A clearer audio copy of this video can be listened to on Sri Ramana Teachings podcast (ramanahou.podbean.com) or downloaded from ramanahou.podbean.com/e/we-are-not-aware-of-ourself-as-we-actually-are-because-of-ego and a more compressed audio copy in Opus format (which can be listened on the VLC media player and some other apps) can be downloaded from mediafire.com/file/98ehbgbcj5ebvlq
Unless and until the ego ceased,no one can become attentive on SELF. If you can see rope now,it means serpent is gone. With out the cessation of serpent never you can see rope. So Self attentiveness of an ignored person is flaw itself.
Thank you very much Michael, Sandra and Sean, Michael yes you have answered my question, and it is true that intuition is something that everyone uses and yes there are good and false intiutions. A good intuition could be guided by our destiny. For example, before I met Bhagavan I was completely caught up in another teaching and for me there was no question of me choosing another path, teaching and so on. One day I go to a bookshop and I see the book (talk) and I have like an intuition that I must take this book (a voice inside that I could also translate as an intuition to buy this book). But yes, I completely agree that everything formulated by the mind is really not who we are and is therefore open to question. Thank you again and again for taking all this time to answer the questions and it's not an intuition to find myself in this current and to be 200% sure of it. Pranam 🙏🙏🙏
Sri Sadhu Om summarises the practice of self-investigation in this song, Dhyāṉa-p Pāṭṭu or Song of meditation: vimeo.com/showcase/8558664/video/669230482 (English translation by Michael James) . For advertisement-free videos on teachings and songs related to Bhagavan Ramana, please visit vimeo.com/ramanahou and click 'showcases' on the bottom left. Each original work of Bhagavan Ramana has its own showcase with explanations of Michael James.
"...all we are investigating is our own Being...it's our Being that we're investigating...our Being is the Reality that underlies the ego...what appeared to be a small self is actually the big self. There's only one self, one 'I'." (2:26:14) If there is only one self, then we are not separate individuals (as ego perceives), correct?
If the source of ego (at 1:18:35) is our fundamental awareness ('I am'), our own Being -- and if Bhagavan calls ego the formless demon -- how can a demon be associated with our fundamental awareness as its source? Where am I getting confused here? Thanks.
idk i think this ideology kind of demonizes normal human function for the feeling of enlightenment, when ego is meant to be formed to what you need it for, not demonized and forgotten lol
@@dirt420 I like the teaching in A Course in Miracles because it explains that our Being is perfect and in communication with all Beings, including our Source and all other perfect creation of that Source; whereas ego is the belief that we are separate from our Source and all other Beings. In "normal human function," as you say, we do consider ourselves as separated ones, and we consider communication to be with other bodies present, or talking on the phone, or emailing others, etc., because we block out the rest and defend the limited "person" that we believe we are. So enlightenment is a radiance that we allow into our minds of our true nature, and so we automatically drop the limitation that we were defending in error. Does that make any sense?
Sir Michael . I want to ask a question every time. It is Puzzle to me ,according to Bhagwan and as you said Eka jiv Wada, the Jeeva is-ego & one ego is Destroyed why the other forms the other egos are not enlightened in other words ego is enlightened why we aren’t a enlighten and why we have this multiple awareness That is false awareness?
Namaskaram, I answered this question of yours last Sunday during a meeting with the San Diego group, so you will be able to listen to my reply whenever the video of that meeting is posted here. Namo Ramanaya 🙏🙏🙏
@@johnmcdonald260I understand that difference, but what is the difference in one's experience of both states? What is one's experience of manonasa - how is reality perceived?
@@johnmcdonald260 If Bhagavan didn't perceive, how did he see the world? I understand that he saw the world as himself, but he was seeing something as he was using his eyes to go about his day to day tasks.
Happiness and the Art of Being: An introduction to the philosophy and practice of the spiritual teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana (by Michael James | Mar 22, 2012) (Amazon)
I clicked the "thumbs up" for this video, but it did not change the number from 0 to 1. Perhaps there is a problem with that? -- okay, the number is changing now. Thanks.
Most so-called neo-advaita speakers that I listen to would never say they are talking about Advaita Vedanta. The term neo-advaita was coined by an Advaita teacher to denigrate speakers who came to similar conclusions about the real and unreal nature of things, outside of the A.V. tradition. They are basically trying to describe Ajata, and they would be the first to admit that the mind/ego and words will always fall short.
Greetings. But is that not the problem with neo-advaita speakers? That they trying to describe ajata? Ajata maybe the ultimate reality, however how is that realized for ego? The usual explanation by neo-advaita is that one needs to listen and understand and once one has understood ajata reveals itself. When they arentrying to describe ajata they conveniently omit everything else what seemingly transpires before ajata and what accordingly to the teachings of Sri Ramana is holding us back from ajata and that are vasanas. To my knowledge none of these neo-advaita speakers ever talk about vasanas and the need for their annihilation which is basically the annihilation of mind. Vasanas do not exist in ajata and neo-advaita takes that and declares that there is no need to annihilate vasanas since they do not exist in ajata. Full stop. That is a fatal misunderstanding since ego seems to exist as long as we are attached to a body and are aware of phenomena. But the main flaw and misunderstanding of neo-advaita speakers is that they may try to describe ajata but have not realized it and they always scrap at the surface and never go deep like the teachings of Sri Ramana. What is ajata according to Sri Ramana? It is the absence of all phenomena and objects. That means as long as one is aware of any objects, a world and so forth, one is not aware of ajata. He taught that a world only exists together with ego and vasanas. I suppose that all neo-advaita teachers are aware of a world, they just mentally and erroneously declare that as ajata since they really do not know. They are all confused and not a good source compared to Sri Ramana.
