Thank you, Michael for uploading videos of these meetings. I am from Russia so I cannot attend them. Listening how to practice self-investigation never gets boring and is very helpful for the progress. My dream is to see you and David Godman hosting one event :)
This is so helpful.. I listen to it time and again.. Every time it goes deeper and gives fresh clarity.. Thank you for being here Michael, you are pure Grace answering our queries.. 🙏 :) Arunachala Ramana ❤️
As it is discussed in this video, the following is a sentence-by-sentence transliteration and translation of this eighth paragraph of நானார்? (Nāṉ Ār?), Who am I?: மனம் அடங்குவதற்கு விசாரணையைத் தவிர வேறு தகுந்த உபாயங்களில்லை. maṉam aḍaṅguvadaṟku vicāraṇaiyai-t tavira vēṟu tahunda upāyaṅgaḷ-illai. For the mind to cease [settle, subside, yield, be subdued, be still or disappear], except vicāraṇā [self-investigation] there are no other adequate means. மற்ற உபாயங்களினால் அடக்கினால் மனம் அடங்கினாற்போ லிருந்து, மறுபடியும் கிளம்பிவிடும். maṯṟa upāyaṅgaḷiṉāl aḍakkiṉāl maṉam aḍaṅgiṉāl-pōl irundu, maṟupaḍiyum kiḷambi-viḍum. If made to cease [subside or disappear] by other means, the mind remaining [for a while] as if it had ceased, will again rise up [sprout, emerge or start]. பிராணாயாமத்தாலும் மன மடங்கும்; pirāṇāyāmattāl-um maṉam aḍaṅgum; Even by prāṇāyāma [breath-restraint] the mind will cease [subside or disappear]; ஆனால் பிராண னடங்கியிருக்கும் வரையில் மனமு மடங்கியிருந்து, பிராணன் வெளிப்படும்போது தானும் வெளிப்பட்டு வாசனை வயத்தா யலையும். āṉāl pirāṇaṉ aḍaṅgi-y-irukkum varaiyil maṉam-um aḍaṅgi-y-irundu, pirāṇaṉ veḷi-p-paḍum-bōdu tāṉ-um veḷi-p-paṭṭu vāsaṉai vayattāy alaiyum. however, so long as prāṇa [life, as manifested in breathing and other physiological processes] remains subsided mind will also remain subsided, [and] when prāṇa emerges it will also emerge and wander about under the sway of [its] vāsanās [propensities, inclinations, impulses or desires]. மனத்திற்கும் பிராணனுக்கும் பிறப்பிட மொன்றே. maṉattiṟkum pirāṇaṉukkum piṟappiḍam oṉḏṟē. The birthplace both for mind and for prāṇa is one [namely ātma-svarūpa, the real nature of oneself, which is pure self-awareness]. நினைவே மனத்தின் சொரூபம். niṉaivē maṉattiṉ sorūpam. Thought alone is the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or actual nature] of the mind. நானென்னும் நினைவே மனத்தின் முதல் நினைவு; nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē maṉattiṉ mudal niṉaivu; The thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought of the mind; அதுவே யகங்காரம். adu-v-ē y-ahaṅkāram. it alone is the ego. அகங்கார மெங்கிருந்து உற்பத்தியோ, அங்கிருந்துதான் மூச்சும் கிளம்புகின்றது. ahaṅkāram eṅgirundu uṯpatti-y-ō, aṅgirundu-tāṉ mūccum kiḷambugiṉḏṟadu. From where the ego arises, from there alone the breath also rises up [sprouts, emerges or starts]. ஆகையால் மன மடங்கும்போது பிராணனும், பிராண னடங்கும்போது மனமு மடங்கும். āhaiyāl maṉam aḍaṅgum-pōdu pirāṇaṉ-um, pirāṇaṉ aḍaṅgum-pōdu maṉamum aḍaṅgum. Therefore when the mind ceases [subsides or disappears] the prāṇa also [ceases], [and] when the prāṇa ceases the mind also ceases. {The three sentences in the note below were later interpolated here.} பிராணன் மனத்தின் ஸ்தூல ரூபமெனப்படும். pirāṇaṉ maṉattiṉ sthūla rūpam-eṉa-p-paḍum. The prāṇa is called [or said to be] the gross form of the mind. மரணகாலம் வரையில் மனம் பிராணனை உடலில் வைத்துக்கொண்டிருந்து, உடல் மரிக்குங் காலத்தில் அதனைக் கவர்ந்துகொண்டு போகின்றது. maraṇa-kālam varaiyil maṉam pirāṇaṉai uḍalil vaittu-k-koṇḍirundu, uḍal marikkum kālattil adaṉai-k kavarndu-goṇḍu pōkiṉḏṟadu. Until the time of death the mind keeps the prāṇa in the body, and at the moment the body dies, grasping it it goes [that is, grasping, stealing or forcibly taking the prāṇa, the mind departs]. ஆகையால் பிராணாயாமம் மனத்தை யடக்க சகாயமாகுமே யன்றி மனோநாசஞ் செய்யாது. āhaiyāl pirāṇāyāmam maṉattai y-aḍakka sahāyam-āhum-ē y-aṉḏṟi maṉōnāśam seyyādu. Therefore prāṇāyāma is just an aid to make the mind [temporarily] cease [subside or disappear], but will not bring about manōnāśa [annihilation of the mind]. ----------------- Note: The following three sentences were not part of the original essay written by Bhagavan in 1926 or 27 but were interpolated afterwards, either in the mid-1930s or later, after the sentence ‘ஆகையால் மன மடங்கும்போது பிராணனும், பிராண னடங்கும்போது மனமு மடங்கும்’ (āhaiyāl maṉam aḍaṅgum-pōdu pirāṇaṉ-um, pirāṇaṉ aḍaṅgum-pōdu maṉamum aḍaṅgum), ‘Therefore when the mind ceases [subsides or disappears] the prāṇa also [ceases], [and] when the prāṇa ceases the mind also ceases’: ஆனால் சுழுத்தியில் மன மடங்கி யிருந்தபோதிலும் பிராண னடங்கவில்லை. āṉāl suṙuttiyil maṉam aḍaṅgi-y-irunda-pōdil-um pirāṇaṉ aḍaṅga-v-illai. However in sleep, even though the mind has ceased [subsided or disappeared], the prāṇa does not cease. தேகத்தின் பாதுகாப்பின் நிமித்தமும் தேகமானது மரித்து விட்டதோ வென்று பிறர் ஐயுறாவண்ணமும் இவ்வாறு ஈச்வர நியதியால் ஏற்பட்டிருக்கிறது. dēhattiṉ pādugāppiṉ nimittam-um dēham-āṉadu marittu-viṭṭadō v-eṉḏṟu piṟar aiyuṟā-vaṇṇamum i-vv-āṟu īśvara niyatiyāl ēṟpaṭṭirukkiṟadu. It is arranged thus by the ordinance of God for the purpose of protecting the body, and so that other people do not wonder whether the body has died. ஜாக்கிரத்திலும் சமாதியிலும் மன மடங்குகிறபோது பிராண னடங்குகிறது. jāggirattil-um samādhiyil-um maṉam aḍaṅgugiṟa-pōdu pirāṇaṉ aḍaṅgugiṟadu. When the mind ceases [subsides or disappears] in waking and in samādhi [a state of manōlaya or temporary dissolution of mind brought about by prāṇāyāma or other such yōga practices], the prāṇa ceases. These three sentences were not in the manuscript of this essay handwritten by Bhagavan, which was reproduced in The Mountain Path, June 1993, pp. 44-47, nor were they included either in the essay version in the first edition (1931) of ஸ்ரீ ரமண நூற்றிரட்டு (Śrī Ramaṇa Nūṯṟiraṭṭu, his Tamil collected works) or in the 1932 editions of either the thirty or the twenty-eight question-and-answer versions. I also could not find them in any of the versions published prior to that that I have seen, nor in any of Sivaprakasam Pillai’s notebooks. The earliest edition in which I have seen them included was the 1936 edition of the twenty-eight question-and-answer version, so it was probably added first in that version and later in this essay version. According to Bhagavan’s core teachings, the body and world are both mental creations, so they seem to exist only so long as they are perceived by the ego, which is the root and core of the mind, and hence they do not exist when the mind has subsided in sleep. For those who are willing to accept this teaching, the idea that ‘in sleep, even though the mind has ceased, the prāṇa does not cease’ is not an issue, because if the existence of the body (and hence of the prāṇa that animates it) is dependent upon the existence of the mind, it is clear that in sleep ‘when the mind ceases the prāṇa also [...] ceases’, as he said explicitly in the previous sentence. Therefore, if these three interpolated sentences were something that Bhagavan actually said, he presumably said so in reply to someone who objected to the previous sentence, arguing that when a person is sleeping others can see him or her breathing, in which case he would have said this as a concession to their limited understanding, seeing that they were not willing to accept his teaching that the body, prāṇa, world and all other phenomena seem to exist only in the view of the ego, and hence they cease to exist whenever the mind ceases to exist, as in dreamless sleep.
Regarding the remark at 44:55, '... if we have a meeting next month', this was said because the usual venue at the Friend's Meeting House in Hampstead will not be available next month due to some renovation work. However it has now been arranged that the meeting on Saturday 8th August 2018 will be held at Colet House, 151 Talgarth Rd, Hammersmith, London W14 9DA (just round the corner from Barons Court tube station).
Yes, Adam, anyone can come to the meetings, and they are completely free (though most people who can afford to make a small donation towards the cost of hiring the venue). It would not be appropriate to charge anything for sharing Bhagavan's teachings, because they belong equally to everyone who is interested in them.
Info about the meetings is on the Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK website: www.ramana-maharshi.org.uk However it seems that they haven't yet updated it with info about the venue for next month's meeting, but no doubt that will be done sooner or later.
Michael, a dear relative of mine is addicted to alcohol. Can he resign himself to his fate as an alcoholic or can he do something about it? Is it just his prarabdha? I have been pondering this question for some time and i cant seem to find an answer. Some of us are born with an addictive personality. Others have the type of temperament that allows them to lead a healthy life eating the right diet and getting enough exercise. The rest of us spiral out of control into apparent self-destruction. Aren't our temperaments also given to us by destiny/God. Makes me think we have no will at all. You have spoken about this but it's still not clear in my mind.
I am sorry to hear about your relative, but he can do something about his alcohol addiction if he wants to. Fate or destiny (prārabdha) determines what we are to experience in each life, whereas our will determines what we want to experience. In order to experience whatever we are destined to experience we need to do certain actions by mind, speech and body, so such actions are driven by prārabdha, but because we desire to experience many things that we may or may not be destined to experience, and because we also desire to avoid experiencing many things that we likewise may or may not be destined to experience, many of the actions of our mind, speech and body are driven by such desires. Therefore will and fate are the two forces that drive our actions, and often they are both driving them in the same direction, but often in different directions. Whatever we do by our will cannot change even an iota of what we are destined to experience, but nevertheless we do it or at least try to do it, because it is what we want to do. Therefore if a person is destined to suffer from an addiction, they can give up that addiction only if they are destined to do so, but destiny does not prevent them wanting to give it up and trying to do so. However destiny is tailor-made to suit our present level of spiritual development, so if a person sincerely wants to and tries to give up an addiction, it is quite likely that they are already destined to give up it, as if as a result of their current desire and effort to do so. Therefore, since we do not know what our destiny will be until we experience it, we should not conclude that we are destined to remain an addict, but should try to give it up, knowing that it is not good for us. Even if we are not able to give it up, because we are not destined to do so, our wanting to give it and trying to do so is good for us in the sense that it will help our spiritual development.
Sri Ramana Teachings Michael I just wanted to add that even his wanting to quit seems to not be in his control. One week he does and the next he doesn't. It's as though even the desire to do and not to do, isn't upto us.
Each like, dislike, desire, fear, hope, attachment and so on is an element of our will, and often the elements of our will are in conflict with one another. We want to do something, such as drinking alcohol, but we consider it to be bad for us, so we also want to give up wanting to do so. Our wanting to do it and our wanting to give up wanting to do it are obviously in conflict with one another, so whichever desire is stronger will win most of the time. This seems to be what is happening in the case of your relative. Though we know that trying to satisfy a certain desire is not good for us, our desire to give up that desire is not yet strong enough. So in such cases we have to work hard to cultivate the desire to give up and to weaken the desire that we consider bad. This is what spiritual practice is all about: cultivating the better elements of our will and thereby weakening the worse elements, until we reach the point where our one desire is to give up all desires, which we can do only by eradicating their root, the ego, which is the sole aim and purpose of the practice of self-investigation and self-surrender, the path that Bhagavan taught us.
If the mind is completely determinated, this would means, that all its abilities, inclinations and tendencies are also already determinated, therefore where to direct own attention is not the matter of one's choice whatsoever. Just the same is the case with awareness. This realization appears to be the only relevant outcome of consistent selfinquiry. Yet, for whom? One who realizes that can not be regarded as "I", as a subject, anymore, neither is it an object. It is rather a process, a flow of happening. If there would be any "screen" on which that happening would be projected, it would be necessarily included in that happening. This seeing is probably the ultimate reach of the mind. What is beyond? If anything at all, it surely must be unspeakable, ungraspable and unknowable. And for no-one.
What do you mean by saying 'If the mind is completely determinated', and why do you suppose that 'where to direct own attention is not the matter of one's choice whatsoever'? The premises of your argument are questionable, to say the least. If we investigate ourself keenly enough, the outcome is permanent dissolution of ego, and what then remains is what alone actually exists, which Bhagavan described in verse 28 of Upadēśa Undiyār ( happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu28 ) as anādi (beginningless), ananta (endless, limitless or infinite) and akhaṇḍa (unbroken, undivided or unfragmented) sat-cit-ānanda (being-awareness-bliss).
Sri Ramana Teachings It would be probably more accurate to say, that the mind is completely predetermined, predestined - so its content, as well as its inclinations, tendencies and volitional decisions and actions. But this could be seen only when the flux, the stream of happening is seen. Then there is no thoughts, feelings, and sense perceptions, as separate experiences, there is no reference point - an experiencer. All there is is only this stream of happening, the flux of mind. Even if the reference point, the "I am" sense (re)appears, this is only as an inseparable part of the stream. Yet it might (and it usually does) also signifies the return of the ego. But if the predetermination of the stream of happening is seen clearly, then it become obvious that there is and never was any stream, that all there is is a somekind of simple pattern, a timeless, shapeless seed of the mind, of everything (and nothing), which never grows and never will, for it already is everything everywhere. Yet this seeing is tremendously awful. It is sensed somehow as an unbearable hopelessness of eternal aloneness. Then instantaneously, out of nothing, there is a light. Or better, there is a blurred reminiscence and a sense of just right now being lost, at this moment wanishing, light. Lost because of some trivial tiny wish or intention. Of wish to know - to know the light - to know oneself. This wish is the pattern of which unfolding is the stream of happening and the same one who has wished it is the one in, and around whom, the stream is now coagulated as thoughts, feelings and perceptions, experienced as "me living the world".... Yet unfortunately the retrograde direction, the way back, is impossible, for any such attempt leads only to confirnation and strengthening of one's separated position. The only chance on have is the pull coming from there, of the grace, so to speak. The grace of being dead while still living, or at least of a near dead experience, like that just being described.
Aleš Us Excuse me for poking my nose into what is a conversation between you and Michael. But I feel my conundrum here is timely to the topic. To be cynical - as in a person may be described as "cynical"- usual conveys an image of a sarcastic, perhaps sour or even nasty person. But as I see it, cynical simply means to not believe something can actually work. From where I am now, I cannot see how a life of getting up in the morning, going to work - or simply deciding whether to go right or left at an intersection in the road - can be carried out without my desiring self. Any preference in me is preference involving an ego wish of some kind. All of the people who attend these talks, all of the people who are so thankful for the depth and beauty of the teachings, must in my view be, forgive me, cynical. Cynical because they know when the talk ends, they must stand up, go outside, and get on with their plans for the day. Plans which are based on their desires. They are not willing to abandon what they consider to be life, because for them that would imply a cessation of all movement - to die there sitting on the mat. If I could only see how life in this world, in this body, could go on without me! But I can't. I somehow believe it is true, but I cannot, as it were, jump from the edge of the cliff and feel life will go on. Excuse my interruption! I hope it has some connection.
Ross, I am currently writing a long article on the subject of will and the need to surrender, which I will post on my blog as soon as I have finished it, and which I hope will offer an alternative perspective to what you have written here. According to Bhagavan everything that we experience in each life is predetermined by fate (prārabdha), so it cannot be changed by anything we do or do not do, and we will be made to do whatever is necessary for us to experience it. This does not mean that none of the actions we do are driven by our will or volition, but just means that whatever we do according to our will (our desires and so on) will not change, add to or subtract from what we are destined to experience. Therefore if we surrender our will (that is, give up all our likes, dislikes, desires, fears, attachments, hopes and so on) our life will go on as it is destined to, but we will be happy and peaceful, irrespective of what happens to us. Bhagavan uses an analogy to illustrate this. If we are travelling on a train, we do not need to carry our luggage on our head, but can put it on the rack or the seat beside us and sit back and relax until we reach our destination. We are free, however, to carry our luggage on our head and to suffer as a consequence. Acting according to our will and believing that we must do so in order to survive is like carrying our luggage on our head, whereas surrendering our will is like putting our luggage aside and relaxing. Which is preferable? The choice is ours, but whichever option we choose, whatever is predetermined to happen to us will happen, just as the train will take us to our destination whether we carry our luggage on our head or not. However putting our luggage aside requires trust, which most of us lack, but we can at least try little by little putting it aside and seeing what happens. The more we do so, the more confidence we will gain that the train will carry our luggage for us whether we hold it on our head or not. This is the practice of surrender, and the more we practise it the more confident we will become that everything will happen as it is meant to happen whether our will interferes or not.
Sri Ramana Teachings Yes, Michael, I do agree everything is pre-determined. Including our listening to the talks. And that my actions in response are also pre-determined. I'm just wondering what place my will has in my response to the talks. I come to the talks out of being weary of the world, my addictions to pleasure, and how everything ends in disappointment. So, in that sense my motives for being here are egoistic. Yet here I am. So, my desires to escape my situation have served a purpose. And, yes, they are pre-ordained.
Thank you, Michael for uploading videos of these meetings. I am from Russia so I cannot attend them. Listening how to practice self-investigation never gets boring and is very helpful for the progress. My dream is to see you and David Godman hosting one event :)
This is so helpful..
I listen to it time and again.. Every time it goes deeper and gives fresh clarity..
Thank you for being here Michael, you are pure Grace answering our queries.. 🙏 :)
Arunachala Ramana ❤️
👌FANTASTIC! Michael these videos you put up is nothing but BHAGAWAN'S GRACE MANIFESTED to help us all to turn within. Thank you. Many humble pranams.
As it is discussed in this video, the following is a sentence-by-sentence transliteration and translation of this eighth paragraph of நானார்? (Nāṉ Ār?), Who am I?:
மனம் அடங்குவதற்கு விசாரணையைத் தவிர வேறு தகுந்த உபாயங்களில்லை.
maṉam aḍaṅguvadaṟku vicāraṇaiyai-t tavira vēṟu tahunda upāyaṅgaḷ-illai.
For the mind to cease [settle, subside, yield, be subdued, be still or disappear], except vicāraṇā [self-investigation] there are no other adequate means.
மற்ற உபாயங்களினால் அடக்கினால் மனம் அடங்கினாற்போ லிருந்து, மறுபடியும் கிளம்பிவிடும்.
maṯṟa upāyaṅgaḷiṉāl aḍakkiṉāl maṉam aḍaṅgiṉāl-pōl irundu, maṟupaḍiyum kiḷambi-viḍum.
If made to cease [subside or disappear] by other means, the mind remaining [for a while] as if it had ceased, will again rise up [sprout, emerge or start].
பிராணாயாமத்தாலும் மன மடங்கும்;
pirāṇāyāmattāl-um maṉam aḍaṅgum;
Even by prāṇāyāma [breath-restraint] the mind will cease [subside or disappear];
ஆனால் பிராண னடங்கியிருக்கும் வரையில் மனமு மடங்கியிருந்து, பிராணன் வெளிப்படும்போது தானும் வெளிப்பட்டு வாசனை வயத்தா யலையும்.
āṉāl pirāṇaṉ aḍaṅgi-y-irukkum varaiyil maṉam-um aḍaṅgi-y-irundu, pirāṇaṉ veḷi-p-paḍum-bōdu tāṉ-um veḷi-p-paṭṭu vāsaṉai vayattāy alaiyum.
however, so long as prāṇa [life, as manifested in breathing and other physiological processes] remains subsided mind will also remain subsided, [and] when prāṇa emerges it will also emerge and wander about under the sway of [its] vāsanās [propensities, inclinations, impulses or desires].
மனத்திற்கும் பிராணனுக்கும் பிறப்பிட மொன்றே.
maṉattiṟkum pirāṇaṉukkum piṟappiḍam oṉḏṟē.
The birthplace both for mind and for prāṇa is one [namely ātma-svarūpa, the real nature of oneself, which is pure self-awareness].
நினைவே மனத்தின் சொரூபம்.
niṉaivē maṉattiṉ sorūpam.
Thought alone is the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or actual nature] of the mind.
நானென்னும் நினைவே மனத்தின் முதல் நினைவு;
nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē maṉattiṉ mudal niṉaivu;
The thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought of the mind;
அதுவே யகங்காரம்.
adu-v-ē y-ahaṅkāram.
it alone is the ego.
அகங்கார மெங்கிருந்து உற்பத்தியோ, அங்கிருந்துதான் மூச்சும் கிளம்புகின்றது.
ahaṅkāram eṅgirundu uṯpatti-y-ō, aṅgirundu-tāṉ mūccum kiḷambugiṉḏṟadu.
From where the ego arises, from there alone the breath also rises up [sprouts, emerges or starts].
ஆகையால் மன மடங்கும்போது பிராணனும், பிராண னடங்கும்போது மனமு மடங்கும்.
āhaiyāl maṉam aḍaṅgum-pōdu pirāṇaṉ-um, pirāṇaṉ aḍaṅgum-pōdu maṉamum aḍaṅgum.
Therefore when the mind ceases [subsides or disappears] the prāṇa also [ceases], [and] when the prāṇa ceases the mind also ceases.
{The three sentences in the note below were later interpolated here.}
பிராணன் மனத்தின் ஸ்தூல ரூபமெனப்படும்.
pirāṇaṉ maṉattiṉ sthūla rūpam-eṉa-p-paḍum.
The prāṇa is called [or said to be] the gross form of the mind.
மரணகாலம் வரையில் மனம் பிராணனை உடலில் வைத்துக்கொண்டிருந்து, உடல் மரிக்குங் காலத்தில் அதனைக் கவர்ந்துகொண்டு போகின்றது.
maraṇa-kālam varaiyil maṉam pirāṇaṉai uḍalil vaittu-k-koṇḍirundu, uḍal marikkum kālattil adaṉai-k kavarndu-goṇḍu pōkiṉḏṟadu.
Until the time of death the mind keeps the prāṇa in the body, and at the moment the body dies, grasping it it goes [that is, grasping, stealing or forcibly taking the prāṇa, the mind departs].
ஆகையால் பிராணாயாமம் மனத்தை யடக்க சகாயமாகுமே யன்றி மனோநாசஞ் செய்யாது.
āhaiyāl pirāṇāyāmam maṉattai y-aḍakka sahāyam-āhum-ē y-aṉḏṟi maṉōnāśam seyyādu.
Therefore prāṇāyāma is just an aid to make the mind [temporarily] cease [subside or disappear], but will not bring about manōnāśa [annihilation of the mind].
-----------------
Note: The following three sentences were not part of the original essay written by Bhagavan in 1926 or 27 but were interpolated afterwards, either in the mid-1930s or later, after the sentence ‘ஆகையால் மன மடங்கும்போது பிராணனும், பிராண னடங்கும்போது மனமு மடங்கும்’ (āhaiyāl maṉam aḍaṅgum-pōdu pirāṇaṉ-um, pirāṇaṉ aḍaṅgum-pōdu maṉamum aḍaṅgum), ‘Therefore when the mind ceases [subsides or disappears] the prāṇa also [ceases], [and] when the prāṇa ceases the mind also ceases’:
ஆனால் சுழுத்தியில் மன மடங்கி யிருந்தபோதிலும் பிராண னடங்கவில்லை.
āṉāl suṙuttiyil maṉam aḍaṅgi-y-irunda-pōdil-um pirāṇaṉ aḍaṅga-v-illai.
However in sleep, even though the mind has ceased [subsided or disappeared], the prāṇa does not cease.
தேகத்தின் பாதுகாப்பின் நிமித்தமும் தேகமானது மரித்து விட்டதோ வென்று பிறர் ஐயுறாவண்ணமும் இவ்வாறு ஈச்வர நியதியால் ஏற்பட்டிருக்கிறது.
dēhattiṉ pādugāppiṉ nimittam-um dēham-āṉadu marittu-viṭṭadō v-eṉḏṟu piṟar aiyuṟā-vaṇṇamum i-vv-āṟu īśvara niyatiyāl ēṟpaṭṭirukkiṟadu.
It is arranged thus by the ordinance of God for the purpose of protecting the body, and so that other people do not wonder whether the body has died.
ஜாக்கிரத்திலும் சமாதியிலும் மன மடங்குகிறபோது பிராண னடங்குகிறது.
jāggirattil-um samādhiyil-um maṉam aḍaṅgugiṟa-pōdu pirāṇaṉ aḍaṅgugiṟadu.
When the mind ceases [subsides or disappears] in waking and in samādhi [a state of manōlaya or temporary dissolution of mind brought about by prāṇāyāma or other such yōga practices], the prāṇa ceases.
These three sentences were not in the manuscript of this essay handwritten by Bhagavan, which was reproduced in The Mountain Path, June 1993, pp. 44-47, nor were they included either in the essay version in the first edition (1931) of ஸ்ரீ ரமண நூற்றிரட்டு (Śrī Ramaṇa Nūṯṟiraṭṭu, his Tamil collected works) or in the 1932 editions of either the thirty or the twenty-eight question-and-answer versions. I also could not find them in any of the versions published prior to that that I have seen, nor in any of Sivaprakasam Pillai’s notebooks. The earliest edition in which I have seen them included was the 1936 edition of the twenty-eight question-and-answer version, so it was probably added first in that version and later in this essay version.
According to Bhagavan’s core teachings, the body and world are both mental creations, so they seem to exist only so long as they are perceived by the ego, which is the root and core of the mind, and hence they do not exist when the mind has subsided in sleep. For those who are willing to accept this teaching, the idea that ‘in sleep, even though the mind has ceased, the prāṇa does not cease’ is not an issue, because if the existence of the body (and hence of the prāṇa that animates it) is dependent upon the existence of the mind, it is clear that in sleep ‘when the mind ceases the prāṇa also [...] ceases’, as he said explicitly in the previous sentence.
Therefore, if these three interpolated sentences were something that Bhagavan actually said, he presumably said so in reply to someone who objected to the previous sentence, arguing that when a person is sleeping others can see him or her breathing, in which case he would have said this as a concession to their limited understanding, seeing that they were not willing to accept his teaching that the body, prāṇa, world and all other phenomena seem to exist only in the view of the ego, and hence they cease to exist whenever the mind ceases to exist, as in dreamless sleep.
Regarding the remark at 44:55, '... if we have a meeting next month', this was said because the usual venue at the Friend's Meeting House in Hampstead will not be available next month due to some renovation work. However it has now been arranged that the meeting on Saturday 8th August 2018 will be held at Colet House, 151 Talgarth Rd, Hammersmith, London W14 9DA (just round the corner from Barons Court tube station).
Yes, Adam, anyone can come to the meetings, and they are completely free (though most people who can afford to make a small donation towards the cost of hiring the venue). It would not be appropriate to charge anything for sharing Bhagavan's teachings, because they belong equally to everyone who is interested in them.
Info about the meetings is on the Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK website: www.ramana-maharshi.org.uk
However it seems that they haven't yet updated it with info about the venue for next month's meeting, but no doubt that will be done sooner or later.
Yes, see you then
Info is updated in facebook post though here: m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1642117729209545&id=909277329160259
Thank you for all your hard work🙏
Thank you Michael
Did Bhagavan describe atma vachara rather than prescribe?
🙏🌹
Michael, a dear relative of mine is addicted to alcohol. Can he resign himself to his fate as an alcoholic or can he do something about it? Is it just his prarabdha? I have been pondering this question for some time and i cant seem to find an answer.
Some of us are born with an addictive personality. Others have the type of temperament that allows them to lead a healthy life eating the right diet and getting enough exercise. The rest of us spiral out of control into apparent self-destruction. Aren't our temperaments also given to us by destiny/God. Makes me think we have no will at all. You have spoken about this but it's still not clear in my mind.
I am sorry to hear about your relative, but he can do something about his alcohol addiction if he wants to.
Fate or destiny (prārabdha) determines what we are to experience in each life, whereas our will determines what we want to experience. In order to experience whatever we are destined to experience we need to do certain actions by mind, speech and body, so such actions are driven by prārabdha, but because we desire to experience many things that we may or may not be destined to experience, and because we also desire to avoid experiencing many things that we likewise may or may not be destined to experience, many of the actions of our mind, speech and body are driven by such desires. Therefore will and fate are the two forces that drive our actions, and often they are both driving them in the same direction, but often in different directions.
Whatever we do by our will cannot change even an iota of what we are destined to experience, but nevertheless we do it or at least try to do it, because it is what we want to do. Therefore if a person is destined to suffer from an addiction, they can give up that addiction only if they are destined to do so, but destiny does not prevent them wanting to give it up and trying to do so.
However destiny is tailor-made to suit our present level of spiritual development, so if a person sincerely wants to and tries to give up an addiction, it is quite likely that they are already destined to give up it, as if as a result of their current desire and effort to do so. Therefore, since we do not know what our destiny will be until we experience it, we should not conclude that we are destined to remain an addict, but should try to give it up, knowing that it is not good for us. Even if we are not able to give it up, because we are not destined to do so, our wanting to give it and trying to do so is good for us in the sense that it will help our spiritual development.
Sri Ramana Teachings Michael I just wanted to add that even his wanting to quit seems to not be in his control. One week he does and the next he doesn't. It's as though even the desire to do and not to do, isn't upto us.
Each like, dislike, desire, fear, hope, attachment and so on is an element of our will, and often the elements of our will are in conflict with one another. We want to do something, such as drinking alcohol, but we consider it to be bad for us, so we also want to give up wanting to do so. Our wanting to do it and our wanting to give up wanting to do it are obviously in conflict with one another, so whichever desire is stronger will win most of the time. This seems to be what is happening in the case of your relative.
Though we know that trying to satisfy a certain desire is not good for us, our desire to give up that desire is not yet strong enough. So in such cases we have to work hard to cultivate the desire to give up and to weaken the desire that we consider bad. This is what spiritual practice is all about: cultivating the better elements of our will and thereby weakening the worse elements, until we reach the point where our one desire is to give up all desires, which we can do only by eradicating their root, the ego, which is the sole aim and purpose of the practice of self-investigation and self-surrender, the path that Bhagavan taught us.
If the mind is completely determinated, this would means, that all its abilities, inclinations and tendencies are also already determinated, therefore where to direct own attention is not the matter of one's choice whatsoever. Just the same is the case with awareness. This realization appears to be the only relevant outcome of consistent selfinquiry. Yet, for whom? One who realizes that can not be regarded as "I", as a subject, anymore, neither is it an object. It is rather a process, a flow of happening. If there would be any "screen" on which that happening would be projected, it would be necessarily included in that happening. This seeing is probably the ultimate reach of the mind. What is beyond? If anything at all, it surely must be unspeakable, ungraspable and unknowable. And for no-one.
What do you mean by saying 'If the mind is completely determinated', and why do you suppose that 'where to direct own attention is not the matter of one's choice whatsoever'? The premises of your argument are questionable, to say the least.
If we investigate ourself keenly enough, the outcome is permanent dissolution of ego, and what then remains is what alone actually exists, which Bhagavan described in verse 28 of Upadēśa Undiyār ( happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/09/upadesa-undiyar-tamil-text.html#uu28 ) as anādi (beginningless), ananta (endless, limitless or infinite) and akhaṇḍa (unbroken, undivided or unfragmented) sat-cit-ānanda (being-awareness-bliss).
Sri Ramana Teachings It would be probably more accurate to say, that the mind is completely predetermined, predestined - so its content, as well as its inclinations, tendencies and volitional decisions and actions. But this could be seen only when the flux, the stream of happening is seen. Then there is no thoughts, feelings, and sense perceptions, as separate experiences, there is no reference point - an experiencer. All there is is only this stream of happening, the flux of mind. Even if the reference point, the "I am" sense (re)appears, this is only as an inseparable part of the stream. Yet it might (and it usually does) also signifies the return of the ego. But if the predetermination of the stream of happening is seen clearly, then it become obvious that there is and never was any stream, that all there is is a somekind of simple pattern, a timeless, shapeless seed of the mind, of everything (and nothing), which never grows and never will, for it already is everything everywhere. Yet this seeing is tremendously awful. It is sensed somehow as an unbearable hopelessness of eternal aloneness. Then instantaneously, out of nothing, there is a light. Or better, there is a blurred reminiscence and a sense of just right now being lost, at this moment wanishing, light. Lost because of some trivial tiny wish or intention. Of wish to know - to know the light - to know oneself. This wish is the pattern of which unfolding is the stream of happening and the same one who has wished it is the one in, and around whom, the stream is now coagulated as thoughts, feelings and perceptions, experienced as "me living the world".... Yet unfortunately the retrograde direction, the way back, is impossible, for any such attempt leads only to confirnation and strengthening of one's separated position. The only chance on have is the pull coming from there, of the grace, so to speak. The grace of being dead while still living, or at least of a near dead experience, like that just being described.
Aleš Us Excuse me for poking my nose into what is a conversation between you and Michael. But I feel my conundrum here is timely to the topic.
To be cynical - as in a person may be described as "cynical"- usual conveys an image of a sarcastic, perhaps sour or even nasty person. But as I see it, cynical simply means to not believe something can actually work.
From where I am now, I cannot see how a life of getting up in the morning, going to work - or simply deciding whether to go right or left at an intersection in the road - can be carried out without my desiring self. Any preference in me is preference involving an ego wish of some kind.
All of the people who attend these talks, all of the people who are so thankful for the depth and beauty of the teachings, must in my view be, forgive me, cynical. Cynical because they know when the talk ends, they must stand up, go outside, and get on with their plans for the day. Plans which are based on their desires. They are not willing to abandon what they consider to be life, because for them that would imply a cessation of all movement - to die there sitting on the mat.
If I could only see how life in this world, in this body, could go on without me! But I can't.
I somehow believe it is true, but I cannot, as it were, jump from the edge of the cliff and feel life will go on.
Excuse my interruption! I hope it has some connection.
Ross, I am currently writing a long article on the subject of will and the need to surrender, which I will post on my blog as soon as I have finished it, and which I hope will offer an alternative perspective to what you have written here.
According to Bhagavan everything that we experience in each life is predetermined by fate (prārabdha), so it cannot be changed by anything we do or do not do, and we will be made to do whatever is necessary for us to experience it. This does not mean that none of the actions we do are driven by our will or volition, but just means that whatever we do according to our will (our desires and so on) will not change, add to or subtract from what we are destined to experience. Therefore if we surrender our will (that is, give up all our likes, dislikes, desires, fears, attachments, hopes and so on) our life will go on as it is destined to, but we will be happy and peaceful, irrespective of what happens to us.
Bhagavan uses an analogy to illustrate this. If we are travelling on a train, we do not need to carry our luggage on our head, but can put it on the rack or the seat beside us and sit back and relax until we reach our destination. We are free, however, to carry our luggage on our head and to suffer as a consequence. Acting according to our will and believing that we must do so in order to survive is like carrying our luggage on our head, whereas surrendering our will is like putting our luggage aside and relaxing. Which is preferable? The choice is ours, but whichever option we choose, whatever is predetermined to happen to us will happen, just as the train will take us to our destination whether we carry our luggage on our head or not.
However putting our luggage aside requires trust, which most of us lack, but we can at least try little by little putting it aside and seeing what happens. The more we do so, the more confidence we will gain that the train will carry our luggage for us whether we hold it on our head or not. This is the practice of surrender, and the more we practise it the more confident we will become that everything will happen as it is meant to happen whether our will interferes or not.
Sri Ramana Teachings Yes, Michael, I do agree everything is pre-determined. Including our listening to the talks. And that my actions in response are also pre-determined. I'm just wondering what place my will has in my response to the talks. I come to the talks out of being weary of the world, my addictions to pleasure, and how everything ends in disappointment. So, in that sense my motives for being here are egoistic. Yet here I am. So, my desires to escape my situation have served a purpose. And, yes, they are pre-ordained.
🙏🪔