2024-11-30 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Śrī Aruṇācala Navamaṇimālai verse 2
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ธ.ค. 2024
- In a Zoom meeting with the Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK on 30th November 2024, Michael discusses Śrī Aruṇācala Navamaṇimālai verse 2.
ஸ்ரீ அருணாசல நவமணிமாலை: Śrī Aruṇācala Navamaṇimālai
Verse 2
சத்திய சிற்சுக மன்றிப் பரவுயிர் சாரயிக்க
மர்த்தவத் தத்வ மசியரு ணப்பொரு ளாமசலத்
தர்த்தங் கனமது வாகுஞ்செவ் வாடக வாரொளியா
முத்தி நினைக்க வருளரு ணாசல முன்னிடவே.
sattiya ciṯsukha maṉḏṟip paravuyir sārayikka
martthavat tatva maciyaru ṇapporu ḷāmacalat
tartthaṅ ghaṉamadu vāhuñcev vāṭaka vāroḷiyā
mutti niṉaikka varuḷaru ṇācala muṉṉiḍavē.
பதச்சேதம்: சத்திய சித் சுகம் அன்றி பர உயிர் சார் அயிக்கம் அர்த்த அத் ‘தத் த்வம் அசி’ அருண பொருள் ஆம்; அசலத்து அர்த்தம் கனம் அது ஆகும்; செவ் ஆடக ஆர் ஒளி ஆம் முத்தி நினைக்க அருள் அருணாசலம் உன்னிடவே.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): sattiya-cit-sukham aṉḏṟi para-uyir-sār-ayikkam arttha a-t-‘tat tvam asi’ aruṇa poruḷ ām; acalattu arttham ghaṉam adu āhum; cev āṭaka ār oḷi ām mutti niṉaikka aruḷ aruṇācalam uṉṉiḍavē.
அன்வயம்: செவ் ஆடக ஆர் ஒளி ஆம் முத்தி நினைக்க அருள் அருணாசலம் உன்னிடவே, அருண பொருள் சத்திய சித் சுகம் அன்றி பர உயிர் சார் அயிக்கம் அர்த்த அத் ‘தத் த்வம் அசி’ ஆம்; அசலத்து அர்த்தம் கனம் அது ஆகும்.
Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): cev āṭaka ār oḷi ām mutti niṉaikka aruḷ aruṇācalam uṉṉiḍavē, aruṇa poruḷ sattiya-cit-sukham aṉḏṟi para-uyir-sār-ayikkam arttha a-t-‘tat tvam asi’ ām; acalattu arttham ghaṉam adu āhum.
English translation: When one carefully considers aruṇācalam, which is red gold pervading light, and which bestows liberation when one thinks, besides being-awareness-happiness, that ‘That you are’, the meaning of which is the intimate oneness of the Supreme and the soul, is the meaning of aruṇa; the meaning of acalam is completeness.
Explanatory paraphrase: When one carefully considers [the meaning of] aruṇācalam, which is the all-pervading light [of pure awareness], [whose bright lustre is like] red gold, and which bestows mukti [liberation] when one thinks [of it], the meaning of aruṇa [which consists of three syllables, namely a-ru-ṇa] is not only satya-cit-sukham [being-awareness-happiness] but also that [mahāvākya (great declaration)] ‘tat tvam asi’ [That you are], the meaning of which is para-v-uyir-sār-ayikkam [the intimate oneness of the Supreme and the soul, also known as jīva-brahma-aikya]; and the meaning of acalam is ghanam [completeness, fullness, abundance, density, solidity, firmness or permanence].
A clearer audio copy of this video can be listened to on Sri Ramana Teachings podcast (ramanahou.podb...) or downloaded from ramanahou.podb... and a more compressed audio copy in Opus format (which can be listened to in the VLC media player and some other apps) can be downloaded from mediafire.com/....
A clearer audio copy of this video can be listened to on Sri Ramana Teachings podcast (ramanahou.podbean.com) or downloaded from ramanahou.podbean.com/e/ramana-maharshi-foundation-uk-sri-aruṇacala-navamaṇimalai-verse-2/ and a compressed audio copy in Opus format can be downloaded from mediafire.com/file/9mf1gmqngc5pri4 . Sri Arunachala Aksharamanamalai sung by Sri Sadhu Om, with English translation by Michael James, can be watched here: vimeo.com/ramanahou/am000. For advertisement-free videos on teachings and songs related to Bhagavan Ramana, please visit vimeo.com/ramanahou and click 'showcases' on the bottom left. Each original work of Bhagavan Ramana has its own showcase with explanations of Michael James.
Om Namo BhagavateArunachal Ramanay it was very deep and profound session, thank you, sir. Michael James, nice clarification on clarity, sfurana
🙏🏻❤️
🙏
Namaste the link : all the links audio copy correspond verse 1 ???? thank you. time video 1.54.35 and time for download : 1.28.40
it is good now, thank you :)
❤
Sanjay Lohia asked whether the will can be distinguished from the ego. I see it this way: The ego is essentially the "I" consciousness and the "I" consciousness is what we are. When the "I" consciousness seems to be mixed with the body we call it the ego. The will is one of the five sheaths which constitute the body. The ego always has the will. Only the ego is conscious of itself as the "I" so we can separate this consciousness from the will which is something unconscious. But if we actually separate the "I" consciousness from the five sheaths it is no longer the ego but pure consciousness. We can separate the "I" from the will but we cannot separate the will from the "I" because the will is always the will which belongs to someone. My will cannot go somewhere and do something without my knowledge.
Yes, you cannot separate anything from the knowing “I am”, since anything seems to exist thanks that you (as consciousness) exist. The problem is that during dreams (including the dream of life) you, the consciousness that exists, seemingly grasp a dreamt body (or 5 sheaths) as “I am this (body)”. This awareness that grasps a dreamt (imagined) body as “I” is ego. This is the false awareness of ourself, since the dreamer is never a body within the dream, it only “seems” to be a body.
Since this is a dream, after acknowledging that all the objects of perceptions are only thoughts (imaginations), including the persons we take to be ourself, we have to explore “if this is a dream, what am I truly?” With keen attention. After recognizing first that we are the dreaming consciousness and then fully attending ourself the dreamer, the dream then ends, and we come to recognize deep sleep as the true state of ourself (our true identity), pure awareness.
Will or volition only seems to exist when you are dreaming, and it seems to be a part of our person. However, while imagined, will is what needs to be purified, will has to be redirected from willing to attend dreamt objects to attend the dreamer.
@@Eric_Josue This is why Advaitic scriptures often teach that we are not one of the five sheaths but a witness who is aware of them. The purpose of these teachings is to show us that we are not any of the phenomena but consciousness, so we should direct our attention to the witness and not to the phenomena. When we direct our minds to the witness and ignore the phenomena, we cease to be aware of the phenomena and we know our consciousness as it really is. We cannot know what our "I" consciousness really is unless we first isolate it from the five sheaths. Therefore, an important intellectual preparation for the practice of atma-vichara is drg-drsya viveka, or the distinction between the seer and the seen. Atma-vichara is the practical application of drg-drsya viveka.
Unfortunately, most Advaita teachers teach that since we are witnesses, we should observe phenomena. The problem is that we are only aware of phenomena when we identify with the body, so the consciousness that sees phenomena is not pure consciousness but "reflected consciousness." Of course, there are no different types of consciousness, and consciousness itself cannot be an illusion, but the confusion of consciousness with the body is illusory, and this lack of clarity is therefore called reflected consciousness (chidabhasa).
Agreed, the beauty of Sri Baghavan’s teaching is that he teaches us how to “ignore” any phenomena (by we, the dreamer, trying to attend ourself).
@@Eric_Josue You might say that we should focus on the dreamer, but I think it's best to just say that we should focus on the awareness of "I am" because people tend to divide the self into different kinds of selves, but there can't be different kinds of selves because if there's any other self than my own self that I'm aware of now, that's not "self" at all. People always ask whether we should focus on the ego or on pure awareness. The dreamer appears to be a "dreamer" only when he imagines the dream objects so we cannot really direct our attention towards the dreamer.
❤🧡💛💚💙💜🤎🖤🤍
The false self is a false sense of divided action which causes a self-image in the psyche. Lao-Tzu understood this. That's why he always tells you not to take credit for what you do.
According to Bhagavan, the ego is the false knowledge "I am this body" and not "a false sense of divided action". It is not the action that causes "a self-image" but the other way round, that is, the ego is the cause of all action because no action can be done without the one who does it. The ego is not in the "psyche" but the other way round because it is the "I" that has the mind and not the mind that has the "I". The ego is always doing some action because the ego appears to exist only when we turn our attention outwards and that itself is an action, but the ego itself is not an action but the false knowledge "I am this body".
In other words, it is the dog that wags the tail, not the tail that wags the dog. Some "spiritual teachers" claim that thoughts create the thinker, which is absurd because there is no thinking without the one who has the thoughts. The thought called "I" is the first thought, but the thought "I" cannot arise without thinking about something else, so the thinker and the thoughts arise simultaneously, although the thoughts derive their existence from the thinker. The thought "I" is the fundamental thought because it is the only conscious thought. All other thoughts are only unconscious second and third persons who exist only from the perspective of the first person.
How can ego have no form? Doesnt everything have form? What grasps form?
Ego is false consciousness "I am this body". Ego always identifies with the body but cannot be the body because one who has a body cannot be the body. Either you have something or you are something. Ego is false knowledge because it believes that it has a body and is a body. Therefore we must investigate what this ego actually is.
@@LieutenantBoreyko The question is that ego has no form, which seems contradictory in that everything must have form. So, its form is the thought "I am this body." Thus, it seems that ego in fact does have a form, so why is it described as a formless demon, if I recall? It appears to be more of a grasping after a form, the way I hear it. But, it is clearly said to not have a form itself, but somehow able to grasp forms while not actually being limited to any form. For the central feature of our lived reality to be so described is uneasy. It is the central thing but has no form in and of itself, only capturing forms, more of a verb perhaps than a noun?
The ego is not form but that which identifies itself with form. Every-thing is form but the ego is not a thing but that which identifies itself with one of the things. In the statement "I am this body" the "I" is not form and the body is form. The formless demon is not the body but the "I" which identifies itself with the body. The discrimination between the conscious "I" and the unconscious objects which are not "I" in Advaita is called drg-drsya viveka or discrimination between the seer and the seen. Atma-vichara is the practical application of this understanding because the practice of atma-vichara consists in directing our attention exclusively to the conscious "I" and ignoring all the unconscious objects.
If the ego were really the body we could not experience the "I" in isolation from the body. However, the "I" can be experienced in isolation from the body and the evidence of this is the state of deep sleep. The body is not aware of itself as "I". In deep sleep you are aware of the "I" but you are not aware of the body. The ego is something that seems to exist in between because it is aware of itself as "I" but identifies itself with that which is not aware so the knowledge "I am the body" is false. You cannot be something that is not aware of itself as "I" because your "I" is simply awareness.
Many do not understand this but the "I" that appears to be the body and the pure "I" are the same "I". Bhagavan has written in verses 24 and 25 of Updesa Undiyar "By existing nature, God and soul are just one substance. Only adjunct-awareness is different.", "Knowing oneself leaving aside adjuncts is itself knowing God, because of shining as oneself." That is, if we can completely isolate the "I" consciousness and focus on it alone, the "I" that appeared to be the body will turn out to be pure consciousness. There are no such things as two kinds of consciousness: real consciousness and false (or reflected) consciousness. There is only one consciousness and consciousness itself is never an illusion. It is only the confusion of consciousness with an unconscious object that is illusory. What is called reflected consciousness is simply our lack of clarity about what is the consciousness experienced by us always as "I". Does that make sense to you?
@LieutenantBoreyko "in deep sleep you are aware of the I" this is something i just cant agree with, when i hear Micheal say it too. I can find no evidence of it. I wake up from sleep and I have no way of knowing if I have been aware. Its even more pronounced when coming out of anesthesia...I could have been out for 1 minute or 1 year with no way of knowing if I was aware. I wake up and remember past events and so I continue but I still can find no evidence for awareness while unconscious.
Namaskaram. Yes, every thing (every object or phenomenon) has a form, or rather is a form, but awareness has no form, and what ego essentially is is just awareness. How then does it grasp forms? By being aware of them. So unlike pure awareness, which is never aware of anything other than itself, ego is a form-grasping awareness.
However, this does not mean that ego is anything other than pure awareness, just as the snake is not anything other than a rope. Just as the rope is real and the snake is just an illusory appearance, pure awareness alone is real and ego is just an illusory appearance. If we look carefully at the snake, we will see that it is just a rope. Likewise, if we attend carefully to ego, we will see that it is just pure awareness and not the form-grasping awareness that it seems to be so long as we do not attend to it carefully enough.
Namo Ramanaya
🙏🙏🙏
🙏