Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam verse 2

Interactive Transcript

spk_0 Um no more Bhagavad-teh, Sri Yaranth, Chalra Ramanaya, namaskaram.

spk_0 Today I'm going to be talking about the second verse of Sri Yaranth, Chashthekam.

spk_0 What Bhagavan says in this verse, our first read of verse, and now go through the meaning.

spk_0 Um, Kandava never meant a Karutirona, that Kandava, Nindra, Nindra, Kandai.

spk_0 Kandana, Nindra, Karutiravila, Lai, Kandilai, Kandilai, Nindra, Karutirumare.

spk_0 Uh, Vindidu, Villa Kidu, Viraluru, Vona, Vindili, Panduni, Villa Kinei, Nindra, Vindidu,

spk_0 Dunele, Villa Keda, Vendray, Vindala, Matyalama, Villa Keda, Nindra.

spk_0 Uh, so that is the verse.

spk_0 I will go through the meanings.

spk_0 Well, our first read, the overall meaning.

spk_0 Um, uh, when investigating within the mind, who he who saw is, I saw what remains when he who

spk_0 saw was completely non-existent. The mind did not rise to say, I saw, in what way would the

spk_0 mind rise to say, I did not see. Who has the power to elucidate this speaking, when in ancient times

spk_0 you elucidated without speaking, only to elucidate your nature without speaking, you stood shiny

spk_0 as a sky-earth hill. That's the literal meaning. I'll go through it sentence by sentence and explain

spk_0 the meaning. The first sentence is, um, if that's the first line, uh, Kandavan, Evanena, Karutirumare,

spk_0 Kandavan, Nindra, Nindra, Nindra, Kandane. Um, that means, uh, when investigating within the mind,

spk_0 who he who saw is, I saw what remains when he who saw was completely non-existent. Um,

spk_0 so that this is the practice of self-investigation, by the one who's describing here.

spk_0 So he's saying when he investigated within the mind to see who the series, he saw what remains

spk_0 when the seer was completely non-existent. That implies where thereby found to be completely

spk_0 non-existent. Then in the next sentence, he says, um, that is in that sentence, he says, I saw,

spk_0 but in this sentence, he clarifies, uh, Kandana, Nindra, Nindra, Karutirumare,

spk_0 the, um, that means the mind did not rise to say I saw. And then the next sentence, uh,

spk_0 Kandalan, Nindra, Karutirumare, in what way would the mind rise to say I did not see?

spk_0 That is, um, when the seer disappears, there's no mind remaining to rise and say, I saw or I did not

spk_0 see. So it's not the mind that saw, it's what barra makes clear here. Um,

spk_0 the next sentence is, uh, Vindidu Vilakidu Viluruvon, uh, Vindu, Vindilay Pandunee,

spk_0 Pandunee Vilakeney and Ral. That means who has the power to elucidate this speaking

spk_0 when in ancient times you elucidate it without speaking? That implies in ancient times you

spk_0 as Dakshinamoti, the article, the original Guru, uh, elucidated this reality without speaking.

spk_0 He elucidated in silence. So when such is the case, who has the power to elucidate it by speaking,

spk_0 by words and upwards? Um, and then he concludes the verse, um, Vindiday Duñale, Vilakidavendray,

spk_0 Vindalamacchalaam, Vilangidanindray. Only to elucidate your nature without speaking,

spk_0 you stood shining as a sky earth hill. Um, uh, I will explain in more detail this, um,

spk_0 what you mean by sky earth hill. I'll now begin to go through the,

spk_0 uh, those who are more detailed explanation of the verse, um, that is I've, I've, um,

spk_0 I'm in the process of writing a detailed, um, explanation about each of the verses.

spk_0 For this second verse, I've more or less completed it. So I'll read the draft, but I've written,

spk_0 um, because then that is in both one's verses.

spk_0 The verses have a meaning, um, but beyond the meaning, there's a huge amount of implication

spk_0 underlying the meaning. So, um, in my explanations, I try to bring out not only the meaning,

spk_0 but also all the, well, at least the, maybe not all the implication, but a lot of the implications,

spk_0 but, uh, um, but, uh, well, what is implied in these verses, what, what, what, what, implies in these

spk_0 verses? So in the first line, uh, when investigating within the mind, who, who saw is, I saw what

spk_0 remains when he who saw, uh, was completely non-existent. This is a very clear and carefully

spk_0 worded description of the practice and ultimate result of Abhavichara's self-investigation.

spk_0 As spoke and clarified in the 16th paragraph of Nana, the practice of Abhavichara is just

spk_0 Sadakalamun Manatee Abhavil Vaithidubdu always keeping the mind on one's self.

spk_0 So that's what the practice is, and as he made clear elsewhere, to the extent to which we keep our

spk_0 mind, meaning our attention on our self, we as ego, the one who sees or knows all other things,

spk_0 will thereby subside. So if we keep our mind on our self so keenly, but we thereby cease to be

spk_0 aware of anything else whatsoever, we will dissolve forever back into our own motionless being,

spk_0 which is the source from which we have risen as ego. That is, uh, we seem to be ego only so long

spk_0 as we are seeing or knowing or experiencing or being aware of anything other than our self.

spk_0 But if we look back at our self to see what this ego is, we will find no such thing.

spk_0 As he implies in verse 17 of Upadeshwanda, Manateen Urubhavay, Manavadu Chava, Manumeno, Andrile,

spk_0 that means when one investigates for form of the mind, namely its form of light,

spk_0 but you've heard them in the previous verse, meaning it's essential nature as the fundamental awareness

spk_0 I am when we investigate that without forgetting, there's no such thing as mind at all.

spk_0 And in verse 25 of Ulludunabhidu, he says, Tadinal Otum Pidikum, if seeking it will take flight,

spk_0 though Tadinal means just if seeking without in this case specifying who is to seek what,

spk_0 in this context it implies if ego seeks its own reality by investigating who am I,

spk_0 or in other words, if ego seeks to know what it actually is by investigating itself.

spk_0 Otum Pidikum, it will take flight, it will flee, or it will run away, implies that it was

spk_0 subsided and dissolved back into its source. So this sentence that's in verse 25 of Ulludunabhidu

spk_0 implies that to the extent to which we attend to ourselves, we as ego will thereby subside.

spk_0 And if we attend to ourselves keenly enough, we will thereby dissolve forever back into our fundamental

spk_0 being awareness, such it, I am which is the source from which we had risen. This is what

spk_0 one implies when he sings, Kandavan, Evan, and her Karutironada, Kandavan, Indri, Nindredu, Kandain,

spk_0 when investigating within the mind who he who saw is, I saw what remained when he who saw was

spk_0 completely non-existent. What remains when the seer, namely ego, ceases to exist, is what we

spk_0 always actually are, namely, satchet, pure being awareness, which sees itself just by being

spk_0 itself. So what Bhagavan implies by saying, Kandavan, Indri, Nindredu, Kandain, I saw what remained

spk_0 when he who saw was completely non-existent, is that he remained as what remained, namely,

spk_0 satchet, and thereby knew himself just by being himself. As he says in verse 26 of Rupa Dehrchandia,

spk_0 Tanai Iritle, Tanai Aridalam, Tanai Rindaktradal, being oneself alone is known

spk_0 oneself, because oneself is devoid of two. That is our real state in which we remain as satchet,

spk_0 is the state of infinite and indivisible oneness, meaning that we are one only without a second,

spk_0 a Kameva, a Dvitiam. So in that state, there are not two things, one to know another. As he says in

spk_0 verse 23 of Rupa Dehrchandia, that means because of the non-being of any of

spk_0 awareness, other than what is to know what is, what is is awareness. Being is awareness,

spk_0 and awareness is being there, one of the same thing. And this awareness, which is what is,

spk_0 all we do, alone is what we actually are. As he points out in the second sentence of this same

spk_0 verse, Unavei Nama'i Ulum, awareness alone is as we. However, some people have,

spk_0 having not thought, having not played close attention to what one actually says in this verse,

spk_0 and therefore having failed to understand the deep and subtle meaning of this first line,

spk_0 some people have said or written that as a result of self-investigation, we will see the

spk_0 eye thought meaning ego, verse, ear, disappear. But how would this be possible? We can see an object

spk_0 disappear, but we cannot see the subject disappear. If we've understood, but once teachings correctly,

spk_0 it will be clear that seeing the disappearance of ego is a logical impossibility, because who could

spk_0 see it disappear? When ego ceases to exist, it will not be there to see its own cessation or

spk_0 disappearance, just as it is not present to see its own disappearance at the exact moment that

spk_0 subsides in sleep. And in the clear view of sat-chat, which alone is what will remain,

spk_0 no sat-thing as ego has ever existed or even seemed to exist. So how could it see the disappearance

spk_0 of what never existed? Ego seems to exist only in its own view, and only when it is attending to

spk_0 anything other than itself, because if it attends to itself keenly enough, it will see itself as sat-chat,

spk_0 which is eternal and immutable, and which had therefore never risen as ego. If we look at what

spk_0 seems to be a snake carefully enough, we will see that it is just a rope and therefore never

spk_0 anything other than that. Likewise, if we attend to ourselves who now seem to be ego carefully

spk_0 enough, we will see that we are just sat-chat and have therefore never been anything other than that.

spk_0 So no such thing as ego has ever existed, meaning that it is never actually I've appeared or

spk_0 disappeared. As Bhagavan implies in this first line, all we will see when ego ceases to exist

spk_0 is what will then remain, namely our self as we actually are, and we will see what we actually are

spk_0 just by being what we actually are. Being what we actually are means being without raising as ego,

spk_0 as he describes it beautifully in the first sentence of 1st 27 of Ulludrunapadu,

spk_0 Naanudiyadu Ullunilai, Naamaduva Ullunilai, which means the state in which I

spk_0 is without raising is the state in which we are as that. That is, though we returnly nothing other than

spk_0 what we actually are, namely Brahmbhambhambh, for one infinite, eternal, immutable and indivisible reality,

spk_0 which is what is referred to in that verse as that. So long as we rise and stand as ego,

spk_0 we seem to be something other than that, namely a body consisting of five sheaves.

spk_0 So in order to be aware of ourselves as we actually are, we need to cease rising as ego.

spk_0 And in order to cease rising as ego, we need to keenly investigate our own being,

spk_0 which is the source from which we've risen as ego. As he implies unequivocally, in the second

spk_0 sentence of the same verse by asking, Naanudiyadu Kumbh Tarnum Adainadamul Naanudiyad Tanirapayas

spk_0 Sarvadu Evan, without investigating the place where I rise is, how to reach the annihilation of

spk_0 oneself in which I does not rise. That is the place where I rise is not talking about an objective

spk_0 place. The place where I rise is, is our being. That is ego is the false agjun-conflated awareness,

spk_0 I am this body. That rises from a pure awareness, the real awareness I am.

spk_0 So that when he says without investigating the place where I rise is, he means without investigating

spk_0 our own being. How to reach the annihilation of oneself in which I does not rise. So the only way to

spk_0 annihilate ego is to investigate our being. Bolvar makes it very clear and unequivocal

spk_0 implication. This one implies this. He says that he often, Bolvarians is teaching him a form of

spk_0 rhetorical questions, but we have to understand what is clearly implied. The clear implication is,

spk_0 unless we investigate our being, we cannot attain the annihilation of ourselves,

spk_0 which is the state in which I does not rise. So the only way to know ourselves as we actually are,

spk_0 is to investigate our being. We will permanently be without rising as ego, only in the state that

spk_0 he describes in that verse of Vuludrunapadu as Tanirupu annihilation of oneself,

spk_0 meaning annihilation of ego, which is the state that he refers to in this present verse as

spk_0 Kandavan Indrida when he who saw was completely non-existent. Therefore, though he ended the first

spk_0 sentence of this verse by saying, Kandavan Indrida, Nindradu Kandain, I saw what remained when he who

spk_0 saw was completely non-existent. In the second sentence, he says, Kandavan Indrida

spk_0 Karutera Vilve, the mind did not rise to say, I saw. Thereby clarifying that the I that is implicit

spk_0 in Kandain, I saw, is not the rising I, namely ego, the I that rises, conflict with that

spk_0 jumps as I am this body, but only the being I, namely the pure I, which neither rises nor

spk_0 subsides, being eternally bereft of that jumps, because that alone is what remains when he

spk_0 has been found to be non-existent. That is when he says, I saw what remained when the

spk_0 seer became non-existent, who can see what remains, only what remains can see what remains.

spk_0 So he's clearly implying here that what he saw, that is he saw what remained by being what remained.

spk_0 Since the mind does not rise when its root and essence, namely ego, the seer, has been found to be

spk_0 eternally non-existent, it does not exist. I would say, I saw or I did not see. I see

spk_0 points out in the third sentence by asking rhetorically, Kandilan, Kandilan, Andrea,

spk_0 Carrotera, Maraine. In what way would the mind rise to say, I did not see. That is it doesn't

spk_0 rise, but my think the mind has ceased to exist or ceased to appear to exist. It doesn't rise,

spk_0 I would say, I have seen or I have not seen. Seeing what remains when the seer has ceased to exist

spk_0 is a scene that is radically different to any other kind of seeing, because it is an

spk_0 intransitive seeing, meaning that it is a seeing and awareness in which there is no object of sight

spk_0 and hence it transcends all pairs of opposites, such as seeing and not seeing.

spk_0 In any other kind of seeing, three things a tree putty or triad are involved, namely a seer,

spk_0 something that is seen and the act of seeing. Whereas in this intransitive seeing, the seer is

spk_0 just awareness, what is seen is just the same awareness and the seeing is also the same awareness,

spk_0 so they are one and indivisible. Intransitive seeing is not an act of seeing,

spk_0 but a state of just being, so it is eternal and immutable and hence it is the one real seeing

spk_0 which underlies the appearance of all other kinds of seeing or not seeing.

spk_0 So it's beyond that the duality of seeing and not seeing, that's why there's no eye there to rise

spk_0 and say I have seen or I have not seen. So it's a state in which there is only one thing that

spk_0 one pure awareness which is the seer, the seeing, and the seeing. So it's one is not a tree putty,

spk_0 but just one and indivisible. So there's no other thing that is seen there.

spk_0 To say I have seen or I have not seen and I must rise, so both are ground for ridicule.

spk_0 This therefore is what he implies in these two sentences in which he sings,

spk_0 Candel and Andrea Carrotter of the Lake, Candel and Andrea Carrotter of the Marine.

spk_0 The mind did not rise to say I saw in what way would the mind rise to say I did not see.

spk_0 And he implies the same in verse 33 of Lodunabdhu, what he says in these verses,

spk_0 Enne Ariannaan, Enne Ariannaan, Enne Nae Puku, Idunahum. That means saying either I do not know,

spk_0 I do not know myself or I have known myself is ground for ridicule. Enne Why?

spk_0 Tanne Vidya Mark, Irutan Undo, that's a rhetorical question. To make oneself a very share,

spk_0 that's an object, something known by the Noah's distinct from itself, are there two selves

spk_0 and knowing self and unknown self. That the actual meaning of the sentences, to make oneself a

spk_0 be share are there two selves. That implies are there is there one self to know another self,

spk_0 obviously not. And as he says in the final sentence, Andrei, a neighbour and a booty unme al,

spk_0 because being one is the truth, the experience of everyone. That is we all experience

spk_0 ourselves as one. So we can never experience ourselves as an object to know as something other than

spk_0 ourselves. So we can know ourselves only by being ourselves. What we actually are is just awareness

spk_0 in the sense of what is aware. And since we could not be aware without being aware, but we are aware,

spk_0 we are always aware of our self. So if we say I do not know myself, that is not only untrue,

spk_0 but also ridiculous. Since we are never not aware of our self, at manana, self knowledge or

spk_0 self awareness, is not something we are yet to attain, but is our very nature. So what is called

spk_0 the attainment of at manana is actually not gaining anything, but losing everything along with

spk_0 its root, namely ego, which is merely a false awareness of our self and awareness of our self

spk_0 as a body, which is not what we actually are. And when ego is lost, there is no one left to say,

spk_0 I have known myself, because what remains is just what we actually are, which is pure infinite

spk_0 eternal and immutable awareness. Saying I have known myself is therefore as ridiculous as saying,

spk_0 I do not know myself. We can say of any visea, any object or phenomenon, either I know it or I

spk_0 do not know it, because viseas are things that appear and disappear in our view. So they are

spk_0 distinct from our self and can therefore be either known or not known by us. And also because

spk_0 each visea is viseasya, viseasya means it is distinct of it, it has distinguishing features,

spk_0 meaning that it has certain features or facts about it or one kind or another, but distinguishes it

spk_0 from each other visea. And each of its features or facts is something that we can either know or not

spk_0 know. However, we as awareness are not a visea, we do not appear or disappear, we are not distinct

spk_0 from our self and we are nevisation, we are not anything, but anything distinct is difficult to

spk_0 translate in viseasya, meaning that we are not limited by any distinguishing features or facts,

spk_0 since all features and facts appear and disappear within us. So we are not something that can be

spk_0 known at one time but not known at another time. We are swam precautions, self-shining, meaning that

spk_0 we know ourselves by our own light of awareness without ever depending on any other thing.

spk_0 So we know ourselves eternally and immutably just by being the awareness that we are.

spk_0 Not only are we not a visea, we can never become a visea or be made into a visea,

spk_0 because as we all know from our own experience we are one and indivisible. So we can never be divided

spk_0 from our self in order to know our self and something distinct from our self as a knower.

spk_0 Whatever we know as something in any way distinct from our self is necessarily other than our self,

spk_0 so no visea can be our self and hence we can never be a visea. We who know our self,

spk_0 which in the word visea means object or phenomenon, we who know our self and we who are known by our

spk_0 self are one and the same self, one and the same I. This is why in this verse of the Luzon Appliu,

spk_0 Bhagavan asked rhetorically, Tanne Vidya Marka Yerutan Undo, to make one self a visea of our two

spk_0 selves, implying that we are not two but only one. So we can never know our self as an object

spk_0 visea because we always experience our self as one and could never experience our self as two,

spk_0 as he points out in the final sentence of this verse, Andrei, Anneva, Anubhuti, Unmeyal,

spk_0 because being one is the truth, the experience of everyone.

spk_0 So what, but when teachers are in this verse of Luzon Appliu, is what he teaches is in the second verse

spk_0 sorry, in the second line of the second verse of our Natchash to come. When we, when the

spk_0 seer disappears, we remain as what remains and there's no rising eye in that state to say,

spk_0 I have seen or I have not seen. However, though the truth is so simple and clear,

spk_0 when we rise and stand as ego, we mistake ourselves to be a visea or rather a set of viseas,

spk_0 namely a body consisting of five sheaths. And hence we are seemingly covered by a veil of ignorance,

spk_0 which makes what what is real seaman real and what is clear seaman clear.

spk_0 Through the words of his teaching that he has given us in the form of texts such as Sri Arunachash

spk_0 to come and all of Luzon Appliu, Bhagavan has clearly shown us the means by which we can remove

spk_0 this veil of ignorance in the form of ego. But though his words are very powerful,

spk_0 they can only point us in the right direction, namely to turn back to face our self alone.

spk_0 But they cannot by themselves remove our ignorance by making us see ourselves as we actually are.

spk_0 As he said, according to the purity of the Antakaranah, the same teachings reflect in different ways,

spk_0 meaning that how we each understand and apply the teachings is determined by the purity of our

spk_0 inner instrument, Antakaranah, which consists of mind, manners, intellect, body, will,

spk_0 chitam and ego, ahankaram. To see that this is the case, we have only to consider the many

spk_0 different ways in which we are passed down a trea, the three starting points, or source texts of

spk_0 adhanta, namely the Upanishads, Baravagit and Brahma Sutra, have been and still are interpreted.

spk_0 That is very numerous interpretations of these texts, because according to the purity of the

spk_0 Antakaranah, people see different meanings in these texts. That is, these texts are designed

spk_0 to be, to cater for a wide diversity of needs. So everyone understands, according to their level

spk_0 of understanding, the pure of a mind, the deeper the meaning we will see in these texts.

spk_0 So the deepest of all, the deepest interpretation of all is a Dvaita. But all the other interpretations,

spk_0 they are each valid from a perspective of those who hold that particular view, because that's

spk_0 all they are able to see. They're not able to see the deeper meaning. No matter how clear a

spk_0 radio signal may be, if it is received by a defective or poor quality radio, the resulting sound

spk_0 will be unclear. Likewise, though Bhagavan has expressed his teachings extremely clearly,

spk_0 both in writing and orally, how well each one of us is able to understand his words and

spk_0 apply them in practice will depend upon the quality of our receiving set, namely,

spk_0 our Antakaranah. Antakaranah means the in-instrument. That's a mind intellect, will and ego.

spk_0 And they collectively refer to as Antakaranah.

spk_0 Therefore, if we are to derive the full benefit of his teachings, we require great clarity of

spk_0 mind and heart. And such clarity comes from the infinite silence of pure being, which shines in

spk_0 our heart as grace. The extremely subtle sale of doing work in your action, he referred to in the

spk_0 previous verse when he explained, Amma, Adi Sayyam, Eden Sayyam, Adi Very Darkam. That is,

spk_0 after saying that Arunachas stands as if an incentient hill, he says, Amma, Adi Sayyam, Eden Sayyam,

spk_0 Adi Very Darkam. Ah, its action is Adi Sayyam. That means it's extraordinary, wonderful,

spk_0 preeminent, difficult for anyone to know or understand or appreciate. That is without his grace,

spk_0 the infinite power of silence, therefore, we will not be able to understand his words and apply

spk_0 them in practice. So his real teaching is not just his words, but the silence of pure being from

spk_0 which they emanated. As he indicated in verse 27 of the Pradeshat-Tani-Pakal, this is,

spk_0 this verse 27 of the Pradeshat-Tani-Pakal, it's just a single line verse, Monomul, Erum, Orumuri,

spk_0 Arul Nilei. What that means is silence is the very nature of grace, for one language that rises

spk_0 within. Er, Nilei, Arul Nilei, Camimma, very nature of grace, of the actual state of grace,

spk_0 and Erumuri, but one language that one there implies single, non-dual, unique, unequal,

spk_0 and incomparable language that rises within. When he says it rises within, he implies that if

spk_0 he's certainly searching forth as the clear light of pure awareness I am, waiting to swallow

spk_0 the mind as soon as it turns back within. So he defines, in this verse, he defines

spk_0 silence at the very nature of grace, and that is the true language.

spk_0 Silence is always shining in our heart as our own being, so it never rises or subsides,

spk_0 and hence it is in a metaphorical sense that he uses the adjective of participle Erum,

spk_0 rising, or that rises in this verse. That is, those silence is pure being, and therefore

spk_0 eternally motionless, it is metaphorically said to be rising, surging, or welling up in our heart,

spk_0 because it is always shining so brightly, lively, and clearly as I am, that it can never for a moment

spk_0 be unknown to us. Moreover, when we turn back within to face our self alone, we will thereby

spk_0 subside back into the heart, and as soon as we subside completely, the silent power of grace

spk_0 will metaphorically speaking rise up to devour us, dissolving us forever back into itself.

spk_0 Since silence is the very nature of pure being, it alone can reveal to us the pure being that

spk_0 we actually are, as both one implies in the third line of this verse.

spk_0 Vindhidhu Vilakidhu Vilululu Vona Vindhidhu Panduni Vilakini Andral. That means,

spk_0 who has the power to elucidate this speaking when in ancient times you are elucidated without speaking?

spk_0 By asking this rhetorical question, who has the power to elucidate this by speaking,

spk_0 he implies that no one can ever have the power to make the reality known by words alone,

spk_0 because even the most apt words will fail in their aim unless the power of silence

spk_0 gives the mind the clarity and love not only to understand their full import, but also to put

spk_0 them into practice. The second half of this verse, a third line, Vindhidhu Vilakini Andral,

spk_0 when in ancient times you are elucidated without speaking, implies when in ancient times even you,

spk_0 as Daksinamurti, elucidate without speaking. Daksinamurti is Lord Shiva in the form of the

spk_0 Ardi Guru, the original Guru, who appeared as a sixteen year old boy seated under a banyan tree

spk_0 facing southwards. The significance of facing southwards being that the south is considered to be

spk_0 the direction ruled by Yama, the god of death. And Daksinamurti, a vanquished death by bestowing

spk_0 Yana through the power of his silence. It's significant that when the story of Daksinamurti

spk_0 is told, it is described that he was seated as a sixteen year old boy. It was at the age of sixteen,

spk_0 but Bhagavan had his death experience and came to Aranachala to come to a throne of Daksinamurti,

spk_0 to take on the role of Daksinamurti to teach Yana to the whole world.

spk_0 So Bhagavan is Daksinamurti himself.

spk_0 Bhagavan once told the story of Daksinamurti as follows. Before Sanakadi Rishis, Sanaka, Sanandana,

spk_0 Sanatana and Sanakkumara were the first progeny of Brahma, who created them from his mind.

spk_0 The intention that they should help him in his work of creation, but they were born so

spk_0 pure-hearted that they had no interest in such work. Instead, each of them wanted to know the

spk_0 reality behind the appearance of himself and everything else, so they began to wander in search

spk_0 of a guru who could teach from the nature of reality and the means to attain it. Continuing

spk_0 this search for many years, they grew old, but still they did not find the Guru they were looking for,

spk_0 until one day they saw a teenage boy seated under a banyan tree, and as soon as they saw him,

spk_0 they were attracted to him and recognised that he was the Guru they had been looking for.

spk_0 Approaching him, they did three productions, as circumambulations, around him,

spk_0 prostrated to him and sitting at his feet began to ask him questions.

spk_0 Because of his vatsalia, this is how Bhavavan described it, because of his vatsalia,

spk_0 vatsalia means the affectionate love of a parent for their child. So Bhavavan said,

spk_0 because of his vatsalia for his elderly disciples, the young Daksinamurti was happy to see how wise

spk_0 and deep their questions were, so he answered each of them. For each of his answered,

spk_0 they asked a suitable follow-up question, seeking ever deeper clarity from him. So their questioning

spk_0 and his answering went on in this way for a year, progressively becoming deeper and subtler,

spk_0 until finally he saw that he had answered enough of their questions, because if he continued

spk_0 replying to them, there would be no end to the questions they could ask him. But their ignorance

spk_0 in the form of ego before swan his eye in this body would not thereby be destroyed. Therefore,

spk_0 curbing the vatsalia, but till then being welling up in his heart, he merged back in his

spk_0 monoswarrupa, that then his real nature which is silence. And as soon as he merged by the

spk_0 parathy's silence, they too merged into silence, finding it to be their own real nature swanrupa.

spk_0 Hearing Bhavavan narrate the story of Daksinamurti in this way, Murti was one to struck and remarked

spk_0 that in the Paranas, no mention of Daksinamurtians, there is no mention of Daksinamurtians

spk_0 from questions, to which Bhavavan replied, no, but this is what actually happened.

spk_0 As Murti Guna said, when talking about this many years later, Bhavavan was able to describe what

spk_0 happened so clearly and in so much detail, because he is the same Lord Shiva who had in ancient times

spk_0 appeared in the form of Daksinamurti, the quaint for spiritual thirst of Vasanakadi Rishis.

spk_0 Since even Daksinamurti could not enable his extremely pure hearted and spiritually ripe disciples,

spk_0 the no-veryality just by teaching them with words, but only by silence, in this verse Bhavavan asked

spk_0 rhetorically, Bhindidu, Vilakidu, Viraluruvona, Bhindili, Panduni, Vilakidai and Ral,

spk_0 who has the power to elucidate this by speaking when in ancient times even you as Daksinamurti

spk_0 elucidated without speaking. Likewise, in verse 5 of Ekapma Panchakam, he says,

spk_0 a pohdom uludu of Ekapma Vastuvae.

spk_0 A pohdu of Vastuvae, Ardi Guru, Set Pa Du, Set Pee, Teriyama,

spk_0 Sayyidana Rael, Ever Set Pee, Teriyvi Pa, Set Poo. That means what always exists is only that

spk_0 Ekapma Vastu. Ekapma Vastu means the one self-substance, namely our self, for one real substance.

spk_0 If at that time the Ardi Guru made that Vastu known, speaking without speaking, say who can make

spk_0 it known speaking? What even, he made it known by speaking without speaking, speaking without

spk_0 speaking means by silence. Who can make it known by speaking? That one often used, he says,

spk_0 Set Pa Du, Set Pee, that means speaking without speaking, but one often used the seemingly

spk_0 contradictory terms, speaking without speaking, doing without doing, but it has a very deep meaning,

spk_0 speaking without speaking, without speaking, he plays silence, but by his silence he communicated,

spk_0 he revealed to them, he turned their mind within to make them see their own reality as that same

spk_0 silence. When Bhagavan composed Ekapma Viva Kham, the Kali Venva version of Ekapma Panchakham,

spk_0 by linking the five verses together as one, between the fourth verse and this one,

spk_0 he added the phrase Tanadolayal, which is a euphonic fusion of Tanadu Oliyal, by its own light.

spk_0 So with the addition of this phrase, the first sentence of this verse was extended as Tanadolayal,

spk_0 a poem Uludu of Ekapma Vastu Bay. What always exists by its own light is only that Ekapma Vastu,

spk_0 in which Ekapma Vastu is a Tamil form of Vassanskhet Ekapma Vastu, the one self-substance,

spk_0 which implies our self as we actually are, which is the one real substance.

spk_0 Since this Ekapma Vastu is the only thing that exists always and by its own light,

spk_0 it alone is what is real, meaning that it alone is what actually exists, as Bhagavan wrote

spk_0 explicitly in the first sentence of the seventh paragraph of Tanad. Yatata may Uludu

spk_0 Upma Surupa Mondray. What actually exists is only Upma Surupa, in which Upma Surupa means

spk_0 the real nature of one's self, in the sense our self as we actually are, so it is a sin and

spk_0 for Ekapma Vastu. Since this Ekapma Vastu alone is what actually is, it is what we always actually are,

spk_0 even when we seem to have written this ego. However, as ego we're aware of our self as I am this body,

spk_0 which is not what we actually are, so it is only by being aware of our self as we actually are,

spk_0 we can eradicate this false awareness called ego. In order to be aware of our self as we actually are,

spk_0 all we need to do is to turn our entire attention back within to face our self alone.

spk_0 But what prevents us doing so is our Vashayavasanas, our intense liking for and interesting

spk_0 experiencing things other than our self, namely Vashayavas, objects of phenomena.

spk_0 And we have so much liking to experience them because they are the food that nourishes and sustains

spk_0 our semi-existence as ego, and on which ego therefore depends for its very survival.

spk_0 All Vashayavas are noise because they appear as disturbances, albeit seeming disturbances,

spk_0 in the infinitely eternally and immutably calm space,

spk_0 or pure being awareness, which is the ekapmabastu, and the root of all such noise is the first noise,

spk_0 namely our rising as ego. So silence is the state in which ego, the thought called i,

spk_0 does not ever rise at all, even to the slightest extent,

spk_0 as Boehram pointed out in the second half of the six paragraph of Nana,

spk_0 the meaning of what I won't read the Tamil, I'll read just the English meaning,

spk_0 the name ahamokam facing inside or facing i and ahamokam facing inside is only for keeping

spk_0 the mind or in the heart. Keeping mind in the heart means keeping one's mind or attention fixed firmly

spk_0 on one's fundamental awareness I am, which is the core or heart of ego, the angel conflated

spk_0 awareness I am with body. So the definition he gives there ahamokam or antamokam is keeping

spk_0 the mind in the heart or keeping mind on the heart, keeping our attention facing him with,

spk_0 without letting it go out, you know, without letting it go out towards the shares.

spk_0 The name ahamokam facing outwards is only for letting it go out from the heart.

spk_0 Only when the mind remains firmly fixed in the heart in this way,

spk_0 will what is called i, named ego, which is the Mulem, the root or foundation,

spk_0 for all thoughts depart and oneself who always exists alone shine. Only the place where the thought

spk_0 called i, namely ego, does not exist even the little iswarupa, our real nature. That alone is

spk_0 called ahmona, silence. The name Nyanadrishty, knowledge seeing, is only for just being in this way.

spk_0 What just being ahsuma ira-padoo is, is only making the mind dissolve in atmosphere rupa.

spk_0 So he, by one, clearly says silence in that state in which i does not rise.

spk_0 This i or ego, the rising of ego, as i said metaphorically speaking, it's the first noise,

spk_0 from which all other noise comes, noise in the form of all these flominar. So silence in that

spk_0 state of just pure being. As Boba explained, words arise from thoughts, thoughts arise from ego,

spk_0 and ego arises from ourselves as we actually are, namely ahmona, who is very nature's infinite

spk_0 silence. So words derive their power from thoughts, thoughts derive their power from ego,

spk_0 and ego derives its power from the silence of our own infinite being. Words are therefore

spk_0 the great grandchildren of silence, as he humorously put it. So though they can point us back to

spk_0 what we actually are, in the sense they enable us to understand the way to return to it,

spk_0 they do not by themselves have the power to make us aware of ourselves as we actually are.

spk_0 What has the power to do so is only silence, because silence alone is what we actually are.

spk_0 Um, though this one infinite silence of pure being is always shiny in our heart as our fundamental

spk_0 awareness i am, we seem to be not aware of it as it is, as it actually is, because of our love

spk_0 to be aware of other things, which appear in our view only when we rise and stand as ego,

spk_0 but also when is i am this body whose nature is to always face outwards, grasping form,

spk_0 as he puts it in verse 25 of Holy Renaptal. Therefore, because of our lack of love to turn within,

spk_0 to be aware of ourselves alone, thereby ceasing to be aware of anything else whatsoever,

spk_0 it is necessary for silence to appear outside in the form of Guru in order to teach us to turn

spk_0 within, in order not only to teach us the term within, but also to make clear to us why we need to

spk_0 turn within. Now what he shows us away and gives us the motivation to follow about, about, about

spk_0 part. Though Guru generally appears in human form, as it has done by appearing in the form of

spk_0 Bhagavan Ramana, its primary teaching is silence, which does not require a human form. So it is also

spk_0 appeared in the form of Aranakala to teach us in silence, as Bhagavan points out in the final

spk_0 line of this verse. Vindida, Dunyale, Vilakid, Vindra, Vindala, Makchalam, Vilangid, and Nindra,

spk_0 only to elucidate or make clear your nature without speaking, used to shining as the sky earth hill.

spk_0 Vindalam, Akchalam, Sky earth hill implies not only a hill standing between sky and earth,

spk_0 but also a hill that transcends the boundary between the infinite space of pure awareness,

spk_0 metaphorically described as the sky, and this material world, metaphorically described as

spk_0 the earth, thereby serving as a bridge by which we can cross over from the material nature of our

spk_0 present state of embodiment to our real nature as pure awareness. So these terms Bhagavan

spk_0 uses, they are very simple terms, very deep implication. Unni-le, your nature or your state,

spk_0 implies what Aranakala actually is, namely infinite being awareness, Sakyam-yana-manantam,

spk_0 which is eternally motionless, and hence perfect silence, Mona. So it is ultimately through

spk_0 silence, which is speaking without speaking, but the elucidates or makes this clear to us.

spk_0 Infinite being awareness is not only what Aranakala actually is, but also what we actually are,

spk_0 so he makes his real nature clear to us by making us be aware of ourselves as we actually are.

spk_0 It is only to make his real nature clear to us in this way, but Lord Shiva appeared on earth in

spk_0 a form of Aranakala. So Aranakala is God in his ultimate role as Guru, as Bhagavan says explicitly

spk_0 in verse 19 of Akshra-Mulai. Kuttra-Mutra-Ritana-Gunamai-Pani-Tal, Guru-Buru-Bhaya-Leya-Aranakala.

spk_0 Aranakala, who shines as the form of Guru, eradicating defects completely, making me as virtue,

spk_0 take charge. That's a little mean of the verse. Kuttra-Mutra-Aratu, eradicating defects completely,

spk_0 implies eradicating all defects, including ego, which is the original defect, the root of all other

spk_0 defects, the seeds of which are ego's vashayavasanas, inclinations to seek happiness in vashayas,

spk_0 objects of phenomena. In a Guna-Mai-Pani-Tal, making me as Guna, implies making me be endowed with every

spk_0 Guna, virtue or good quality, especially sad Guna, the ultimate virtue of just being as we actually are

spk_0 without ever rising as ego, even to a slice to its extent. And Aranakala, take charge, implies take

spk_0 charge of me or take complete possession of me as your very own so that I may never again for

spk_0 pray to the evil demon ego, pay Ahandai and its hoard of vashayavasanas. These three, namely

spk_0 eradicating ego and all its defects, making us endowed with sad Guna and thereby taking complete

spk_0 charge of us of a function of Guru. And Aranakala accompanies them all by making its real nature,

spk_0 which is what we actually are, clear to us by the silent power of its grace.

spk_0 Since Aranakala shines as the form of Guru, taking complete charge of us in this way by eradicating

spk_0 ego and thereby making us be as we actually are, is its duty and responsibility. As Bhagavan says

spk_0 in verse 14 of Sri Aranakala, Sri Aranakala, Sri Aranakala, like a mother, giving your grace to me,

spk_0 take charge of me, taking charge of me is your duty, your duty or obligation or responsibility.

spk_0 So it is his responsibility to bestow his grace and thereby take charge of us. Aral grace is the

spk_0 infinite love by the silent power of which what we actually are is made clear to us. So Enaku

spk_0 Unarale Tandu, giving your grace to me, implies lovingly making us aware of ourselves as we actually

spk_0 are, thereby eradicating ego. And this is the means by which Aranakala take charge or complete

spk_0 possession of us. This ultimate Aral sale or act of grace but Aranakala does silently in our heart

spk_0 is the sale, doing or action that he referred to when he exclaimed in the first line of the previous

spk_0 verse, Amma Adi Sayyem, it in sale, Arivari Dhakum. It's actually Adi Sayyem, it's extraordinary,

spk_0 wonderful, difficult for anyone to know or understand or appreciate.

spk_0 God is said to have five functions, Panchakriti as namely creation, Shrishli, sustenance,

spk_0 stitty, dissolution, samhara, hiding, tulubaba or veiling tuludana and grace anugraha.

spk_0 And as Bhagavan says in the 15th paragraph of Nana, all these happen, Isan Sanidana Viseksha

spk_0 Matratal, by just the special nature of the presence of God, thereby implying that he does all these

spk_0 without actually doing anything but just by being as he always actually is. The first three of these

spk_0 divine functions namely creation, sustenance and dissolution of the entire world

spk_0 happen only in the view of our Self as ego and we could not rise our standards ego

spk_0 if we knew our Self as we actually are. So the fourth function namely hiding, veiling or

spk_0 concealing what we actually are is like the darkness in a cinema without which no picture,

spk_0 no creation, sustenance or dissolution could be projected on the screen. Therefore, so long as we

spk_0 as ego have any liking or desire to experience bishayas, objects of phenomena, God who is what

spk_0 we actually are keeps Himself hidden from our view and reveal namely the veil of our Self ignorance,

spk_0 a video adnana which is ego itself, the false awareness I am this body. So that's why that

spk_0 baling is the fourth of the five functions because without the veiling there would be no creation

spk_0 or dissolution. However, even when we're invertting this veil of ignorance,

spk_0 his grace is always working in our heart, gradually purifying our mind and thereby giving us the

spk_0 clarity to want with increasing intensity to subside and thereby surrender ourselves completely to

spk_0 him. And at the same time it is allotting the fruits of our good and bad actions, karmas in such a way

spk_0 that would be most conducive to this process of purification. The ultimate aim of which is to make

spk_0 us aware of what we actually are thereby removing the veil of our Self ignorance. This subtle and

spk_0 silent working of his grace is the last of his five functions, pancha-critias and it is in his

spk_0 role as guru but he performed this function. So the role of guru is the ultimate role of God.

spk_0 In the form of our natural and equally in the form of Bhagavan Ramana, God is playing his ultimate

spk_0 role as guru. Though as our natural he appeared in the form of a mountain and though as Bhagavan he

spk_0 appeared in a piece in human form, what he actually is is neither a mountain nor a human being

spk_0 but only the one infinite and therefore formless space of pure being awareness, such it.

spk_0 Nevertheless, these outward forms of his are embodiments of his grace so they fulfil an

spk_0 extremely important function in the process of his grace turning our attention back within to make

spk_0 us see what remains when the seer has become completely non-existent. When we rise and stand as

spk_0 ego, we are aware of our Self as I am this body so we are not aware of our Self as the formless

spk_0 reality that we actually are and by no act of our mind can we conceive that formless reality.

spk_0 Therefore, until we turn our entire mind back within to face our Self alone, thereby merging

spk_0 for a very narrow formless being, the outward forms of God or Guru serve a valuable function

spk_0 as supports for us to cling to whenever our mind comes out as he points out in the next verse,

spk_0 which I'll talk about next time.

spk_0 Sorry, that was very long but there's so much deep, deep meaning and implication in each of these

spk_0 verses of Arunachashthakum. So there's so much implication we can draw out of them.

spk_0 If we allow our mind to dwell on these verses of Bhagavan, the more they will reveal to us their deep

spk_0 inner meaning and implication. Does anyone have any questions about this verse or about

spk_0 what I tried to explain about its implication? Well, you're Rati has a question.

spk_0 Yes, Michael, I think you've been so, so this was such a wonderful exposition that I mean, I

spk_0 almost have to feel that I'm abiding as a Daksina Modi or eternal, unchangeable, immutable awareness

spk_0 in listening to you through the whole discussion. It's just been just immersing and there was nothing

spk_0 no question even left there. However, I was going to just add, isn't it not like, although I mean,

spk_0 when of course you say we don't arise as an object or a vishaya to see, to see, to see,

spk_0 have seen, can drain or to see or have seen or witnessed or anything like that. But the seeing

spk_0 subsides into the merging, into the pure being as Satchita Nanda, as Arunachala, Achalam,

spk_0 Achalam, that's true. And only when you abide in the Achalam, that is the experience of pure grace

spk_0 because as Achalam, we experience the Arul Shail as you mentioned. However, would you also say

spk_0 somewhere Bhagavan has also mentioned about the mirror, that is, we are the mirror, the metaphor

spk_0 being that we are that mirror of, if you go to, if you go to, when he rises a form, we are that mirror

spk_0 of Arunachala or as a person or we arise as something, even as Daksina Mutti, or even as Lord Shiva

spk_0 is rising as a form. But we are really underlying all that, we are that formless,

spk_0 nameless, immutable being and we don't rise as any of that. And when we, more we let go of our ego,

spk_0 and the more we, although ego is that bridge, I mean, when you use the word bridge, I think you

spk_0 are referring to the ego there because ego is that, you know, what you call it, that conflated

spk_0 awareness, you know, a junk conflated awareness. So when you let go of that ego to really abide in

spk_0 the Self, then you are, you are that eternal, unchangeable being, immutable being, the pure Satchitana

spk_0 Nanda or Daksina Mutti himself. And there's no need to speak at all, silence is the ultimate teaching

spk_0 and silence is so beautiful and just what Bhagavan himself is is silence because even when you

spk_0 only, only spoke to give us these beautiful teachings, but ultimately he was just embodied that

spk_0 silence and the beauty of Satchitana Nanda and that is what the swamrakashya that we all really are,

spk_0 right Michael? That is that silence appeared in the human form of Bhagavan because we cannot

spk_0 understand we eternally, the silent teaching which is eternally going on in our heart,

spk_0 that silence appeared outwardly in the form of Bhagavan Ramanah to give these teachings in

spk_0 words to direct us to term within to see the silence that we actually are. And when I mentioned

spk_0 about bridge, the context in which I mentioned about bridge was when he talks of, when he describes

spk_0 our natural, the, the, the, the sky earth hill, what I pointed out there is we can take it in a,

spk_0 in a, in a, grosser sense to mean it's a hill that's between the earth and the sky. It's reaching

spk_0 up towards the, from the earth, it's reaching up towards the sky. That's an ordinary way of taking

spk_0 it, but we can take it in a much deeper sense, the being of sky, it is a metaphorical description

spk_0 of the pure awareness that we actually are. And Talham, the earth, is, is, is a metaphorical

spk_0 description of our material nature as an embodied being. So he provides the bridge from which we

spk_0 that, that is, and actually the bridge which enables us to cross over from this material

spk_0 nature to our real nature as pure awareness. That, that was the context in which I mentioned the

spk_0 bridge. I wasn't saying ego is the bridge, but I'm actually the bridge enabling us to return to

spk_0 over which we can, which we can use as a means to return to our real nature. I was talking metaphorically

spk_0 obviously. So it's the, it's the bridge is the sky earth phenomenon of our natural as the hill

spk_0 and our pure not literally not the literal sky or literal. I mean, yes, they have a metaphorical

spk_0 implication. The foracle speaking, yes, metaphorically speaking. And that Akasha is that pure

spk_0 space, which is in the case. Yeah, to the car. To the car. To the car. To the car. To the car.

spk_0 And that's actually used. And what we actually are. Yes, yes, beautiful. Thank you very moving and

spk_0 absolutely wonderful. On the more bugle, patience. It's all by the ones where I don't need beautiful.

spk_0 I mean, one can cry and one can sob at the beauty of this. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So infinitely beautiful

spk_0 because our own inner nature is that infinitely beautiful. If you're only to abide in it,

spk_0 if you're only willing to let go of this, best key ego, which is always rising and saying,

spk_0 I am this, I'm that. And I'm so, so I'm the body. Can let go of I'm the body. Then everything is

spk_0 there for us to experience and to be to not experience, but really just to be, you know, just to

spk_0 mean and to be. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. Right.

spk_0 Well, I think there's another question which relates to your talk. It seems I'll read it out

spk_0 anyway. It's from Nuno Lopez. I would like to ask something to Michael on a remark he made

spk_0 about the investigation. So I'm taking that that it relates to your talk. Yes.

spk_0 Yes.

spk_0 Yes. Thanks, Christopher. Hello, Michael. In some points on your explanation, you were saying

spk_0 the investigation being about the beingness. But in terms of practice of the investigation,

spk_0 what I'm investigating, it's actually the wrong eye that I perceive myself to be, right? Because

spk_0 what I'm investigating is the snake to see that the snake does not exist and what is the rope,

spk_0 right? Or am I getting this wrong? Even when you look at the snake, what are you actually looking at?

spk_0 You're looking at it. It seems to be a snake. But when you look at it carefully enough, you see,

spk_0 oh, it's not a snake, it's just a rope. So the snake come a rope and not two different things.

spk_0 There's only one thing there. It's a rope. But it seems to be a snake. Likewise, ego and our real

spk_0 nature are not two different things. Our real nature is what we actually are.

spk_0 Ego is what we seem to be. But it's not a different, there aren't two eyes.

spk_0 Yeah, but the ignorance I, what I'm investigating is this ignorance I.

spk_0 Yes. Well, that's like saying what I'm looking at is a snake. Yes, it seems to be a snake.

spk_0 So long as you don't look at it carefully enough, when you look at it carefully enough, you'll see

spk_0 what you were looking at all along was only the rope. But that's, in that point, in time, let's say,

spk_0 like this, it finishes the investigation. That's not required in the investigation anymore.

spk_0 Yes. Because I know who I am. But yes, now I don't know who I am. That's why Bhagavan,

spk_0 this first line of the verse, it's so carefully worded. Bhagavan said, he,

spk_0 when he, when investigating, who is the seer? The seer means ego.

spk_0 The subject. The subject, yes. But when he saw, when he investigated the seer,

spk_0 what he saw is what remained when the, when the seer was coming in on his side.

spk_0 And the subject so science. Yeah, yeah. That's like saying, when, when, when, when looking carefully

spk_0 at the snake, I saw what remained when the snake was no longer existed. Because what remained

spk_0 is what was always there, the rope. But that's just an analogy. In this case, that is,

spk_0 if we look at the snake and carefully enough and see that it's a rope, if we're still something

spk_0 separate from that, but in this case, it's not that. Now we experience ourselves as the seer.

spk_0 So when we investigate who is the seer, we're investigating ourselves. And then we see what we

spk_0 actually are. When we cease to be the seer and remain as we always actually are, that's what

spk_0 the programme means by saying, I saw what remains when the seer was nonexistent, completely nonexistent.

spk_0 So he's, he's, he's, he's, Bhagavan's words are so, in his poetry, he's, he's carefully,

spk_0 he's crafted these, but, though it poured forth spontaneously, but when the seer results

spk_0 to what for, for, we can see how very, Bhagavan didn't put any thought into doing this. These words

spk_0 came spontaneously because they came not from a mind, they came from the silence itself. So it came

spk_0 out in such a perfect form. Yeah. That's why the Bhagavan's words are not ordinary words.

spk_0 But that question was just in the follow-up of the practical practice of the Atmavishara that

spk_0 I'm investigating the seer and in some point in time this seer will be seen as some nonexistent

spk_0 thing and it will remain so. No, you'll see the seer at the only existing thing, not as the seer,

spk_0 but as what always actually exists. Okay. That is this, this, this path of Vichara is a very

spk_0 simple practice, but it's also a very deepened subtle. So having a very clear understanding,

spk_0 it's necessary to go deep in this path. We can begin with a rubber vague understanding.

spk_0 In order to go deeper, we need a deeper and clearer understanding. And one of the most important

spk_0 things to understand is that there are not two eyes. I, but we're investigating, though it now,

spk_0 we now experience it as ego as the seer. What it actually is is only that pure awareness.

spk_0 That is why in the Upanishads they taught Tattva Masi, you are that. That is Bhagavan refers to,

spk_0 when in the second verse of our natural number money, Malai, he says, Tattva Masi, the meaning of

spk_0 which is Jiva Brahmaya. He doesn't quite use those words, he uses Tamil terms, Parabhu Esara he

spk_0 comes, but that refers to Jiva Brahmaya. Jiva Brahmaya, Ikea means oneness, but oneness of Jiva

spk_0 and Brahmaya, they're not two different things. Yeah, it's ego. In one of the books that you

spk_0 translated where you are very simple, where you say, E is I, which is something that I cannot see,

spk_0 it of course, but it's quite simple, there is one thought a second. We may be in

spk_0 our natural or towards or at the Manamah arching this case. We may not be able to see it clearly now,

spk_0 but it's very important to understand that he is I. There is no he, other than I. That is quite

spk_0 difficult for me. Yeah, but well, we can at least, to be extent possible, we need to, we need to,

spk_0 first, the understanding begins at a conceptual level. Then only by practice it will go deeper and

spk_0 become clearer, but we need to at least have a clear conceptual understanding. If we don't have

spk_0 a clear conceptual understanding of what we're doing, we're going to be investigating wrong things.

spk_0 So, having a clear understanding is very, very important. That is the fruit to be gained from

spk_0 Bhagavan's words, to get a clear understanding. That clear understanding will then enable us to

spk_0 go deep in the practice. Okay, thanks Michael. Thanks Michael. So Michael, now we've got an email

spk_0 that came in earlier, which I'll read out before we get onto the actual questions for people today.

spk_0 So, this is from Swami Nivratananda. Nama Skaaram, Michael. The 11th verse of God of God

spk_0 is Kari Ka on the Chattano Illusion of Mandukia and Panashad raises the following question.

spk_0 If the objects cognized in both the conditions of dream and of waking, the illusory,

spk_0 who cognizes all these illusory objects and who again imagines them? The 12th verse of the Kari Ka says

spk_0 in answer, Atman, the self-luminous through the power of his own Maya, imagines in himself by himself,

spk_0 all the objects that the subject experiences within or without. He alone is the cognizer of the

spk_0 object so created. That is the decision of Vedanta. And so, Danny says, what's the clarification to

spk_0 this 12th verse from the standpoint of Bhagavan's teachings? Apparently, there seems to be a

spk_0 contradiction between this 12th verse and Bhagavan's teachings. Is it that the Atman, the pure being

spk_0 itself, rises, appears as the ego and imagines all this? This is categorically denied by the 24th

spk_0 verse of Aludu, Aladu, Navadu, where Bhagavan says that Satchit Atman doesn't arise.

spk_0 It doesn't arise. I'm aware that Bhagavan's teachings don't contradict with what either Adi

spk_0 Shankara says or go to Pada says, but rather enhances them and fulfills them and helps us to

spk_0 understand the practical implications of what they are saying. Yes, yes, yes, this is true. Bhagavan's

spk_0 teachings, Bhagavan is clarifying what is said by God, Pada, what is said by Adi Shankara.

spk_0 There are so many things we can point out that Bhagavan has said that seem to be

spk_0 contradictory. If it seems superficially, can be taken to be contradicting what said. For example,

spk_0 in view, punishments it is said, but the analogy of a spider spinning out the thread from within

spk_0 itself and drawing it back in, this analogy is used and it is said that Brahman has projected the

spk_0 world and Brahman will absorb the world back into itself. But in the fourth paragraph of Nana,

spk_0 Bhagavan has said, Bhagavan uses the same analogy and says it from mind that projects the world

spk_0 and absorbs it back into itself. So is this a contradiction? No. But what we need to understand

spk_0 from Bhagavan's clarification is that as Brahman doesn't project anything, Brahman is just pure

spk_0 being. It's only as ego or mind, but it projects all this and absorbs it back into itself. Likewise,

spk_0 it is said in Chandoku, penishad, Sarvam, Kavidam, Brahman. All this is undoubtedly or very

spk_0 a Brahman. But in the only example of verse 26, Bhagavan says, a Hyundai Yavaman, ego itself is

spk_0 everything. So if you penishad say everything is Brahman, Bhagavan says everything is ego. Is it

spk_0 a contradiction? No. Bhagavan is again clarifying. That is everything, that is what he says in verse 26

spk_0 is, if ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence. Note that he doesn't say when

spk_0 ego comes into existence, he says, if ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence.

spk_0 There's a slight implication there, but ego never actually comes into existence. But it seems

spk_0 to have come into existence as soon as we rise as ego, everything else appears. So if ego comes

spk_0 into existence, everything comes into existence. If ego doesn't exist, everything doesn't exist.

spk_0 Ego itself is everything. So what he makes clear is all phenomena, all reshairs, all

spk_0 everything that appears is appears in whose view, only in the view of ego. So all this, all

spk_0 phenomena are just an expansion of ego. That is we as ego are seeing ourselves as this universe

spk_0 with all these multitudinal phenomena, just like in a dream. What we are seeing as a dream world,

spk_0 we are seeing ourselves as that dream world, the dream body, the dream world, all the dream people,

spk_0 everything in the dream, it's nothing but ourselves. We're seeing as all that. Likewise,

spk_0 as ego, we see ourselves as all this. So everything is only ego. But if ego investigates itself,

spk_0 what's it find? But it is nothing but Brahman. So everything is ultimately only Brahman. But the

spk_0 Bhagavan clarifies it by introducing what is the, what is in between all these phenomena and Brahman,

spk_0 so to speak. Of course, there's nothing in between it because Brahman alone exists. But

spk_0 metaphorically speaking, the go between the phenomena and the underlying reality is ego. Without

spk_0 ego, none of these things appear. So it is ego that is projected this world. It is ego that sees

spk_0 itself as everything. But if ego investigates itself, it finds it nothing but Brahman. So it is

spk_0 Brahman in the form of ego who has projected this world like a spider spinning out of the web from

spk_0 anything, it's helping her drawing it back into itself. Likewise here, in this case,

spk_0 there's a gain, a place where Bhagavan's teachings clarify what is meant here. Here we need to be very

spk_0 careful when we come across the word atman. Many people assume when they see the word atman,

spk_0 but it automatically refers to Atman's rupa. In other words, what we, atman as it actually is,

spk_0 but what atman actually means is oneself. To put it in another way, people generally take

spk_0 atman to be a noun. It is better if we understand it to be a pronoun. A noun refers to something

spk_0 particular, a pronoun, what it refers to depends on the context. So the word atman means oneself.

spk_0 It can, it can, in some cases, it refers to Atman's rupa. What we actually are. In some cases,

spk_0 it refers to ego. So we need to distinguish where it refers to ego, where it refers to

spk_0 ourselves as we actually are, and where it doesn't matter. For example, in the term atman Vichara,

spk_0 does Atman refer to Atman's rupa, does it refer to ego? It doesn't matter,

spk_0 because they're one of the same thing. So we need to understand that there are not two selves.

spk_0 There's only one self, one Atman. That Atman, but now appears in reform of ego, is even when it appears

spk_0 in reform of ego, it's actually nothing but Brahman. So when it is said here, Atman threw the power

spk_0 of his own Maya, that it, it, it, it, go to part, it gives us a clue there by saying by Maya.

spk_0 As soon as the word Maya is there, what is this Maya? But one has made it clear, Maya is nothing but

spk_0 mind. So when it said through the power of its own Maya, I think actually in the verse,

spk_0 we're saying I'll just get the original verse. I don't even think the word,

spk_0 you know, even the power, the word power is not there. What is there is Svarmaya,

spk_0 yeah, it means by its own Maya. So by its own Maya, that means that what that implies is,

spk_0 it's not Atman, as Atman, not not not, not ourselves as we actually are, but has projected,

spk_0 if it imagines all this and sees it all, it is only as, as the mind, as ego, but we,

spk_0 but we have created all this. They use word, imagine here, the word in reverse is, I think, yeah,

spk_0 Kumpaya, Kumpaya, that means it's a fabrication, it's a mental fabrication, it's a mental creation.

spk_0 So it is, what we, it is ourself as ego, but has created all this and that is seeing all this,

spk_0 just like in a dream, the one who is dreaming is also the one who is seeing the dream,

spk_0 that is creating the dream and seeing the dream are one and the same, because the deepest teaching

spk_0 in this regard is what, by Ron pointed out, which is a drissly, shrissly vada, but there's no creation

spk_0 other than seeing. So when we project this world, we project it in our own awareness. So the

spk_0 projecting of it and the perceiving of it are one of the same thing, they're not, they're not

spk_0 two separate things, it's not the first world is created and then we see it, no, we are seeing the

spk_0 world is itself creating the world, that the world has no, just like in a dream, but the dream world

spk_0 isn't first created and then we see it, we create it by our very act of seeing. So this is what

spk_0 is happening and it's all by Maya, which is nothing but the mind. So here Atman means not,

spk_0 it's not what we actually are that is created all this, it's Atman in association with Maya,

spk_0 which is what is called mind, it's what creates all this. So we can take Atman here,

spk_0 we can either say it's referring to Atman as we actually are, but in association with Maya,

spk_0 therefore it equals mind, or we can say Atman here doesn't refer to what we actually are referring

spk_0 to ego, which alone is what has the power of Maya, but Maya is only for ego, that's the power of

spk_0 Atman itself, there's no such thing as Maya at all, there's Atman in this pure condition.

spk_0 There's also a word here, in the translation it says Atman myself luminous, but actually what's

spk_0 there in Godopardas verse, the word that he uses for luminous is Daiva, Atma Daiva, Daiva means

spk_0 what is what shines, the shining one, but the translator, I think it's Nicalianantus translation

spk_0 you're referring to, he's translated as the self luminous, and Gumbirananda also I checked his

spk_0 translation, he's also translated as the self luminous. I don't know what actually, both in

spk_0 verse and in the Barsha, what word Shankara used in the Barsha, whether he used it word swayam

spk_0 Prakashya or not I don't know, but generally swayam Prakashya, self luminous refers to our real nature,

spk_0 whether we can call ego self luminous, it depends how we take it, ego is not self luminous in the

spk_0 sense that the light by which ego is shining is a light that it borrows from

spk_0 Abbasulupa from what we actually are, from the pure awareness that we actually are, so the pure

spk_0 awareness is self luminous, the ego, the agen conflated awareness is not self luminous in that sense,

spk_0 but we can also say since this ego is actually nothing other than Abbasulupa, it can be

spk_0 also taken as self luminous, so various ways we can interpret it, as I say clearly in the verse,

spk_0 there's no word that explicitly means self luminous, it's simply Devahar, Devahar means shining,

spk_0 the shining one, so Abbasulupa is even ego is shining, shines as if by its own light, but actually

spk_0 the light by which it's shining is the light, but it derives from its reality, from what it actually

spk_0 is which is pure awareness, so from the light of Bhagavan's teaching a very simple way to

spk_0 interpret this verse is that Abbasulupa refers to our self as ego, and now we are shining as ego

spk_0 and through the ego which is the power of Maya, we see ourselves by ourselves as all these

spk_0 phenomena, we have created all this and we see it and create it simultaneously, is that a clear

spk_0 explanation? Yeah, thank you very much Michael, thank you very much, thank you, that is only the question

spk_0 so that is the only way you can reconcile the question and answer the question actually,

spk_0 yes and I have two more short questions I have, yes please, what exactly is Ramana Padamalai?

spk_0 Ramana Padamalai, it's their verses composed by Murugana, that is at the time Murugana passed away,

spk_0 there were more than 14,000 unpublished verses, but Sadhuam had been working with Murugana for many

spk_0 many years, Sadhuam was took it upon himself to preserve all of Murugana's verses, there's

spk_0 much as possible, obviously he couldn't preserve everything, Murugana often used to write his verses

spk_0 just on a slate, so he write one verse on one side, when the next verse comes to him he turns a

spk_0 slate over writes on the other side, if another verse comes to him he erases the first verse and

spk_0 writes another verse, so Sadhuam was meticulously copying, was visiting Murugana every day copying

spk_0 everything, collecting everything, collecting all the papers, cataloging them, arranging them into

spk_0 different groups and he compiled a nine volume work called Ramana Nyana Bodham, out of these 14,000

spk_0 verses, many of the verses were just individual verses, but Ramana Padamalai was written as a series

spk_0 of verses, so there wasn't anything to be done on that, they didn't have to be arranged in order,

spk_0 like most of the other verses, but in that Ramana Padamalai Murugana many of the verses end with

spk_0 end Padam, end there means implies that said Padam, Padam which means feet is referring to

spk_0 Bhagavan, so in many of the verses he's quoting the teachings of Bhagavan, so the Padamalai

spk_0 consists mainly of sayings of Bhagavan, but Murugana has expressed in the form of

spk_0 this verses, something similar to Guru Acha Kapoi, something similar, but it wasn't, yes,

spk_0 I mean, but it wasn't similar, yeah, in the same, in the same fact it is Bhagavan sayings,

spk_0 but whereas Guru Acha Kapoi was deliberately a record of Bhagavan's oral sayings, this was

spk_0 Padamalai just poured forth from his heart, but when the poetry pours forth it's full of Bhagavan's

spk_0 teachings, full of things he's heard Bhagavan say or clarity that he got from Bhagavan, we can't

spk_0 even say but it's necessarily every verse where he says end Padam, but he's quoting words

spk_0 Bhagavan said, because Bhagavan by his silence may Murugana understand many things, but he may not

spk_0 have said in words, so we can't say where his Guru Acha Kapoi is things that Bhagavan actually

spk_0 said verbally, in Padamalai we cannot say, some of the things maybe what Bhagavan actually said,

spk_0 other things maybe what Bhagavan made Murugana understand from within, we can't say definitely.

spk_0 And my next question is what is Sri Ramana Gita?

spk_0 Ramana Gita or Ramana Gita?

spk_0 Ramana Gita which is supposed to have been composed by Karthik and Tagana Putimuni.

spk_0 Ramana Gita is a collection of songs by Sadhu Om, on Bhagavan, hundreds of songs but Sadhu Om

spk_0 that's Ramana Gita. Ramana Gita is composed by Karthik and Tagana in Sanskrit. It is

spk_0 I'll tell you what I heard from Natananda which gives some, throw some light on it,

spk_0 when Natananda first came to Bhagavan in 1918, the only works of Bhagavan were a few translated

spk_0 works like Viveka Chaudhmani which Bhagavan had translated and David Kaloch from which Bhagavan

spk_0 had translated and a few, and Akram, I had been composed by that time, Navamani Malai,

spk_0 some of a person of Navamani Malai, Navamani Malai wasn't completed until 1928 or so.

spk_0 Panturatnam had been composed, Ashdikam and Ashdikam had been composed. This was all but was

spk_0 available by Bhagavan's own writings in most days. Nana, nobody knew about it, that wasn't published

spk_0 till 1923, the question to be nice many years earlier. So when Natananda came to Bhagavan in 1918,

spk_0 it wasn't very clear what Bhagavan's teachings were, the newcomer, there wasn't some of

spk_0 the ones just able to pick up Nana and read it and understand what Bhagavan's teachings,

spk_0 there was almost nothing available but there was this verse that had recently been composed

spk_0 in Sanskrit called Ramalegita and all the followers of Kavya Ganta were praising it. This is the

spk_0 essence of this like Bhagavan Gita, this is Ramalegita, this is all Bhagavan's teachings are

spk_0 composed and this is a very important work. So Natananda didn't know Sanskrit, so he felt a bit left out.

spk_0 So he asked Bhagavan, he asked Bhagavan, he said, and Bhagavan, I'm not able to understand Sanskrit,

spk_0 but everyone said this Ramalegita's most important work contains all your teachings and everything.

spk_0 Can you explain to me what's what's what's what's the meaning? Bhagavan just laughed and said,

spk_0 oh it's nothing. One or two years ago they approached me with a series of questions,

spk_0 but their aim was to pull me down. My aim was to lift them up. So they asked questions with a certain

spk_0 motive. The answers were according to it and but however much I tried to pull them up,

spk_0 I couldn't pull them up because they didn't want to come up, they wanted to go down and they

spk_0 wanted to pull me down to their level. So finally, so it was a failure.

spk_0 A Kavya Gandhi didn't achieve what he wanted, which was to get Bhagavan's approval for his own ideas.

spk_0 So Bhagavan said, just like in a circus, an acrobat maybe walking on a tight rope high up and

spk_0 slip. Rather than showing it as an accident, he'll do a double summer assault and land on the net

spk_0 as if it was part of the show. So, rather than admitting that they failed in their attempt,

spk_0 Kavya Gandhi composed Ramalegita in which he included some of the things that I said,

spk_0 not the Bhagavan implied, not the most important things he said, but the things that could

spk_0 suited them, they included. That's why Ramalegita contains chapters on

spk_0 shakti and siddhis and society, which are not Bhagavan teachings. Yes, there's a little bit on

spk_0 Appamavachara, there is a chapter on Appamavachara. So some teachings of Bhagavan are there,

spk_0 but most of them are not the real teachings of Bhagavan. They are what Bhagavan replied to

spk_0 their questions, which as Bhagavan said, they were asked with a certain motive. It's not so important

spk_0 than we need not go through it. It's not so important to read them. Just like we read all

spk_0 other books, we read talks, we read day by day. It's nice to read these things. We can get some

spk_0 useful things here and there, but we also have to be careful. The second chapter is about the

spk_0 verse, Riddhya Ghohera Madhya, but Kavya Gandhi called that chapter with three paths,

spk_0 and he interprets this verse, but Bhagavan is teaching three different ways.

spk_0 Some Chinbata, which is investigating oneself, Magita, Magita means diving or subsiding or sinking,

spk_0 and a public or a general road, controlling the movement of the breath. So he's taken it as three,

spk_0 but when Bhagavan translated it into Tamil, he made it very clear, but it's actually what,

spk_0 what Bhagavan was referring to was two things, because Bhagavan says, Tanne any are

spk_0 subsiding with the investigation oneself or subsiding along with the breath. So Bhagavan was actually

spk_0 intended two paths there, but Kavya Gandhi interpreted it as three paths. And all those two paths,

spk_0 one is not actually Bhagavan's path. Pavalanachanga, Roda is not a means to attain a Manishda.

spk_0 The reason Bhagavan included there is because Bhagavan, how Bhagavan came to compose that verse,

spk_0 is that Jagadeeshya Sastri tried to compose a verse, and he was having difficulty. So Bhagavan asked,

spk_0 what did he ask for Bhagavan's help? No, he didn't ask for Bhagavan's help, he was just struggling.

spk_0 Then Bhagavan asked, what are you trying to write? He said, told Bhagavan what he wanted to write,

spk_0 but then he wasn't there was completed. Then he went out, when he came back, Bhagavan gave him

spk_0 a piece of paper on which Bhagavan had composed the verse, and underneath it he had written Jagadeeshana.

spk_0 So Bhagavan put Jagadeeshya's ideas in the form of a verse, but Jagadeeshya's idea,

spk_0 most of the ideas in that verse are Bhagavan's teachings because it's what Jagadeeshya had learnt

spk_0 from Bhagavan. So the first half of the verse is pure teaching of Bhagavan, Raja Guhra, Madhyay,

spk_0 Kavelam, Brahma, Matram, Yamaham, Yity, Atma, Satya, Atma, Rupainya, Satya,

spk_0 I can't remember the exact verse, but first two lines are pure teaching of Bhagavan.

spk_0 Second two lines, half of it about some Chinwatar, that's Bhagavan's teachings,

spk_0 subsiding by investigating ourselves. Pavla and Channa Roda is Jagadeeshya's idea.

spk_0 That's why that verse is not the pure teaching of Bhagavan.

spk_0 Though a lot of it is a very beautiful expression of Bhagavan's teaching,

spk_0 thank you, Mike. So for Bhagavan, there's just one part. That one part we can call

spk_0 Aptma Vichara, we can call Aptma Samapanam, there's one on the same part, because the means by which

spk_0 we can surrender ourselves completely is only by Aptma Vichara, as Bhagavan makes clear in the first

spk_0 sentence of a 13 paragraph of Nana, but giving one something... You can have one as...

spk_0 When Bhagavan asks us to hold on to I am, it means we have to abide as I am, right?

spk_0 Holding on to I am means attending to I am. By attending to I am, we as ego subside and remain as I am.

spk_0 So just like Satya's chit, chit is Sat, attending to ourself is being ourself.

spk_0 Being ourself is... As he said in verse 26 of Upanishad, Tarnai,

spk_0 Ritlai, Tarnai, Aridlam, being oneself alone is knowing oneself. So we can...

spk_0 Attending to ourself, being ourself, one of the same thing, because to be extent to which we

spk_0 attend to ourself, we as ego subside and remain as our being.

spk_0 So self-attention and self-abidance are one and the same thing.

spk_0 In that of Aptma Vichara we are investigating our being. The only way to investigate our being

spk_0 is by being as we actually are. And in order to be as we actually are, we need to attend to ourself,

spk_0 because only by attending to ourself will we subside and remain as we actually are.

spk_0 Exactly, exactly. Thank you very much.

spk_0 Right, I don't know. I don't know actually.

spk_0 Okay, Michael, and the next question is from someone who's called home.

spk_0 How should we understand the concept of Yoga Shema used by Shri Krishna in Gita?

spk_0 Is Yoga Shema some sort of spiritual protection given to the devotees of God,

spk_0 or to spiritual aspirants in general? Thank you.

spk_0 Okay, generally how it is explained is Yoga means joining. So it's acquiring. So whatever we need,

spk_0 we will get. Shema means protecting. So it can be taken everywhere in terms of worldly things

spk_0 or in terms of spiritual things. So if you approach God for if your worship of God is Kamiata,

spk_0 all but you, he will take care of your, what you've already possessed. Sorry, sorry, he will take

spk_0 care of what you need to acquire and what you already possess. But it's got a deeper meaning in

spk_0 the context in which Krishna is using it. What he's referring to is not the material things,

spk_0 not the worldly things, it's our spiritual things. So he will take care of everything that we

spk_0 need to acquire and also what we've already acquired. So Shema is protecting what we've already

spk_0 acquired. Yoga is enabling us to acquire what we need, but not as I say can be taken, many people

spk_0 take it in terms of material things, but the deeper meaning is the spiritual things. So all the

spk_0 love to turn within and other good qualities that we are seeking to acquire, we will gain those.

spk_0 And what we've already acquired by his grace, he will take care of those. So in other words, he'll

spk_0 take care of everything. All our spiritual needs will be taken care of by him.

spk_0 Is it some special care or it's in general grace working?

spk_0 It's grace working. Grace is always taking care of our yogurk Shema. What we need, it provides for us.

spk_0 And what is it provided, it makes sure we don't slip down from that. So it generally is

spk_0 referring to the grace is taking care of all our needs. Even our material, I mean primarily the aim

spk_0 of grace is to bring about the dissolution of ego. That is the ultimate aim of grace. But in the

spk_0 course of the path, they do all what is necessary along the path it provides for us. In terms of

spk_0 spiritual help, also whatever material things are appropriate for us at our present stage of

spk_0 spiritual development, it will provide. Even if it takes things away from us, even if it gives us

spk_0 hardship, that's also part of a yogurk Shema because he's taking care of everything. He knows

spk_0 better than we do what we need. Everything is taken care of by him. Thank you sir.

spk_0 Right. Thank you. So now we've got Sadashiva. When the temporary appearance of ego

spk_0 realizes permanent self, is it not natural to be grateful for the temporary appearance which was

spk_0 necessary to realize the permanent self? No, because the temporary appearance ego is fit only for

spk_0 being destroyed. Ego can never realize what is real. When as soon as ego recognizes itself as the

spk_0 one underlying reality, namely, Abbasurupa, it's pure being awareness, such it. It ceases to be

spk_0 going remains as that. So it's not ego will as ego, we will never know ourselves as we actually are

spk_0 because as soon as we know ourselves as we actually are, we cease to be ego and remain as we actually are.

spk_0 So this word realize is not a word but Bhagavan that really corresponds with Bhagavan's teachings.

spk_0 In fact, Bhagavan, who generally Bhagavan understood English to a considerable extent but he

spk_0 very seldom spoken English but occasionally he would speak in English where it was relevant to do so.

spk_0 So what he said about the term realization, he said what is real is always real so it doesn't need

spk_0 to be realized but problem is but we have now realized the unreal. So all we have to do is to

spk_0 unrealize the unreal and the unrealize the unreal and the real alone will remain.

spk_0 So this term realization, self-realization, it doesn't really, it doesn't really convey Bhagavan's

spk_0 teachings very well. Bhagavan's teaching is that we need to know what we actually are by knowing

spk_0 what we actually are, we thereby cease to be ego and remain as we actually are. So what is

spk_0 what people refer to as self-realization is what Bhagavan calls a annihilation of mind or

spk_0 eradication of ego. When ego is eradicated what remains knows itself as it is. That's what he says

spk_0 in the first line of this verse when I investigated who is the seer I saw what remained when the

spk_0 seer cease to exist. That implied by investigating ego, the seer, ego was cease to exist and what will

spk_0 remain will alone know itself. That is what we actually are. So ego is not a tool used for,

spk_0 ego is only obscure, ego is what, it's because of ego that we seem to not know what we actually are.

spk_0 Of course we always know ourselves but now instead of knowing ourselves as we actually are, we know

spk_0 ourselves as I am this body. It's because it's ego that knows itself as I am this body. So

spk_0 we actually are ego is thereby destroyed. So the seer has followed up with is it not temporary

spk_0 ego which does the investigation? Yes it is ego that does the investigation. As a result of

spk_0 investigation ego loses itself and what always exists alone remains.

spk_0 That is ego needs to do the investigation because as ego we are aware of ourselves as something

spk_0 other than what we actually are. So we're not aware of ourselves as we actually are. We investigate

spk_0 ourselves in order to be aware of ourselves as we actually are. As soon as we're aware of ourselves

spk_0 as we actually are, we thereby cease to be ego. We have to start from where we are.

spk_0 Yeah we have to start from where we are but we don't gain anything as a result of ego because

spk_0 what we actually are is always aware of itself as it actually is. There's no, it never undergoes any

spk_0 change whatsoever. I see what to express gratitude would have to come from the ego again.

spk_0 I see what you say. Ego needs to be grateful for the grace that will dissolve ego and eradicate

spk_0 ego entirely. I see. Okay thank you. Right.

spk_0 So now we have him from Ilana. He has scored the same as ego when described in the role creation

spk_0 of the creation strobe-vailing scenario. Sorry I didn't quite catch that. Is God the same as ego

spk_0 when described in the role creation of the belief-vailing scenario? No. If ego creates everything

spk_0 by grasping full, is it what people describe as the creator God? That is. No ego is not God.

spk_0 That is when we rise as ego we limit ourselves. So what we actually are is infinite,

spk_0 such an under. But by raising as ego we have seemingly limited ourselves as if we're just

spk_0 this small body, this little person. So as long as we have seemingly separated ourselves,

spk_0 God who is our own real nature seems to be something other than ourselves. So as Bowman says,

spk_0 if one's self is a form, the world and God will also be likewise. So God seems to be a form,

spk_0 something something other than ourselves, something distinct from ourselves, so long as we rise as ego.

spk_0 There are different levels of explanation. The most superficial explanation is, but God has created

spk_0 this world. God has created this world, He has sustained it, and eventually He'll destroy it,

spk_0 He'll dissolve it. And before creating, starting the whole thing again and again, because the whole

spk_0 idea is that creation is a cyclical thing. It's created, it's sustained, it's destroyed. Again,

spk_0 it's created to save the destroyed. But all this creation, sustenance and destruction occurs

spk_0 in whose view, only in the view of ourselves as ego. So the deeper teaching is, but actually all

spk_0 this is just a projection of ego. We as ego have projected all this. We projected God as a seemingly

spk_0 separate entity, not the reality of God, because God is actually the reality of the underlying

spk_0 reality of ego, but so long as He rises ego, he goes, God seems to be something separate from

spk_0 ourselves. So as a separate, as something separate, that is also part of ego's fabrication.

spk_0 And it also fabricates the appearance of the world. So the deeper teaching is that this creation

spk_0 sustenance and destruction all occurs only because of our rising as ego.

spk_0 So that doesn't mean ego is God. That would be just, that would be confusing matters.

spk_0 So long as we rise as ego, God seems to be some higher power other than ourselves. So God is the

spk_0 one who is, we have made the mistake of projecting all this. God is then had the task of

spk_0 in order to save us, has to take control of our projection and make sure gives us the fruit of our

spk_0 caramers, which also part of our projection, but what we project is determined by God.

spk_0 But all this is not the ultimate truth. The ultimate truth is, if we investigate

spk_0 ourselves and see what we actually are, we will know that we have never risen as ego and therefore

spk_0 there never was any creation, sustenance, destruction or bailing. What is alone is grace,

spk_0 grace is the eternal reality. That is what we actually are. That is what God actually is.

spk_0 So grace is the ultimate function. That's why I explained earlier. Grace is the ultimate function of

spk_0 God. And it is God in the form of Guru. That is as Guru, but God is, God in His role of performing the

spk_0 ultimate function of grace. God is Guru. So it's at Guru, but God bestows grace.

spk_0 Grace in its real form, not grace, but to fulfill all our desires, but the grace to eradicate the

spk_0 one who has all the desires. That is the true aim of grace. In that context, when talking of

spk_0 Shrishdi, Stity, Samhara, Tyrodhana and Anugraha, the term used for grace is Anugraha. Anugraha

spk_0 has a very, a very interesting etymology. Anugraha means to follow. Grasp means to grasp.

spk_0 So the etymological meaning of Anugraha is God has become running after us to grasp us and save

spk_0 us from ourself. Just like if a child is playing out on the street, it's dangerous being hit by

spk_0 passing vehicles. So the mother or father has to run out and grasp it and pull it and bring it back

spk_0 home. Like that, God has to come running after us in order to save us. That is the etymology.

spk_0 That's the reason for how that word Anugraha came to mean grace. It's that saving power of God.

spk_0 So grace is the special responsibility of God in the form of Guru.

spk_0 So the next one is from Palavisina. Is seer and ego. That means the is seer and ego. That means

spk_0 the one who is the witness is our ego. They want to understand then how to go beyond the seer

spk_0 till now I was focusing on the one who is seer. The one who is seer is the seer. That is ego.

spk_0 Regarding witness, it depends on the sense in which the term witness is used. As Bhagavan

spk_0 pointed out, the term witness is used in two senses. In one sense, witness is used to refer to ego

spk_0 because ego is the seer of Anua. In another sense, he bowed and said the word for witness is

spk_0 Sakshi. So he said Sakshi means sanity. That is witness is presence. That is when it is said that

spk_0 God or Brahman is the witness of all. It means that it is in the presence of Brahman when everything

spk_0 happens. Not the Brahman is seeing everything. Brahman is just being as it is.

spk_0 So it depends upon the sense in which the term witness is used. But reason the term witness is

spk_0 used. There is a deep reason for that. That is, as ego, we identify ourselves with these five

spk_0 shoes. That is a body, mind, a whole bundle of body, life, mind, intellect and will. These five,

spk_0 are called the five shoes. This is what we identify as I. But all these are objects known by us.

spk_0 So to help us distinguish ourselves as Banoa from everything that we know, we are told that we are

spk_0 but we are not this body or mind. We are the witness of all these things. In other words, we have

spk_0 a knower of all these things. This is what is called Drisya Viva-Ka. Distinguishing,

spk_0 the seer from the seeing, the knower from the known, the subject from the objects. So

spk_0 why we distinguish ourselves is in order to investigate ourselves. If we do not distinguish

spk_0 ourselves from all the things that we mistake ourselves to be, when we try to investigate ourselves

spk_0 we'll be trying to investigate the wrong thing. What we need to investigate is the seer,

spk_0 but knower, the one who is aware of all this. And as Bobo and says in this verse,

spk_0 when we investigate who is the seer, who is the one who sees, we will see what remains when the

spk_0 seer becomes non-existent. That is the implication is by investigating the seer, namely ego.

spk_0 Eager will subside and dissolve back into its source and what will remain then is the underlying

spk_0 reality which is what we are into the satiate, the pure being aware and if that we actually are.

spk_0 So in order to go beyond the seer all we need to do is to investigate it. And I would

spk_0 to turn our attention back towards ourselves. Who am I who is seeing all this multiplicity?

spk_0 That's not asking the question, that means looking at ourselves to see what we actually are.

spk_0 So the next question is this take i, ego will merge into the real i itself,

spk_0 same like when river merges into an ocean, river do not exist anymore, it is known as ocean only.

spk_0 This will come handy only if we do regular sudden of practice and follow rules of not consuming

spk_0 alcohol, smoking, meat, etc. Elf the mind is always clogged with fake ego i.

spk_0 So it's a statement but I suppose it needs a comment I guess.

spk_0 Yes, that is, this ego will cease to exist only,

spk_0 well, ego is subsized to the extent to which we attend to ourself. So we need to be attending to

spk_0 ourself more and more and more in order to bring about the subsisance of ego. So long as we are,

spk_0 if we consume alcohol eating meat, all these things, these things cloud the mind and

spk_0 make it more difficult for us to keep our attention fixed on ourself. So if we want to,

spk_0 if our aim is to keep our attention fixed on ourself, we need to avoid all these

spk_0 all these non-sat fake foods, the foods that are not conducive to a calm and clear state of mind.

spk_0 We think these things cloud the mind and agitate the mind and a clouded agitated mind is not a

spk_0 suitable instrument for investigating ourself. So now the Sunta says, do you, Michael, am I correct

spk_0 to understand that when we turn inwards to do Atma Vichara, we are actually investigating ego,

spk_0 i.e. ego Vichara. Thank you.

spk_0 Take your pick. You can understand it in either way because there is only one eye.

spk_0 So we are to investigate this one eye. This one eye now seems to be ego because it now

spk_0 makes them conflict with ourjunks. But the more we attend to this eye, the eye junks drop off

spk_0 and that eye then shines at the pure eye. In other words, the ego which is the

spk_0 junk-conflated eye subsides and the underlying reality the pure eye alone remains.

spk_0 So are we, when Bob and I asked us to look carefully at what's lying on the ground,

spk_0 are we investigating the snake of a rope? Take your pick. If it seems to you like to be a snake,

spk_0 then you're investigated, then you're looking carefully at the snake. If you understand from what

spk_0 Bob and I told, but though it seems to be a snake, it's actually a rope, then you can say I'm

spk_0 investigating the rope to see it clearly. It's, it's, it's only one thing there. There's only one

spk_0 eye for us to investigate whether we call it ego or we call it Atma Surupa.

spk_0 What seems to be ego is actually Atma Surupa. Just as what seems to be a rope is actually just,

spk_0 sorry, what seems to be a snake is actually just a rope.

spk_0 Is that a clear enough answer?

spk_0 Yes, thank you, my call, because I try to do my best, but all I can, when I turn it inwards

spk_0 or what, that's what we always advise, is this person or not person, this individual I know as

spk_0 myself is the ego. So that's why the question I was asking is, are we doing ego, which are actually

spk_0 a thing instead of, because we can never do the Atma until the end. Have you have, have you

spk_0 ever seen this thing called ego? Have I? Have you ever seen this thing called ego?

spk_0 No, of course not. What we are, what we are attending to is awareness.

spk_0 Okay. That awareness so long as it's aware of things other than itself,

spk_0 it's called ego. That same awareness when it's aware of itself alone is called Atma Surupa.

spk_0 So to the extent to which we attend to the awareness that we are,

spk_0 ego subsides and the awareness, the pure awareness alone remains.

spk_0 Right. Okay, not too different, they're not too different eyes, not,

spk_0 there are no two different awarenesses. But by attending to

spk_0 eye alone, the agjunts drop off because the thing is, these agjunts are not holding on to us.

spk_0 We are holding on to the agjunks.

spk_0 Okay. It's not the center who's holding on to you. You are holding on to the center, saying I am

spk_0 the center. Right. Okay. So if you are holding on to the center, if you just hold on to

spk_0 eye, the center will drop off. I alone will remain. So it's actually awareness with

spk_0 chara. That's why by one calls it nyanavichara. Nana means awareness. And we say atma

spk_0 with things like somewhere in the distant, so difficult to even contemplate, you know,

spk_0 every year's life. But awareness with chara, I understand that. Yes. Yes. Well, that's,

spk_0 by one, in the, in the first paragraph of Nana, he's, he, he, there are two sentences. There's

spk_0 one long sentence in which he explains that it's necessary for oneself to know oneself. And then

spk_0 he, second sentence, he says, adoku, Nana, enum, nyanavichara may mukyasadanon. But for that,

spk_0 the investigative, the nyanavichara, the awareness investigation called, who am I,

spk_0 is the principal means. Fine. And again, in, in Upradesh, India, I think in,

spk_0 verse 19, if I remember correctly, he says, nyanavichara may dundipara. This is, this is nyanavichara.

spk_0 This is awareness with chara. Yes. So, if I can substitute the word atma for awareness with chara,

spk_0 it's chara. Yes. Because we, the problem is we've mystified this word atma. It's become

spk_0 something very mysterious. But there's nothing more obvious. Mura, Mura, Guna says in the Anupalavi

spk_0 of Anma, the date, even for the dhalis of people, there's nothing so clear as atma. We all know

spk_0 ourselves. But the trouble is we, we built a mystery around this atma, the atma. Where is the atma?

spk_0 How do I find the atma? You yourself are that atma. You always, what you refer to as I,

spk_0 that is atma. There's no atma, Ava, Vanay, atma means yourself. The only problem will come when

spk_0 you confuse or random with mind. Yes. But that is mind, when we talk about mind, we need to be

spk_0 clear what we're talking about. That is as Bhagavan clarifies in verse 18 of, of Upadeshwanda,

spk_0 what he says is, ennangle manam, thoughts alone of a mind. So when we talk about mind, often we're

spk_0 talking about the totality of all thoughts. But of all these thoughts, the thought called i is the

spk_0 root. The thought called i is ego. That is the root. Why is it the root? Because all the other thoughts

spk_0 are objects. They're known by i. So all other thoughts exist only in the view of ego. So what

spk_0 so when when the term mind is used, we need to understand from a context whether it's referring to

spk_0 or the totality of all thoughts or to the know of all those thoughts. Yes. One often uses the term

spk_0 mind to refer to ego. And we can easily understand from a context when he talks about the mind knowing

spk_0 things that the knowing element of a mind is ego. So ego is not other than awareness. That is ego

spk_0 is chit jada granti. It is a it's a not formed by the conflation of chit the awareness and

spk_0 the adjuncts, the jada upardis, that is this five sheaths. But five sheaths are all jada.

spk_0 But that which is aware of all these five sheaths and it takes it to be i, that is ego. So ego

spk_0 is essentially just chit. But it's chit mixed and conflated with adjuncts. So we can't say

spk_0 the mind is totally devoid of awareness because the essence of the mind is ego. And the essence of

spk_0 ego is awareness. Yes. So what we are investigating is the awareness. You probably familiar with the

spk_0 passage in Maharsha's gospel where Bhagavan explains but ego is called chit jada granti.

spk_0 And he says in your investigation into the source of the Ahamrithi, Ahamrithi is a sin and

spk_0 in the ego, you take the essential chit aspect of ego. And therefore your investigation leads

spk_0 unfailingly to a pure awareness that you actually are. So when you say in your investigation into

spk_0 the source of the Ahamrithi, you take the essential chit aspect. That means the chit aspect,

spk_0 chit, if the source from which ego has risen. Yes. And that is the essence of ego. That's what ego

spk_0 essentially is. So that is what we're investigating. Okay. Okay. You are so you know it so well.

spk_0 Let me keep forgetting. We read but then we forget. That's why that's why it's good. Keeping our

spk_0 mind dwelling on Bhagavan's teachings and and thinking carefully about them then only we'll get

spk_0 that clarity of understanding and that clarity we get very from reading Bhagavan's works, we get

spk_0 a certain amount of clarity by thinking that's Sravana from Sravana we get the beginnings of the

spk_0 clarity. But to get more clarity we have to think about it carefully and understand it clearly.

spk_0 What it's what what it is what what that means we need that's a Manana and then the real clarity,

spk_0 the deepest clarity come from the DTSR from actually putting this into practice. Correct.

spk_0 Because what is the source of all clarity? It's that light of awareness which is shining in our heart

spk_0 as I. That is silence, that is grace. And that is what we need to investigate. Sorry. Not having

spk_0 thoughts helps. Not having thoughts. To think. Why are thoughts a problem? Thoughts keep coming and

spk_0 we know thoughts and thoughts are not a problem. The interest we have in thoughts is a problem.

spk_0 I like into a tentative of thoughts are a problem. Yes. Why don't you take the thoughts as a reminder?

spk_0 Could both thoughts exist if you were not there? Who is it who's aware of these thoughts?

spk_0 To ask if these thoughts appear. So let the thoughts be. Let them appear or disappear.

spk_0 And verse six of Ash to come by when ends by saying, Nindra, Dessendra, Ninnavid of Indra,

spk_0 let them appear or let them disappear. Let them see so let them go on. No, they're not

spk_0 other than you. So what we need to hold on to is the awareness in which the thoughts appear.

spk_0 To whom the thoughts appear. Hold on to that awareness. Forget about thoughts. They're not

spk_0 thoughts are not a problem. Thank you so much Michael. I think we are attending to the thoughts

spk_0 is a problem. So if we attend to ourselves we don't have to worry about thoughts.

spk_0 Thank you. Thank you so much for such a clear explanation. Thanks a lot.

spk_0 Right. Have a natural.

spk_0 So, Krish has got a couple of questions and I'll just put the first one. The common definition of

spk_0 meditation I am familiar with is focusing one's attention on one object at the exclusion of all

spk_0 others whether that be on the breath or mantra etc. How did Bhagavan define meditation

spk_0 and is self-inquiry a type of meditation or in a separate category of its own?

spk_0 It is a meditation but it's a meditation unlike all other meditations. As you say meditation

spk_0 is fixing our mind on something. You know we're fixing our attention on something.

spk_0 In any meditation other than that, what we fix our mind on is some object, a mantra,

spk_0 a chakra in the body of whatever it is. Some object, something other than our self and

spk_0 a more form of God. So fixing the mind on something is meditation. The difference between

spk_0 Abhavichara and all other forms of meditation is in Abhavichara we're not fixing our

spk_0 mind or attention on any object. We're fixing it on the subject on that to which all objects appear.

spk_0 So, all other forms of meditation we are facing away from our self. We're turning our attention

spk_0 away from our self towards something towards the name of form of God towards the mantra.

spk_0 Whatever it is. Whereas in Abhavichara we are turning our attention in the opposite direction

spk_0 back towards our self, back towards the one to whom all these other things appear.

spk_0 So this is a form of meditation but we're sometimes referred to it as Swarupa Dehna. That means

spk_0 meditation on Swarupa means our self as we actually are. So meditation on our self.

spk_0 He also called it Abhichintana which also means meditation on oneself. So it's not an

spk_0 objective meditation. It's even say subjective is not quite, don't quite catch it. It is self

spk_0 meditation. We're meditating on nothing other than our self. We're not meditating on any object

spk_0 but on the one who is aware of all those objects.

spk_0 So it is a type of meditation but it's a meditation unlike all other meditations. It's fundamentally

spk_0 different because in this meditation in any other type of meditation you've got a meditator

spk_0 and something that is meditating upon. Whereas in this there's only one thing but the

spk_0 meditator is meditating on itself. I hope that's a clear answer.

spk_0 He follows up with, is he or am I essentially different from the Vedantic Mahavakias as an

spk_0 ego directed inquiry rather than an absolute truth statement? And if one were born without any

spk_0 tradition which would point one more directly to truth?

spk_0 Investigating who am I is the import of the Mahavakias. That is take the Mahavakia,

spk_0 Tatvimasi. You are that or that you are. What is that? That refers to God or Brahman or whatever.

spk_0 The Mahavakias says you are that. Why does the Mahavakias say you are that? Because before we

spk_0 hear the Mahavakia we are looking for God or Brahman or happiness or knowledge or whatever it is,

spk_0 we're looking for it outside ourself. So the Upanishads tell us, you yourself for that.

spk_0 If we understand that correctly we should turn our attention back towards ourself.

spk_0 If I am Brahman then how can I know Brahman without knowing myself? So the way it means to know Brahman

spk_0 is to know I. So it is the bug of one's teaching of Abhama Vichara, the investigation who am I,

spk_0 is the practical import of all these Mahavakias. So the purpose of the Mahavakias is to turn our

spk_0 attention back towards ourself. But many people miss, they fail to grasp that so they begin meditating

spk_0 on Mahavakias. I am not this body, I am that Brahman and so on. That is not what is meant.

spk_0 The purpose of the Mahavakia is to turn our attention back towards ourself. Because what do all

spk_0 the Mahavakias, their four main Mahavakias, all those Mahavakias are pointing out but Brahman

spk_0 is nothing but ourself. There is Tatva Masi, you yourself for that Brahman. Aham Brahman asked me,

spk_0 I am Brahman. I am Akma Brahman. This very self is Brahman, Pranjanam Brahman,

spk_0 awareness is Brahman. So they're all pointing our attention, Brahman is not something out there.

spk_0 What is the awareness that knows that idea of a big Brahman out there or God up in heaven or

spk_0 whatever it is in Kailashar or Bekuntar or whatever. All this idea of God or Brahman,

spk_0 this for whom, for me, who am I? So the whole aim of the Mahavakias is to turn our attention

spk_0 away from seeking God outside ourself, to seeking God inside ourself as ourself.

spk_0 So what Bhagavan has taught is not, it is, Bhagavan has is fulfilling the aim of all of Vedanta,

spk_0 if you punish it, the Bhagavad Gita, the Brahman, the aim of all of them is for us to know ourself.

spk_0 And how do we know ourself by investigating ourself, by turning our attention back towards ourself?

spk_0 We can't know ourself by attending things outside, we can only know ourself by attending to ourself.

spk_0 So that's a very aim of all of Vedanta.

spk_0 So Bhagavan fulfills the aim of Vedanta by pointing out to us the practical implication of all the

spk_0 teachings given in all the all the Upanishads, the Brahmasu, the Bhagavan, and all the other Vedantic texts.

spk_0 Ultimately they're all about knowing oneself, that is what Bhagavan is teaching us. How to know ourself?

spk_0 To turn our attention back towards ourself. It's so simple. So we don't need vast, vast volumes,

spk_0 we don't need to read all of your punishments or all the commentaries or anything like that. All we

spk_0 need to do is to understand the basics and put them into practice by turning our attention back to ourself

spk_0 more and more and more.

spk_0 Thank you for that, Michael. Bhagavan's teachings are the essence of all of Vedanta.

spk_0 Whereas other greater chariots in the past have written commentaries on the Prasadana

spk_0 Treya, Bhagavan has given us the essence of the Prasadana Treya in his own simple, clear words.

spk_0 The practical implication of all of them.

spk_0 I think that's not all the questions in fact unless I've missed anyone in the various little bubbles

spk_0 that you get in a new chat format. Otherwise speak now and forever, hold my peace, as they say.

spk_0 Or this hold your peace for another two weeks.

spk_0 Hello, am I audible? Yes, yes, yes.

spk_0 Yes, it's Chris again.

spk_0 I asked a question last week but you didn't answer it. It was just with regarding to,

spk_0 you know, a lot of the imagery and iconography we see of deities with half closed eyes and half

spk_0 open eyes when you look at Gaby's, Sankabee or Shiva. What does that symbolize? I'm guessing

spk_0 is it the inner state that like that? I think it symbolizes the inward turned look.

spk_0 Right. Is that what it symbolizes?

spk_0 Yeah, that's what I thought.

spk_0 And if we look within what we will see that event, Bhagavan says, I saw what remain when the

spk_0 sea is to exist. That what remains when the sea is to exist. It's the underlying reality of

spk_0 everything. So by looking within, we will see everything. But we will not see it as everything,

spk_0 but as it actually is, as the pure awareness, the pure such a, but it actually is.

spk_0 So they'll have a closed eyes, possibly signifies by looking within, we are seeing the reality

spk_0 of everything outside. But so long as we're looking outside, we're not seeing it as it is.

spk_0 We see it as all these names and forms. By looking within, we see it as the underlying,

spk_0 formless being awareness, which is the one reality of all, but appears outside.

spk_0 So it's the one reality of both the sea and the sea.

spk_0 Okay. Thank you.

spk_0 Yes, Michael, I had another question.

spk_0 Yes. The urge for the survival of the physical body is that a waste of energy?

spk_0 The physical body is going to live as long as it is destined to live. It's going to die when it's

spk_0 destined to die. So we don't actually have to take care of this body. It will be taken care of by

spk_0 its destiny. But so long as we identify this body as I, it seems it all depends on us.

spk_0 So we make all this effort to take care of this body, but ultimately this is useless because

spk_0 how long this body is to survive, how many meals it's to eat, how much it air, it's to breathe,

spk_0 how much water it's to drink, all but it is to go through. It's all, everything that is required,

spk_0 it will be provided until the time when it meets its destined end. So we don't have to worry about,

spk_0 we don't have to concern ourselves with the body. However, it's very easy to say that, but

spk_0 suppose we take this body to be eye, we all naturally, so intent upon taking care of this body.

spk_0 That's inevitable, but let's not worry about this, let the body, let the body be.

spk_0 aim is to know what we actually are. So let's try to turn our attention more and more within.

spk_0 But more we turn our attention within, but less concern we will have about this body.

spk_0 Because the more our identification with this body will be dissolving, the bonds that bind us

spk_0 to this body will slowly be weakened. It seems like it's instinctive in the mind, it's a natural

spk_0 part of it. Of course, of course, because we identify this body as I, so long as this body

spk_0 seems to be I will do everything we can to protect it, to take care of it. But we need to go beyond that,

spk_0 because if we take this body to be eye, we're in for a rude awakening when the death comes,

spk_0 because this body is going to be forcibly separated from this body.

spk_0 So better to prepare for death now by investigating what we actually are here and now.

spk_0 Oh, okay, thank you. Right. I mean, the human condition has sort of built into it,

spk_0 the necessities to survive, otherwise, why even the human condition itself?

spk_0 Any living being has that instinct to survive, because they all, that is all of them,

spk_0 that they have nobody, that false awareness I am this body, is there in every living being,

spk_0 every sentient being.

spk_0 Maybe the body is thinking it's time for a cup of tea. You've had it.

spk_0 Michael, can I ask a quick question please? Yes, certainly.

spk_0 Do you have any plans to explain verses from Bhagavad Gita's Adam at some point?

spk_0 Perhaps sometime, but it's further down the line. Let me first finish my translation to all

spk_0 Bhagavan's main works, that among Bhagavan's translated works, that's one I particularly like

spk_0 to translate, but I haven't done so yet. But maybe if I finish all my translations of Bhagavan's

spk_0 original work, sometime I'll come round to translating that, because that's a very nice work.

spk_0 Right, thank you.

spk_0 No, another verse, Michael, if you put it in your queue.

spk_0 That's all in Bhagavan's hands. I certainly can't save myself, so I'm

spk_0 depending on him to save me when he sees when he sees fit.

spk_0 Would you like to do the... Oh yes, yes. Thank you.

Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam verse 2

Interactive Transcript

Topics Covered

Related Episodes

Win New Hampshire | 10

Why a University Proactively Sought a Merger

Welcome to Astronomy 161

Want to Speak Real Japanese? Get our Free Travel Survival Course Today!

Share Episode