What creates all thoughts is only the ego, which is the root and essence of the mind

In a comment on one of my recent articles, If we choose to do any harmful actions, should we consider them to be done according to destiny (prārabdha)?, a friend called Salazar wrote, ‘Robert Adams, a Jnani, said that the mind cannot create thoughts. Frankly, I believe rather him than any ajnani’, so since Bhagavan taught us that all thoughts are created only by the ego, which is the root and essence of the mind, I am writing this in an attempt to clear up this and certain other related confusions. In Nāṉ Yār? Bhagavan says unequivocally that the mind creates or projects all thoughts Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: though the term ‘mind’ can refer to the totality of all thoughts, what the mind essentially is is just the ego Nāṉ Yār? paragraphs 5 and 8: the ego is the original thought, being the thought that is aware of all other thoughts, so without it no other thought could exist Nāṉ Yār? paragraph 4: because it is aware, the ego has the power to create the appearance of everything in its awareness Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: the ego is the first cause, being the sole cause for the appearance of everything else, so if the ego does not exist nothing else exists The consciousness in which all thoughts appear is the mind, which is a mere semblance of real consciousness, so without the mind there could be no thoughts Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 14: other thoughts are second and third persons, which depend for their seeming existence on the ego, the first person Nothing else can seem to exist unless perceived by the ego, so the ego is the root cause or creator of everything Bhagavan’s body and mind are created only by our ego, but the actions of his mind, speech and body are controlled only by grace Nāṉ Yār? paragraph 15: grace in the form of guru saves us from the ego without actually doing anything 1. In Nāṉ Yār? Bhagavan says unequivocally that the mind creates or projects all thoughts Firstly, Salazar, are you sure that Robert Adams actually said that the mind cannot create thoughts, and if so where is it recorded that he said so, and in what context did he say so? If he had understood and followed Bhagavan’s teachings as well as many people seem to believe he had, I find it hard to believe that he would have expressed such an idea when it is so contrary to the fundamental principles of Bhagavan’s teachings. However, if he did so, whom should we believe, either him or Bhagavan, whom he acknowledged to be not only a jñāni but also his guru? Since from all accounts he was a humble and sincere devotee of Bhagavan, I assume that he would advise us to believe Bhagavan rather than himself if he ever inadvertently contradicted any of the core principles of Bhagavan’s teachings. If what you wrote is correct, Robert Adams said that the mind cannot create thoughts, whereas Bhagavan wrote in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Yār?: ‘மன மென்பது ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தி லுள்ள ஓர் அதிசய சக்தி. அது சகல நினைவுகளையும் தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது’ (maṉam eṉbadu ātma-sorūpattil uḷḷa ōr atiśaya śakti. adu sakala niṉaivugaḷai-y-um tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu), which means ‘What is called mind is an atiśaya śakti [an extraordinary power] that exists in ātma-svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself]. It projects all thoughts [or makes all thoughts appear]’. ‘தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது’ (tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu) is the present third person singular form of தோற்றுவி, which is a causative verb that means ‘cause to appear’, ‘make appear’, ‘project’, ‘produce’ or ‘create’ (being the causative equivalent of தோன்று, which means to appear, arise, spring up, come into existence, come into view or seem to be), so if Robert Adams or anyone else claims that the mind cannot create thoughts, they are directly contradicting what Bhagavan wrote here. In the same paragraph Bhagavan goes on to explain that excluding thoughts there is no such thing as mind; that thought alone is therefore the nature (svarūpa) of the mind; that the world is nothing but thoughts; and that the mind projects the world from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself, just as a spider spins out thread from within itself and again draws it back into itself. Thus he explained unequivocally that everything other than ourself (all phenomena, everything that appears and disappears) is just a thought, and that the creator of all thoughts is the mind.2. Upadēśa Undiyār verse 18: though the term ‘mind’ can refer to the totality of all thoughts, what the mind essentially is is just the ego Here it is important to understand that Bhagavan uses the term ‘mind’ in two slightly different senses. That is, sometimes he uses it to refer to the totality of all thoughts, and more frequently he uses it to refer to the root and creator of all thoughts, namely the ego, which is the primal thought called ‘I’, as he explains in verse 18 of Upadēśa Undiyār: எண்ணங்க ளேமனம் யாவினு நானெனு மெண்ணமே மூலமா முந்தீபற யானா மனமென லுந்தீபற.eṇṇaṅga ḷēmaṉam yāviṉu nāṉeṉu meṇṇamē mūlamā mundīpaṟa yāṉā maṉameṉa lundīpaṟa.பதச்சேதம்: எண்ணங்களே மனம். யாவினும் நான் எனும் எண்ணமே மூலம் ஆம். யான் ஆம் மனம் எனல்.Padacchēdam (word-separation): eṇṇaṅgaḷ-ē maṉam. yāviṉ-um nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam-ē mūlam ām. yāṉ ām maṉam eṉal.அன்வயம்: எண்ணங்களே மனம். யாவினும் நான் எனும் எண்ணமே மூலம் ஆம். மனம் எனல் யான் ஆம்.Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): eṇṇaṅgaḷ-ē maṉam. yāviṉ-um nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam-ē mūlam ām. maṉam eṉal yāṉ ām.English translation: Thoughts alone are mind. Of all, the thought called ‘I’ alone is the root. What is called mind is ‘I’.Elaborated translation: Thoughts alone are mind [or the mind is only thoughts]. Of all [thoughts], the thought called ‘I’ alone is the mūla [the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause]. [Therefore] what is called mind is [essentially just] ‘I’ [the ego or root-thought called ‘I’]. That is, though the term ‘mind’ is often used to refer to the totality of all thoughts, among all the thoughts that constitute the mind, the only one that is constant so long as the mind endures is the primal thought called ‘I’, which is the ego, so Bhagavan says that this is the root of all thoughts, and that it is therefore what the mind essentially is. Therefore whenever he uses the term ‘mind’ we have to understand from the context whether he is using it in the sense of the totality of all thoughts or (as he generally did) in the sense of the one root thought, namely the ego, which is the subject that projects and perceives all other thoughts.3. Nāṉ Yār? paragraphs 5 and 8: the ego is the original thought, being the thought that is aware of all other thoughts, so without it no other thought could exist Though the ego is just a thought, it is fundamentally different to all other thoughts, because it is the only thought that is endowed with awareness, so whereas no other thought is aware either of itself or of anything else, the ego is aware both of itself and of all other thoughts. Therefore since all thoughts are just illusory appearances, and since no illusory appearance could seem to exist if there were not something in whose view it seemed to exist, all other thoughts depend for their seeming existence upon the seeming existence of the ego, in whose view alone they seem to exist, as Bhagavan states categorically in the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Yār?: மனதில் தோன்றும் நினைவுக ளெல்லாவற்றிற்கும் நானென்னும் நினைவே முதல் நினைவு. இது எழுந்த பிறகே ஏனைய நினைவுகள் எழுகின்றன. தன்மை தோன்றிய பிறகே முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தோன்றுகின்றன; தன்மை யின்றி முன்னிலை படர்க்கைக ளிரா.maṉadil tōṉḏṟum niṉaivugaḷ ellāvaṯṟiṟkum nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē mudal niṉaivu. idu eṙunda piṟahē ēṉaiya niṉaivugaḷ eṙugiṉḏṟaṉa. taṉmai tōṉḏṟiya piṟahē muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tōṉḏṟugiṉḏṟaṉa; taṉmai y-iṉḏṟi muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ irā. Of all the thoughts that appear [or arise] in the mind, the thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought [the primal, basic, original or causal thought]. Only after this arises do other thoughts arise. Only after the first person [the ego or primal thought called ‘I’] appears do second and third persons [all other things] appear; without the first person second and third persons do not exist. What he says in the first of these sentences he repeats in the eighth paragraph: நினைவே மனத்தின் சொரூபம். நானென்னும் நினைவே மனத்தின் முதல் நினைவு; அதுவே யகங்காரம்.niṉaivē maṉattiṉ sorūpam. nāṉ-eṉṉum niṉaivē maṉattiṉ mudal niṉaivu; adu-v-ē y-ahaṅkāram. Thought alone is the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or actual nature] of the mind. The thought called ‘I’ alone is the first thought of the mind; it alone is the ego. In both these passages he says that the ego or thought called ‘I’ is ‘முதல் நினைவு’ (mudal niṉaivu), ‘the first thought’, in which the word முதல் means not only first but also primal, original, root, basic, fundamental or causal, so by using this word he emphasises that no other thought can appear prior to the appearance of the ego, and that the ego is therefore the root cause for the appearance of all other thoughts. In one of your earlier comments you wrote, ‘According to Bhagavan the ego/mind is just a bunch of thoughts. […] But then if the ego/mind IS a bunch of thoughts then these thoughts cannot originate from the ego/mind!? Correct? A thought cannot create a thought, which seems logical. A thought has no inherent power’, but this is confusing the two senses in which Bhagavan used the term ‘mind’. He did say that the mind, in one sense, is a bundle of thoughts, but he never said that the ego is a bundle of thoughts. On the contrary, he made it clear that the ego is just one thought, namely the primal thought called ‘I’, and that when the term ‘mind’ is used in the sense of this one original thought, namely the ego, it is what creates all other thoughts.4. Nāṉ Yār? paragraph 4: because it is aware, the ego has the power to create the appearance of everything in its awareness Other thoughts have no inherent power, as you say, because whatever power they seem to have they derive only from the ego, but the ego does have inherent power, because as Bhagavan explains in verse 24 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, it is cit-jaḍa-granthi, the knot formed by the entanglement of awareness with an insentient body, binding them together as if they were one, so though it is not real as such, it does contain an element of reality, namely awareness (cit), from which it derives its seeming power. The entire power of creation lies only in the ego, because it alone creates the appearance of everything else, as Bhagavan explains very clearly in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Yār?: மன மென்பது ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தி லுள்ள ஓர் அதிசய சக்தி. அது சகல நினைவுகளையும் தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது. நினைவுகளை யெல்லாம் நீக்கிப் பார்க்கின்றபோது, தனியாய் மனமென் றோர் பொருளில்லை; ஆகையால் நினைவே மனதின் சொரூபம். நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை. தூக்கத்தில் நினைவுகளில்லை, ஜகமுமில்லை; ஜாக்ர சொப்பனங்களில் நினைவுகளுள, ஜகமும் உண்டு. சிலந்திப்பூச்சி எப்படித் தன்னிடமிருந்து வெளியில் நூலை நூற்று மறுபடியும் தன்னுள் இழுத்துக் கொள்ளுகிறதோ, அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது. மனம் ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தினின்று வெளிப்படும்போது ஜகம் தோன்றும். ஆகையால், ஜகம் தோன்றும்போது சொரூபம் தோன்றாது; சொரூபம் தோன்றும் (பிரகாசிக்கும்) போது ஜகம் தோன்றாது.maṉam eṉbadu ātma-sorūpattil uḷḷa ōr atiśaya śakti. adu sakala niṉaivugaḷai-y-um tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu. niṉaivugaḷai y-ellām nīkki-p pārkkiṉḏṟa-pōdu, taṉiyāy maṉam-eṉḏṟōr poruḷ illai; āhaiyāl niṉaivē maṉadiṉ sorūpam. niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam-eṉḏṟōr poruḷ aṉṉiyam-āy illai. tūkkattil niṉaivugaḷ illai, jagam-um illai; jāgra-soppaṉaṅgaḷil niṉaivugaḷ uḷa, jagam-um uṇḍu. silandi-p-pūcci eppaḍi-t taṉṉiḍamirundu veḷiyil nūlai nūṯṟu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉuḷ iṙuttu-k-koḷḷugiṟadō, appaḍiyē maṉam-um taṉṉiḍattilirundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu. maṉam ātma-sorūpattiṉiṉḏṟu veḷippaḍum-pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟum. āhaiyāl, jagam tōṉḏṟum-pōdu sorūpam tōṉḏṟādu; sorūpam tōṉḏṟum (pirakāśikkum) pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟādu . What is called mind is an atiśaya śakti [an extraordinary power] that exists in ātma-svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself]. It projects all thoughts [or makes all thoughts appear]. When one looks, excluding [eliminating or setting aside] all thoughts, solitarily there is not any such thing as mind; therefore thought alone is the svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or fundamental nature] of the mind. Excluding thoughts [or ideas], there is not separately any such thing as world. In sleep there are no thoughts, and [consequently] there is also no world; in waking and dream there are thoughts, and [consequently] there is also a world. Just as a spider spins out thread from within itself and again draws it back into itself, so the mind projects the world from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself. When the mind comes out from ātma-svarūpa, the world appears. Therefore when the world appears, svarūpa [one’s own form or real nature] does not appear; when svarūpa appears (shines), the world does not appear. Everything other than ourself appears only in the view of ourself as this ego or mind and not in the view of ourself as we actually are, so as long as we are aware of the appearance of anything else, we are aware of ourself only as the ego and not as we actually are. Therefore we cannot be aware of ourself as we actually are so long as we are aware of anything else, and we could not be aware of anything else if we were aware of ourself as we actually are.5. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: the ego is the first cause, being the sole cause for the appearance of everything else, so if the ego does not exist nothing else exists Therefore what creates the appearance of everything else is only the ego, so all other things are just an expansion of the ego, and without the ego they could not exist, as Bhagavan explains in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: அகந்தையுண் டாயி னனைத்துமுண் டாகு மகந்தையின் றேலின் றனைத்து — மகந்தையே யாவுமா மாதலால் யாதிதென்று நாடலே யோவுதல் யாவுமென வோர்.ahandaiyuṇ ḍāyi ṉaṉaittumuṇ ḍāhu mahandaiyiṉ ḏṟēliṉ ḏṟaṉaittu — mahandaiyē yāvumā mādalāl yādideṉḏṟu nādalē yōvudal yāvumeṉa vōr.பதச்சேதம்: அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும். அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்.Padacchēdam (word-separation): ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum. ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr.அன்வயம்: அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், அனைத்தும் இன்று. யாவும் அகந்தையே ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே யாவும் ஓவுதல் என ஓர்.Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, aṉaittum iṉḏṟu. yāvum ahandai-y-ē ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē yāvum ōvudal eṉa ōr.English translation: If the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist. [Hence] the ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this [the ego] is alone is giving up everything. The ego is the first cause, the cause of all other causes, and the cause of the entire web of cause and effect, because cause and effect seem to exist only in duality, and the appearance of duality is caused only by the rising of the ego, whose nature is to be aware of things of other than itself. As Bhagavan says in the first sentence of the seventh paragraph of Nāṉ Yār?, ‘யதார்த்தமா யுள்ளது ஆத்மசொரூப மொன்றே’ (yathārtham-āy uḷḷadu ātma-sorūpam oṉḏṟē), ‘What actually exists is only ātma-svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself]’, so the ego and everything else that appears are all just illusory fabrications (kalpanās), and since all fabrications seem to exist only in the view of the ego, Bhagavan says that if the ego comes into existence, everything else comes into existence, and if the ego does not exist, nothing else exists. The ego seems to exist only so long as we are looking elsewhere, that is, at anything other than ourself, so if we (this ego) investigate what we are by looking keenly at ourself alone, the ego will cease to exist, and hence everything else will cease to exist along with it. Therefore in order to be able to investigate this ego keenly enough to see what we actually are, we must be willing to give up everything, including ourself as this ego, as Bhagavan implies in the final sentence of this verse.6. The consciousness in which all thoughts appear is the mind, which is a mere semblance of real consciousness, so without the mind there could be no thoughts In the same paragraph in which you wrote that Robert Adams said that the mind cannot create thoughts, you also wrote, ‘In all of my practice I never have ever encountered a mind, just thoughts appearing in consciousness’, but the consciousness in which all thoughts appear is only the mind, which is not real consciousness (cit) but only a semblance of consciousness (cidābhāsa). Thoughts appear only in the mind because the mind is essentially just the ego, and it is only in the view of the ego that thoughts seem to exist, so other than in the mind, where else could thoughts appear? Moreover, though the mind is in essence just the ego, it expands as all other thoughts, so in its expanded form it is nothing but a bunch of thoughts, as you say. That is, in its essential form the mind is just the ego, the root of all other thoughts, but in its expanded form it is the totality of all thoughts, so no thought can exist independent of it, and hence whenever you encounter any thoughts or see ‘thoughts appearing in consciousness’, you are thereby encountering the mind. And you who are encountering it are the ego, which is its root and essence. Therefore you cannot deny the seeming existence of either the ego or the mind so long as you are aware of the appearance of any thoughts, and since according to Bhagavan all phenomena (this entire world and any other world that may appear) are just thoughts, so long as you are aware of any phenomena you are encountering the mind and are aware of yourself as the ego, the subject (the first person) who is aware of those objects (the second and third persons).7. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 14: other thoughts are second and third persons, which depend for their seeming existence on the ego, the first person The fact that all other thoughts, which are second and third persons, depend for their seeming existence on the seeming existence of the ego, the first person, is clearly implied by Bhagavan in verse 14 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: தன்மையுண்டேன் முன்னிலைப டர்க்கைக டாமுளவாந் தன்மையி னுண்மையைத் தானாய்ந்து — தன்மையறின் முன்னிலைப டர்க்கை முடிவுற்றொன் றாயொளிருந் தன்மையே தன்னிலைமை தான்.taṉmaiyuṇḍēṉ muṉṉilaipa ḍarkkaiga ḍāmuḷavān taṉmaiyi ṉuṇmaiyait tāṉāyndu — taṉmaiyaṟiṉ muṉṉilaipa ḍarkkai muḍivuṯṟoṉ ḏṟāyoḷirun taṉmaiyē taṉṉilaimai tāṉ.பதச்சேதம்: தன்மை உண்டேல், முன்னிலை படர்க்கைகள் தாம் உள ஆம். தன்மையின் உண்மையைத் தான் ஆய்ந்து தன்மை அறின், முன்னிலை படர்க்கை முடிவு உற்று, ஒன்றாய் ஒளிரும் தன்மையே தன் நிலைமை தான்.Padacchēdam (word-separation): taṉmai uṇḍēl, muṉṉilai paḍarkkaigaḷ tām uḷa-v-ām. taṉmaiyiṉ uṇmaiyai-t tāṉ āyndu taṉmai aṟiṉ, muṉṉilai paḍarkkai muḍivu uṯṟu, oṉḏṟāy oḷirum taṉmaiyē taṉ nilaimai tāṉ.English translation: If the first person exists, second and third persons will exist. If the first person ceases to exist [by] oneself investigating the truth of the first person, second and third persons will come to an end, and the taṉmai [reality or true ‘selfness’] that shines as one [undivided by the appearance of these three persons] alone will be oneself, one’s [real] state. Here Bhagavan uses the word தன்மை (taṉmai), which etymologically means ‘selfness’, in two different senses. In the first three occurrences of it in this verse it means the first person, the subject or ego, ‘I’, whereas in the fourth and final occurrence it means our real nature, which is the one infinite, indivisible and immutable self-awareness, other than which nothing exists. Other things (second and third persons) seem to exist only so long as we seem to be this ego (the first person), but if we investigate the truth of this ego keenly enough, it will cease to exist, and hence everything else will cease to exist along with it.8. Nothing else can seem to exist unless perceived by the ego, so the ego is the root cause or creator of everything Therefore the fact that the ego alone is what creates all other thoughts or phenomena is one of the most fundamental principles of Bhagavan’s teachings, and it was explained and emphasised by him in so many ways, so anyone who believes that the ego or mind cannot create thoughts has not really understood his teachings at all. To whom do all thoughts or phenomena appear? In whose view do they all seem to exist? They all appear only to the ego, so they seem to exist only in its view. This is why he says in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Yār?, referring to the ego as ‘mind’, which he describes as ‘an extraordinary power that exists in ātma-svarūpa [the real nature of oneself]’: ‘அது சகல நினைவுகளையும் தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது’ (adu sakala niṉaivugaḷai-y-um tōṯṟuvikkiṉḏṟadu), ‘It projects all thoughts [or makes all thoughts appear]’. As he often explained, there is no creation independent of our perception of it, because whatever is created is just an illusory appearance that seems to exist only in the view of the ego, who alone perceives it. This is what is called dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi vāda, the contention (vāda) that seeing or perception (dṛṣṭi) is the sole cause of creation (sṛṣṭi), or more precisely that perception is itself creation, and hence it is also called vivarta vāda, the contention that both the perceiver (the ego) and whatever it perceives are just an illusory appearance (vivarta), and yugapat sṛṣṭi, simultaneous creation, the contention that perception and creation occur simultaneously. Therefore since the ego alone is what perceives all thoughts (and hence all phenomena, since according to Bhagavan all phenomena are just thoughts), dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi vāda clearly implies that the ego creates all thoughts by its mere perception of them. If the ego or mind could not create thoughts, as you contend (and as you claim Robert Adams also contends), that would mean that thoughts are somehow created by some means or cause other than the ego’s perception of them, so such a contention would be a form of sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi vāda, the contention that creation occurs prior to or independent of perception. Such a contention may be suitable for an immature mind that is unwilling to accept that nothing exists independent of our perception of it, but it is not suitable for anyone who is seriously intent on following Bhagavan’s path of self-investigation, because if we believe that anything other than our own real nature (ātma-svarūpa) exists or is created independent of the ego’s perception of it, that would be attributing reality to something other than ourself. Why should we believe that any thoughts or phenomena exist independent of our perception of them? In a dream we perceive thoughts and phenomena, but on waking we recognise that they did not actually exist but seemed to exist only because we perceived them. It is the nature of the ego or mind to believe in the reality of its own creation, as it does while dreaming, but if we consider this subject critically, it is clear that we have no adequate evidence — and never could have any adequate evidence — that anything exists independent of our perception of it. It is only because we perceive thoughts or phenomena that they seem to exist. If we deny that all thoughts seem to exist only because we perceive them, we are thereby denying the core principles of Bhagavan’s teachings, according to which the ego is the root of all thoughts, and therefore the only way to eradicate all thoughts (and hence the entire appearance of duality, multiplicity and otherness) is to investigate the ego and thereby see that it does not actually exist. The ego seems to exist only because we attend to other thoughts instead of to ourself alone, and thoughts seem to exist only because we (as this ego) perceive them. They have no independent existence, so if we eradicate the ego by investigating what we actually are, they will cease to exist along with it. This is what Bhagavan taught us, and if Robert Adams denied that thoughts are created only by the ego’s perception of them, as you claim he did, he had clearly failed to understand the very core of Bhagavan’s teachings. In the same comment that I referred to at the beginning of this article you wrote: ‘I even had the strange experience where there was no manifestation at all and then a thought came up (it was not identified or recognized as I since it seemed to happen all in one instance) and simultaneously the world appeared. And there was the instant clarity that this is all imagined, not real at all — no world, no mind. And then “me” came back and it seemed real again’. The ‘I’ who had this strange experience is the same ‘I’ that experiences any other thoughts or phenomena, namely the ego, so what you mean by saying ‘And then “me” came back’ is not clear, because how can ‘me’ be other than the ‘I’ that was already present there to have that experience? As Bhagavan often made very clear, such as in the final sentences of the fifth paragraph of Nāṉ Yār? and in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu (which I cited above in the third and fifth sections respectively), what appears first is only the ego, so only after it appears does anything else appear, and hence without it nothing else can exist. As he says in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, ‘அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும்’ (ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum), ‘If the ego does not exist, everything does not exist’, and as he says in verse 7 of Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam, ‘இன்று அகம் எனும் நினைவு எனில், பிற ஒன்றும் இன்று’ (iṉḏṟu aham eṉum niṉaivu eṉil, piṟa oṉḏṟum iṉḏṟu), ‘If the thought called ‘I’ does not exist, even one other [thought or thing] will not exist’. Therefore the root cause of everything of only the ego, which is the core and essence of the mind.9. Bhagavan’s body and mind are created only by our ego, but the actions of his mind, speech and body are controlled only by grace In some later comments you discuss where Bhagavan’s thoughts came from, but since Bhagavan had no ego or mind, he had no thoughts and also no body. His body, mind and thoughts, and consequently his actions and words, seem to exist only in our view, so they are all only our thoughts, and hence they are created only by ourself as this ego. Then what use are his teachings to us? If they are just our own mental projection, like everything else, what truth can there be in them? Though this whole world is created by us as this ego, it is controlled not by us but only by our destiny (prārabdha), and our destiny is determined by the power of grace, which is the infinite love that we as we actually are have for ourself as we actually are, so the power of grace, which has selected our destiny for our own spiritual development, has also given us the outward form of Bhagavan and his teachings in order to prompts us to turn our mind back within to see what we actually are. This can be understood more clearly with the help of an analogy. We all know that whatever we dream is our own mental projection, but while dreaming we generally seem unable to control the world we have created. The reason for this is that while dreaming we do not experience ourself as the one who has projected the dream, but as one of the people in the dream world that we have projected, so since we experience ourself as one of the projected phenomena, we seem to be a creature rather than the creator. As the creator we projected it, but as a creature we are just one among the projections. Since Bhagavan taught us that our present state is just a dream, everything that we experience in this dream is just our own mental projection, but instead of experiencing ourself as the creator of this world, we now experience ourself as a small part of this creation. Therefore most of the rest of this creation seems to be beyond our control. If a fierce hurricane is approaching, for example, and leaving widespread destruction in its wake, we cannot stop it at will, because by projecting ourself as a person in our creation, we have thereby lost the power to control what we have created. The power to create and control all this lies somewhere deep inside us, but so long as we are looking outwards, we do not have the subtlety and acuity of mind required to turn within and see what it is. The ultimate power within us is the power of grace, but when we misuse this power by rising as an ego and projecting all this, that power seems to be the power of māyā. However, though we as māyā (the ego or mind) have created all this, we have lost control of it, and therefore we as grace have taken control of it, allotting the destiny of this ego, and when it is ready giving it teachings that will prompt it to investigate what it actually is. With our outward-facing and therefore blunt intellect we can never adequately understand this working of grace, and how it is all being done by ourself alone, and though our intellect will be refined and sharpened if we practise trying to face ourself to see what we actually are, our ego and everything else will thereby be destroyed before our intellect can become clear and sharp enough to comprehend the mysterious workings of grace. However, that need not concern us, because our sole aim should be to see what we ourself actually are, and when we see what we actually are we will see that we alone exist, and that grace is just our own love for ourself, which never actually does anything, because doing is possible only in a state of duality or multiplicity, which does not actually exist. What actually exists is only ātma-svarūpa (the real nature of ourself), so all multiplicity is just an illusory appearance that seems to exist only in the view of the ego, which itself does not actually exist.10. Nāṉ Yār? paragraph 15: grace in the form of guru saves us from the ego without actually doing anything How grace seems to do everything without actually doing anything is explained by Bhagavan in the fifteenth paragraph of Nāṉ Yār?: இச்சா ஸங்கல்ப யத்நமின்றி யெழுந்த ஆதித்தன் சன்னிதி மாத்திரத்தில் காந்தக்கல் அக்கினியைக் கக்குவதும், தாமரை மலர்வதும், நீர் வற்றுவதும், உலகோர் தத்தங் காரியங்களிற் பிரவிருத்தித்து இயற்றி யடங்குவதும், காந்தத்தின் முன் ஊசி சேஷ்டிப்பதும் போல ஸங்கல்ப ரகிதராயிருக்கும் ஈசன் சன்னிதான விசேஷ மாத்திரத்தால் நடக்கும் முத்தொழில் அல்லது பஞ்சகிருத்தியங்கட் குட்பட்ட ஜீவர்கள் தத்தம் கர்மானுசாரம் சேஷ்டித் தடங்குகின்றனர். அன்றி, அவர் ஸங்கல்ப ஸஹித ரல்லர்; ஒரு கருமமு மவரை யொட்டாது. அது லோககருமங்கள் சூரியனை யொட்டாததும், ஏனைய சதுர்பூதங்களின் குணாகுணங்கள் வியாபகமான ஆகாயத்தை யொட்டாததும் போலும்.icchā-saṅkalpa-yatnam-iṉḏṟi y-eṙunda ādittaṉ saṉṉidhi-māttirattil kānta-k-kal aggiṉiyai-k kakkuvadum, tāmarai malarvadum, nīr vaṯṟuvadum, ulahōr tattaṅ kāriyaṅgaḷil piraviruttittu iyaṯṟi y-aḍaṅguvadum, kāntattiṉ muṉ ūsi cēṣṭippadum pōla saṅkalpa-rahitar-āy-irukkum īśaṉ saṉṉidhāṉa-viśēṣa-māttirattāl naḍakkum muttoṙil alladu pañcakiruttiyaṅgaṭ kuṭpaṭṭa jīvargaḷ tattam karmāṉucāram cēṣṭit taḍaṅgugiṉḏṟaṉar. aṉḏṟi, avar saṅkalpa-sahitar allar; oru karumam-um avarai y-oṭṭādu. adu lōka-karumaṅgaḷ sūriyaṉai y-oṭṭādadum, ēṉaiya catur-bhūtaṅgaḷiṉ guṇāguṇaṅgaḷ viyāpakam-āṉa ākāyattai y-oṭṭādadum pōlum. Just as in the mere presence of the sun, which rose without icchā [wish, desire or liking], saṁkalpa [volition or intention] [or] yatna [effort or exertion], a crystal stone [or magnifying lens] will emit fire, a lotus will blossom, water will evaporate, and people of the world will engage in [or begin] their respective activities, do [those activities] and subside [or cease being active], and [just as] in front of a magnet a needle will move, [so] jīvas [sentient beings], who are caught in [the finite state governed by] muttoṙil [the threefold function of God, namely the creation, sustenance and dissolution of the world] or pañcakṛtyas [the five functions of God, namely creation, sustenance, dissolution, concealment and grace], which happen by merely the special nature of the presence of God, who is saṁkalpa rahitar [one who is devoid of any volition or intention], move [exert or engage in activity] and subside [cease being active, become still or sleep] in accordance with their respective karmas [that is, in accordance not only with their prārabdha karma or destiny, which impels them to do whatever actions are necessary in order for them to experience all the pleasant and unpleasant things that they are destined to experience, but also with their karma-vāsanās, their inclinations or impulses to desire, think, speak and act in particular ways, which impel them to make effort to experience pleasant things and to avoid experiencing unpleasant things]. Nevertheless, he [God] is not saṁkalpa sahitar [one who is connected with or possesses any volition or intention]; even one karma does not adhere to him [that is, he is not bound or affected by any karma or action whatsoever]. That is like world-actions [the actions happening here on earth] not adhering to [or affecting] the sun, and [like] the qualities and defects of the other four elements [earth, water, air and fire] not adhering to the all-pervading space. As Bhagavan says in the twelfth paragraph of Nāṉ Yār?, ‘கடவுளும் குருவும் உண்மையில் வேறல்லர்’ (kaḍavuḷ-um guru-v-um uṇmaiyil vēṟallar), ‘God and guru are in truth not different’, so what he says about God in this paragraph applies equally well to guru, and since grace is the very nature of guru, guru is nothing but grace and grace is nothing but guru. Therefore in this paragraph Bhagavan clearly implies that grace does not actually do anything, but by the power of its mere presence in our heart we are drawn back to our source, the pure self-awareness that we always actually are. Bhagavan is ātma-svarūpa, our own real nature, and his grace is the infinite love that he has for himself, so since nothing is other than himself, by his merely being love he draws us back to himself. Therefore, though the life of his body and the teachings given through that body are part of the world, all of which is mere thoughts projected and perceived by our ego, by the mere presence of his love in our heart his life and teachings have been formed in such a way as to push us from outside to turn back within to see what we actually are, while the same love shining in our heart attracts us and thereby pulls us from within. In this way Bhagavan, who is love itself, pushes and pulls us to turn inwards and thereby melts us as love in himself, as he taught us to pray in verse 101 of Śrī Aruṇācala Akṣaramaṇamālai: அம்புவி லாலிபோ லன்புரு வுனிலெனை யன்பாக் கரைத்தரு ளருணாசலா.ambuvi lālipō laṉburu vuṉileṉai yaṉbāk karaittaru ḷaruṇācalā.பதச்சேதம்: அம்புவில் ஆலி போல் அன்பு உரு உனில் எனை அன்பா கரைத்து அருள் அருணாசலா.Padacchēdam (word-separation): ambuvil āli pōl aṉbu-uru uṉil eṉai aṉbā karaittu aruḷ aruṇācalā.English translation: Arunachala, like ice in water, lovingly melt me as love in you, the form of love. Until we thus melt as love in Bhagavan, the form of love, we will continue to rise as this ego, and whenever we do so we will project thoughts and thereby create the appearance of an external world, and thus we will make it necessary for him to draw us back within to melt in himself. The means by which he gradually draws us back will vary according to the strength and intensity of our desires and attachments, but when by his grace he has purified our mind to a sufficient extent he will appear outside in the form of guru to give us teachings that will direct and encourage us to turn our mind back within to see what we actually are. However he saves us from ourself (this ego) in this way without actually doing anything but merely by being the infinite love that he is. - Artículo*: Michael James - Más info en psico@mijasnatural.com / 607725547 MENADEL Psicología Clínica y Transpersonal Tradicional (Pneumatología) en Mijas y Fuengirola, MIJAS NATURAL *No suscribimos necesariamente las opiniones o artículos aquí enlazados
 

- Enlace a artículo -

Más info en psico@mijasnatural.com / 607725547 MENADEL Psicología Clínica y Transpersonal Tradicional (Pneumatología) en Mijas y Fuengirola, MIJAS NATURAL.

(No suscribimos necesariamente las opiniones o artículos aquí presentados)