Hmm, not exactly

@@maicolx7776 Fine. Be with thoughts.

@@vish6306 one can't stop thoughts without self inquiry. Thoughts will come but you can ignore them while doing self inquiry/just being.

@@maicolx7776 Try to understand the lady’s question and Baghwan’s answer. Doing self enquiry is Not the same as Just be. Self enquiry uses thought. It is the means to the end which is a state of being (without thoughts).

@@bernhard1071 told you before not interested in your replys or comments, why persist? Not even reading them, so dont waste your time

@Lolly8863 You might be interested in: Is the ‘I’-thought the one to all other thoughts appear to? kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6ucm3h7oqaebM0 2023-09-03 San Diego Ramana Satsang: How to distinguish the pure ‘I’ from the thought called ‘I’? kzbin.info/www/bejne/jaLUiaeZqq6YnLM Namo Ramanaya 🙏🙏🙏

@@sriramanateachingsqa Thank you much appreciated, I will take a look.

@Lolly8863 In Nan Ar? (Who am I?), paragraph 8, Bhagavan says, “The thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought of the mind; it alone is ego.” Michael explains: “The term ‘mind’ sometimes refers to the entirety of all thoughts, yet all thoughts, except the first thought ‘I’ (the thought called ‘I’), are objects, while the first thought ‘I’ is the subject. Other thoughts cannot exist without the ‘I’-thought, as it is the ‘I’-thought that thinks all other thoughts. Therefore, the mind essentially is this first thought ‘I’, which is ego. Thus, when Bhagavan refers to the mind, he generally means ego.” I would say it like this: Mind can be interpreted in two ways, 1) all the thoughts (objects), or 2) the subject to which all thoughts appear. Every thought we have is known by a knower, this knower is the subject, also the first thought ‘I’ or ego. You are aware of the thought ‘It’s cold’, that which is aware of the thought is the first thought ‘I’. The substratum of the first thought called ‘I’, the false awareness, is the pure awareness ‘I am’. Namo Ramanaya 🙏🙏🙏

@@sriramanateachingsqa Thank you that is so helpful much appreciated. I guess we could say the first thought 'i' isnt necessarily obvious, almost spontaneous as ego or mind arises upon waking up from sleep so to speak. The fact upon waking up, mind has already risen, then the ego mind being the first 'I' thought kind of spontaneously appeared. Feels like the first thought 'i' is more of a 'sense' of 'I' rather than a actual solid thought of 'I' as an object, if that makes sense. Anyway, I will contemplate what you said. Blessings and thank you for sharing you understanding.

Yes, the term "seeming' is used since it is not real and does only exist in the view of ego. For ego the world is very real, that is the illusion. However if we look for ego, properly investigate if ego (and with that a physical world) really exists we will discover that it really doesn't. If we fully realize that the "physical" world and all other worlds, all phenomena, will disappear.

Because we want to: Instead to choose God or pure awareness we choose experiences like sex and other pleasures like good food. We also have many dislikes which distract us from that what we truly are. That what has never left is that what we truly are. However that what we believe to be now, a person with a certain individuality, has taken over like a bad disease and is undertaking a journey within the imaginations of mind. Everything we experience is an imagination and that imagination is solely our (ego's) doing.

Don't go into the depth of reasoning to find out. The answer would be easier and given if you just do the practice. We're not trying to resolve all of our questions mentally but experientially and have the real answers. Any answer given by the nind and with words is always flawed in a way. Don't look too much at the finger pointing to the moon but directly to the moon if you want to know what the moon looks like.

​@@bernhard1071That is an explanation. But it's still not explaining logically "why" that happens. It just explains "how" it does. Though I undedtanf the explanation given, I can get why it can still be confusing. The solution is just to practice atma vichara and forget answering that question mentally. So far only Kashmir Shaivism has been able to give me a satisfying and logical to as to why it happens. But at the same time going into that path will also raise other questions. So better just practice holding to the self as it's the essence of both teachings and our own being.

@@ratinhoembondeiro646There is no “why”. Even Kashmir Shaivsm is just giving an idea, not the real thing. The reason why there is no and can’t be an answer to why is the paradox of ego. Ego only seemingly exists but does not really exist nor has it ever existed. Since ego truly does not exist it cannot have a cause or reason why it could exist. The paradox is that we, as ego, imagine to exist and that imagination alone gives ego its seeming existence. Starve ego of any attention and it will disappear and then it will be clear it never ever has existed in the first place. Alas that will be only clear after self realization. That’s why Bhagavan’s answer to that question was always, “look for that ego and when you find it we can discuss its origin.” Since there is no ego (just in ego’s own view) it can’t be found and therefore there is no need for any discussions about its origin. Thus let’s look for that ego. Does it really exist? Only atma-vichara can give us the answer….