது. ippaḍi maṉam ātmāvai viṭṭu veḷiyē pōvadum, uḷḷē tirumbuvadum-āha ōyviṉḏṟi y-alaikiṟadu. In this way the mind wanders about incessantly, going outside leaving oneself, and [again] turning back inside. மரத்தடியில் நிழல் சுகமா யிருக்கிறது. marattaḍiyil niṙal sukham-āy irukkiṟadu. At the foot of a tree the shade is pleasant [comfortable or delightful]. வெளியில் சூரியவெப்பம் கொடுமையா யிருக்கிறது. veḷiyil sūriya-veppam koḍumai-y-āy irukkiṟadu. Outside the heat of the sun is severe [or harsh]. வெளியி லலையு மொருவன் நிழலிற் சென்று குளிர்ச்சி யடைகிறான். veḷiyil alaiyum oruvaṉ niṙaliṯ ceṉḏṟu kuḷircci y-aḍaikiṟāṉ. A person who is wandering outside is cooled [literally, obtains coolness or cooling] [by] going into the shade. சிறிது நேரத்திற்குப் பின் வெளிக்கிளம்பி வெப்பத்தின் கொடுமைக் காற்றாது, மறுபடியும் மரத்தடிக்கு வருகின்றான். siṟidu nērattiṟku-p piṉ veḷi-k-kiḷambi veppattiṉ koḍumaik kāṯṟādu, maṟupaḍiyum marattaḍikku varugiṉḏṟāṉ. After a short while emerging outside, [but] being unable to withstand [or bear] the severity of the heat, he again comes to the foot of the tree. இவ்வாறு நிழலினின்று வெயிலிற் போவதும், வெயிலினின்று நிழலிற் செல்வதுமாயிருக்கிறான். ivvāṟu niṙaliṉiṉḏṟu veyiliṯ pōvadum, veyiliṉiṉḏṟu niṙaliṯ celvadum-āy-irukkiṟāṉ. In this way he remains, going from the shade into the sunshine, and going [back] from the sunshine into the shade. இப்படிச் செய்கிறவன் அவிவேகி. ippaḍi-c ceygiṟavaṉ avivēki. A person who does thus is an avivēki [someone lacking judgement, discrimination or ability to distinguish]. ஆனால் விவேகியோ நிழலைவிட்டு நீங்கான். āṉāl vivēkiyō niṙalai-viṭṭu nīṅgāṉ. But a vivēki [someone who can judge, discriminate or distinguish] will not depart leaving the shade. அப்படியே ஞானியின் மனமும் பிரம்மத்தை விட்டு நீங்குவ தில்லை. appaḍiyē ñāṉiyiṉ maṉamum birammattai viṭṭu nīṅguvadillai. Likewise the mind of the jñāni [one who is aware of one’s real nature] will not depart leaving brahman [that which alone exists, namely pure awareness, which is infinite happiness and one’s own real nature]. ஆனால் அஞ்ஞானியின் மனமோ பிரபஞ்சத்தி லுழன்று துக்கப்படுவதும், சிறிது நேரம் பிரம்மத்திற்குத் திரும்பி சுக மடைவதுமா யிருக்கிறது. āṉāl aññāṉiyiṉ maṉamō pirapañcattil uṙaṉḏṟu duḥkha-p-paḍuvadum, siṟidu nēram birammattiṟku-t tirumbi sukham aḍaivadum-āy irukkiṟadu. But the mind of the ajñāni [one who is not aware of one’s real nature] remains experiencing duḥkha [dissatisfaction or suffering] [by] roaming about in the world, and for a short while obtaining sukha [satisfaction or happiness] [by] returning to brahman. ஜக மென்பது நினைவே. jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē. What is called the world is only thought [because like any world that we experience in a dream, what we experience as the world in this waking state is nothing but a series of perceptions, which are just thoughts or mental phenomena]. ஜகம் மறையும்போது அதாவது நினைவற்றபோது மனம் ஆனந்தத்தை யனுபவிக்கின்றது; jagam maṟaiyum-bōdu adāvadu niṉaivaṯṟa-bōdu maṉam āṉandattai y-aṉubhavikkiṉḏṟadu; When the world disappears, that is, when thought ceases, the mind experiences happiness; ஜகம் தோன்றும்போது அது துக்கத்தை யனுபவிக்கின்றது. jagam tōṉḏṟum-pōdu adu duḥkhattai y-aṉubhavikkiṉḏṟadu. when the world appears, it experiences duḥkha [dissatisfaction or suffering].
Thank You, I'm happy to hear an explanation of Ramana teaching. It's unusual to experience for me that intellectual understanding of this knowledge forces me to the self-inquiry. In many cases, a language will lead to misconceptions in the terms of translation from Tamil. Can You give me some info about the titles of books in English that doesn't have too many errors?
Just came across this while reading a book. Just wanted to share it here: *Is the body merely an idea? Is all the mentality that is scattered over space and time, a diffused consciousness that animates the world? There is but one entity, seen now inwardly as mind, now outwardly as matter, but in reality an inextricable mixture and unity of both. *For a time, during the middle ages, the theory that all the world, and even the universe, were figments of one giant imagination, swayed the thinkers of the world. The intellect in which this imagination centered was focused in one man, and one man only, in the whole of existence. That man was the one man who "thought." All other men, all other matter, were but imagined props with no actual existence. That man is the one who "thinks!" "You"-and only "you," the person who is reading this-in the whole world. It does not matter what your name might be. It might be.... At first glance it would seem that there is a concerted conspiracy to avoid acknowledging this fact. Learned men, acquiring wisdom, come to the brink of the great discovery, and then deftly skirt it, blinding themselves to its evidentness. However, on second thought the reason is obvious. The theory is anarchistic; it carries the seeds of its own futility. If they were ever to admit the truth of it, all reason for everything-their very discovery, their very thoughts-would be futile. So they refuse to recognize it. Your obvious question is, How can I tell you this? Who am I-the writer of this essay? The answer is quite simple. I am merely a figment of your imagination, as is everything else about you!
Nagamani Rama Swamy I agree. And if you suggest this to people, they will say you’re crazy. So it’s impossible to talk about with anyone. I would like if Michael talked about the difference between Ramana teaching and silopsism, if there is any difference. Thank you.
A request here pls the other lady from the audience who keeps trying to summarise Michael's talk, kindly refrain from doing so, as it creates more confusion and breaks the flow. Pls let Michael alone talk, and let's each one of us do our own Manana. Pls let each one ask their own questions separately and do not combine them. Each question however basic is very important and open to wonderful explanations of Bhagawan through Michael. This is just a suggestion with no intent to offend anyone. Thank you.
Thank you for this video, Michael. We can think of the dream state only with respect to (what seems to be) the waking state. So when Bhagavan says that waking state also is only a dream, how to understand this statement? Since we know the dream state only with respect to this waking state, if the waking state too is a dream, then there is no longer any standard left against which to place dream and thus to make sense of it. Typing this question, it seems like the standard must be the state of deep sleep. So basically, there is no state that can be called the waking state? Only dream and sleep? Also, it seems like no rational person will deny that this world is quite possibly only a dream or mental imagination. But how can we be sure that we can 'wake' up from this dream, and how? Bhagavan has taught that this is possible, should we take this on faith? And try to experience it ourselves through our practice? I ask because previously, I have followed several different people, some whose teachings were very superficial although at that time I may have felt otherwise, but with Bhagavan's teachings I feel sure that I don't have to search any further, I don't have to dig any more wells, as Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa said in an analogy. But this feeling is not sufficiently empowered by a clarity of understanding Bhagavan's teachings or doing deep self investigation, but largely just a feeling in my heart, if may put it like that. So I am still very immature and lacking in both bhakti and vairagya.
Saroj, I have written an article on my blog in reply to this comment of yours, ‘How can we be sure that we can wake up from this dream of our present life?’: happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2019/06/how-can-we-be-sure-that-we-can-wake-up.html
What is the difference between solipsism and the teaching of Ramana? I mean as a starting point. Obviously, Ramana’s teaching goes beyond that, but first I must accept that all experience comes to me through thought. This “thought” is not “my thought”, however. Maybe that’s the difference? Thought comes to me uninvited.
Ross, solipsism is understood differently by different people. Bhagavan taught a form of solipsism called ēka-jīva-vāda, the contention that there is only one jīva, ego or perceiver. This does not mean that there is only one person, because obviously there are many people, nor does it mean that only one person is aware, because as he pointed out no person is aware of anything, because a person is just an object of perception (or a set of such objects) and is therefore jaḍa (insentient or non-aware). What is aware is not the person we seem to be, but only we who are aware of this person and all other phenomena. We are the perceiver, and the person we seem to be is an object perceived by us as if it were ourself. A person is a bundle consisting of a physical body, life, mind, intellect and will (the so-called five sheaths), and the perceiver is the false awareness that is aware of itself as ‘I am this person’. In other words, the perceiver is ego, which is what experiences both waking and dream, but in each state it experiences itself as a different body, and in sleep it disappears, so does not experience itself as any body and therefore does not perceive any phenomena. In a dream we perceive ourself as a body, and through the five senses of that body we perceive a world full of numerous people. So long as we are dreaming, that world seems to exist out there, independent of our perception of it, and all those other people seem to be perceiving that world just as we are. However, as soon as we wake up, we recognise that it was just a dream, so we were the only one who perceived it, and everything we perceived in it seemed to exist only because we perceived it and therefore did not exist independent of our perception of it. Therefore in a dream there is only one perceiver, namely ourself. We generally assume that our present state is not a dream, but even while dreaming we make the same assumption. So long as we are dreaming we seem to be awake, and only when we wake up do we recognise that it was just a dream. Therefore how can we be sure that we are not dreaming now? Is there anything that we experience in our present state that we could not equally well experience in a dream? No, obviously not, so our assumption that our present state is not a dream is unjustified, because it is not supported by any evidence. If our present state is just a dream, as Bhagavan says it is, then there is only one perceiver of this state, and whatever we, this one perceiver, perceive in it does not exist independent of our perception of it. This is what is called dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda (the contention that perception is what causes the appearance of creation), and one of its implications is ēka-jīva-vāda. I have explained in more detail about both dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda and ēka-jīva-vāda in many articles in my blog, and in one of my recent articles, ‘Which is a more reasonable and useful explanation: dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda or sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda?’ (happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2018/12/which-is-more-reasonable-and-useful.html), I have considered all the main arguments for and against our usual assumption that our present state is not a dream. Regarding what you write about thought, no thought can appear unless we attend to it, so though some thoughts may seem to come uninvited, they appear only because we are willing to attend to them. From where do thoughts come? They came only from us, so ultimately we alone are responsible for all our thoughts. Sometimes we may be overwhelmed by unpleasant thoughts, but we allow ourself to be overwhelmed by them due to our weakness, which is the result of our scattering our mind in many directions. In order to gain the strength required to avoid being overwhelmed by thoughts, whether pleasant or unpleasant, we need to patiently and persistently practise trying to attend only to ourself rather than to any thoughts.
Sri Ramana Teachings Thanks, Michael. Your comprehensive answer deserves time to reflect upon. Please allow me to contemplate it and refer again at a later time. Thank you again so much.
Thank you God for bringing Michael James.
The following is the full text and meaning of this fourteenth paragraph of நானார்? (Nāṉ Ār?), Who am I?:
சுகமென்பது ஆத்மாவின் சொரூபமே; சுகமும் ஆத்மசொரூபமும் வேறன்று. ஆத்மசுகம் ஒன்றே யுள்ளது; அதுவே ஸத்யம். பிரபஞ்சப்பொருள் ஒன்றிலாவது சுகமென்பது கிடையாது. அவைகளிலிருந்து சுகம் கிடைப்பதாக நாம் நமது அவிவேகத்தால் நினைக்கின்றோம். மனம் வெளியில் வரும்போது துக்கத்தை யனுபவிக்கிறது. உண்மையில் நமது எண்ணங்கள் பூர்த்தியாகும்போதெல்லாம் அது தன்னுடைய யதாஸ்தானத்திற்குத் திரும்பி ஆத்மசுகத்தையே யனுபவிக்கிறது. அப்படியே தூக்கம், சமாதி, மூர்ச்சை காலங்களிலும், இச்சித்த பொருள் கிடைக்கிறபோதும், வெறுத்த பொருளுக்கு கேடுண்டாகும் போதும், மனம் அந்தர்முகமாகி ஆத்மசுகத்தையே யனுபவிக்கிறது. இப்படி மனம் ஆத்மாவை விட்டு வெளியே போவதும், உள்ளே திரும்புவதுமாக ஓய்வின்றி யலைகிறது. மரத்தடியில் நிழல் சுகமா யிருக்கிறது. வெளியில் சூரியவெப்பம் கொடுமையா யிருக்கிறது. வெளியி லலையு மொருவன் நிழலிற் சென்று குளிர்ச்சி யடைகிறான். சிறிது நேரத்திற்குப் பின் வெளிக்கிளம்பி வெப்பத்தின் கொடுமைக் காற்றாது, மறுபடியும் மரத்தடிக்கு வருகின்றான். இவ்வாறு நிழலினின்று வெயிலிற் போவதும், வெயிலினின்று நிழலிற் செல்வதுமாயிருக்கிறான். இப்படிச் செய்கிறவன் அவிவேகி. ஆனால் விவேகியோ நிழலைவிட்டு நீங்கான். அப்படியே ஞானியின் மனமும் பிரம்மத்தை விட்டு நீங்குவ தில்லை. ஆனால் அஞ்ஞானியின் மனமோ பிரபஞ்சத்தி லுழன்று துக்கப்படுவதும், சிறிது நேரம் பிரம்மத்திற்குத் திரும்பி சுக மடைவதுமா யிருக்கிறது. ஜக மென்பது நினைவே. ஜகம் மறையும்போது அதாவது நினைவற்றபோது மனம் ஆனந்தத்தை யனுபவிக்கின்றது; ஜகம் தோன்றும்போது அது துக்கத்தை யனுபவிக்கின்றது.
sukham-eṉbadu ātmāviṉ sorūpamē; sukhamum ātma-sorūpamum vēṟaṉḏṟu. ātma-sukham oṉḏṟē y-uḷḷadu; aduvē satyam. pirapañca-p-poruḷ oṉḏṟil-āvadu sukham-eṉbadu kiḍaiyādu. avaigaḷilirundu sukham kiḍaippadāha nām namadu avivēkattāl niṉaikkiṉḏṟōm. maṉam veḷiyil varum-pōdu duḥkhattai y-aṉubhavikkiṟadu. uṇmaiyil namadu eṇṇaṅgaḷ pūrtti-y-āhum-pōdellām adu taṉṉuḍaiya yathāsthāṉattiṟku-t tirumbi ātma-sukhattaiyē y-aṉubhavikkiṟadu. appaḍiyē tūkkam, samādhi, mūrccai kālaṅgaḷilum, icchitta poruḷ kiḍaikkiṟa-bōdum, veṟutta poruḷukku kēḍuṇḍāhum-bōdum, maṉam antarmukham-āhi ātma-sukhattaiyē y-aṉubhavikkiṟadu. ippaḍi maṉam ātmāvai viṭṭu veḷiyē pōvadum, uḷḷē tirumbuvadum-āha ōyviṉḏṟi y-alaikiṟadu. marattaḍiyil niṙal sukham-āy irukkiṟadu. veḷiyil sūriya-veppam koḍumai-y-āy irukkiṟadu. veḷiyil alaiyum oruvaṉ niṙaliṯ ceṉḏṟu kuḷircci y-aḍaikiṟāṉ. siṟidu nērattiṟku-p piṉ veḷi-k-kiḷambi veppattiṉ koḍumaik kāṯṟādu, maṟupaḍiyum marattaḍikku varugiṉḏṟāṉ. ivvāṟu niṙaliṉiṉḏṟu veyiliṯ pōvadum, veyiliṉiṉḏṟu niṙaliṯ celvadum-āy-irukkiṟāṉ. ippaḍi-c ceygiṟavaṉ avivēki. āṉāl vivēkiyō niṙalai-viṭṭu nīṅgāṉ. appaḍiyē ñāṉiyiṉ maṉamum birammattai viṭṭu nīṅguvadillai. āṉāl aññāṉiyiṉ maṉamō pirapañcattil uṙaṉḏṟu duḥkha-p-paḍuvadum, siṟidu nēram birammattiṟku-t tirumbi sukham aḍaivadum-āy irukkiṟadu. jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē. jagam maṟaiyum-bōdu adāvadu niṉaivaṯṟa-bōdu maṉam āṉandattai y-aṉubhavikkiṉḏṟadu; jagam tōṉḏṟum-pōdu adu duḥkhattai y-aṉubhavikkiṉḏṟadu.
What is called sukha [happiness, satisfaction, joy, ease, comfort or pleasantness] is only the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature] of ātmā [oneself]; sukha and ātma-svarūpa [one’s own real nature] are not different. Ātma-sukha [happiness that is oneself] alone exists; that alone is real. What is called sukha [happiness or satisfaction] is not found [obtained or available] in even one of the objects of the world. We think that happiness is obtained from them because of our avivēka [lack of judgement, discrimination or ability to distinguish one thing from another]. When the mind comes out [from ātma-svarūpa], it experiences duḥkha [dissatisfaction, discomfort, uneasiness, unpleasantness, unhappiness, distress, suffering, sorrow, sadness, pain or affliction]. In truth, whenever our thoughts [wishes or hopes] are fulfilled, it [the mind] turns back to its proper place [the heart, our real nature, which is the source from which it rose] and experiences only ātma-sukha [happiness that is oneself]. Likewise at times of sleep, samādhi [a state of manōlaya or temporary dissolution of mind brought about by prāṇāyāma or other such yōga practices] and fainting, and when anything liked is obtained, and when destruction [damage, elimination or removal] occurs to anything disliked, the mind becomes antarmukham [inward facing] and experiences only ātma-sukha. In this way the mind wanders about incessantly, going outside leaving oneself, and [again] turning back inside. At the foot of a tree the shade is pleasant [comfortable or delightful]. Outside the heat of the sun is severe [or harsh]. A person who is wandering outside is cooled [literally, obtains coolness or cooling] [by] going into the shade. After a short while emerging outside, [but] being unable to withstand [or bear] the severity of the heat, he again comes to the foot of the tree. In this way he remains, going from the shade into the sunshine, and going [back] from the sunshine into the shade. A person who does thus is an avivēki [someone lacking judgement, discrimination or ability to distinguish]. But a vivēki [someone who can judge, discriminate or distinguish] will not depart leaving the shade. Likewise the mind of the jñāni [one who is aware of one’s real nature] will not depart leaving brahman [that which alone exists, namely pure awareness, which is infinite happiness and one’s own real nature]. But the mind of the ajñāni [one who is not aware of one’s real nature] remains experiencing duḥkha [dissatisfaction or suffering] [by] roaming about in the world, and for a short while obtaining sukha [satisfaction or happiness] [by] returning to brahman. What is called the world is only thought [because like any world that we experience in a dream, what we experience as the world in this waking state is nothing but a series of perceptions, which are just thoughts or mental phenomena]. When the world disappears, that is, when thought ceases, the mind experiences happiness; when the world appears, it experiences duḥkha [dissatisfaction or suffering].
Because I am not a native speaker of English for me it is evidently necessary to manage a better sound recording-quality. Therefore I would like to recommend to the RMF UK to henceforth use a better microphone. The content of Michael's talk deserves to be clearly understood. Should it be necessary to buy a good microphone and if there is a need to collect donations for this purpose of purchase I would certainly give a special contribution.
As it is discussed in this video, the following is a sentence-by-sentence transliteration and translation of this fourteenth paragraph of நானார்? (Nāṉ Ār?), Who am I?:
சுகமென்பது ஆத்மாவின் சொரூபமே;
sukham-eṉbadu ātmāviṉ sorūpamē;
What is called sukha [happiness, satisfaction, joy, ease, comfort or pleasantness] is only the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature] of ātmā [oneself];
சுகமும் ஆத்மசொரூபமும் வேறன்று.
sukhamum ātma-sorūpamum vēṟaṉḏṟu.
sukha and ātma-svarūpa [one’s own real nature] are not different.
ஆத்மசுகம் ஒன்றே யுள்ளது;
ātma-sukham oṉḏṟē y-uḷḷadu;
Ātma-sukha [happiness that is oneself] alone exists;
அதுவே ஸத்யம்.
aduvē satyam.
that alone is real.
பிரபஞ்சப்பொருள் ஒன்றிலாவது சுகமென்பது கிடையாது.
pirapañca-p-poruḷ oṉḏṟil-āvadu sukham-eṉbadu kiḍaiyādu.
What is called sukha [happiness or satisfaction] is not found [obtained or available] in even one of the objects of the world.
அவைகளிலிருந்து சுகம் கிடைப்பதாக நாம் நமது அவிவேகத்தால் நினைக்கின்றோம்.
avaigaḷilirundu sukham kiḍaippadāha nām namadu avivēkattāl niṉaikkiṉḏṟōm.
We think that happiness is obtained from them because of our avivēka [lack of judgement, discrimination or ability to distinguish one thing from another].
மனம் வெளியில் வரும்போது துக்கத்தை யனுபவிக்கிறது.
maṉam veḷiyil varum-pōdu duḥkhattai y-aṉubhavikkiṟadu.
When the mind comes out [from ātma-svarūpa], it experiences duḥkha [dissatisfaction, discomfort, uneasiness, unpleasantness, unhappiness, distress, suffering, sorrow, sadness, pain or affliction].
உண்மையில் நமது எண்ணங்கள் பூர்த்தியாகும்போதெல்லாம் அது தன்னுடைய யதாஸ்தானத்திற்குத் திரும்பி ஆத்மசுகத்தையே யனுபவிக்கிறது.
uṇmaiyil namadu eṇṇaṅgaḷ pūrtti-y-āhum-pōdellām adu taṉṉuḍaiya yathāsthāṉattiṟku-t tirumbi ātma-sukhattaiyē y-aṉubhavikkiṟadu.
In truth, whenever our thoughts [wishes or hopes] are fulfilled, it [the mind] turns back to its proper place [the heart, our real nature, which is the source from which it rose] and experiences only ātma-sukha [happiness that is oneself].
அப்படியே தூக்கம், சமாதி, மூர்ச்சை காலங்களிலும், இச்சித்த பொருள் கிடைக்கிறபோதும், வெறுத்த பொருளுக்கு கேடுண்டாகும் போதும், மனம் அந்தர்முகமாகி ஆத்மசுகத்தையே யனுபவிக்கிறது.
appaḍiyē tūkkam, samādhi, mūrccai kālaṅgaḷilum, icchitta poruḷ kiḍaikkiṟa-bōdum, veṟutta poruḷukku kēḍuṇḍāhum-bōdum, maṉam antarmukham-āhi ātma-sukhattaiyē y-aṉubhavikkiṟadu.
Likewise at times of sleep, samādhi [a state of manōlaya or temporary dissolution of mind brought about by prāṇāyāma or other such yōga practices] and fainting, and when anything liked is obtained, and when destruction [damage, elimination or removal] occurs to anything disliked, the mind becomes antarmukham [inward facing] and experiences only ātma-sukha.
இப்படி மனம் ஆத்மாவை விட்டு வெளியே போவதும், உள்ளே திரும்புவதுமாக ஓய்வின்றி யலைகிறது.
ippaḍi maṉam ātmāvai viṭṭu veḷiyē pōvadum, uḷḷē tirumbuvadum-āha ōyviṉḏṟi y-alaikiṟadu.
In this way the mind wanders about incessantly, going outside leaving oneself, and [again] turning back inside.
மரத்தடியில் நிழல் சுகமா யிருக்கிறது.
marattaḍiyil niṙal sukham-āy irukkiṟadu.
At the foot of a tree the shade is pleasant [comfortable or delightful].
வெளியில் சூரியவெப்பம் கொடுமையா யிருக்கிறது.
veḷiyil sūriya-veppam koḍumai-y-āy irukkiṟadu.
Outside the heat of the sun is severe [or harsh].
வெளியி லலையு மொருவன் நிழலிற் சென்று குளிர்ச்சி யடைகிறான்.
veḷiyil alaiyum oruvaṉ niṙaliṯ ceṉḏṟu kuḷircci y-aḍaikiṟāṉ.
A person who is wandering outside is cooled [literally, obtains coolness or cooling] [by] going into the shade.
சிறிது நேரத்திற்குப் பின் வெளிக்கிளம்பி வெப்பத்தின் கொடுமைக் காற்றாது, மறுபடியும் மரத்தடிக்கு வருகின்றான்.
siṟidu nērattiṟku-p piṉ veḷi-k-kiḷambi veppattiṉ koḍumaik kāṯṟādu, maṟupaḍiyum marattaḍikku varugiṉḏṟāṉ.
After a short while emerging outside, [but] being unable to withstand [or bear] the severity of the heat, he again comes to the foot of the tree.
இவ்வாறு நிழலினின்று வெயிலிற் போவதும், வெயிலினின்று நிழலிற் செல்வதுமாயிருக்கிறான்.
ivvāṟu niṙaliṉiṉḏṟu veyiliṯ pōvadum, veyiliṉiṉḏṟu niṙaliṯ celvadum-āy-irukkiṟāṉ.
In this way he remains, going from the shade into the sunshine, and going [back] from the sunshine into the shade.
இப்படிச் செய்கிறவன் அவிவேகி.
ippaḍi-c ceygiṟavaṉ avivēki.
A person who does thus is an avivēki [someone lacking judgement, discrimination or ability to distinguish].
ஆனால் விவேகியோ நிழலைவிட்டு நீங்கான்.
āṉāl vivēkiyō niṙalai-viṭṭu nīṅgāṉ.
But a vivēki [someone who can judge, discriminate or distinguish] will not depart leaving the shade.
அப்படியே ஞானியின் மனமும் பிரம்மத்தை விட்டு நீங்குவ தில்லை.
appaḍiyē ñāṉiyiṉ maṉamum birammattai viṭṭu nīṅguvadillai.
Likewise the mind of the jñāni [one who is aware of one’s real nature] will not depart leaving brahman [that which alone exists, namely pure awareness, which is infinite happiness and one’s own real nature].
ஆனால் அஞ்ஞானியின் மனமோ பிரபஞ்சத்தி லுழன்று துக்கப்படுவதும், சிறிது நேரம் பிரம்மத்திற்குத் திரும்பி சுக மடைவதுமா யிருக்கிறது.
āṉāl aññāṉiyiṉ maṉamō pirapañcattil uṙaṉḏṟu duḥkha-p-paḍuvadum, siṟidu nēram birammattiṟku-t tirumbi sukham aḍaivadum-āy irukkiṟadu.
But the mind of the ajñāni [one who is not aware of one’s real nature] remains experiencing duḥkha [dissatisfaction or suffering] [by] roaming about in the world, and for a short while obtaining sukha [satisfaction or happiness] [by] returning to brahman.
ஜக மென்பது நினைவே.
jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē.
What is called the world is only thought [because like any world that we experience in a dream, what we experience as the world in this waking state is nothing but a series of perceptions, which are just thoughts or mental phenomena].
ஜகம் மறையும்போது அதாவது நினைவற்றபோது மனம் ஆனந்தத்தை யனுபவிக்கின்றது;
jagam maṟaiyum-bōdu adāvadu niṉaivaṯṟa-bōdu maṉam āṉandattai y-aṉubhavikkiṉḏṟadu;
When the world disappears, that is, when thought ceases, the mind experiences happiness;
ஜகம் தோன்றும்போது அது துக்கத்தை யனுபவிக்கின்றது.
jagam tōṉḏṟum-pōdu adu duḥkhattai y-aṉubhavikkiṉḏṟadu.
when the world appears, it experiences duḥkha [dissatisfaction or suffering].
@@jenn1967jenn1967 Thank you. All happens according to Bhagavan's will, so all is for the best.
Thank you Michael!
How can we repay this debt of gratitude...
Thank You, I'm happy to hear an explanation of Ramana teaching. It's unusual to experience for me that intellectual understanding of this knowledge forces me to the self-inquiry. In many cases, a language will lead to misconceptions in the terms of translation from Tamil. Can You give me some info about the titles of books in English that doesn't have too many errors?
Just came across this while reading a book. Just wanted to share it here:
*Is the body merely an idea?
Is all the mentality that is scattered over space and time, a diffused consciousness that animates the world?
There is but one entity, seen now inwardly as mind, now outwardly as matter, but in reality an inextricable mixture and unity of both.
*For a time, during the middle ages, the theory that all the world, and even the universe, were figments of one giant imagination, swayed the thinkers of the world. The intellect in which this imagination centered was focused in one man, and one man only, in the whole of existence. That man was the one man who "thought." All other men, all other matter, were but imagined props with no actual existence. That man is the one who "thinks!" "You"-and only "you," the person who is reading this-in the whole world. It does not matter what your name might be. It might be....
At first glance it would seem that there is a concerted conspiracy to avoid acknowledging this fact. Learned men, acquiring wisdom, come to the brink of the great discovery, and then deftly skirt it, blinding themselves to its evidentness. However, on second thought the reason is obvious. The theory is anarchistic; it carries the seeds of its own futility. If they were ever to admit the truth of it, all reason for everything-their very discovery, their very thoughts-would be futile. So they refuse to recognize it.
Your obvious question is, How can I tell you this? Who am I-the writer of this essay? The answer is quite simple. I am merely a figment of your imagination, as is everything else about you!
Nagamani Rama Swamy I agree. And if you suggest this to people, they will say you’re crazy. So it’s impossible to talk about with anyone. I would like if Michael talked about the difference between Ramana teaching and silopsism, if there is any difference.
Thank you.
By the way, it is from Charles de Vet's science fiction, story name is infinity's child from guttenberg.org.
Thank you Michael 🙏
Glory to arunachala 🇮🇳ramana 🇮🇳
A request here pls the other lady from the audience who keeps trying to summarise Michael's talk, kindly refrain from doing so, as it creates more confusion and breaks the flow.
Pls let Michael alone talk, and let's each one of us do our own Manana.
Pls let each one ask their own questions separately and do not combine them. Each question however basic is very important and open to wonderful explanations of Bhagawan through Michael.
This is just a suggestion with no intent to offend anyone.
Thank you.
Agree
Absolutely
Thank you for this video, Michael. We can think of the dream state only with respect to (what seems to be) the waking state. So when Bhagavan says that waking state also is only a dream, how to understand this statement? Since we know the dream state only with respect to this waking state, if the waking state too is a dream, then there is no longer any standard left against which to place dream and thus to make sense of it. Typing this question, it seems like the standard must be the state of deep sleep. So basically, there is no state that can be called the waking state? Only dream and sleep?
Also, it seems like no rational person will deny that this world is quite possibly only a dream or mental imagination. But how can we be sure that we can 'wake' up from this dream, and how? Bhagavan has taught that this is possible, should we take this on faith? And try to experience it ourselves through our practice? I ask because previously, I have followed several different people, some whose teachings were very superficial although at that time I may have felt otherwise, but with Bhagavan's teachings I feel sure that I don't have to search any further, I don't have to dig any more wells, as Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa said in an analogy. But this feeling is not sufficiently empowered by a clarity of understanding Bhagavan's teachings or doing deep self investigation, but largely just a feeling in my heart, if may put it like that. So I am still very immature and lacking in both bhakti and vairagya.
Saroj, I have written an article on my blog in reply to this comment of yours, ‘How can we be sure that we can wake up from this dream of our present life?’: happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2019/06/how-can-we-be-sure-that-we-can-wake-up.html
What is the difference between solipsism and the teaching of Ramana? I mean as a starting point.
Obviously, Ramana’s teaching goes beyond that, but first I must accept that all experience comes to me through thought.
This “thought” is not “my thought”, however. Maybe that’s the difference? Thought comes to me uninvited.
Ross, solipsism is understood differently by different people. Bhagavan taught a form of solipsism called ēka-jīva-vāda, the contention that there is only one jīva, ego or perceiver. This does not mean that there is only one person, because obviously there are many people, nor does it mean that only one person is aware, because as he pointed out no person is aware of anything, because a person is just an object of perception (or a set of such objects) and is therefore jaḍa (insentient or non-aware). What is aware is not the person we seem to be, but only we who are aware of this person and all other phenomena. We are the perceiver, and the person we seem to be is an object perceived by us as if it were ourself.
A person is a bundle consisting of a physical body, life, mind, intellect and will (the so-called five sheaths), and the perceiver is the false awareness that is aware of itself as ‘I am this person’. In other words, the perceiver is ego, which is what experiences both waking and dream, but in each state it experiences itself as a different body, and in sleep it disappears, so does not experience itself as any body and therefore does not perceive any phenomena.
In a dream we perceive ourself as a body, and through the five senses of that body we perceive a world full of numerous people. So long as we are dreaming, that world seems to exist out there, independent of our perception of it, and all those other people seem to be perceiving that world just as we are. However, as soon as we wake up, we recognise that it was just a dream, so we were the only one who perceived it, and everything we perceived in it seemed to exist only because we perceived it and therefore did not exist independent of our perception of it. Therefore in a dream there is only one perceiver, namely ourself.
We generally assume that our present state is not a dream, but even while dreaming we make the same assumption. So long as we are dreaming we seem to be awake, and only when we wake up do we recognise that it was just a dream. Therefore how can we be sure that we are not dreaming now? Is there anything that we experience in our present state that we could not equally well experience in a dream? No, obviously not, so our assumption that our present state is not a dream is unjustified, because it is not supported by any evidence.
If our present state is just a dream, as Bhagavan says it is, then there is only one perceiver of this state, and whatever we, this one perceiver, perceive in it does not exist independent of our perception of it. This is what is called dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda (the contention that perception is what causes the appearance of creation), and one of its implications is ēka-jīva-vāda.
I have explained in more detail about both dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda and ēka-jīva-vāda in many articles in my blog, and in one of my recent articles, ‘Which is a more reasonable and useful explanation: dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda or sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda?’ (happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2018/12/which-is-more-reasonable-and-useful.html), I have considered all the main arguments for and against our usual assumption that our present state is not a dream.
Regarding what you write about thought, no thought can appear unless we attend to it, so though some thoughts may seem to come uninvited, they appear only because we are willing to attend to them. From where do thoughts come? They came only from us, so ultimately we alone are responsible for all our thoughts. Sometimes we may be overwhelmed by unpleasant thoughts, but we allow ourself to be overwhelmed by them due to our weakness, which is the result of our scattering our mind in many directions. In order to gain the strength required to avoid being overwhelmed by thoughts, whether pleasant or unpleasant, we need to patiently and persistently practise trying to attend only to ourself rather than to any thoughts.
Sri Ramana Teachings Thanks, Michael. Your comprehensive answer deserves time to reflect upon. Please allow me to contemplate it and refer again at a later time. Thank you again so much.
🙏
👃