Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi

[Graciano Goudreau]

Michael,

Speaking from my own perspective do you think it is correct to also say that because Bhagavan has manifested in my awareness and because his teaching is (self investigation / self surrender) the very fact he has manifested means I am ready for his path? If I were not he may manifest as a different guru and give me a different teaching that is more appropriate to my level of spiritual development? In other words the very fact he found me so to speak means I am ready to practise what he teaches?

Thank you very much.

You guys sure like to write pulp.

On one hand you denounce glamorous yatras, but on the other hand, you cannot resist calling your inner journey as special. You, of all people, should be able to see your egos, but you are indeed essentially blind.

Why do you guys have to compare yourselves with others in order to show yourselves as 'better'?

If people go around having glamorous yatras, what is it to you? Egos are inflated because of egos; not because of yatras.

All I see here is your inflated egos resting on the soft cushions of the 'recognition' of a 'superior' understanding.

You make a lot of noise about 'quietly undertaking' your inner journey; I know for a fact that the voice of that contradiction is suffocating between your egos' bottoms and those cushions.

Preachers and scholars; where would we be without them, huh?!

Anonymous, in reply to your comment of 17:00, yes, certainly, the fact that Bhagavan has come into our life and attracted us to his teachings means that his path of self-investigation and self-surrender is meant for us and we are meant for it.

We are ready if we are willing. If we did not have at least a certain degree of willingness we would not have been attracted to his path, so our attraction to it shows that we are ready for it.

Sanjay Lohia,

I will never forget my arduous journey to Tibet, Mount Kailas and Lake Manasarovar in the year 1993. But at that time I could not dive much deeply inside. When I sat alone - on that day for some hours without the usual obligatory guarding by Chinese guardians - in a snow shower very near in front of the famous and truly breathtaking south face of Mount Kailas the Lord sent shivers of cold and heat up and down my inner being and I became in fact completely purified ...for some time.

Seven years later for the first time I came to Arunachala...

By the way, Michael talks about 'yātrās' not yartas.

That greatest pilgrimage is to bow down to the Lord. Even to merely think it conjures an inner joy. What does "bow down to the Lord" mean? It is to remain as you are, to cease "rising up and going out", to cease being lost in concepts.

Dear Anonymous,

I don't think you've understood what Michael is trying to say when he says that the ultimate yatra is the inner yatra. In fact he has said that we SHOULD NOT DISCOURAGE ANY ONE FROM TAKING EXTERNAL YATRAS as for that person, at that point of time on his/her spiritual journey, it may be the best thing to do. He has in fact explained to his friend that she shouldn't feel that Atma Vichara being a very simple and straightforward technique for self realises is any less than taking external YATRAS.

Secondly if you feel that Michael and the others on the blog are writing pulp then you shouldn't be here on thus chat.

Dear Anonymous, this blog is like a SATSANG, where we all share our experiences on this path and all of us can gain from the other . If we are at the same frequency we will feel tuned in and will agree with the OTHER, if not we can always question Michael or any other person and try to understand what they are saying.

At the end of the day there's no real right or wrong. It's all about what phase of the spiritual journey each one of us is. So let's be SILENT (& civil) and try to follow Bhagawan's path asking ourselves the question to whom does this anger arise? To whom does this confusion arise.

May Bhagawan guide us on the correct path.

Please put your burden down and travel light.

Thank you .

Dear Anonymous,

We need to first ignore our own ego before trying to ignore other's ego. just chill dear friend. Enjoy the journey. Ultimately all of Bhagawan's followers are moving towards same goal of eradication of the false ego. Michael is doing a wonderful job of keeping up this blog . Bhagawan is very much guiding it. So let's try and keep it simple and enjoy the journey. Take care and let's all learn from each other.

Let me see if I understand this.

"The ONLY real pilgrimage is the one Bhagavan has shown us".

As Bhagavan has left the physical form, Michael James is the only one, the only best interpreter, who teaches the only real pilgrimage.

Of all the spiritual teachers for millennium, Michael James teaches the only real pilgrimage.

Yes, why go to the Himalayas to meet holy men when the ONLY holy man is right here! now! in the form of Michael James!

We are caught in the web of Michael James grace and now have a seat on his super luxury express train.

This is nothing but ego.

Neither Michael James nor his predecessors were realized.

If Michael James actually believed all that he teaches he would withdraw into silence and practice what he preaches till he attains the goal.

Michael James is a salesman who doesn't use his product. The ultimate hypocrite.

Just another supremely egotistical preacher.

Hi Salazar,

Exactly.

Some men lust for political power, or monetary wealth, or sexual indulgence, the list is endless.

Claiming special religious insight (or special translation skills) and the subsequent fame is just another type of ego delusion.

Every time Michael James says things like "I have the ONLY way to God" there is a tremendous ego boost for Michael. Isn't he special? And... there is a tremendous attraction for those who are looking for an authority.

But... Michael James knowledge is only intellectual, he does not speak from the realized state so he has fallen prey to his ego and consequentially he corrupts the teaching.

Michael is actually selling a belief system where he is the only dispenser of truth.

He has said this on a number of occasions "What you must believe is....."

People think that Michael is "scholarly".

No, this is a "faith based" system he is peddling.

MJ says for example that the ONLY way to realize God is using a type of meditation where the body and world disappear from awareness.

If this were a scholarly environment we could entertain the views of others like Sankara AND Bhagavan (from other works of Bhagavan that Michael tells us to avoid) who speak out against relying on this type of meditation alone and investigate this in our experience. But no: this is a faith based system with one authority.

People get really agitated when we challenge Michael because we are challenging their belief system.

The environment here is very similar to a church... only the material is different.

In a christian church it is difficult to challenge some premises. For example when we're told "give me your money, faith, interest and then Jesus will save you after you die" this is difficult to dis-prove?

But here it's easy. Michael says he has the ONLY way to God.

If so... why hasn't he taken it?

IF this were true... he would be sitting in a cave somewhere practicing his meditation endlessly while seeking the highest.

Anything less is is hypocrisy. He doesn't even believe in his advice, only in his authority.

How incredibly hypocritical to say "I have the ONLY way to God" and to not be able to demonstrate it.

The truth is that Michael James prefers the adulation and ego stroking that he gets from being a religious leader and this is much more preferable to him than taking the discipline required to realize God. Regarding "discipline" I'm thinking of Annamalai Swami who invested in years of discipline, or Nisargadatta who says he spent years in "I AM" as much as possible.

Venkat,

Yes, I, too, find it difficult to accept some views of Michael, though most of his other interpretations and teachings are quite good. The views that I don't accept are:

1. Upon self-realization the world disappears for the self-realized. I know there are some arguments advanced to support that claim, but I do not find them persuasive.

2. In deep sleep, ONLY the Self exists, and there is no trace of any ego/mind even in its seed form, that is, there is no causal body (ignorance) also in that state. Again, different arguments are presented in support, but I do not find them persuasive.

3. Nisargadatta Maharaj, Papaji and J. Krishnamurti have taught something contrary to what Bhagavan taught, and so there is nothing that can be gained from reading them. I think this stems from Michael's particular interpretation of what he sees Bhagavan as saying.

Earlier, you and some others have tried to argue against the above (and some other such) claims but have not been successful. By and large I have chosen to stay clear of these debates because I found that ultimately it seemed to be boiling down to what one believes is the case and which authorities one places one's trust in. Of course, from the position we are in we can only accept what strikes our individual intellects as reasonable to believe in because we do not obviously "know".

So, overall, I am content to believe in what I do on some matters, knowing that Michael subscribes to a different viewpoint on those issues, because in the final analysis, those views are somewhat peripheral to the journey on the spiritual path. What finally determines one's success on the spiritual journey is the extent to which one is able to let go of all the stories that the mind tells and would have us believe because as Kena Upanishad says "That which the mind cannot understand, but because of which the mind understands, know that alone to be Brahman, and not this that people worship here." Ultimately, if we keep the perspective that ONLY Consciousness exists, and the world we see around and ourselves in it, including our minds, are nothing but appearances or mere names and forms of that One Consciousness, then we are home free. That perspective will also put us in harmony with others and everything else in the universe because the "I" that we are now taking ourselves to be in our state of ajnana is nothing but a mere name and form, much like the other "I"s that others are believing themselves to be, and actually speaking there is no reality or truth in the plural. As Erwin Schrodinger, of Schrodinger's equation fame in quantum physics, put it: "Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. How does the idea of plurality (emphatically opposed by the Upanishad writers) arise at all? ... the only possible alternative is simply to keep the immediate experience that consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown; that there *is* only one thing and that what seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing produced by deception (the Indian maya) - in much the same way Gaurisankar and Mt. Everest turn out to be the same peak seen from different valleys." (From: What is Life), as quoted here _scientistmystics.htm

3a8082e126