How to put advaita teachings into practice. Michael James on Bhagavan's Who-Am-I (Naan Yaar)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- Michael James delves deep into the essence of advaita, self enquiry using Bhagavan's teachings in Who-Am-I (Naan Yaar) during the recent satsang in Boston, MA
Many Tamilians cant learn Tamil here I see someone reading Tamil focused in highest of philosophies and spiritual literature. I see Bhakti and jnana combined in Michael James.. Namaskarams to you Sir. Ramana lives through Bhaktas and Jnanis like you.
Thanks for such a lucid explanation of Advaita. Michael we are blessed to listen to the word by word explanation of the gems of Bhagawan.🙏🌹
Wonderful. Michel James' comprehension of the nuances of Sri Bhagavan's teachings and of pure Advaita (They are one and the same thing) is perfect. His answers to the questions of seekers illustrate his keen insight. Certainly, all this is Sri Bhagavan's infinite grace.
Thank you Micheal, lots of love to you and all sangat.
Michael 🎉 transmitted so clearly straight to the source. Follow the path he has given leads directly to self. Bhagavan is smiling from the heart.
Gratitude, sir. Your erudition is phenomenal.
so grateful for point-by-point elucidations of text with perfect clarity 🙏🙏
Thanks Michael.
Thank you
Thank you very much.
🙏🕉
🙏
💚🙏🏼💚
Surrender Self Inquiry are inseparable.
1:32:00 = "what is surrender ?"
🙏🙏🙏
💟🔥🙏
🙏💗🌈
❤
😊
👍
❇️🔱❇️
I suspect the authenticity of the so called original hand written manuscript of prose Naan yaar?,which was produced in the mountain path. Because that hand written manuscript seems holding lot of spelling mistakes, and those mistakes were stricken later as correction. It was not few spelling mistakes,probably there is very few lines with out spelling corrections. How ir hsppened to Bhagavans own handwritten?.If it was originally written by Bhagavan,the question arises is,any body think he was unable to write a prose with out mistakes?. The last paragraph and first paragraph were contradictory in nature. So why this suspicious arises.
With all regards for Michael James, he has got it wrong as to why sri Sankara had to 'accommodate' 'Non advaitic' 'teachings'...sorry sir...Advaita is not in conflict with any 'school' of Vedanta...All the sages including Bhagavan knew its place and need for people at various stages in their spiritual journey...Why did Bhagavan install a Sri Chakra at his mother's samadhi?...Why should he say 'Appavukku Pillai Adakkam'(the Son is subserviant to the father) when he accepted the prasadam of Lord Arunachaleswara (Vibhuti) ?...Likewise all sages have recognized and accepted 'upasana' as very relevant and indispensable for aspirants...Upasana is all about channelizing attitudes and giving it an inward turn without which no self enquiry is possible....so,sri sankara and his tradition admits and encourages all forms of upasana that will lead the aspirant to self enquiry or Atma Nishta...it is not with a view to establish 'his school of thought' over other schools of thought...and none of the Siddhantas are 'schools of thought' as it is wrongly translated and interpreted...Every Acharya including Madhwacharya ,Ramanujacharya were only interested in spiritual upliftment of people and intellectual debates they may have had is only subserviant to this purpose...and all are respected as such and not as one superior or inferior to others....To sum up as to how each siddhanta of Dvaita ,Visishtadvaita and advaita have their place and relevance, an excerpt from 'The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna' : "Once Rama asked Hanuman, 'How do you look on Me?' And Hanuman replied: 'O Rama,
as long as I have the feeling of "I", I see that Thou art the whole and I am a part; Thou art
the Master and I am Thy servant. But when, O Rama, I have the knowledge of Truth, then I
realize that Thou art I and I am Thou.'"The relationship of master and servant is the proper one. Since this 'I' must remain, let the
rascal be God's servant"....this is how the Sages despite their advaitic Anubhuti still compose Hymns (Like Akshara Mana Malai,Manikkavachagar's Tiruvachakam or Sri Sankara's innumerable Hymns or Sadasiva Brahmendra's wonderful Kirtanas)...For those who would like to have a correct perspective and relevance of the Advaitic Tradition ,warmly recommend Nochur Sri Venkatraman's fully rounded and grounded talks ...Many of them are available in 'Sri Ramanasramam' youtube channel and elsewhere...With all respects to Michael James ,his years spent under Sri Sadhu Om and his knowledge of Tamizh ,many of the subtleties may elude him having not been rooted in the vast literature and tradition of Sanatana Dharma...It will be best for him to confine his subject matter to what he knows best and has learnt firsthand and not bring in speculations about Sri Sankara and other Acharyas.
You, i and other people (sadhakas) can differ from any 'secondary' topic expressed by Sri M. James.
Yet the greatest strength of Michael's expositions ...are the primary and most important Teachings of his and our Satguru's path of Liberation,
...the 'correct and pure' instructions of how to practice our Lord Ramana's direct Path of "Atman Vichara "
In this regards, Sri Michael-ji is a blessed instrument of his Satguru Ramana of Arunachala. -Ommm
@@AntiMentirasBiblicas Thanks very much sir...I have expressed the very same thing as regards Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhwacharya...that they are blessed instruments of God (Acharyas) who came to our world to point that God alone is the ultimate source and refuge...and this is their primary objective and all other seeming differences and dialectics are secondary ...and we need not dwell on them....All of us are also vessels -Amritsya putras as the Upanishads proclaim , Children of God as the Bible says.
There are only 2 types.the doers and the talkers.michael ji belongs to the former category and the rest of us are mere talkers.period
Who is the I that says Michael got it wrong/right? Being that all words come to an end……”i” am dust on the feet of devotees of Ramana like Michael James.
@@TexasREGuy please focus on what has been said...not on the 'l' that said it...the 'i' that said is no different than the 'i' in you.
🙏
🙏🕉
🙏