What Michael meant with "carefully enough" is that all of our attention should go to "I am". It implies that a "little" or less careful attention is not enough for freedom, it needs "full" attention. However these terms are only pointers and not qualifiers. Also it is not advised to compare Bhagavan's atma-vichara with the teachings of other teachers, that can create only confusion. Nisargadatta made many confused statements and I'd not recommend the study of any of his stuff. Bhagavan is all what is needed. His teaching is complete.

It is Bhagavan that you disagree with. Bhagavan has consistently said that we must practice with careful attention. Michael is consistent with Bhagavan. As mentioned, Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 16: ‘The name ‘ātma-vicāra’ is only for [or refers only to] always keeping the mind on ātmā [oneself]; whereas dhyāna [meditation] is considering [thinking or imagining] oneself to be sat-cit-ānanda brahman [the one ultimate reality, which is existence-awareness-happiness].’ But in so many other places too: Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 10, ‘If one ‘is zealous [or steadfast] in self-attentiveness, one will certainly be reformed [transformed into what one actually is].’ And paragraph 11, Not attending to anything other [than oneself] is vairāgya [dispassion or detachment] or nirāśā [desirelessness]; not leaving [or letting go of] oneself is jñāna [true knowledge or real awareness]. In truth [these] two [vairāgya and jñāna] are just one. Just as pearl-divers, tying stones to their waists and sinking, pick up pearls that are found at the bottom of the ocean, so each one, sinking deep within oneself with vairāgya [freedom from desire to be aware of anything other than oneself], may obtain ātma-muttu [the self-pearl, meaning the pearl that is one’s own real nature]. If one clings fast to uninterrupted svarūpa-smaraṇa [self-remembrance] until one attains svarūpa [one’s own real nature, namely oneself as one actually is], that alone is sufficient. And in in verse 28 of Ulladu Narpadu he says: ‘Like sinking [immersing or diving] in order to find an object that has fallen into water, diving [sinking, immersing, piercing or penetrating] within [ourself] restraining [our] speech and breath by [means of a] sharp intellect [a keen, intense, acute and penetrating power of discernment or attention] we should know the place [or source] where [our] rising ego rises. Know [this].’ Further, ‘as Gaudapada implied in Māṇḍukya Kārikā 3.44 […], we need to remain so steadily balanced in the state of keen self-attentiveness that we avoid both being distracted by any thoughts (any awareness of anything other than ourself) and subsiding into laya’.(*) So once we understand the purpose of the practice as described by Bhagavan, how else can this be done except very carefully (in a way that deliberately avoids harm or errors; cautiously, watchful, guarded, attentive concern)? Because the ego's very survival depends on going outward, placing our entire (full) attention within requires this type of understanding of the practice. As Michael has always pointed out, perseverance in one-pointed careful attention is the key in this practice and progress. And of course, we must look very very carefully to see the rope is not a snake. *happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-non-existence-of-ego-body-and-world.html

Henri Jolicoeur's videos are quite unrefined and not recommended at all. However if one likes people like Bernardo Kastrup and Rupert Spira then one may like this one too. Do those three jivas add anything to the teachings of Bhagavan? Not at all, in fact the potential for confusion is significant for giving them any attention.

That is a funny question since everybody experiences deep sleep every night. It is when there is no awareness of any phenomena, like a seeming gap of ego-awareness which ends with the ego rising and simultaneous awakening.

It is your direct experience then, this gap? Your awake, you go to bed, fall asleep, have a period of no ego, rise as ego in dream and then wake up and rise as ego again? Or what am I missing? Is it part of your direct experience or not? Or do we take it on faith? 😊❤😊

@@PorterCarter-ki1uf Oh, you are asking how to be aware of deep sleep!? Well, we, as ego, will never experience deep sleep since ego has subsided in deep sleep and it is impossible for ego to be aware of deep sleep. The question of "how to experience deep sleep" is the same as to ask how to experience atma-svarupa or pure awareness. Ego will never experience deep sleep or atma-svarupa because there is either deep sleep/atma-svarupa or ego. Pure awareness or atma-svarupa and ego are mutually exclusive. The practice of atma-vichara will lead to atma-svarupa, obviously that will take quite awhile, several life times actually.

ātma-sukha. No big deal though. Most are not even willing to discuss this, so I appreciate the conversation. It just seems like such a crucial part of Bhagavan's teachings, I had wondered if I was missing something. That is, it would seem I hear that we "experience" three distinct states, namely waking, dream, and deep dreamless sleep... If I'm meant to understand then I will, and if not, then I will not, it is up to Bhagavan. Much love

If we didn’t actually experience deep sleep, then we wouldn’t ever know of such a state. But we all know, even somebody who has never heard of Bhagavan’s teachings, that there is a state of deep sleep in which we aren’t aware of phenomena. In my experience, it isn’t as clear as dream state. Because I can distinctly recollect whatever dreams I had last night. I cannot recollect with that much clarity the state of deep sleep. But still I know there is a state of deep sleep.

Ego is "raging" always, as soon as we wake up in the morning it rises (and rages) until we fall asleep. Every comment, every thought is ego raging. It only stops raging if we attend to "I am". That's why Jesus pointed to "one should not throw a rock sitting in a glass house".

Exactly what I posted! Michael James said this on behalf of Bhagavan. No one need ask again and again, only turn inside to Pure Awareness

@@cindyscott8470 My point is that also your comment is an example of ego raging. Who is not pleased with people asking again and again? Did ego here turn within? [Rhetorical question]

There is no "grey area" with self-investigation and surrender: Either we surrender completely or we assume doership and believe that we make a decision and continue samsara. Bhagavan taught that every action we take is already pre-determined, thus there is no actual decision process but as an illusion by mind. Therefore best is to remain silent (aka self-investigation/surrender). Your questions reveal that you do not trust Bhagavan. We all want that things go "our" way. But that is the delusion! Who is that which wants to get it his way? Only the phantom ego. Freedom is only possible with total surrender which is very difficult and needs to be practiced.

@@johnmcdonald260 thanks.

​@johnmcdonald260 thanks for your reponse. Not very action we perform as the ego is pre-determined since these are a combination of our destiny(prarabdha karma) and our free will. However, all that we experience is pre-determined according to Bhagavan that he explained in the note to his mother. Hence, if we choose to surrender our will or doership then to the extent we turn within or surrender our will, to that extent will our actions be based on prarabdha or the actions ordained by Bhagavan to experience our destiny. Hence it is best to remain silent or surrender fully, so that our actions are guided by his will not ours that we falsely assume. This is what I understand, but it would be good to gain a deeper clarification from Michael

Michael in response to someone who was lamenting about the seeming impossibility of surrender: “please bear in mind what Bhagavan replied to someone who complained, ‘Surrender is impossible’, namely ‘Complete surrender is impossible in the beginning. Partial surrender is certainly possible for all. In course of time that will lead to complete surrender’ (as recorded in Talks section 244). Since we can truly surrender ourself only to the extent that we turn our attention within to face ourself, partial surrender implies at least trying gently and gradually to turn our attention within, no matter how quickly and frequently it may jump out again. So rather than lamenting our pitiable condition, we can make better use of our precious time by trying to be self-attentive. If we try to see who is lamenting, the lamenter will sooner or later disappear, and what will then remain is infinite and eternal happiness.”

@@indiraiyer4438 Actually Bhagavan taught that EVERY action of a body is pre-determined, we do not have the power to change these actions. Besides the famous note to his mother Bhagavan also made it unambiguously clear that all of our actions are pre-determined in diverse talks he gave in 1936. Karma is not created by [the actions of] the body since a body is jada. Karma is solely created by ego/mind and with that our free will. Even though ALL actions of a body are pre-determined we still have the freedom to agree or disagree with those actions and even mentally "trying" to avoid (or support) these actions which only will work if that is destined. These thoughts of agreement or disagreement (aka "free will") are that which create fresh karma called agami karma. However that cannot change anything in this particular life since all actions of our bodies are already destined by the birth of the body. {By the way that is also what Michael said in one of his videos.) However that agami karma will be experienced in one or many other future lives. Therefore we will reap the fruits of these actions (aka responsibility] IF we created new karma by turning outwards and not turning within what is usually the case since we are quite bad in turning within (I am referring here to me). Again, it is a grave error in understanding to believe that we have the free will to change the actions of our body in this particular life. Therefore it is advised to remain silent.

👎