Hi Michael, I wanted to ask if the Richard Clarke version on Ulladu Narpadu verses are accurate?

@@FlexPot Until Michael responds (if he has the time) let me give you my 2 cents: Firstly, there is no "Richard Clarke version" of Ulladu Narpadu since he does not understand Tamil and therefore uses an English translation, I believe the version by Lakshmana Sarma. And secondly, he makes comments based on that translation and, according to him, based on his own insights. Does Richard Clarke have a refined understanding of Bhagavan's teaching? In short, no. I.e. in one of his videos, "How can the nonexistent mind be killed? - Ramana Clips Talk # 328 part 3", he quotes something from "The Talks" where Bhagavan answers to a quite immature aspirant on the level of that aspirant. However Clarke uses that answer by Bhagavan *as it would be his essential teaching* and seriously says in that video *that Bhagavan suggests to watch the breath* That is *NOT* what Bhagavan has taught and a serious distortion of his teaching! Alone from that I can only say to avoid these clips by Clarke. And therefore consequently he is certainly not qualified to make comments about something so profound like Ulladu Narpadu. 🙏

@@FlexPot Namaskaram. No, unfortunately it is not at all an accurate translation, and in many verses he follows the same misinterpretations that are found in several early translations (but in most cases not in Lakshmana Sarma’s translation, which unlike in other early translations is almost free of serious misinterpretations). Namo Ramanaya 🙏🙏🙏

Apparently Clarke speaks Tamil but that does not give him any advantage for grasping Bhagavan properly considering some of his confused comments. Also he stated that he used the translation by Lakshmana Sarma for his commentaries on Ulladu Narpadu therefore I assumed he doesn't understand Tamil.

Thank you guys for your replies. A bit gutted because I thought it was accurate. Appreciate your help on clearing that up 🙏🏻

To say or even believe "that God is the beneficiary of the fruit" has no affect on ego at all, that what says or believes that IS ego. You need to properly understand the practice of atma-vichara in order to grasp this.

In the Gita Bhagwan Krishna says never consider yourself to be the cause of ur activities n do not be inactive,so what i said in the comment was to consider God as the doer, when u do that ur sada karmas also do not multiply for which u hv to take birth again. N by the way Bhagwan is helping me with atma vichara .Thankyou for ur advice n i bow to the atma 🙏 inside u.

​@shilpamurdeshwar5788 There are no two atmas. Be attentive to what is always. Eveyone else is a projection of the one ego. The other person is not real. Focus on what is real, and everything will cease. However, it never existed in the first place, only seemingly there.

@@xhesitase9729 hahaha forget it u wont understand.So without the atma how is the person alive.,😂

​@shilpamurdeshwar5788 who is alive? What do you mean the other person is alive? They are not other than you. See if the person you take yourself to be is actually alive and existing.

I believe you refuse to accept that the world is totally unreal or illusory unless you would not keep fishing for other explanations which would tell you that the world is real. I believe I painstakingly have answered questions like this before and yet you still keep asking the same questions regarding the reality of the world. We have to carefully examine what Bhagavan has said, "The universe is real *if seen as Brahman* ". What is Brahman? It is pure awareness, atma-swarupa or "One without a second". Thus what is *seen as Brahman* IS Brahman and nothing else. There is only Brahman. The universe as we, as ego, see it, is not Brahman. How does ego see the universe? As an accumulation of countless objects or multiplicity, many and not One. Thus ego can and will never see the universe as Brahman since ego is not Brahman. For the ego Brahman is exactly like deep sleep and there is no world or any other phenomena in deep sleep.

@@johnmcdonald260 Slow down. I take quote from Osbourne's book: Bhagavan speaking--Shankara has been criticised for his philosophy of Maya (illusion) without understanding his meaning. He made three statements: that Brahman is real, that the universe is unreal, and that Brahman is the Universe. He did not stop with the second. The third statement explains the first two; it signifies 1 T., 189. 2 D. D., p. 238. 5 that when the Universe is perceived apart from Brahman, that perception is false and illusory. What it amounts to is that phenomena are real when experienced as the Self and illusory when seen apart from the Self. This having been said, it is key that there is a third statement, not simply Brahman real and world unreal. I am trying to get at this point. Is the world real, with all its change and multiplicity, if Brahman is seen to underlie it all, hence saving phenomena? I think Ramana says elsewhere that the world is like a shadow in a flood of light, putting it in perspective. But, it stops short of full denial, it seems; again, recall that Ramana did not stop at the first two assertions of Shankara, insisting on the third. It is a huge difference.

@@jazzsnare Bhagavan taught that that what is real does not change. That is an extremely important pointer since we can easily verify that for ourselves. That also does not contradict Shankara's famous statement.

@@johnmcdonald260, when you say that ego is not Brahman one should simultaneously note that there are not two kinds of awareness because there is only Brahman. Therefore ego is in essence/substance - i.e. bereft of its adjuncts - but Brahman. Seeing Brahman is becoming/being Brahman.

@@josefbruckner7154 Yes, what illustrates that point very nicely is the story of the snake/rope. The rope illustrates Brahman (or self or atma-swarupa) and the snake is ego. When we first see a snake in the darkness and are afraid and then Bhagavan tells us "examine carefully the snake (ego)" we eventually see that it is not a snake (ego) but a rope (Brahman). That is exactly how we currently confuse us as ego/body (snake) and not as the rope (Brahman). "Carefully looking at the snake" is the synonym of atma-vichara. In addition as long as we see (or being aware of) the snake we are also aware of phenomena, a seeming world. As soon as we see it's a rope and not a snake we are Brahman and the seeming world disappeared since it existed only while perceiving a snake. Now we never "become" Brahman since the snake cannot become the rope, it IS the rope. That seeming optical illusion is not real nonetheless we need to "look" until we clearly see the rope (Brahman). Once we see it clearly as a rope (which is self-realization) we never could imagine again that the rope (Brahman) would be a snake (ego). Now to Shankara: "Brahman is real, that the universe is unreal, and that Brahman is the Universe." He just phrased the snake/rope analogy by Bhagavan in different words with the same meaning : Brahman (as the rope) is real, the universe (as the snake) is unreal, and that Brahman (the rope) is also the universe (the snake). The third statement describes that there is only one self and not two (an ego and self). Now where people get confused is that their minds cannot truly fathom non-duality and therefore press duality into non-duality like believing that the world could be real. It is only real as Brahman or a non-dual state but not real as ego or a dual state. Now since we perceive and comprehend everything *as* ego we will always understand the universe in dual terms and objects since a universe as One is incomprehensible for mind/ego. However we, as ego, experience the universe as Brahman every night in deep sleep. 🙂