2023-10-28 Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK: Understanding solipsism as taught by Bhagavan Ramana

[@SriRamanaTeachings]

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/understanding-solipsism-as-taught-by-bhagavan-ramana 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/dijcgzak8qanygd

[@AusXL1]

One conciousness One being One awareness One present One ego

[@michaeldillon3113]

It is typical of our Blessed Michael that he takes it to be his duty to correct misunderstandings 🙏. It is very telling that Bernardo has already had quite a lot of contact with people who represent non-duality and yet many of the things Michael mentioned were very new to him . This shows the rarified atmosphere we move in here 🙏. Going back to basics let's not forget that Bernardo's main thrust is towards Idealism - or as he says ' the world is mental ' . He gives great philosophical and scientific ( FMRI ) evidence for this . This is a quantum leap in outlook and he himself will get lots of opposition because the scientific consensus is still that consciousness is an emergent property of matter , rather than matter being an appearance in Consciousness which is essentially the Idealists and Advaitic view .🙏🕉️

[@sjain8111]

Michael is indeed possessed of saintly patience 🙏

[@mohanbhaibhad3703]

Quite clear explanation on the discussion with Barnado❤🙏🙏👍

[@stevepalmer-drums]

I'm glad these 16 points arose in response to the conversation with Bernardo Kastrup.🙏Thank you.

[@davidpusztai584]

Dear Michael, this video and especially the first minutes where you summarise what are essentially postulates, are one of the most, absolute most important videos that exist on youtube and more generally one of, if not the most important teaching and summary. Perfectly summed up. If it is not in writing already, it should be in my respectful opinion - sums up EVERYTHING one needs to know for bliss. Thank you for this, thank you very much.

[@atmannityananda-autognosia]

❤ Bliss is experienced when the ego dies not, by intellectual arguments and understanding 😮

[@beverlyscholz5007]

Dear Michael, I happened to see your discussion with Bernardo. A dear old friend from a past sangha listens to all your talks. I studied Ramana's teachings with Advaita teachers, and now am a student of A Course in Miracles (it softens the heart so much). I made several pilgrimages to Tiruvannamalai and was deeply moved there. I have been following Bernardo's talks and debates often for about a year - SO grateful that science and mysticism are finding eachother gradually; though it is halting and laborious. He has so much courage. When Bernardo talks with Rupert Spira, the two are very fond of eachother "Like a Bach sonata", said Rupert once. Rupert has lots of practice in these encounters and is very diplomatic and patient. Bernardo recognizes the Mystic aspect is something he can't taste yet. I have been pained to listen to Bernardo describe his suffering with the "truth" that "god" cares not for his struggles, but he is determined to follow the guidance he receives and persevere for the good of mankind. During your discussion, I searched my heart for how there could be a bridge. I only found a yearning to let Bernardo know that if he got a direct taste, a feeling of this transcendant knowing he would see how transformative it is and would not doubt the compassion it brings. I was SO happy to see you come back and offer this teaching here . Yes, it was hard to watch you two struggle and seem to fail, but I trust it created a hunger in him that perhaps Rupert or other mystics can satisfy --- albeit in a diluted way, as you say. Carl Jung is another favorite of Bernardo's and I read how Jung went to India and was directed by everyone to go and meet Ramana. Jung finally admitted he was afraid to meet Ramana as he fully believed/felt that one glance into Ramana's eyes would somehow obliterate his research, his profession, everything he'd worked to build and was recognized for. Again, thank you for your willingness!! It brought me back into Ramana's radical teachings and some very strong meditations and tastes since then. Sat nam.

[@sfmagnolia]

Oh my gosh, this is so good. Thank you, I feel so grateful to have found you as a teacher.

[@chaplainrobertdalgleish1519]

Thank you Michael. This will add to the growing academic contribution of Bhagavan’s legacy which will nourish future generations and enrich future academic contributions which ultimately will establish Bhagavan’s sublime gift to humanity but even more than this it will direct future followers on the true path.

[@mariagabrielabottiglieri972]

Amazing Satsang. God bless you Michael

[@earthstuart]

Great teachings, thank you Sri Bhagavan. In the doesn't matter department: A point of clarification: hornets can sting over and over again, unlike what Bernardo claimed. Might be a language issue, but few people truly understand the intricacies of these beings. This story has been told different ways, I doubt we'll ever know which species of insect stung "his body," and it doesn't matter at all. It's what the story teaches about Bhagavan's compassion. In fact, many of these insects can sting again and again, because they have smooth stingers.

[@mandybaker3689]

Treasure Map. Thank you ❤

[@elisabethhgelid6969]

When i no longer see my self as the ego, I recognize everyone as my self, and then love arise because no more fear. This is my experience ❤

[@elisabethhgelid6969]

No conflict between what I say and what you answer. Love contains it all. ❤😂

[@Iiisgracebestill]

​@@elisabethhgelid6969❤❤cx

[@elisabethhgelid6969]

Love can not be personal. Love is God and who are we to judge. The world is a mirror. We are what we are able to see. So look in the mirror and see if you can recognize and receive your self. The little child in you knows the way.

[@nicolehorlorzealmetal9890]

Thank you

[@SriRamanaTeachings]

Short Q&A videos from this channel can be watched on youtube.com/@sriramanateachingsqa

[@PaulMcDonagh-rv6vc]

The prospect of wiping out Bernado's own experiencer was simply too much for him to bare! He is probably still at stage 1.....asking "who will i be without my thoughts". So hitting him with "lets think about killing your experiencer/ego probably sent him into defence mode. Which is why he made a big deal (out of proportion imo) regarding "seeming suffering" and his legitimate point about "illusory suffering" is still suffering". Yes it is Bernado....but only to the experiencer. To the self or pure awareness, suffering is not a thing. Bernado's ignorance is highly educated!! And thats not an insult, because my own ignorance is uneducated ;-) A tough nut to crack indeed is Berrnado. On a positive note, I really like Bernado, and his bravery to discuss these topics is legendary.

[@BeAsYouAre108]

"Bernado's ignorance is highly educated!! And thats not an insult, because my own ignorance is uneducated ;-) " 🤣🤣🤣

[@Eric_Josue]

Bernardo's perspective falls into the very problem he repudiates. He argues that reality is just like an airplane's dashboard and that ultimately there is his ultimate subject (whatever this means for him). Therefore, just like the dashboard map seem to be (e.a., represent) flying objects, just so, under his view, we also only SEEM to be people and to be aware (his ultimate subject actually being who is aware).

[@mandysellars2513]

Thanks Michael...❤

[@db8799]

Refreshing.... There is no world...as in dreamless sleep.

[@shilpamurdeshwar5788]

Hats off to u Michael,great progress in the sadhana is very obvious, thankyou for ur explanation,i always see ur videos.This BS bites ppl but they dont want to wake up

[@miltonmartinez6698]

Only through the actual practice of self investigation will all these teachings make sense

[@seanrobbins8321]

This such a bs concept akin to blind faith! Same as saying I believe whatever he’s saying because I don’t have the capacity “yet” to understand. Wake up Sheeple!

[@miltonmartinez6698]

@@seanrobbins8321 I am a sheep to my faith as I should be. You are free to follow your own path without shaming anyone else for their beliefs

[@Iiisgracebestill]

@@seanrobbins8321of course, the bs you see is people in reality cx

[@Killane10]

Bernardo is a wonderful guy and I have learned so much from him. It is through him that I discovered you. I watched that interview and my ego was a bit triggered by Bernardo's angry reaction to you. I could clearly see that your perspective triggered his ego and he reacted in an angry way. I want to learn more from you both and am really keen to listen carefully to this and your other content . I really appreciate that you share your wisdom ❤

[@christianandersson2217]

Thank You! 🙏

[@SriRamanaTeachings]

For a brief (10-min) summary of Ēka-Jīva-Vāda (Metaphysical Solipsism) and its practical application by Michael James, please watch: vimeo.com/ramanahou/ms01 . 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.

[@visweshwaranr]

This is what google says about hornet stinging-Looks like BK is incorrect here too. 😀 "A bee will die when they sting, a hornet will not. The hornet's stinger is meant to be used multiple times. A hornet will use that stinger to penetrate the skin, inject venom, and then retract back into the thorax of the hornet after the sting is completed until they decide to sting again." Many thanks once again Michael ji. Thankyou very much for each of your satsangs.

[@patriciaching100]

EGO is understood by many in US as Easing God Out. Thank You Michael James

[@davidstrevens9170]

Extraordinary! No wonder we need an Avatar to introduce this message. It would be virtually impossible to recognise this nature of reality from within the delusion.

[@whatisthis-y8w]

Ramana was pretty clear on this teaching. Devotee: As I said before, we see, feel and sense the world in so many ways. These sensations are the reactions to the objects seen, felt, etc. and are not mental creations as in dreams, which differ not only from person to person but also with regard to the same person. Is that not enough to prove the objective reality of the world? Bhagavan: All this talk about inconsistencies and their attribution to the dream-world arises only now, when you are awake. While you are dreaming, the dream was a perfectly integrated whole. That is to say, if you felt thirsty in a dream, the illusory drinking of illusory water did quench your illusory thirst. But all this was real and not illusory to you so long as you did not know that the dream itself was illusory. Similarly with the waking world; and the sensations you now have get co-ordinated to give you the impression that the world is real. If, on the contrary, the world is a self-existent reality (that is what you evidently mean by its objectivity) what prevents the world from revealing itself to you in sleep? You do not say you have not existed in your sleep. Devotee: Neither do I deny the world’s existence while I am asleep. It has been existing all the while. If during my sleep I did not see it, others who are not sleeping saw it. Bhagavan: To say you existed while asleep, was it necessary to call in the evidence of others so as to prove it to you? Why do you seek their evidence now? Those ‘others’ can tell you of having seen the world (during your sleep) only when you yourself are awake. With regard to your own existence it is different. On waking up you say you had a sound sleep, so that to that extent you are aware of yourself in the deepest sleep, whereas you have not the slightest notion of the world’s existence then. Even now, while you are awake, is it the world that says “I am real”, or is it you? Devotee: Of course I say it, but I say it of the world. Bhagavan: Well then, that world, which you say is real, is really mocking at you for seeking to prove its reality while of your own Reality you are ignorant.

[@patriciaching100]

Michael James it would be interesting to see how Don Hoffman is receptive to Sri Ramana Teachings. He uses the analogy of wearing a space time headset, and say when in conflict with the ego, you remove it. I feel Bernardo Kastrup opened the door for more exploration into I am That. Thank you!

[@patriciaching100]

I am sorry.. I have to come back again.. I found the Audio "I am That" online. One of the commentators had recommended it for Barnardo Kastrup. Another commentator mentioned Bernardo Kastrup has written 8 books on suffering. I have tired to follow Barnardo Kastrup, as I could feel his empathy. They say a internal death can be more painful than a physical death. I am so grateful I experienced a internal death when I realized both of my parents had murdered. I am 80, and I wouldn't have surrived without teachings like yours. In my view you didn't push too hard.. Barnado Kastrup might not get in a body, but he will without a body. Thank you for realigning me to my true nature of I am that. It's God's (of our understanding) script and we can't have the wrong lines. What happens is Christians project their suffering on others, in the US we are experiencing them trying to make the US a Christian Nation.

[@rviswanathan]

🙏

[@atmannityananda-autognosia]

❤ REALITY AND ILLUSION Sri Ramana Maharshi: Just as fire is obscured by smoke, the shining light of consciousness is obscured by the assemblage of names and forms, the world. When by compassionate divine grace the mind becomes clear, the nature of the world will be known to be not the illusory forms but only the reality. Only those people whose minds are devoid of the evil power of Maya, having given up the knowledge of the world and being unattached to it, and having thereby attained the knowledge of the self-shining Supreme Reality, can correctly know the meaning of the statement “The world is real.” If one’s outlook has been transformed to the nature of real knowledge, the world of the five elements beginning with space (akasha) will be real, being the Supreme Reality, which is the nature of knowledge. 🌺 Peace, Love, Harmony

[@olena7834]

Dear Michael, it’s a well known fact, at least, I knew it, that bees poor things die when they sting, but not wasps, and hornets are a kind of wasps, so they don’t die. I’ve checked it out in Wiki again, and it’s said that for example gigantic Eastern kind of hornet stings so extremely badly that they compare it to hot burning nail stuck in the leg for example. Hope those hornets were just normal hornets whose stinging is very-very bad but not as killing as gigantic ones’. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

[@olena7834]

Actually I wrote my comment about hornets just to support you, dear Michael, even though of course you don't need it, you are perfectly strong in your understanding of everything including such situations when you have such kind of collocutors. Actually, I took much from your dialogue with Bernardo (I haven't heard about him before), but I can't say that I liked the way that dialogue had gone, you know I don't like gladiators fights, so to speak. So thank you SO MUCH for your angelic patience, knowledge, ability to convey it, for all your great job. Namo Ramanaya 💓🙏🙏🙏

[@arunachalaful]

🙏

[@atmannityananda-autognosia]

13:00: ❤ You have to clearly define what you mean by say, illusion, unreal, real and ego so that your arguments you are going to present are correctly understood.😮

[@JohnMilller]

I would suggest, Michael, with the greatest respect, is that it's not that Bernando doesn't grasp or understand this but rather that he rejects the hypotheses. The trouble with mysticism is that the only way to prove or disprove it is by direct experience. Although I thought Advaita Vedanta used philosophical enquiry - if this is the case I think Bernardo's enquiry method is the more logically defendable.

[@ssaisub]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/ipzQl515bqeqlac is Swami Sarvapriyananda's explanation of Eka Jiva Vada. Different choice of words compared to Michael, but same idea. The last 1 minute in the video is useful ie., Eka Jiva Vada is a methodology to help one (who is ready to turn within) to turn within. This is not meant for a debate or to make sense, and hence, won't help most people.

[@TM-vg2yw]

I thought BK seemed to be single minded and was talking about compassion as if to wear it as a medal.

[@insiderich7372]

Yes, it was more of a Eastern non-duality (vs) Western Idealism....and thanks MJ for not ceding an inch even if the other person switched the conversation to ethics midway as a defense mechanism. I was surprised by the line of conversation in the second half. The other gentleman seemed aware of non-duality based on his conversations with Swami Sarvapriyananda and others, but, one must agree militant non-duality requires you to throw out all our accumulated knowledge and start again based on practice of self-inquiry. That is a jump many will fail, even those who want to succeed, let alone those not yet ripened, and it certainly was a bridge too far for BK. To each his own in his own time. On a personal note, I hear UG Krishnamurti's ashes having a metaphysical laugh....UG is the only other person I have come across apart from Bhagwan who is 'militant' in non-duality. He gave no quarter to what he referred to as 'movement of thought'. Today's session from MJ firmly brought the spotlight back on movement of thought for the appearance of the reality, and its subsidence as the necessity for realization. Many thanks, Michaelji🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏

[@atmannityananda-autognosia]

11:00 ❤ Have you ever heard anything about external samadhi when one loses himself in the external experience? That is, the experiencer collapses and there is only the experience, or better to say, there is experiencing bu none, that is, no person, no ego😮

[@marlobardo4274]

The difference between philosophical solipsism and the solum ipsum teachings of a true Advaitin is simply this... The philosophical solipist contends that there is only one LIMITED I and that is the philosophers own private and personal ego namely their own me which is definite and defined. Whereas for the Advaitin the solum ipsum [or self alone] means that there is only one UNLIMITED I and that I is the All or the Universal indefinite and undefined and that I is also the One or the Absolute as well as the true Self or atma. So only the Advaitin is able to directly perceive the I as self-identical to its own personal [ME or aham], interpersonal and intrapersonal relata [WE or aham-atma] and transpersonal aspects of atma and paramatma [I am that or I am that I am].

[@elisabethhgelid6969]

But all pain is a calling from the truth to be the truth , love, oneness that I am

[@ramnathmuthukrishnan3614]

The main point of contention between Bernardo and Michael is the definition of EGO. For Bernardo, there is SATCHIT and it remains so until it doesn’t experience anything else which is what Michael is also saying as Bhagvan’s view. When this SATCHIT starts experiencing phenomena it becomes the EGO. This is what Bernardo is saying. What Michael is saying as per my understanding is this SATCHIT becomes EGO and then starts experiencing phenomena. even though it happens simultaneously, causally phenomena follow the EGO. But I think Bernardo’s question is why should we bring up this EGO? We can easily say that when CHIT remains as it is it is AJATHA VADA. But when CHIT experiences phenomena it is EGO. I think what Michael is saying is CHIT becomes EGO and starts experiencing phenomena

[@atmannityananda-autognosia]

13:00 ❤ what does it mean that suffering is unreal? unreal in itself says nothing, everyone gives a different meaning to these words. we have to clearly define unreality, imagination and illusion.

[@dubbelkastrull]

Should have just continued. If the audience is too slow then too bad for them

[@je.1525]

It seems like a paradox one must hold. The one experiencing its self as limitation through the experiencer "ego". All though the ego is a mirage within the One, to the ego experiencing the mirage, it is very real. There is no doubt that the actions of ego leave an impression upon the environment. Therefore our actions and character are of the utmost value or detriment to our environment. Why should there be so much emphasis on whether the ego is real or unreal? Or if manifestation is an act of creation or dream? Is it not a gift and burden to experience? Shouldn't we be greatfull for experience in itself? To look out and see the chatoic beauty of creation, to look within and know that same power created the ego that is experiencing this and all that this ego precives. Even though in actuality theres nothing happening, theres still something happening. Paradox. I say this with all love and respect for Sri Ramanas teaching. But this seems like a subtle nuance debate between the enlightened.

[@atmannityananda-autognosia]

17:33 ❤ Therefore, since no one is aware of the center of the earth we must conclude that the center of the earth does not exist 😂. Or, when we sleep alone in our bedroom, since no one is aware of the bedroom and our body then neither the bedroom nor the body exists 😂.

[@brianbritchie8710]

Correct.

[@xhesitase9729]

Most dont understand because they are hopping from one teaching to another. There is no attention, just superficial understa ding of most things. It is that simple. Been with Michael and have been reading bhagavan's teachings for the past 3 years since 2020, and I know this is where I should be.

[@garryrivera]

We're all stupid except for you after 3 years you are enlightened and know everything. You must be a spiritual genius

[@SleepyGaming8]

Bees die if they sting, hornets wont die. Those guys just keep stinging multiple times. Om namo Ramana

[@jazzsnare]

If there is but one ego, it woke up with Bhagavan, so why are we still experiencing ourselves as ego?

[@johnmcdonald260]

No, ego didn't wake up with Bhagavan because there is really no ego, Bhagavan never woke up. Why? You'll need to study more Bhagavan's essential texts and especially practice atma-vichara, otherwise you are practicing spiritual trivial pursuit which is a waste of time. Most here, especially those Kastrup fans won't grasp eka-jiva and it is not necessary. It will come on its own accord. What is necessary though is to practice atma-vichara, without that one will never grasp the more subtle points which are beyond the mind.

[@jazzsnare]

@@johnmcdonald260 I will rephrase the issue. If the pure awareness saw through the illusory nature of its purported ego, with Buddha, with Bhagavan, why is the game not over? One non-existent ego, so one solution. It might be that this is not comprehensible without my own repetition of this process, but if there is only one non-existent ego, it was already done. Seems paradoxical to me. The Self already saw the Self, as it is. Why must it do it over and over again, jiva by jiva? The dreamer woke up already, however you want to pose it. Yet the dream continues anyway, characters in search of an exit.

[@johnmcdonald260]

@@jazzsnare There is no "jiva by jiva", there is only ONE jiva, eka-jiva. Pure awareness does NOT look through illusion, there is no illusion for pure awareness. The people, including Bhagvan, you see are a projection/creation/imagination of mind. They really do not exist but as an imagination. To understand that better you may want to review the story and implications of the rope/snake analogy. Of course that is paradoxical since mind cannot grasp non-duality ever, it is always paradoxical. Bhagavan and any other figures, Buddha etc. did not wake up because even that "action" is an imagination by YOU! Get it? There is really no Buddha and Bhagavan, only YOU!

[@dubbelkastrull]

22:28 bookmark

[@elisabethhgelid6969]

So it is all about identity as separate or not

[@Iiisgracebestill]

Yes❤what identities or can identify itself as separate. cx

[@Iiisgracebestill]

Isn’t the the body ego world, seeking and finding enlightenment based on the idea we accept as real, all that is being seen. cx

[@rkrishad]

I beg to differ here Sir. It’s not that Bernardo did not understand the logic. But simply that logical position of Eka-jiva vada does not appeal to him. IMHO Bernardo holds the many-jiva interpretation to be more appealing. The fundamental conclusion / insight by both however is not different. In the Brahma Sutras 4.5 the limits of reason is discussed. I am very positive that Bhaghavan would have been immensely satisfied by the level of debate between Eka( one) -jiva POV and Aneka ( many )jiva ( pov) point of view. Both are equally valid view points. This discussion between you and Bernardo could be summed up by the question. “How many ripples are there in the Lake?”. Both of you hold the ultimate reality is the lake. Eka jiva suggests that there is only one ripple , Aneka ( many) jiva pov suggests that there are many ripples . Both are equally valid pov and is only a matter of personal choice.

[@sobeit1506]

David Godman ( the other well-known Ramana expert ) fundamentally disagrees with Michael on this. Be interesting to see a debate between the two gents.

[@PaulMcDonagh-rv6vc]

Interesting, disagrees on what bit exactly?

[@rblais]

It is unclear what you're referring to when you say 'on this', (…)

[@sobeit1506]

@@PaulMcDonagh-rv6vc Sorry about the ambiguity of my comment. “on this” refers to Michael’s interpretation that the manifestation of the world is a projection of the one ego and that therefore upon the dissolution of that one ego, through atma Vichara, the manifestation of the world disappears. As this is a radical departure from the classical Advaita Vedanta position that manifestation remains after self-realisation I would like to see Michael’s view challenged publicly by someone as erudite as David Godman.

[@sobeit1506]

@@rblais Michael’s interpretation of Ramana’s words seem very justified but as Ramana was writing in hard to understand Tamil verse the meaning is very open to misunderstanding. For that reason I would like to see Michael defend his position ( the world disappearing upon self-realisation ) against an expert ( like David Godman ) who interprets Ramana’s words differently.

[@rblais]

@@sobeit1506 Okay, thank you for explaining. I wasn’t able to find anything on Michael's blog about a disagreement with David Godman. However, one of the articles that mentions him is ‘Metaphysical solipsism, idealism and creation theories in the teachings of Sri Ramana’. It starts: “In a comment that he wrote on one of my recent articles, What should we believe?, Sankarraman referred to an article on David Godman’s blog, Swami Siddheswarananda’s views on Bhagavan’s Teachings on Creation, in which David discussed some opinions that Swami Siddheswarananda (former president of the Mysore branch of the Ramakrishna Math and founder of the Centre Védantique Ramakrichna in France) expressed about Sri Ramana’s views on solipsism and the idealistic theory of creation known as dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda …” happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2014/09/metaphysical-solipsism-idealism-and.html Or more currently, 'The dreamer is ourself as ego, not whatever person we seem to be in a dream', that starts with: 'A friend called Reinhard recently sent me what he described as ‘a pleasant exchange with David [Godman] about ajata and the discrepancy to ‘our’ ordinary perception’ and wrote, ‘If you have some comments, they are always welcome’.' happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-dreamer-is-ourself-as-ego-not.html 🙏🙏🙏

[@raindogred]

8. But are we this person? In other words, is this person what we actually are? That's where the debate was de-railed. Bernardo says there is a world out there, but it's mental..we are dissociated instances of the mind/God i.e ripples on the lake. We have the dasboard of perception ie. the planes cockpit that helps us navigate the world/survive/stay alive, without which we would melt into entropic soup if we were exposed to unfiltered reality/god's mind. Michael your line of argument is cohesive if and only if, as you say, we are illusions of a singular "ego". This needs to be better explained to Bernardo..it's a bridge too far for me, along with solopsism in general. Bernardo successfully defended his position in this debate, for my money. It makes far more sense that there are many "ego"/"dissociations" as he puts it, than a singular. One of the best talks I have ever watched, it was incredibly powerfull hearing both guys.. liked and subbed..i will watch it a few more times.

[@PaulMcDonagh-rv6vc]

Precise points, well written. However, how can there possibly be multiple ego's? Ego is an illusory product of consciousness, and consciousness an offshoot/conduit for existence, and as existence is singular, how can the ego, which is consciousness, be singular? The very last end product of ego's manifestation - (the formed thoughts -based on localised conditioning) will be the only forms that contain a unique, seeming individual difference that will be formed by this localised conditioning (i.e everyone's home environments will be different - and so end-product thoughts will be somewhat unique) Basically, "existence - being- consciousness" - cannot be broken up. It is one singular expression. The only slight "seeming uniqueness" is the final end product (thought). But even then, those thoughts are swayed by others/stimuli in the environment, and they too are expressing thoughts from consciousness, so even seeming individual thoughts, are directed by the one singular consciousness. Then to go further, if we are indeed the "projector" of this seeming world, then everything is a product of consciousness, absolutely everything! Hope that i explained this clear enough.

[@insiderich7372]

​@PaulMcDonagh-rv6vc Just one correction in an otherwise flawless write up...ego is not conscious, it borrows it from the very existence from which it arises..ego appears when seemingly inert matter (which itself is a manifestation of consciousness) gets illuminated by the glow/awareness of consciousness...

[@PaulMcDonagh-rv6vc]

@@insiderich7372 Thanks. I have mulled over what you have written, and its interested me greatly. i have wrote 3 replies in response, but deleted each one to start again. Therefore I have to admit, that those intricacies you present, tie me in nots. For the sake of the truth of the matter, I would ask kindly that you cite a source for that statement. That would be much appreciated. Or, perhaps this is something you have seen via direct experience? If so, I would be even more interested to hear more. What I wrote originally, was gleaned from observation in the abidance in the "I AM", and was not an externally acquired knowledge . To be totally open an honest, although one has been abiding in "I AM" for a few years now, and many truths unveiled, I have yet to uncover the intricacies you describe. I see, or, i am aware of, only - existence - consciousness - awareness as a whole (without words) and to break it apart into its spin off components gets rather academic, and not experiential. So although I don't dispute your assessment on these intricacies, I would either require a source for where an enlightened being has experienced this, or perhaps your own direct experience. Otherwise, how are we to know experientially that this described mechanism of consciousness is true. Hope that makes sense, i dont intent to be abrasive, I say this out of pure interest in further enquiry. These days, one tries to avoid the conceptual framework of non duality, (although admittedly, i do enjoy discussion about it) in favour of the direct experience of it. Basically, I want to go further than mere book knowledge. For it to be true (book knowledge), it needs to be verified for oneself. Because if it can be verified for oneself (just one aspect) then we can be 99% sure, that we are of the very same consciousness. It is self verifying, and that really excites me. Conceptual framework of consciousness really interests me, and is used as a spring board/impetus for further deep experiential experimentation, but one is always cautious, because ultimately, all of what we speak, has to be completely dropped when approaching the meditative "I AM" abidance state. As i am sure you are aware, the self can only be approached once all external knowledge is totally surrendered.

[@atmannityananda-autognosia]

5:00: ❤ Do you really understand that the important thing is not what Ramana said about the ego but the truth about it? 😮I do not think so.

[@Nooneself]

No!!...if your meditation is effective, then ego is an illusion. Ego is a protective mechanism derived from evolution. The OBSERVER is the permanent "SELF". BEST WISHES

[@JohnMilller]

no 11 (and 12) is a statement that cannot be said to be true only through logic - the therefore in the sentence is not based on anything logically provable. Anyway i contest that I am illusory in the first place - I am chit sat ananda at the base. So is everybody else. But they are not illusory. They are also chit sat ananda.

[@JackHarrison-x5c]

A psychosomatic illusion, there is no 'I am' (a binary 'one' or 'pronoun') - the misinterpreted sense or sensation or feeling felt and thought to be 'I am' (albeit prior to words) is nevertheless, and on the contrary, and perhaps surprisingly, the entire appearance! i.e. the apparent 'Everything' (for 'No-one') the totality of imaginary 'Space-time' (temporal perception or consciousness) The sensation or feeling felt and commonly misinterpreted to be 'I' or 'I am', isn't You' (timeless Awareness) as whatever can be perceived cannot be perceiving (including the sense or feeling of 'I am') however, by clearly and fully seeing that, of which you're not (i.e. by focussing on the sensation or feeling felt as 'I' or 'I am' - prior to words) you, the timeless Absolute, remain free from 'it' - free from what you're not simply by its illumination, free from the misinterpretation that is but a feeling thought to be 'I' (thought to be you as a 'separate individual') which, again, isn't You' (timeless Awareness) but the crude sum total of the imaginary and memorised manifestation i.e. the entire appearance of 'Space-time-causality', that is to say that the ENTIRETY of temporal perception (i.e. what's appearing or consciousness) is nonother than the sensation or feeling erroneously labelled or misidentified as 'I' or 'I am' (an impossible 'separate' and 'terminal' 'entity', 'pronoun' or 'individual') that is simply not happenING (or verbING) and not even apparently, as already there is NO 'pronoun' or 'ExperiencER' or 'ObservER' or any real 'nouns' in existence. If you don't clearly see or illuminate that of what you're not i.e. the imaginary 'ObservER' (alleged 'pronoun') that is to say the sense or feeling of 'I' or 'I am' (prior to words) you (timeless Awareness) will by default, imagine yourself to be looking from 'it', from what you're not, as a purely conceptual and dead interpretation. There is no 'DreamER' or 'ExperiencER' or 'ObservER', there is only timeless 'DreamING' (verbING') or 'ExperiencING' or 'ObservING', an indescribable, universal (thus formless) and timeless 'activity' for lack or any word, any lifeless word. See clearly the difference between an insentient and temporal binary 'belief' (or temporal perception of memory and imagination) with such a 'belief' being just as liable to disbelief, and, by contrast, the unchanging undoubtable actuality of 'BelievING' - which is actual and alive and 'wet' (qualitative) formless, timeless and indescribable. Ala; there is no 'ExperiencER' (or 'pronoun') only 'ExperiencING' (verb') Regards, 'Jack Harrison' (Yourself)

[@frcardim1]

This world can be ilusion but if you are not "iluminated" this ilusion will be a real experience, so ignore this world will be a bad experience until you experience that you and everythink is one, this is the problem with advaita don't have a easy way to show that everythink is one

[@johnmcdonald260]

Who says to ignore the world? That cannot work since we, as ego, can never ignore the world because the world exists as long as ego exists. And who is illuminated? There are no persons who are illuminated, only pure awareness.

[@johnmcdonald260]

This previous discussion with Kastrup show the limits of spiritual concepts. If someone grasps Bhagavan's teaching or not does not depend on how good someone knowledgeable, like Michael, explains things but on the spiritual maturity of the recipient. Kastrup, as intelligent he may appear, is obviously not ready yet for Bhagavan's teaching and somebody like Michael cannot change that. Thus his second attempt in this video won't benefit Kastrup, however it may benefit a few others. Looking at those many questions here and especially on the previous video, many are truly not ready for Bhagavan, that is quite obvious. Michael's talk to Kastrup feels like those Christian missionaries who preached Christian values to the African natives in the 19th century, it is redundant and a waste of time. And before someone argues prarabdha karma and Michael has no choice, one can use that argument also for terrorists who slaughter innocent civilians and also had no choice.

[@garyhaywood1361]

A lot of repetition. The presentation would have flowed better without this. Those taking notes could just replay the video for notes they missed.

[@garryrivera]

Bernardo didn't have any trouble comprehending what you were saying nor did I. He just disagreed with you. Bernardo's perspective is that the primitive fundamental is a field of subjectivity and, to use the language of spacetime as a metaphor, everything that we see in the physical world is an excitation of that subjective field. That's it. There's just that which is manifesting as everything that has the experience of what it's like to be it?. We are all illusory but our experiences to us are real even though we are all disillusions projected by the one thing. You simply just add another layer to that cake. You say there is just one thing and from that one thing comes. The one ego and from the one ego comes everything that experiences what it's like to be it. So you're throwing in a layer of ego on top of the layer of fundamental reality and then top it off with subjective experience. Maybe that's true. Maybe that's not true. Who knows. But you guys weren't far off from each other. It seems that just because he did not agree with you, you conclude that he did not understand you and I think that is hubris on your part.

[@back-seat-driver1355]

so many words, so many stumbling, sigh!

[@innerlight617]

i totally respect swamiji's interpretation of Bhagavan teachings,but i would be dishonest if i say that i understand it, the same way. My understanding of non-duality is closer to this point of view. kzbin.info/www/bejne/p3KXhJl7Zp2CqaM

[@BaronZaraguin]

Thank you for your explanation Michael. What is still not clear for me is why it is said there is just one ego? If the world is unreal with all its perceived egos, including the one we seem to be, then why not just say there is no ego at all?

[@SriRamanaTeachings]

Yes, the ultimate truth is that there is no ego at all, but so long as we experience the appearance of multiplicity, we seem to be ego, the experiencer of all this. However, if we investigate ourself keenly enough, we will see that what we actually are is not this ego but only pure awareness, whose nature is sat-cit-ānanda (pure being-awareness-happiness), which is infinite, eternal and immutable, so we have never risen as ego and therefore have never known anything other than ourself. Therefore this one ego is not real, but only when we are willing to accept that everything else seems to exist only in the view of ourself as this one (unreal) ego will we be willing to investigate ourself and thereby surrender this ego and everything else, as Bhagavan implies in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/10/ulladu-narpadu-tamil-text.html#un26 “If ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if ego does not exist, everything does not exist. Ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this [namely ego] is alone is giving up everything.” Namo Ramanaya 🙏🙏🙏

[@rajat3311]

@@SriRamanaTeachingsit seems like this is one of the most crucial part of Bhagavan’s teachings - that everything else exists only in the view of ourself as ego. It seems all of my difficulty in trying to turn within is because I think the world is real and not just my mental projection. So I have likes and dislikes etc and I feel I have to do this and do that. So if I trust Bhagavan when he says the snake is just a rope and the world is only my projection, and if I am deeply dissatisfied with the world, then why bother about anything other than being self attentive as taught by Bhagavan!

[@Iiisgracebestill]

Every name and form in existence is only the ego existing. Still absolutely, always alone everywhere, ego doesn’t exist. When ego doesn’t exist, nothing exists. cx

[@Iiisgracebestill]

If ego exist, in reality nothing rises to exist. Alone absolute, pure, happiness exists. cx