The most recent 'Open Thread' seems to be misbehaving: comments made in the last few days are not displaying, and the number of comments is clearly wrong. The same thing happened a few months ago. I am starting a new thread. If the old 'Open Thread' continues to misbehave and not show your recent posts, feel free to add them to this newly opened thread.
Sri Ramana Maharshi
Welcome
I propose to use this blog primarily to air my occasional musings on any matters relating to the life and teachings of Ramana Maharshi. There will also be occasional contributions about Arunachala, the sacred mountain where Sri Ramana spent all of his adult life.
Articles and interviews on these topics can also be found on my site: www.davidgodman.org.
Articles and interviews on these topics can also be found on my site: www.davidgodman.org.
871 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 871 Newer› Newest»"The very first step that one needs to take is to build one's self esteem(Please do not dismiss the Ego.It is there for a very good cause."
Yeah, to be investigated into and dissolved. faith in one's individual self (self-esteem), I don't believe needs to be built up. I think I was exposed to Maharhsi, because of the failings of my ego's will to make the life it wanted in the world. So it was lack of faith in my individual self, not faith in it that led me deeper. Confidence in myself as an individual, was not needed. And it seems to be an obstacle for many people. You talk about how surrender is the culmination of self-effort. Maybe in the sense, like i described, I saw what my self-efforts came to, not much. So it might be so that you relaize the powerlessness of self-efforts ot really enact any change. That grip on things, in my own experience, seems like it's been gradually relinquished, so that I'm no longer the statue holding up the tower. And how many of my self-efforts were based in desire, and wanting to enact my will in the world? Many of them. So maybe, the best way to look at it is, that this stuff, is not for or against effort. It's kind of like the ribhu gita, effort is another dualism. so to say that giving up efforts or, engaging more intensely in efforts, I think may not be the right question in a sense. Action cannot lead to liberation, for so the creator ordains, but is it God? It cannot be for it is insentient. What is that a verse from? Definitely Shankara said Action cannot lead to liberation, knowledge alone leads to liberation. And that is so my experience. I have put so much effort into worldly matters, and they don't solve anything. So I really do think in Maharshi's teachings, Self-inquiry takes care of it all. The best approach almost seems like, to not say I'm going to give up efforts, or to engaging in great efforts.I'm just going to be, and I'm not going to make a decision on that. And it seems like, then action, comes from greater and greater levels of inspiration. But like I was saying yesterday, I don't know how one can participate to the same extent in activities, or crowds, or societies, that expect one to do things that go against one's soul. And so many activities require that. There are activities that are purely from the ego and for the ego. And alot of activities are. I thought about writing a novel, just so people would like me more and see what a genius I was.(laugh). Lately, that seems in conflict with abiding in bliss, and happiness within. So I don't know where the line is. I finished school, got a bachelors, and am now doing one not-many-hours-volunteer-job where i circle buildings looking for dead birds. And that job is no conflict with inquiry. I think maybe the answer is, that effort, intense or not, or no effort, those are irrelevent questions to inquiry (and inquiry seems to me itself not an action, but a discernment). So to stop action, isn't correct, and to engage more intensely isn't correct, but just to be with whatever is happening. Right now, for me, that isn't a whole lot of action. But still things happen, like practicing martial arts with my friend.
My approach lately, now that I don't have alot going on, is to be happy first, and then see what I engage in, see what I find inspiring to engage in, and engage in it. But not saying I'm going to be indolent, or I'm going to be fiercely active. And another thing is if happiness is within, then I don't care what people think of me, and what I do may go against social norms. Like I may be less active then a 'normal' person, or more 'active'. I no longer am doing things for the reaction others give. The conformist impulse is given up. And alot of my activities in this world had some of that. Performing well at school for the status of having a degree. How much was just for survival of the body? If survival of the body is the only care to be nice, what activities will I engage in? In the end, I may end up being way more active, but on things that are meaningful and inspiring, and give grace to the world. If someone who is working a terrible office job, doing something that benefits no one, but his corrupt superiors, starts earnestly practicing inquiry, oh yeah, happiness is within. How suboordinate is he going to be after that? How long will he keep that job, with happiness being within? Yeah, non-doership, but non-doership at soul-degrading things? I think that may not be the case. At some point in the sadhana, the conflict may be too great, and he loses the job. Because it's just like an abusive relationship. Then, maybe he has a family to support and he's like that guy who went to Maharhsi, and ended up with the better job making 10,000 rs, by grace. Like I got a molecular biology degree, effort question aside, by the end of it, I was highly dis-inspired, and felt there was a conflict between inquiry and that. Because I wasn't acting by grace. I wasn't being carried in these actions. and I'm not saying indolence is the alternative. I'm saying, that if I just be happy, I don't want to engage in meaningless activities, that are dull, uninspiring, pointless, supporting things in the world that are not making a more beautiful place. So then I give up the job. "phone in sick of it all". So many things in this world are not compatable with being at peace, or happy. I mean, I'm not saying can't be happy in any circumstance, but I'm saying that the ego's fears, and desires, were in my own case forcing the actions in a conformist pattern.
Some of you might enjoy this:
"Women Disciples of Sri Ramakrishna"
http://www.belurmath.org/women_disciples.htm
Anonymous says there's a trend here. Of course he's right.
LMM want happiness. Don't we all?
He wants abit of afternoon delight.
Can we help him? Probably not, as his emails are from a distance, from a distant country. It's called the tyranny of distance.
We can't see his body language and how he's interacting with others.
If he has any siblings or perhaps his mother could do abit of role playing and that may help.
Young people unless very ripe
want intimacy....thats natural.
Your yearning for a relationship is strong. I say don't give up.
At the same time I would read The Marital Garland of Letters; it is straight from the heart. Upadesa Sara( Upadesha Saar) is also very clear as it is a step by step guide.
hj
One thing he said is that greed, anger and sexual desire don't go away even if you are enlightened. You just see clearly for what they are. I've heard this from other teachers in different traditions and it seems to me to be at odds with the Buddha's teaching both in Theravada and Mahayana. But I am slowly learning not to be bothered by such things.
Ajahn Sumedho
Anonymous/Friends,
On Sri Annamalai swami and the discussion on Destiny vs Freewill-I will share a couple of Incidents from my personal interactions:
1.In the course of a conversation with Swami,I said to him-"Nothing is in our Hands".
Swami adamantly said-"No.That is not true.You have to exert."
Sundaram took sides with me and explained to Swami-"Ravi is referring to surrender".
Swami did not budge-he said-"Vidathu Pidiyungo" -"Hold on,without letting go".
2.One of my acquaintances(a Close relative)got into a problematic situation that affected his marital Life.It was a joint family setup where he lived with his wife and child,along with his Parents and a couple of his younger Brothers.His wife left him and went and stayed at her parent's place.She refused to come back saying that she did not want to live in that setup.
Her husband was not prepared to leave his elderly parents in order to make up with his wife.I appreciated this filial commitment;I took this man to meet Sri Annamalai swami.I briefed swami about the situation.Swami highly appreciated the stance taken(Son not deserting the parents)and approved it.
The impasse continued until the Family went to have Darshan of the Sage of Kanchi.The Father prayed to the sage for relief.The Sage,who is known for his adherence to Orthodox ways surprisingly suggested-'Let the son life with his wife and Child,away from his parents'.
This saved the day and resolved all problems-The wife soon realised her mistake.Soon after the relationship became cordial.The whole matter was forgotten!
-----------------------------------
I would tend to think that no one(including a sage)can say 'What will happen Next'.
We are in the realm of Probability and 'absolute Script' is more a matter of Statistics and Belief.
Eventually one can retrospectively say-'It is all in the script'!
The question is-Whose Script?Who drafted this script?Whether another Rewind and Fast Forward is Possible?
Whether the script was written before the events occured or it was written on the fly?
The Weak man awaits his script,the Strong man writes his script.God provides him with ink,paper,et all.
Namaskar.
Scott,
"You talk about how surrender is the culmination of self-effort. Maybe"
This is the problem with having to use words.
The above is not to mean that Effort has to end for the other to take over.
They are like two sides of a coin.It is only a question of whether the coin is genuine or a counterfeit.You do not have to see both the sides of a coin to verify this.Examining oneside is enough!
Any activity cannot be called Self Effort-Just like in swami Ramatirtha's parable wherein a number of People went in a boat (on a picnic)and after enjoying the entire day,decided to row back,They rowed all through the dark night and when morning dawned
they found themselves where they were.They had forgotten to remove the anchor!
Swami Ramatirtha says-that this sort of an effort cannot be called Self Effort.Not giving up attachments and yet doing Sadhana is like the people rowing the boat without removing the Anchor.
Likewise,not exercising and energising one's Faculties and Surrendering to God cannot be deemed as surrender.(I see that you have mentioned this point somewhere in your post).
The Problem is that Trying to define the 'Ego'-what it is and what it is not,Why it should be got rid off,etc are like Trying Not to think of a Monkey during meditation.The more you want to avoid or get away from something,the more you would be tied to it.
One always talk of happiness(one's ),Bliss(one's).This is the way that one remains pegged to the Ego.To distinguis between states of Happiness and Boredom(Dullness) is to tie oneself to the very thing that one is trying to surmount.
The wise man is he who accepts whatever is dished out-pleasant or unpleasant,Happiness or misery.
Love is prepared for anything and does not choose.In this is TRUE Happiness.Happiness that is not subject to anything whatsoever.
Namaskar.
Scott,
"Action cannot lead to liberation, for so the creator ordains, but is it God? It cannot be for it is insentient. What is that a verse from? Definitely Shankara said Action cannot lead to liberation, knowledge alone leads to liberation. "
Action and Knowledge are not two different things.Sankara speaks of how to loosen a bundle of Sticks tied together by a Rope.You use another Rope and Roll it around the Bundle of Sticks and Tighten it without a Knot.This sort of loosens the Original Rope and after that rope along with its knot is pulled ff,one simply unfurls the newly introduced Rope and the Bundle of sticks just fall loose.
The Other Rope that is used for Tightening the Bundle of Sticks Refers to the SAMSKARAS as prescribed in the Vedas,smritis.By Following the prescribed Dharma-even WITHOUT awareness of the Purpose would Still Yield the desired Result.
Unfortnately,most of these basic wisdom is ignored by the neo Advaitins and this has caused a Great Deal of confusion.
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.
Clemens Vargas Ramos has sent me a new version of the 'Recent Comments' widget that has slightly bigger icons, and one or two new options which will be self-evident if you click on them to see what happens.
Thanks again Clemens for doing the work and for writing us a more sophisticated programme.
The first display may show up in German, but this will automatically resolve itself into the proper English-language display after a few seconds.
Getting back to the issue of charging for spiritual instruction, I was watching a video of the French spiritual teacher Arnaud Desjardins (who was involved with--and filmed for French television-- Sufi, TIbetan, and Indian masters from the 50s or early 60s on), where he was saying that while, for example, he sees ads in the Buddhist magazines for Vipassana and Zazen retreats at such and such a price, it does not seem right to him to charge for that which is priceless. One can say that an SUV costs so much... and even a service like psychotherapy one can set a price on -- but charging for the Highest? No. At his ashram in France, he said, donations have always been accepted, but they have never charged anyone for spirituality. And somehow, by the grace of God, they have managed to sustain themselves for decades now...
Does this attitude of trust highlight, by the stark contrast it provides, a corresponding lack of trust in those who charge by the hour, the day, or the seminar -- or are they just different ways in accord with the individual temperaments of the different teachers/sages?
I was just saying Ravi, that it seems like effort isn't the answer, and lack of effort isn't the answer. My teacher had said (paraphrasing) something along the lines of, giving up activity out of fear will only cause the fear to intensity or endure. But I was thinking wouldn't the same be true of activity? (being active out of fear) It seems like on some level, one has to give up the things that are compelled by fear. A big cornerstone of this teaching and much of spirituality is that happiness is within. I think I've heard you echo that statement. Well, there are alot of activities that seem in conflict with an understanding that happiness is within. What I mean by that, is those activities are done because of attachment, because of fear of losing, or of desire to gain. They are not done out of a sense of happiness or equilibrium and stability. Me, personally, I'm just done being unhappy.
But it was true, good and beautiful. I played martial arts with my friends, and had great conversations, I went and got food, I ate, I even made myself a meal in the morning. I have one thing to do, this volunteer job where I walk around and collect birds that have hit buildings (not that often), I may apply for jobs, I may get into grad school, i don't know. But I've so often, compromised bliss, to try to survive. And Maharshi said it himself the Self is Bliss. Bliss is grace also. So it almost seems like it is a sin not to be happy. Now, if I'm happy, there are alot of things i'm not going to participate in. I may not keep my kafka-esque job, I may. But it just seems like there would be more natural-ness to what is engaged in, without ego, then with ego. It's like in that martial art, it's effectiveness comes from when you are not doing, not when you are muscling it, the power comes from shifting weight, same with baseball. (to an observer, the strain is assumed, oh, he must be putting in herculean effort, no there is no effort, in this martial art you could go for hours and not break a sweat and still have really damaging strikes) So when I punch, the power isn't coming from strain, or muscling it, my body is like a whip. So I'm saying the same, I think probably applies to spirituality, to inquiry. Is that, you rest in natural happiness, and things happen, sometimes you are engaging in activities, sometimes not. But you don't strain yourself, or do things out of fear. It seems like it's not just the same behavior continues like before. There is behavior, that is in accord with the Self, and behavior out of accord with the Self, and you find that correct behavior by resting in natural happiness. So yes, it does seem like the feeling of this is all my burden has to be given up, and activities that require you taking on the burden mentally, emotionaly, then sometimes those activities have to be given up. Example. Maybe you are in an abusive relationship, parent or spouse. And that other person gets you to do all the chores. And because you want to please them, you do all the chores out of fear of rejection, or abuse. Then some sage comes and tells you to rest in your own natural happiness, and "abide in Bliss in that itself as that itself always". And it resonates and you do it. You inquire, start to become happy. Are you any longer going to be subordinate to that spouse/parent? Naturally. Your activities change, and you no longer give in, you leave them. You go elsewhere. The thing I understand is, if there is any barometer in advaita, in maharshi's teachings, it is happiness. Nothing else can be used. But the natural state, the Self, Brahman, is happiness, is bliss, is joy, is peace, is contentment. And those should not be given up for any reason, infact it is evil to do so. It is not true, I don't think that happiness is absent is well in an awareness of the Self. So my understanding is, in a sense you could say, taht happiness alone should be considered real, and the world, and everything else, being temporary is not real. So if the mind is causing an activity, causing conformity with activity (or inactivity), out of fear, then that would not be correct. Any suffering is out of accord with the Self, it is untrue. And that is why anonymous' statement seems untrue. Greed, and anger are both suffering, and untrue. Sexual desire, can be just activity of the body in a sense. And sexual desire, is not necessarily suffering. But where it causes suffering, I guess it is also untrue. Happiness alone is real.
And I refuse to compromise my happiness for any reason. And another thing, is if happiness is within, then would you as I said necessarily continued with your job that is causing some bad thing in the world? Would you continue your job, if it was pointless and repetative, and not accomplishing anything, but just to make some exploiters rich? Would you keep doing your job, if you were uninspired? It just gets more complicated, it seems like. It seems like happiness being within, is primary. So this idea, that I'm going to continue with any fearful and compulsive task to please someone else, or be "normal" (or seem disciplined), is just not the case. Also the Self is described in the vedas as the true, the good and the beautiful. So why would I continue participating in what isn't? Why would I continue to participate in an oppressive, abusive society? And when they say non-doership, I think there is some literal-ness there. I mean the fearful one, that thinks it's holding up the statue really has to be relinquished. So I wasn't saying giving up activity. Today, I did alot.
... recent comments gadget ...
I'm happy that it hopefully serves the needs of the readers of this blog. To be honest: It is in my eyes my own most valuable contribution to this blog.
I'm sorry, I'm not really convinced of the importance of ritual. That Christian preacher thought muslims were doomed to go to hell because of the lack of a certain cloth. Ritual seems like it's fine if it helps someone, but I don't think Shankara's statement about Knowledge and action, that knowledge and action are the same. Inquiry seems like it's a discrimination to see what is eternal and who I am? And Knowledge is the experiential knowledge of that. Action, or inaction is of the body, or mind. I don't think it really has anything to do with this inquiry or liberation. Yeah, Annamalai swami told the person to strive, but he meant strive at inquiry, strive at discrimination. He meant striving to Realize the Self. There is a place for effort, and a place for non-effort (in the world), but what I was saying is, if one abides in the real, or happiness itself, it seems like the actions taken will be the right ones, but they may not accord perfectly with societal norms. I have a feeling that is what maharshi meant by it is good to follow prescribed dharma, but where there is a conflict between it and the inquiry go with the inquiry. I have a feeling what he meant was, where an activity or action is out of accord with the happiness of the Self. Like some of those things the Christian teacher said were imperative like evangelizing. Go with the inquiry, go with the happiness, not the ritual.
I think jupes gets the prize for the best advice. On advice, I think I write here on inquiry-related issues, not so much so someone can tell me how to do it better, nor to convince others that what I'm doing is correct, but more for a kind of feedback. That I can use discernment to see how much it fits with the inquiry. Anonymous, says that I'm not listening to his advice. No, it's just that not all advice is practicable in terms of workability. Not all advice is equal, nor should all advice be put into practice. And on Ramana maharshi and sexuality. I don't think he had any one way or the other answer on it. It's not true, I think, that Maharshi just said go for it in all cases. Because on the other hand in Self-inquiry he mentions the yamas, and included among those is celibacy. And he didn't ever advocate desire, or wanting things, other then one's own Self. But that people should cultivate dispassion. So my take on it, is that the only thing wanted should be the happiness of one's own Self, and that's not just advice for some special class of spiritual people (or celibate people, or ripe people), though maybe not everyone is wise enough, or mature enough to heed it. It's not worldly life, or spiritual life. It's where is happiness? It isn't in the objects (or experiences) of this world, that is a false belief. It doesn't matter what your lifestyle is, culture, subculture, liberal conservative, ritual, lack of ritual. It doesn't make happiness more in the objects of the world. So, it seems to me, that Maharshi was not at odds with any phenomenal experience inclusive of sexuality, but that one should be disidentified, and content, and happy in oneself no matter what is occuring. It wasn't that the unripe need to be desperate unhappy, if they aren't having sex or in relationship. It's that everyone should realize that happiness is the nature of their own self, which is the Self, and non-individualized. So I'm not happy unless I get this, is just unwise in any sense. I don't think honestly, the problem with pseudo-advaita is that they don't engage in the rituals of Hinduism. I think it's a sincerity issue. and people can be self-righteously orthodox about their religion and totally insincere, or they can be totally atheist and insincere. My understanding is that advaita, as in Ribhu Gita, Ashtavakra Gita, Maharshi's teachings. The important thing is complete surrender of the ego, and abidance in the bliss of one's own Self, the Self. Whatever means, helps one get there, are the right means. But that Maharshi did not particularly advocate one particular set of customs or rituals. Or honestly, that ritual is the deciding factor. I mean at the time of Shankara, or Jesus, there were lots of fakes. Nothings changed in that regard. And they are fakes, merely because they are not earnest. They aren't determined. They aren't humble.
I think approaching sexuality from a standpoint of unhappiness and neediness (and then drastic action), is just unwise. But if in a state of total happiness, those things occur, that's great. On effort, I'm finding, I think, that it's kind of like that martial art. Egoic effort, is the equivalent of muscling it, which does not make for effective techniques, because if you have to muscle and think about it, in a real situation, that is extremely fast, your body won't naturally react in a quick, natural way. So you train in a sense, so the body mechanics are fluid and effortless, even hard punches, the power comes from relaxed, whip-like muscle movements (from the foot to the hips upward) that do not exhaust one. (and you can be 80 and still take on multiple opponents) Whereas a beginner, the equivalent of the ego, exhausts themselves, muscles it, lacks fluidity and sensitivity. That to me is an analogy for the ego. It almost seems less a question of effort, and more a question of naturalness. I think without ego, one would be natural in one's responses. Whereas with ego, one would muscle it through life experiences. You may still engage effort without ego, but it would be natural fluid responses, and you would be totally at peace within. So just like some awkward, exhausting movements have to be given up in the martial art I was learning, so too, the same in life with spirituality. Certain things that are just not working, bad relationships and friendships, jobs that are stressful, and abusive. A healthier balance may have to be struck. If the society is totally oppressive, in Self-abidance, one's participation in the institutions may decrease quite a bit. But that's why it seems like happiness should be the key, deciding factor. If I have to lose my happiness to engage in something, in essence it's saying that that action totally requires me engaging as an ego, as a person, keeping one's burdens, like holding the luggage on the lap. Even if I put the luggage up above the seat I may still do the effort to walk to the cafe car and get lunch (laugh), or bring my nice cup of coffee up to my mouth. (laugh), I may engage my vocal chords to talk to the passenger in the next seat, but naturally and effortlessly. IT almost seems like inquiry is like training to be a black belt to like a 5th degree black belt, and a jnani is a 10th degree black belt, where there techniques come from pure no-mind, and fluidity. But the observer, it looks like it takes incredible energy to be that 10th degree black belt, even though he doesn't even know he's moving, his body just naturally fends off 10 attackers.
That martial art I learned, was amazing. I kind of think maybe most martial arts, kung fu, karate, they are kind of like the world's religions. Eskabo Daan I learned was like the Self-inquiry of martial arts. It was the direct path to mastery. This founder, who I met on many occassions invented these flow drills that could be used empty hands or weapons, and you would do these flow drills for a while with a partner. It was to develop that effortless fluidity. I worked out with one of the advanced master students once, and even when he went slow, I couldn't defend against him. There was something really psychic and weird about it. Almost that this art was designed to be in samadhi, no-mind while doing it, all the techniques were designed for the most effortless, tight motions. But it wasn't like tai chi which is fluid but has big motions, it was tighter and more like boxing, but with the trap hands which is a big part of filipino martial arts. Also it was filled with also sorts of destructive techniques, and one aspect kind of original was de-fanging. You de-fang the opponents attacking structures before moving to the body. So you elbow their fists, and strike their arms, you with leverage break their arms. I mean, I got half way to like the full mastery of the art, still enough to be qualified, and I have to say that mixed with being in the natural fluid bliss of Self-inquiry, like I don't fear attackers. I know my body would respond correctly even to deal with an attacker who even has moderate skill.
Scott,
I agree with what you have said regarding Happiness ,fear,etc.
When one is happy,one does not think about oneself-That is the point that I have made.
coming to what you call 'rituals'-anything can become a ritual if done unconsciously-Eating,Brushing one's teeth,sleeping.
Done with 'Sraddha'(Diligence),it takes a different dimension altogether.
Just explore with your Breakfast,put a small mouthful of your usual Food and Eat it slowly without forcing it in a hurried manner.
Same way sip the water slowly ,a little quantity at a time.See if this makes a difference.
The whole secret is that the attention is on that particular activity at that point of time.This makes you Whole.
The Vedic Mantras that accompany what you call as 'Rituals' are not just 'words' of another Language.They are essentially Seed sounds that have their intrinsic power of consciousness.I can understand what you have stated equating this with that Christian Preacher-I do not expect that you would be familiar with Vedic Samskaras.Essentially 'Samskaras' means 'Imprints'.They have the power to loosen up and counter the Tight grip of the agelong vasanas(Imprints).These are not the work of One Jesus,or one Sankara-but the collective distilled wisdom of a whole procession of Great Sages over the Ages-Discovered ,not invented by the Human mind-Timeless.
-----------------------------------
I saw one of nome's mails mentioning about 'rituals' and Muruganar doing puja to siva linga.How vedic chanting and other parayana are conducted in Sri Ramanasramam.
The Strength in this sort of approach is that it gives a steadiness and Rhythm to the Sadhana which otherwise would be in fits and starts(erratic).They will fall off at some stage in a natural way.
-----------------------------------Wish you the very Best.
Namaskar.
Anonymous,
with regard to the issue of collecting fees,i would like to narrate this interesting story:
Although a Muslim by birth, Rahim was a devotee of Lord Krishna and wrote poetry dedicated to him. He was also an avid Astrolger, and the writer if two important works in Astrology Khet Kautukam and Dwawishd Yogavali are still popular.
He is well known for his strange manner of giving alms to the poor. He never looked at the person he was giving alms to, keeping his gaze downwards in all humility. When the Great Saint Tulsidas heard about Rahim's strange method of giving alms, he promptly wrote a couplet and sent it to Rahim:
Aisi deni den jyu, kit seekhe ho sainjyon jyon kar oonchyo karo, tyon tyon niche nain
"Sir, Why give gifts like this? Where did you learn that?Your hands are as high as your eyes are low"
Realizing that Tulsidas was well 'Aware' of the 'Truth' behind creation, and was merely giving him an opportunity to say a few lines in reply, he wrote to Tulsidas in all humility:
Denhar koi aur hai, bhejat jo din rainLog bharam hum par kare, taaso niche nain
"The Giver is someone else, bestowing, day and night.The world gives me credit: so, down are my eyes."
-----------------------------------
Charging a fee for something that is not one's own is like selling somebody else property and making a booty.The Beauty is that such a theft is not possible in the spiritual realm.Those who sell are selling their ignorance and like everything else,this stuff also has customers who buy.
It has nothing to do with the temperament,etc.
Namaskar.
Ramos,
"To be honest: It is in my eyes my own most valuable contribution to this blog."
Thanks very much Ramos.I cannot forget all the translations that you have done and what it would mean to all aspirants in Germany.I also appreciate how these have been done as a pure labour of Love without any expectation whatsoever.
What about 'Advaita Sadhana' by the Sage of Kanchi?Is it on the anvil?
God Bless you.
Namaskar.
Friends,
I received a mail today which I think serves to illustrate the Topic of 'Script' that I had posted earlier today:
An English professor wrote the words:
"A woman without her man is nothing"
on the chalkboard and asked his students to punctuate it correctly.
All of the males in the class wrote:
"A woman, without her man, is nothing."
All the females in the class wrote:
"A woman: without her, man is nothing."
-----------------------------------
So it is with Scripts;The power of punctuation is with each one of us.That makes all the difference.
Namaskar.
On the subject of effort or no effort, this quote from Annamalai Swami says it all for me:
"According to one's prarabdha, the efforts which are necessary and which have to happen will arise in one's mind."
Also, here is an excerpt from the segment written by David that one of the Anons posted recently, also spoken by Annamalai Swami:
"It is also in the script that I tell people every day that they must have more determination and make more effort. People who are ready to be inspired to make more effort come here and listen to me speak, and when I cajole them into more effort, they go away and make more effort. But it wasn't their choice, their decision. They were scripted to come to someone who would inspire them to try harder. And that subsequent trying harder is also in their script."
It seems pretty clear to me.
From Silence of the Heart, transcripts with Robert Adams. I'm sharing this particularly in response to some of the tenor of anonymous' comments (but it applies to myself as well): As I wrote it out, it made me laugh in a couple places.
Robert, how do you tell a false sage from a real sage?
Your heart will tell you. If you are a sincere devotee, you do not have to worry about anything like that. Something within you will tell you what to do, where to go. But if you are a false devotee, you will go to a false sage. Like attracts like. Therefore, you honestly have to take a good look at yourself, according to what you are, who you are, spiritually in consciousness. That's why I say everybody's in their right place. There are no mistakes. Everybody's where they're supposed to be. No mistakes whatsoever. And there are no false sages. Because a false sage has false people. So they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, having a false teaching.
Which is right the way it's supposed to be. So if you're sincere, you will attract the right sage. We don't have to wonder where we will be. It all depends on what we are."
Thank you for your kind words, Ravi. I have abandoned all translation projects so far, and I also abandon any discussions here and elsewhere because I never found peace and contentment with what I was saying in conversations to others. Instead I'm doing monologues now at home and on my blog, and I got really happy with it. Some people develop more awareness when talking to themselves as to others. The publication of Swami Venkatesanandas Vasisthas Yoga is prepared by friends and by me and hopefully is going to be printed in summer. Perhaps I'm going to create a new and reader friendly website dedicated to this invaluable book - this will be my final activity as a translator.
Clemens,
I wish to add my thanks to you for your longtime presence and contributions on this blog. I am glad you have found a way to be happy in your writing. All the very best to you in your future pursuits.
Jupes
I was thinking about the previously mentioned dating issues, and it's relationship with inquiry. Hypothetically, I see someone attractive, if I start thinking, should I do something about it? Should I go up to that person and talk to them? I immediately leave peace. It is an action that comes from desire, and not being happy and at peace. See, I know this is counter to the prevailing wisdom. The prevailing wisdom doesn't understand non-egoic power to things. All the counselors I've talked to, advise just doing something about it, and seem to have no clue about being sensitive, and definitely no clue about happiness being within. The thing is, while being happy, at peace, maybe even abiding deeply in the Self, in samadhi, when I'm really there, and not immersed in wanting things, but just in my own existence. Where does feeling totally comfortable around someone come from? so, it makes oneself inviting to positive interaction with others, and unlike with others, around you then, that person can be themselves, relationships can develop naturally. If relationships (not just romantic), were just on a logical, level, and there was nothing supernatural about human interaction, then modern psychology would be correct. But I can say unequivocally they are not correct. In a sense I almost want to go so far as the key to relationship success is Self-abidance. But that really depends on the person. I can't say for sure, becoming enlightened, i.e. realizing my own nature is going to solve my romantic woes. But if nothing else, then my interactions with others are truly selfless and loving. Love does not come from the ego. So any relationship based on ego, contains no love. There is a place for taking action, but the correct actions won't involve stress, or giving up one's own happiness. They will be natural, and come from being at peace. I think some people have trouble understanding this, because of not having as much experience of the peace of their own selves. So I might continue to get the same wrong answers from them. And it is similar to with that martial art.
They can't see that the skill actually requires no effort, and are the most natural motions. And I think that's a similarity. I'm trying to learn the most natural, and effective motions, rather then crass, and awkward motions that involve muscling it. Because I think when one is totally in their own bliss, that sends a message that radiates outward. No words need be said. It's heart to heart speech for miles. A crass action that is stressful can muffle that communication. Nonetheless, without stress, I could in some way or another tell potential romantic partners that I do have that interest in them. (and have recently) But also love them as friends. it gives them a space, to reciprocate, if they want the same thing. And to do that, requires no loss of peace. It's just honest communication. In some ways I even prefer e-mailing a friend that I'm interested in that way, because I don't want to muffle the natural heart to heart speech when I'm around them. But eventually, for all I know, as my heart to heart to speech and Self-abidance gets stronger, it will compensate for those non-verbal difficulties, because I won't be non-verbally fearful of being too open, and making too much of a non-verbal confrontation, i.e. shying from eye contact, that may make me more inviting, to move into physical affection.
Ramos,
I visited your website and tried if I could figure out,atleast get a hint of what is there.I have zero knowledge of German-I just found the word 'Danke' in one of the comments posted by one of the Readers.That is the only word in German that I Know .I have a suggestion-Is it possible to put a Translation link?So that others may be able to read your musings.
Yes,I understand your views on Sravana and Manana.
Wish you All the Very Best.
Namaskar.
David, Thankyou for the new posting Ramananda Giri.
When we first reached Lucknow we were surprised by the Osho commune atmosphere, which was unexpected.
Neverhtheless it was colourful, with a mixture of many nationalities.
You said to Ramananda Giri that the heart-centre was not part of self enquiry. It's true I can't directly quote Ramana on this but Arthur Osborne followed this particular instruction.Maybe it's part of Bhakti Marga.
I also remember in one of your DVDs, you questioning a group of close devotees about various experiences they had with Papaji.
One woman ( a German doctor) I believe, was very devotional and spoke of a cave in the heart, there was a flame and that flame was indescribable.
So it seems that even though the teaching is not spelled out as such, novices can still concentrate on the right hand side and not be limited by it. Consequently some may experience it as the 'cave of the heart.'
hj
The question of meditating on the heart-centre was discussed here a couple of years ago in the following post:
http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.com/2008/07/meditation-on-heart-centre.html
While Bhagavan sometimes said that concentrating on the heart-centre was the best place to focus one's attention if one wanted to put attention somewhere in the body, he never said that it was a part of the process of self-enquiry.
Ravi:
That was a beautiful message from Sage TGN-On not letting external circumstances sway our happiness. Thanks for sharing it. It is one of those things that makes absolute sense, but I still tend to forget it, when things go awry.
Funnily enough, I saw a thanjavur doll in Tanjore, whilst coming out of the temple in Gangai konda cholapuram. :)
In a post addressed to LMM, you mentioned about self-esteem, and how it is important to have an 'ego'. Could you please elaborate on why it is necessary?
Also, many sages have said that having the 'I am the doer' idea is not correct, and that, over the long run, it leads to more entanglement. So, would it not be at odds with having an 'ego'? Is there any way through which we can overcome this ? Karma yoga springs to mind-not the easiest of yogas.
Thanks, m
"In a post addressed to LMM, you mentioned about self-esteem, and how it is important to have an 'ego'. Could you please elaborate on why it is necessary?
Also, many sages have said that having the 'I am the doer' idea is not correct, and that, over the long run, it leads to more entanglement. So, would it not be at odds with having an 'ego'? Is there any way through which we can overcome this ? Karma yoga springs to mind-not the easiest of yogas."
I didn't say that. Ravi said something along those lines. Karma yoga, Maharshi said, and it is in an earlier post, that even karma yoga should be done without the I am the doer idea. I was saying earlier, that having esteem in one's individual self gets in the way.
Anonymous(m),
Interesting to read about your coming across Tanjore dolls.Friend,You have Humility and openness.
coming to self esteem,I will share with you what Sri Ramakrishna says:
"When peasants go to market to buy bullocks for their ploughs, they can easily tell the good from the bad by touching their tails. On being touched there, some meekly lie down on the ground. The peasants recognize that these are without mettle and so reject them. They select only those bullocks
that frisk about and show spirit when their tails are touched."
This is what Swami Vivekananda says:
"You cannot believe in God until you believe in yourself."
"The first sign of your becoming religious is that you are becoming cheerful"
-----------------------------------
This is what Self Esteem is all about.The seeker who lacks this confidence cannot proceed far.
This is the message of the Upanishads-They proclaim again and again-'Amritasya Putra'-Ye Children of Immortality.
-----------------------------------
I have not said that the Ego needs to be encouraged.I have said that it is there for a good reason-It is on account of this that a person seeks to improve his lot;He seeks to excel in any field.
The path of Excellence needs to be traversed before one becomes ripe to attempt the Most Excellent-Self Realization.
Self Realization is only for the strong and Fittest and not for weaklings.
-----------------------------------
It is not as if the 'I' is to be targeted and dropped;one outgrows its limitations.That is all.It means to outgrow all attachments.What then exists is the Self.
Namaskar.
Anonymous(m),
"Also, many sages have said that having the 'I am the doer' idea is not correct, and that, over the long run, it leads to more entanglement. So, would it not be at odds with having an 'ego'? Is there any way through which we can overcome this ? Karma yoga springs to mind-not the easiest of yogas."
Friend,the key thing is to get hold of the least spark in us-whatever that be.Just hold onto this and live this.This will gradually lead to all the rest.
This may be either Faith,devotion,knowledge or a generous act.Just to put our heart and soul into this and fan this spark.
No need to go after an ego;afterall if it is imaginary ,at some stage it will not be there.
Ofcourse,if one is moved into calling the Bluff a bluff through Self Enquiry,Please go ahead and be Free.
Namaskar.
"I have not said that the Ego needs to be encouraged.I have said that it is there for a good reason-It is on account of this that a person seeks to improve his lot;He seeks to excel in any field.
The path of Excellence needs to be traversed before one becomes ripe to attempt the Most Excellent-Self Realization.
Self Realization is only for the strong and Fittest and not for weaklings."
I disagree, the path of excellence in the world is not a pre-requisite for Excellent Self-Realization. I would agree, I become more cheerful, as I practice Self-inquiry, and there gets to be less ego. But I haven't heard Maharshi or anybody else say there is some correlation between success in the world, and Realization. People, can be confidently arrogant. I think that is not in the correct direction. One of the reasons Maharshi's teachings resonated so strongly with me, was the fact that this teaching was circumstance independent. Not only circumstance independent but he said on numerous occassions throughout Talks, the first book I had that worldly difficulties and troubles just serve to make you lose faith in the world, as in that is a positive developement. (That resonated very strongly with me, because I had lost faith in the world) The gist I have gotten from all these Self-Realized masters is that spiritual practice and inquiry has no pre-requisite. You just gotta turn within, there is nothing that needs to be developed first. Nome said on one the audio CD's that I listened to, "You don't need certainty to inquire, you need to inquire to have certainty". I guess, it really depends on how you define self-esteem. If you mean pride in your individual accomplishments, I could probably find many Ramana quotes, one comes to mind, where he said, "pride of learning is condemned and not learning itself". People confident in who they are, the individual-self, which is what the ego is. So if people are really invested in it, and think, gee, it's worked really well for them, well that's the thing that has to be relinquished either through, your favorite Ravi, worship, surrender (Papaji said surrender is of the "I"), or inquiry. Esteem in one's self as an individual, one's power of accomplishment, is infact, I don't think positive self-esteem, but arrogance. Many people will say, "you just gotta buck up". They think they are responsible for their accomplishments, they don't think their accomplishments were bestowed on them. Because everybody including me, does their best to succeed, to fulfill their desires, to be someone. For me, it took the utter failure of my best efforts to cause me to go in the direction of yoga meditation, ultimately self-inquiry. I wouldn't have otherwise. And people who are successful, think "I did it, so can you" (laugh). It's a joke to me. You could say in a sense, God, gave them the necessary abilities, circumstance that allowed them to succeed. Someone else despite their best efforts may be homeless their whole life, or suffering malnutrition in a 3rd world country somewhere, or have down syndrome, or Cerebral palsy, or Autism. That was the whole point to me of Ramana's letter penned to his mother, "the fates of souls are all by God ordained, according to the deeds they have done.." Obviously, on a moment to moment basis, everyone does their best, but the results are going to be different for each person, I guess within this teaching, based on karma, but even secularly based on genetics, circumstance. There is Self-esteem that, is what inquiry and surrender point to, and there is a confidence that comes from having no insecurities, worries, depression, because one has given up one's burdens and abides in the joy of their own Self. But that's a different kind of self-esteem, and requires no previous thing, or circumstance, or accomplishment.
"You cannot believe in God until you believe in yourself."
Honest assessment. It seems like one can think alot of oneself as a person, or one can think negatively of oneself. Neither is in the direction of surrender. Surrender, it seems is surrender of the "I". So the goal is not having a happy "I" or a sad "I". But no "I". When you say believing in yourself, I can't imagine that in any other way, then believing in yourself as an individual, your power of accomplishment. People who don't have difficulties in one form or another, may see the results of their actions as mostly positive, and believe in their individual power of accomplishment. (if extreme, then they become a fascist) Then the duality of individual and God is kept up. When for instance, I wasn't functioning well in the world, despite alot of efforts, and so did not believe in myself in terms of accomplishment. I guess I did believe in myself in terms of I knew I had did my best. I had taken action where I thought I should take action. I didn't get the results of a job, a relationship. I lived at a communal house and my mom paid the cheap rent for a number of years. You could say, well, I'm like the meek bullock. And I guess you could say in a sense, I believed in myself enough to shift strategies, yoga, meditation, instead of worldly efforts, or wanting to increase the sensitivity, the receptiveness, rather then just trying to solve problems by brute force, by doing something drastic about them. I decided to rely more on Consciousness, then brute action. It was Consciousness, not my previous intense efforts that got me a bachelor's in molecular biology. I have to say, it was mostly effortless. Was that self-esteem or belief in myself, not really, it was more relinquishment of myself, and so I had an easier time getting things done. There was a relinquishment of individual story. When you say believe in yourself I don't think you mean believe in the Self which is God. If you did, that would be the same. You'd believe in God before you believe in God, that would be more in line with Maharshi's teachings. But I think you meant believe in yourself as an individual, where is the room for that in Maharshi's teachings when the whole point, first thing is to see that that entity does not exist. The whole point is that one gives up one's burdens entirely, I think literally, first thing. If one believes one is a great person, who has accomplished alot. That person that's believed in is an illusion. It's like believing in fairies or ghosts. This false person is believed in. If one is really happy with their imaginary person believe, great friends with their imaginary friend, it might be harder for them to give up that belief in the imaginary friend. If my imaginary friend is constantly hitting, kicking biting me, and saying abusive things to me, (bad side of karma), I am more likely to want to see the fact that it is an illusion.
Yes, the message of the upanishads is that one should be happy and non-attached as far as I can tell. But when people say self-esteem or confidence. "You've gotta be confident, boy". They are not referring to egoless, cheerfulness, joy. They are talking about ability to impose one's will on the world, to make the life you want for yourself. That attitude, has caused nothing but harm. So that faith in yourself, you talk about, seems to me, to be an extremely unholy thing.
so I guess the essence of where Ravi seems wrong to me, is that yes happiness is very important. Being unhappy is through delusion and ego. Being confident, if it is confident in one's ability to realize, seems important, one has to go with it, full-steam, and be confident in one's ability to discern and Realize. But where I think Ravi is perhaps wrong, is Ravi keeps seeming to me to make a case that worldly effort and success, are imperative. Confident in one's ability, and doing a great job at one's intended field. And I think that is not important. You can be successful or unsuccesful in the world, effortful, or not effortful in the world, and it is irrelevent. That is your prarabdha karma. But happiness, transcendent of circumstance, and confident in one's ability to Realize. But confident of success in one's field, or ability to be financially independent in the world, I think are profoundly unimportant.
the suffering, the yearning, the Sea
(and I don’t mean surfing!)
this is the sea
* * * * *
These things you keep
you better throw them away
you want to turn your back
on your soulless days
once you were tethered
now you are free
once you were tethered
now you are free
that was the river
this is the sea
now if you are feeling weary
if you've been alone too long
or maybe you been suffering from
a few too many plans that have gone wrong
and you're tryin' to remember
how fine your life used to be
running around banging your drum
like it's ninteeen seventy three
well that was the river
this is the sea
now you say you got trouble
you say you got pain
you say you got nothin' left to believe in
nothin' to hold on to
nothin' to trust
nothin' but chains
you've been scouring your conscience
raking through your memory
scouring your conscience
raking through your memory
that was the river
this is the sea
now i can see you're waverin'
as you try to decide
you've got a war in your head
and it's tearing you up inside
you're tryin' to make sense
of something that you just don't see
tryin' to make sense now
and you know that you once held the key
but that was the river
and this is the sea
now here is a train
it's comin' on down the line
you realise if you hurry
you got still enough time
and you don't need no ticket
and you dont pay no fee
and you don't need no ticket
and you dont pay no fee
because that was the river
and this is the sea
that was the river
this is the sea
that was the river
this is the sea
the river, the river, the river, the river
the river, the river, the river
and this is the sea
sea mmmmmm sea
Behold The Sea
A devotee wanted to ask a question here but somehow couldn't get it to display here. He sent it to me by email instead. Here it is:
Some gentleman was asking a straightforward question, which is a very valid question, “ what if someone is terminated from job, can I sit and ask “I am terminated, to whom this “I” belongs to etc”
Though one should really ask this question in any situation and go deep within, practical obstacles definitely come into picture. From this gentleman’s question, I still go deeper, the case where one is encountered with a absolute threat, a sudden but very gross threat to this physical life itself.
How many of us who currently practice this self enquiry can remain fearless quite unaffected by what is going to happen? I precisely want an answer to that final moment and how one should prepare himself to that event so that one dies in full knowledge and not forcibly squeezed out of one’s body.
On Saturday I went to a exhibition where there was a Tora Tora (like a Ferris wheel but it will rotate first at ground level for one round, then slightly one part up with 30 degrees tilt, next in 45 degrees, 60 degress, 90 degress etc)
generally i am afraid of these rides.............but because i was practicing the self enquiry method of Maharishee, i really wanted to test my fear of death and how it really looks for me when the whirling effect take place
so i boarded the ride...........................what i encountered thereafter shows my spiritual progress to little.......
as i boarded and put the seat belt, the first fear was the erroneous Indian system where these types of vehicles may not be perfect and "what if " kind of questions............with that firm in mind as i started whirling i closed my eyes and concentrated on arunachala....................slowly as the degrees went increasing i meditated on the concept that i am not this body or the thoughts bound as mind...............then the picture of ramana maharishee flashed in my mind and i wanted to take solace on him...........but immediately another part of my being told me that this maharishee is a true jnani who does not care when the body or mind is affected and he wont even hear or act upon your egoistic mind's cries...........suddenly the fear of getting crushed under some wheels came to me..............i was overwhelmed with fear and closed eyes (as the degree was raising the stomach was getting a jolt and you could not stop but close your eyes )..............at this juncture remarkably only two figures gave me peace and re-assurance.....................one is in my family deity neelamegaswamy temple there is a ugra ambaal (called kulundaayi amman)....in fact first I wanted to concentrate on neelamegaswamy but immediately went to this deity as it is a mother form).............the second person who offered me solace was Mirra Alfassa.....................The feeling at that time was one of immediate rescue and "NOT NOW death" aspiration. Without any offense to his Holiness, for postponing the moment, I would say, my mind definitely rejected Maharishee’s form and took hold of something or someone who will readily act tangible in this dream world.
With this result when I die (of course this "NOT NOW" death aspiration every time cannot click and when the moment has come i need to forcibly pushed out of this body) I feel I will have slightly (very infinitesimal knowledge ) when compared with illiterate souls and may go to a region where suffering is intense for 99% with 1% reassurance from a slightly higher plane). This is what at the max I can put down my real intuitive feeling into pen.
I may dismiss all this Tora Tora ride experience and analysis as mere bluffing of my intellect, but i see a phenomenon and a pattern that this Maharishee is training me and conducting some review tests at the same time to ensure my progress.
Salutations to Ramana's feet.. Arunachalam smaranaa mukthi
Anonymous,
Beautiful Lyric and music.Thanks very much.
Namaskar.
Devotee,
Very Good experiment with the Tora Tora.
Coming to losing the job(or any other problem/crisis) Master TGN used to advise asking this question-What Next?Focus on this rather than on the Fear,disappointment,etc.Focus on what one needs to do-Prepare a CV reflecting one's skill sets and relevant experience,Apply for another Job,etc -One can only do what one can.Focus on improving the skills required.
He would emphasise that one should be willing to give one hundred percent of oneself if selected for that job.He used to advise interviewees to go with this mind set(This can only come about if one is downright honest).
If one is prepared to give of oneself,Nature will return the same manifold.
These are some of his tips.
Namaskar.
Dear David,
"A devotee wanted to ask a question here but somehow couldn't get it to display here. He sent it to me by email instead."
The narrative which the devotee described (Tora tora) is exactly what I underwent a couple of years back. These were exactly the concerns I had. The following are the conclusions of what I arrived (ofcourse intellectually). I simulated Tora-tora kind of incidents on myself many times to arrive at some conclusions. The following are my observations. Others can comment.
1. When critical moments come, "something else" from inside takes over and completely pushes aside all our intellect. This something else is the core of the ego (not the Self) whose nature is fear, anxiety etc., So, at the moment, you become helpless in the hands of this "fear of survival". Though intellectually, we all say ego is non-existant, this is true only after realizing the Self. Till then, everything else is the function of the ego and it is very real. The very fact we are reading this blog, thinking about various things...is all again ego - right? Sri Ramakrishna told that you may repeat every moment that "All is Brahman" but when a thorn pricks you, you will shout with pain.
2. All our spiritual practices are by themselves like a mosquito scratching the horn of a bull (ego). How many ever we do them, it is more scratching the horn. By themselves, they cannot help the ego taking over completely in critical moments. I may be extreme here in my views but I am here talking about the normal mental state we have where "an all consuming desire to realize the Self" did not yet takeover us.
3. The value of the spiritual practices is actually to evoke a tremedous desire to realize the Self and thereby attract Grace. Once the Grace takes over. This cannot happen unless the strong feeling that we are helpless to kill the bull takes control of us. The problem with spiritual practices is that when we do them, we get a feeling that we have done soemthing good. This will enhance the ego. I think that if we go on doing spiritual practices and after a lifetime effort we realize that our fundamental fears, anxieties etc., did not go away, it will lead to a great sorrow that everything is wasted and this leads to surrender. I think this is actually the desired result of the practices. Correct me if I am wrong.
My humble conclusion is that ultimately a "Power Higher Than Ourselves" should takeover for anything to happen. All our sadhanas, call it self enquiry, karma yoga, japa, practice of surrender should ultimately lead to a complete feeling of helplessness that nothing works and should lead to the "thinking and analyzing" faculty to die down for the Higher Power to start operating. I think unless this yearning is invoked, nothing will happen.
I keep close to heart the two examples which David has given somewhere in blog - "the crow trying to empty the ocean" and "preperation of tasty curry by implicitly following Bhagavan's instructions to keep on frying the vegetable till it is charred".
Regards Murali
Murali,
"I keep close to heart the two examples which David has given somewhere in blog - "the crow trying to empty the ocean" and "preperation of tasty curry by implicitly following Bhagavan's instructions to keep on frying the vegetable till it is charred".
This is the crux of it.
Namaskar.
Friends,
I wish to share this couplet of Kabir:
Dukh Mein Sumiran Sab Kare, Sukh Mein Kare Na Koi,
Jo Sukh Mein Sumiran Kare, Dukh Kahe Ko Hoi
In sorrow everyone thinks of God,
In happiness,No one thinks of him;
He who thinks of God when happy,
Why should there be sorrow(for that one)?
Namaskar.
Saddened by the passing of Derek an elderly English gent. Who used to spend prolonged stays at the foot of Arunachela, even when he was old and frail.
Slightly older then Helga, he visited her regularly. He was also a good friend of the late Ann Keogh who introduced him to Ramana's teachings many years ago.
Towards the end he was suffering from slight dementia and was taken advantage of by a few locals, nevertheless his strong attachment to Ramana caused him only joy.
hj
LMM 'One gives up ones burdens entirely'
Yes, You understand the teachings well. You're also very honest.
I enjoyed reading your input.
HJ
This was Nome's latest response, a good one:
From: fraundor@pdx.edu [mailto:fraundor@pdx.edu]
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 5:24 PM
To: SAT
Subject: you, the guru
So... you haven't responded in a while, and maybe because I haven't
needed it. But, I haven't conclusively, fully realized the Self, so I
don't think our relationship guru/devotee could be done. And so, I
would like to keep moving this along, so the depth increases. And the
big questions is, what do I need to do? Besides inquiry? Maybe just
inquiry. But I also feel on some level I still need guidance,
guru-relationship. You are the only true jnani I've ever met. And I
don't want to waste that opportunity. I don't know what else to say.
There is a part of me that hopes, that this long pause, is like
waiting, just waiting to lay waste to all the ways in which I've
strayed, demolishing in some much deeper way. Rather then....you've
just set me up to inquire, and now I'm on my own now. The reason I
like getting responses from you, is on one hand, so I can get the
instruction, like our correspondence, which I still retain. But also,
so that I can have that immediate interaction with someone who is
fully abiding as the Self. And I really think that is important, and
want as much of that as possible.
Dear Scott,
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya
Namaste. Thank you for your messages.
A recurrent theme in your recent messages is perplexity concerning
action. The ideas of doing and not doing are a dualism both sides of which
have the misidentification of being an embodied actor as the basis. Free
yourself of that basic mistake, and the instruments of action will also be
free to engage in numerous activities that, at their own level, do good for
living beings. Even in your fantasies of doing only very little you also
imagine others doing good for you, such as feeding your body, providing
shelter, producing clothing, giving medical care, and a host of other things
and actions to benefit you and others. You probably also desire that they do
such while being cognizant of your essence. This understanding can be
expanded to a much larger degree, and what is stated here is just a hint of
such. Perhaps, you would find it more blessed to give than to receive and
happier to help than to be helped, remaining keenly aware of the Self in
all.
By profound inquiry, you will find freedom from confusion and great
joy within.
Ever yours in Truth,
Nome
Thank you so much anonymous, or hv!
Scott,
" This understanding can be
expanded to a much larger degree, and what is stated here is just a hint of
such. Perhaps, you would find it more blessed to give than to receive and
happier to help than to be helped, remaining keenly aware of the Self in
all."
Wonderful message from Sri Nome.
Wish you the Very Best.
Namaskar.
Friends,
I received this witty mail:
"First year students of MBBS were attending their inagural anatomy class.
They all gathered around the surgery table with a real dead dog.
The Professor began the class stressing on two important qualities to be a Doctor.
The First important quality is that NEVER BE DISGUSTED WITH ANYTHING ABOUT BODY,
e.g. He inserted his finger in dog's mouth & on drawing back tasted it in his own mouth.
Then he asked them to do the same.
The students hesitated for several minutes.
But eventually everyone inserted their fingers into the Dead dog's mouth & then tasted it.
When everyone had finished, the Professor looked at them and said:
The Second most important quality is OBSERVATION, I inserted my Middle finger but tasted the Index finger.
Now learn to pay attention."
-----------------------------------
Ravi
In the summer of 1985 there was a water shortage in Tiruvannamalai. Many people from the town starting coming up the hill to take water from Mulaipal Tirtham, the tank on the hill that traditionally has been the water source for sadhus on Arunachala. It was the main source for Bhagavan's devotees when he lived in Virupaksha Cave.
So many people came to take the water, the sadhus convened a meeting to decide what to do because their water supply was running out. There were two foreign sadhus, Richard and Theresa. They were both retired dentists (Theresa had been the dentist of the Mother of Auobindo Ashram), and both lived in caves or huts on the hill.
Theresa told the sadhus, 'I know this sounds crazy, but trust me on this one. If you put a dead dog in the water of the tank, the people from the town will stop coming to take the water. Everyone here should stock up on water before we put the dog in. Once we take the dog out, the bacteria from the decaying dog will die within three days. At that time the water will be drinkable again, but I doubt if anyone from town will come here again for weeks after that.'
A dead dog was found in town and the plan was executed. Theresa was right. The people from town stayed away, and the water became drinkable again after three days.
David,
Interesting Story and cool thinking!.Just to add to what I had posted on the Professor and the Dead Dog-When I narrated that one to a few colleagues,one of them suggested that the first student should have dipped the finger in the aLive professor's mouth after dipping it into the Dead Dog's(to satisy condition number 1 of the Professor!).I thought it would have satisfied condition number 2 as well(Observation).
Namaskar.
Man did Nome nail it on the head, that was like a core delusion I was overlooking. I never even considered that this whole thing, that I consider myself as doing little, and imagine others doing for me, is just all in my head. I was thinking of it in terms of should I? should I not? But why am I imagining that? was not the question I was looking at it from. And then, that I am an embodied actor, again, he was reiterating something I was figuring out for myself about action. So it seems, from what Nome was saying, or I should say, where it led me, is that if these core delusions, such as viewing myself in need of help, considering myself to be an embodied actor are questioned and given up, then the question of what should I do? isn't something I need to think about. Which I think is what that whole Action can never lead to Liberation, Knowledge alone leads to liberation. That's why, Nome is still the person to go to. His responses call attention to overlooked things, to the level at which I am creating it. I've been kind of resting yesterday in a natural bliss and peace, I had never rested in so deep before.
David had said in the below open thread, http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-thread.html?commentPage=2
"I know some people (at least one has posted on this thread) who say that, when attention wanders, one should simply revert to the feeling of 'I', without going through the rigmarole of asking 'Whose attention has wandered?' - 'I' - 'Then who am I?' These people think that Bhagavan's enquiry can be done simply by a quick transfer of attention from the distraction to the one who was distracted."
And also "When I do self-enquiry, irrespective of how quiet I might be, I always make a point of asking 'Who am I?' at regular intervals, and often when I do it, I see a picture of Bhagavan's smiling face inside me.
Self-enquiry is never easy, and Bhagavan himself has said that one cannot extinguish the 'I' without the grace of the Self. By following Bhagavan's instructions to the letter, and by having faith in his words, I like to feel that I have the wind of his grace behind me. Knowing that I could not succeed by my own efforts, I stick to the script and leave the rest to Him."
The first part of the above quotes is applicable to me. I somehow have cultivated the habit of directly questioning "Who am I?" without asking "To whom are these thoguhts". And the way it started is precisely same as what David said; i was trying to quickly arrive at "Who am I?". As I was contemplating on all the quotes that I had come across by Bhagwan on enquiry, truly, He had said that we need to ask both these Qs. And the second quote by David got me really worried that probably I am missing His Grace because of this unwanted inadvertent adventure of mine. So, now, I am in reversal process :) As soon as I ask "Who am I?", I forcebly ask "To whom are these thoughts" and again "Who am I".
But, my problem is when I ask "To whom are these thoughts occuring?" I get stuck here... in the sense, I start looking for source at this question itself. My mental process slows down and I concentrate on "To whom" part of the question. So, I am again failing to obey Bhagawan's orders here. Has anyone faced this kind of problem? Also, because of this, somehow, the answer to "To whom are these thoughts", on the first go, never comes as "To me". Has anyone faced anything similar before?
And, would His Grace lessen if I dont stick to the two questions, as I am tending to find an answer to , really, a combined question? :(
@Maneesha,
To me, 'Where does this 'I' rise from?' works better than 'Who am I?'
The 'Who am I?' helps focus attention back on the 'I' and the 'Whence am I?' somehow makes my attention stay (only for a very short while) on the 'I'.
I try and diligently follow Bhagavan's instruction of 'put the question once, and wait for the answer'.
A lot of times, I find it so difficult that I just close my eyes and think of Bhagavan and Arunachala.
Other times, enquiry begins by itself. Especially moments after waking up in the morning.
Nandu Narasimhan
Nandu, There is no answer!
Whatever technique you use with anticipation of an answer is going down a cul-de-sac.
As the absolute is prior to mind or beyond mind; one can only meekly wait for grace, if and when it chooses to reveal itself.
hj
I still think I, or I-thought is the feeling of personhood, or individuality, it's not really a thing that arises somewhere in space. And my feeling and guess about what inquiry is, is more to be person-less, or egoless. So I think I tend to think of it as end result-oriented. I'm not doing something or looking for something, but trying to get rid of the feeling that I'm a person, to get rid of the sense that I'm this "me". That there is a more Self-evident Self then this mental-creation me. The me that I always am. The mental-creation me, the thought-me. The me that arises as thoughts is constantly changing, but it is something I'm aware of. So the question, To whom did this thought arise? To me! Who am I? The first question re-directs back to that there is this feeling, sense of me, this person, entity, in Who am I? and some of the Maharshi texts he explicitly says it is the jiva, the soul, the ego, the individual, the I-thought. All thsoe are equivalent. So the first question is referring to the fact that for any experience there is the me having that experience. And the me is what is key. In some of the satsang CD's of Nome, I've heard him say stuff like what is it's real nature? I mean essentially, what is the goal? I think it is to reveal the unchanging, self-evident, always present substratum, which is also the feeling I exist. Because Maharshi always calls attention to that the real us, is the same in deep sleep as when awake. So I think the feeling of I exist, is real. But there is a sense that I'm this individual entity person with a changing life, and developing life experiences. That entity is unreal. I mean even in mainstream society, we don't think of what is thought of as existing. But the person I think I am, is just a bunch of thoughts. I guess that is why it is called the I-thought.
@ Anonymous /HJ,
There is no answer. I totally agree with that.
Any answer that comes has to be from the mind, as Bhagavan said.
The one thing that I try and follow is the 'rotation' method as suggested by Bhagavan to Kunju Swami. And as recounted by way of an answer by the owner of this blog to me in February 2009.
The 'rotation' as I try to practise it is as follows - Enquiry, and as that wanes, pick up a book on Bhagavan or Papaji, and as that wanes, try and listen to the Tamil parayana from the ashram, or a discourse on 'Forty Verses' and when that wanes, back to Enquiry.
It works for me in the sense that the despondency at enquiry not happening correctly isn't there.
And yes, it causes one to fall hopelessly in love with both Bhagavan and Arunachala. And that cannot be too bad.
Nandu Narasimhan
This is from the same man who was unable to pot a couple of days ago:
Devotees,
I have still the same question in another form that is wandering around me. Seeing the experiecnes of the devotees, the account of Palanisamy who was very much in the presence of an enlightened soul in physical body during death my concern cannot be helped but to grow higher.
Almost every track of system on spirituality and almost all religions agree on one point which was endorsed by Lord Narayana in Bhagavad Gita itself and re-endorsed by his Holiness Chandrasekara Swamigal in the Deivathin Kural (Voice of God). What one's consciousness is projected into at the time of death, that state becomes predominant deciding authority on one's future spiritual state of existence. Having said that thousands of ignorant souls like me have so many bondages, bank accounts, loans, office work pressures, aspirations, family issues etc etc etc in this one birth alone. No matter I hear 108 times Arunachala Aksharamanamalai it becomes very tough to be unmoved by a sudden brake of the car driver.
Starting from this fear, I can judge that the fear of death can only be manifold multiple times . At that moment all senses, mental faculty, intellect etc will be closed. If the smarana of Guru or the Ishta Devata comes even on a very very small amount, one will get greatly benifited even though liberation wont occur. But what if we are overwhelmed and fully occupied by only worldly thoughts, the prana's intensive suffering and body losing fear?
What if nothing ever comes into the innermost attention of our consciousness? I suspect fearfully that this moment of death and projection of our consciousness to a particular state may well become a random event that rationally depends on circumstances of one's death.
Let us assume that three people are at the same level in spirit before the circumstance of death. For instance, if one dies by accident or murder it will be very tough for that soul to gain its momentum and concentrate. But if other dies by very peaceful heart attack it may be slightly better. And the third one dies being a lunatic two days before the death.
Though your regular internal marks play a role for 50%, the question paper you get at the final examination is also another 50% of the factor.
Not to hurt anyone, seeing all this I think it is futile to talk about Ajata, Advaitam, drishti-shrushti, shrushti -- drishti vatam, saguna -- nirguna upasana bedham, svapnam,jagrudi etc etc. All are only of academic interest.
Only the grace of the Divine, that alone will save one.
A famous Devi devotee and upasakar Abhirama Battar told in one his Tamil poems "if the spirit of death comes to catch hold of me, that time let alone the Divine Couple with their holy feet appear from inside to outside and protect me"
Another famous Azhwar (one of 12 great devotees of Maha Vishnu) cries like this "on that state i wont think of you my Lord, so I now only reserve by chating your holy words, please come and protect me on that final moment" -- appo dhaikku ippo dhe solli vaithen araganthu aravanai palliyaane"
Those great elevated Devotees sang only for mortals like us.
So I think one should not get any least thought of self satisfaction arising within him and be alone dependent completely on the Divine for Thy alone exists.
Devotee,
Here is an excerpt from 'The voice of Divinity' wherein the Sage of Kanchi is recommending a simpler option than a 'Tora Tora' Roller coaster.
'What ever is the predominant thought in one's mind normally every day, will also occur at the time of death too. We can test ourselves to see if we will get 'Bhagawat Smarana' at the time of our death. Let me explain how!
We do go to sleep every night, don't we? Our Saastra-s view this act of going to sleep, very equal to death. When asleep, we are unaware of this body and the world. We say also, "I have been sleeping like a log!" That is why, this sleep is known as, 'Nitya Pralaya' or 'daily dissolution'. Thus daily we can train ourselves to think of God before going to sleep. It could be your Ishta Devata of, Krishna or Kumara or Hanuman or Ambal. Test your self to see if any other thought intrudes. Saying it may be easy. Doing is always difficult.
It could even be our Guru, the one who gives us peace and solace. Before trying, you may think as to what is so difficult about reminiscing on what pleases our minds. But this mind is a great duper. With effort and practice this can be overcome. Depending on our sincerity, God Himself will help us. Slowly we will get the surety and certainty that we are on the right lines for the eventuality!"
-----------------------------------
You may read the complete article in English here:
http://advaitham.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html
Scroll down to Deivathin Kural No.55
-----------------------------------
This is what The Great Saint Thyagaraja sang:
In the kRuti ‘smaraNE sukhamu’ – rAga janaranjani (tALa dESAdi), SrI tyAgarAja states that it is joyous to remember the name of SrI rAma.
pallavi
1smaraNE sukhamu rAma nAma
naruDai puTTin(a)nduku nAma (smaraNE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
anupallavi
vara rAja yOga nishThulau
vArik(A)nandam(a)ndeT(a)TTu (smaraNE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
caraNam
rAma nAma SravaNamu valla
nAma rUpamE hRdayamu niNDi
prEma puTTa sEyaga lEdA
nishkAma tyAgarAju sEyu nAma (smaraNE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gist
For taking birth as a human being, only mental recitation of name of Lord SrI rAma is comforting.
In the same manner as the joy experienced by those great men who are firmly established in the rAja yOga, for taking birth as a human being, only mental recitation of the name of Lord SrI rAma is comforting.
Isn’t it on account of listening to the name of SrI rAma, the very form of the name, filling the heart (of the listeners), enabled sprouting of pure love (in them) towards the Lord?
Therefore, for taking birth as a human being, only desire-less mental recitation of the name of Lord SrI rAma, as performed by this tyAgarAja, is comforting. (OR)
Therefore, for taking birth as a human being, only mental recitation of the name of Lord SrI rAma, as performed by this desire-less tyAgarAja, is comforting.
-----------------------------------
Namaskar
salutations to all:
it was very nice to read maneesha's comment (query?) on self-enquiry; especially amidst the overdose of the 'surrender' sentiment expressed by many devotees here... please don't get me wrong, just that much of 'surrender' appears to me as some sophisticated sentimental nonsense... on the lighter vein, god, if any, is the greatest egoist of all (simply wants the attention of all!!)... :-) as long as we are wedded to our own personal 'i', and as long as the mind hasn't been made pure enough (a pure mind is a still mind), 'let thy will be done', for me, is pretty much meaningless cowardice!
coming to back to maneesha's comment: yes, i have met this issue though not now... if we all accept that the practice of vichara is to mercilessly hold on
our attention to nothing but the inescapable feeling of 'i' to the exclusion of all other thoughts, then it doesn't matter how we do it... if david feels some particular way of understanding bhagavan's words is right, well thats according to him and his level of understanding. different people, in accordance with their dispositions, may arrive at that unwavering attention... some may do it with 3 questions, and some may do it with 2, and some others may attend to the source without any questions! after all, all these questions, whether said in words or in thoughts, are at best a necessary irritant... if someone can claim that 'this 'is' indeed the way to understand bhagavan (akin to the veda saying nAnyah panthAh...), then he/she is most likely to be self-realised (after all, who else can say with both humility & authority?) :-) how long we sustain this 'attention' is yet another thing (the purer the mind, the longer shall be the undiluted attention, isn't it?)
personally, i also submit the other correlated issue of grace... if we work hard enough, grace will be compelled to come, just as god, or whoever it may have been, was left with no choice but to bestow the 'brahmarishi' to visvAmitra :-) it's a heroic attitude to think 'let our efforts be such that god, if any, beseeches us to be 'free''...hahaha...
among the manifold reasons for which bhagavan is so beautiful, this too is one: i.e., there is absolutely no need for anyone to beg or beseech or even pray for grace; it's simply enough to try our best to do 'vichara' (as bhagavan has said so quite a few times) and grace will come knocking :-) perhaps, it's an entirely different dimension altogether if such words of pleading, beseeching etc etc. happen to emerge spontaneously without any conscious volition (such as the case with muruganAr or mANIkkavAsagar - when the latter says 'by his grace do i salute him', it's natural... when we say it it's just a contrived shadow because we neither know how to salute or what his grace is!!)
Dear Nandu, The rotation method sounds good to me. You're very devotional, that's a good path, a direct way and any path that makes the heart melt is the right way. Wonderful!
hj
Interestingly in math, 'i' was chosen as the symbol for imaginary number. Imaginary numbers are the squareroots of negative numbers. Both i and I are imaginary. But I, I is perhaps not!
Steve Brier
I overcame most, if not all, Asperger and other savant-like autism symptoms as an adult taking a decade and a half of 24/7 efforts. Rote speech, lack of coordination, ritual behaviors, lack of color vision and depth perception, so-called mind blindness (I call these "cosmic conniptions") and more were overcome....
Language was last to come. I became completely fluent in normal speech where words have normal meaning in the last two years. I did this after getting no help for seven fruitless years from fancy, expensive, and highly regarded New York City talk therapists.
How can a lone individual understand and overcome [what authorities and institutions haven't]? ... They looked out. I looked in.... I used intuition.... While scientific methods were used to obtain information and data to understand what was happening to me, spiritual means were used to overcome and solve challenges....
What was I observing? Anything that looked and felt like my experience, thoughts, behavior, dreams, speech, all....
Assuming I found real workable insights, would that alone change my Asperger genes, my birth delivery injuries made worse by abysmal upbringing? The answer was a resounding yes. I found if I honestly observed patterns of my behavior and then correlated them to dreams, dream images, or objective patterns in nature, my behaviors would dissolve over time. I only had to be honest and trust intuition.
I would not be able to trust feelings, sensations, even brain functions because they would take time to heal. I found my behavior, no matter how strange, was meaningful, purposeful, attempting from an unseen part of myself to express something that didn't have words. I knew if I externalized my disabilities, then I could see them. If I could see them, then I could heal them. If I could heal them, maybe, just maybe, I could make me a whole person....
Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058 - 1111)
11th Century Sufi, al-Ghazali
Therefore, there is no salvation except in independence of thought. As the Poet has said:
Forget all you've heard and clutch what you see
At sunrise what use is Saturn to thee?
If writing these words yields no other outcome save to make you doubt your inherited beliefs, compelling you to inquire, then it was worth it—leave alone profiting you.
Doubt transports you to the truth. Who does not doubt fails to inquire. Who does not inquire fails to gain insight. Without insight, you remain blind and perplexed.
Thanks Nandu and S...
I guess the gist of both your posts is that, probably its shraddha with which we do whatever we do would automatically invoke His Grace. As Ramprax had the other day said, I guess, I too need to pray to Him to just correct me if I am doing anything wrong! Anyway, it was His Grace by which I am doing whatever I am doing!
Thanks! Makes me feel good now... :)
He probbaly installs these kind of fears only to make us more humble, just the way Lord Krishna was disappearing from the Gopikas during raas leela when they got proud that Krishna was giving attention to oneself only!
Yeah, the last comment probably doesn't do a whole lot to pass as non-autism spectrum. -lol
Friends,
An excerpt from Swami vivekananda:
"There was yet an hour left before dusk. When all had assembled in the parlour, Swamiji told them to put him any question they liked.
Swami Shuddhananda asked, "What is the real nature of meditation, sir?"
Swamiji: Meditation is the focusing of the mind on some object. If the mind acquires concentration on one object, it can be so concentrated on any object whatsoever.
Disciple: Mention is made in the scriptures of two kinds of meditation — one having some object and the other objectless. What is meant by all that, and which of the two is the higher one?
Swamiji: First, the practice of meditation has to proceed with some one object before the mind. Once I used to concentrate my mind on some black point. Ultimately, during those days, I could not see the point any more, nor notice that the point was before me at all — the mind used to be no more — no wave of functioning would rise, as if it were all an ocean without any breath of air. In that state I used to experience glimpses of supersensuous truth. So I think, the practice of meditation even with some trifling external object leads to mental concentration. But it is true that the mind very easily attains calmness when one practices meditation with anything on which one's mind is most apt to settle down. This is the reason why we have in this country so much worship of the images of gods and goddesses. And what wonderful art developed from such worship! But no more of that now. The fact, however, is that the objects of meditation can never be the same in the case of all men. People have proclaimed and preached to others only those external objects to which they held on to become perfected in meditation. Oblivious of the fact, later on, that these objects are aids to the attainment of perfect mental calmness, men have extolled them beyond everything else. They have wholly concerned themselves with the means, getting comparatively unmindful of the end. The real aim is to make the mind functionless, but this cannot be got at unless one becomes absorbed in some object.
Disciple: But if the mind becomes completely engrossed and identified with some object, how can it give us the consciousness of Brahman?
Swamiji: Yes, though the mind at first assumes the form of the object, yet later on the consciousness of that object vanishes. Then only the experience of pure "isness" remains."
-----------------------------------
It is clear from the above that meditation on object is equally helpful to arrive at pure awareness.This is quite logical in that the Object and subject are concomittant pairs.
So,whether it is self Enquiry or Meditation on Sri Bhagavan or Arunachala-all is beneficial as long as it helps to ward off thoughts and enter the quiet sanctuary.
Sri Ramakrishna:
The jnani, the yogi, the bhakta—
all, without exception, are seeking Him alone. The follower of the path of knowledge
calls Him 'Brahman'. The yogi calls Him 'Atman' or 'Paramatman'. The bhakta calls
Him 'Bhagavan'. Further, it is said that there is the Eternal Lord and His Eternal
Servant."
JAYGOPAL: "How can we know that all paths are true?"
MASTER: "A man can reach God if he follows one path rjghtly. Then he can learn
about all the other paths. It is like reaching the roof by some means or other. Then
one is able to climb down by the wooden or stone stairs, by a bamboo pole, or even
by a rope."
-----------------------------------
I warmly recommend what Nandu has suggested.
Good to see 's' surfacing;yes,as he has rightly said that Self Enquiry has nothing to do with 'questions'.It has nothing to do with thinking and still less to do with anything that might stir up thoughts.
Namaskar.
Friends,
One of the recurring themes in the recent posts of devotees is this-can a human with all his usual limitations of fear,attachments,etc approach God in a Human way?Is this Human way(based on dependency on others,help from 'others')of approach lead to Moksha(Freedom)?
An excerpt from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna,from the Chapter-Visit to the Sinthi Brahmo Samaj,october 19,1884:
Sri Ramakrishna became engaged in
conversation with Vijay, no one else but M. being present.
MASTER: "You prayed to God, addressing Him as Mother. That is very good. People
say that the mother's attachment to the child is stronger than the father's. A son
can force his demand on his mother but not on his father. Once cartloads of money
were coming from the estate of Trailokya's mother. They were guarded by many
red-turbaned stalwarts armed with big sticks. Trailokya, who had been waiting on
the road with his men, pounced upon the money and took it away by force. A son has
a very strong claim on his mother's wealth. People say that a mother cannot very
well sue her son in a court of law."
VIJAY: "If Brahman is our Mother, then has It any form or is It formless?"
Brahman and Kali
MASTER: "That which is Brahman is also Kali, the Mother, the Primal Energy.
When inactive It is called Brahman. Again, when creating, preserving, and
destroying, It is called Sakti. Still water is an illustration of Brahman. The same
water, moving in waves, may be compared to Sakti, Kali. What is the meaning of
986
Kali? She who communes with Maha-Kala, the Absolute, is Kali. She is formless and,
again, She has forms. If you believe in the formless aspect, then meditate on Kali
as that. If you meditate on any aspect of Her with firm conviction, She will let you
know Her true nature. Then you will realize that not merely does God exist, but He
will come near you and talk to you as I am talking to you. Have faith and you will
achieve everything. Remember this, too. If you believe that God is formless, then
stick to that belief with firm conviction. But don't be dogmatic: never say
emphatically about God that He can be only this and not that. You may say: 'I
believe that God is formless. But He can be many things more. He alone knows what
else He can be. I do not know; I do not understand.' How can man with his one ounce
of intelligence know the real nature of God? Can
you put four seers of milk in a one-seer jar? If God, through His grace, ever reveals
Himself to His devotee and makes him understand, then he will know; but not
otherwise.
"That which is Brahman is Sakti, and That, again, is the Mother.
He it is, says Ramprasad, that I approach as Mother;
But must I give away the secret, here in the market-place?
From the hints I have given, 0 mind, guess what that Being is!
Ramprasad implies that he has known the truth of Brahman. He addresses
Brahman as Mother.
"In another song Ramprasad expresses the same idea thus:
Knowing the secret that Kali is one with the highest Brahman,
I have discarded, once for all, both dharma and adharma.
Adharma means unrighteous actions, actions forbidden by religion. Dharma means
the pious actions prescribed by religion, as, for instance, charity to the poor,
feeding the brahmins, and so on."
-----------continued---------------
Friends,
Sri Ramakrishna continued.....
VIJAY: "What remains if one renounces both dharma and dharma?"
MASTER: "Pure love of God. I prayed to the Divine Mother: 'O Mother; here, take
Thy dharma; here, take Thy adharma; and give me pure love for Thee. Here, take
Thy virtue; here, take Thy vice; and give me pure love for Thee. Here, take Thy
knowledge; here, take Thy ignorance; and give me pure love for Thee.' You see, I
didn't ask even for knowledge or public recognition. When one renounces both
dharma and adharma, there remains only pure love of God—love that is stainless,
motiveless, and that one feels only for the sake of love."
A BRAMO DEVOTEE: "Is God different from His Sakti?"
MASTER: "After attaining Perfect Knowledge one realizes that they are not
different. They are the same, like the gem and its brilliance. Thinking of the gem,
one cannot but think of its brilliance. Again, they are like milk and its whiteness.
Thinking of the one, you must also think of the other. But you cannot realize this
non-duality before the attainment of Perfect Knowledge. Attaining Perfect
Knowledge, one goes into samadhi, beyond the twenty-four cosmic principles.
Therefore the principle of 'I' does not exist in that stage. A man cannot describe
in words what he feels in samadhi.Coming down, he can give just a hint about it. I
come down a hundred cubits, as it were, when I say 'Om' after samadhi. Brahman
is beyond the injunctions of the Vedas and cannot be described. There neither 'I'
nor 'you' exists.
"As long as a man is conscious of 'I' and 'you', and as long as he feels that it is
he who prays or meditates, so long will he feel that God is listening to his prayer
and that God is a Person. Then he must say: 'O God, Thou art the Master and I am
Thy servant. Thou art the whole and I am a part of Thee. Thou art the Mother and
I am Thy child.' At that time there exists a feeling of difference: 'I am one and
Thou art another.' It is God Himself who makes us feel this difference; and on
account of this difference one sees
988
man and woman, light and darkness, and so on. As long as one is aware of this
difference, one must accept Sakti, the Personal God. It is God who has put 'Iconsciousness'
in us. You may reason a thousand times; still this 'I' does not
disappear. As long as 'I-consciousness' exists, God reveals Himself to us as a
Person.
"Therefore, as long as a man is conscious of 'I' and of differentiation, he cannot
speak of the attributeless Brahman and must accept Brahman with attributes.
This Brahman with attributes has been declared in the Vedas, the Puranas, and the
Tantra, to be Kali, the Primal Energy."
.............continued.............
Friends,
...Sri Ramakrishna continued....
"Way to Brahmajnana
VIJAY: "How, sir, can one have the vision of the Primal Energy and attain
Brahmajnana, the Knowledge of the attributeless Brahman?"
MASTER: "Pray to Him with a yearning heart, and weep. That will purify your heart.
You see the reflection of the sun in clear water. In the mirror of his 'Iconsciousness'
the devotee sees the form of the Primal Energy, Brahman with
attributes. But the mirror must be wiped clean. One does not see the right
reflection if there is any dirt on the mirror.
"As long as a man must see the Sun in the water of his 'I-consciousness' and has
no other means of seeing It, as long as he has no means of seeing the real Sun
except through Its reflection, so long is the reflected sun alone one hundred per
cent real to him. As long as the 'I' is real, so long is the reflected sun real—one
hundred per cent real. That reflected sun is nothing but the Primal Energy.
"But if you seek Brahmajnana, the Knowledge of the attributeless Brahman,
then proceed to the real Sun through Its reflection. Pray to Brahman with
attributes, who listens to your prayers, and He Himself will give you full Knowledge
of Brahman; for that which is Brahman with attributes is verily Brahman without
989
attributes, that which is Brahman is verily Sakti. One realizes this non-duality
after the attainment of Perfect Knowledge.
"The Divine Mother gives Her devotee Brahmajnana too. But a true lover of God
generally does not seek the Knowledge of Brahman.
"There is another path, the path of knowledge, which is very difficult. You
members of the Brahmo Samaj are not jnanis. You are bhaktas. The jnani believes
that Brahman alone is real and the world illusory as a dream. To him, 'I' and 'you'
are illusory as a dream.
"God is our Inner Controller. Pray to Him with a pure and guileless heart. He will
explain everything to you. Give up egotism and take refuge in Him. You will realize
everything."
-----------------------------------
I warmly recommend reading this entire chapter.The whole chapter is full of useful hints and encouragement for all aspirants.
Those interested may read it here:
http://www.belurmath.org/gospel/
See chapter 32.
Namaskar.
I was thinking earlier today about inquiry. To be quite honest, I have no idea what inquiry is, and to be quite honest, I think in a sense that is how it's supposed to be. I kind of think inquiry and what is called Realization are synonymous. I was thinking earlier about how as much as we might like it, inquiry is not a method, or series of methods. Hatha Yoga, and tai chi, and even vipassana meditation are more method. I think why even the earnest attempt at inquiry is more direct then those other things is that the intention for me became alot more direct. Before, I might do yoga everyday, or tai chi, or vipassana mediation, and the idea was that those things would act to change things on their own. And I think those methods have alot of power to them, but more recently, after being exposed to Ramana Maharshi, and in my case corresponding with Sri Nome, the focus became alot more direct. Seeing and discerning directly, so that suffering ceases, and I abide in bliss as bliss. And I may employ different approaches, contemplate different things, like the transience of the things I'm finding myself attached to, that my nature is happiness, that I'm not (especially after Nome's last e-mail) an embodied actor. I may ask myself Who am I? If my mind is really running, I may once a day, observe my breath for a while without controlling it, merge with discomfortable sensations or emotions. But if I'm going to resort to vipassana mediation like that, I don't do it throughout the day, I just let it act on me. I try not to be at odds with anything. Sometimes when I feel fear in my body, I consider that my consciousness is not a body. So that the fear is just a physiological state of the body. That way, I'm not at odds with fear. Sometimes I consider that existence, and how that is what is real, the fact of existence, and that doesn't change. That's kind of equivalent to I think "I Am" meditation. That existence is real. Besides that, I don't know what inquiry is. Earlier today I was thinking about non-doership, and how just not doing anything doesn't necessarily work, so what is non-doership, and I considered, what if the 'me' thinking about doing, is not me. But the thoughts necessary to carry out those actions are necessary. Sometimes, when I'm getting out into attachment, for instance, contemplating, in my case, some romantic interest, or wondering what should I do in their presence. That happiness is within. After Nome's last e-mail, contemplating that is far more blessed to give then to receive. If i'm not concerned with receiving an experience, the fear goes away, because it's based on wanting a certain result, and then I can be with that person in a selfless attentive way, without stress. So those are some of my approaches lately. Oh yeah, reading Maharshi (Day by Day, or Maharshi's Gospel), Ribhu Gita, reading Robert Adams Silence of the Heart is a very clear reminder of who I am. Reading those texts seems important to, is the meditation itself.
Maneesha Said:
"I guess the gist of both your posts is that, probably its shraddha with which we do whatever we do would automatically invoke His Grace."
The following post by David somewhere in this blog is what I keep in my mind every day. I could not trace where this post is in this blog but I am copying it here (from my personal notes):
David Godman wrote:
"I should like to relate two well-know incidents from the ashram kitchen and then extrapolate the conclusions to the realm of self-enquiry.
Egg plants had been cut and the spiky ends were about to be thrown away. Not even the cows would eat them. Bhagavan, though, insisted that they be turned into a vegetable dish. A devotee was deputed by Bhagavan to stir a pot of these inedible and probably indigestible leftovers. He faithfully stayed at his post stirring away, even when the 'vegetable' was reduced to a charred and sticky mess at the bottom of the pot. Just before the meal was to be served, Bhagavan reappeared. He seemed delighted that the devotee had stuck to his task, even though it seemed that the food had been ruined. Bhagavan added a few condiments and the contents of the pot miraculously transformed themselves into a tasty vegetable dish.
On another occasion, when Bhagavan was cooking, something was about to be burned unless immediate action was taken.
He called out, 'Take the plate from the stove!' and the devotee immediately obeyed and removed it with his bare hands, even though it was a heavy iron plate that had been sitting on a blazing fire. When he looked at his hands afterwards, the devotee was amazed to discover that his hands had not been burnt.
What is the relevance of these stories to the practice of self-enquiry? Bhagavan has given us very specific instructions on how to practise self-enquiry. If we follow them to the letter, without attempting to analyse, query or vary them, we naturally invoke his grace in our attempts to succeed. If we take matters into our own hands, thinking that we have found a better way, I suspect that the grace is somehow withdrawn because we have shown a lack of faith in Bhagavan's instructions.
I know some people who say that, when attention wanders, one should simply revert to the feeling of 'I', without going through the rigmarole of asking 'Whose attention has wandered?' - 'I' - 'Then who am I?' These people think that Bhagavan's enquiry can be done simply by a quick transfer of attention from the distraction to the one who was distracted.
In the same vein there is a western devotee of Bhagavan who has laboured long and hard in his writings and on his site to convince other devotees that the method of self-enquiry is really 'awareness watching awareness'.
When I do self-enquiry, irrespective of how quiet I might be, I always make a point of asking 'Who am I?' at regular intervals, and often when I do it, I see a picture of Bhagavan's smiling face inside me.
Self-enquiry is never easy, and Bhagavan himself has said that one cannot extinguish the 'I' without the grace of the Self. By following Bhagavan's instructions to the letter, and by having faith in his words, I like to feel that I have the wind of his grace behind me. Knowing that I could not succeed by my own efforts, I stick to the script and leave the rest to Him."
Scholars have long debated the exact ethnicity and nationality of Jesus.
Recently, at a theological meeting in Rome, scholars had a heated debate
on this subject.
One by one, they offered their evidence......
THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS MEXICAN
1. His first name was Jesus
2. He was bilingual
3. He was always being harassed by the authorities
But then there were equally good arguments that.......JESUS WAS BLACK
1. He called everybody "brother"
2. He liked Gospel
3. He couldn't get a fair trial
Then there were equally good arguments that......JESUS WAS JEWISH
1. He went into His Father's business
2. He lived at home until he was 33
3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin, and his Mother was sure he was
God
Then there were equally good arguments that.......JESUS WAS ITALIAN
1. He talked with his hands
2. He had wine with every meal
3. He used olive oil
Then there were equally good arguments that.......JESUS WAS A
CALIFORNIAN
1. He never cut his hair
2. He walked around barefoot
3. He started a new religion
Then there were equally good arguments that.......JESUS WAS IRISH
1. He never got married
2. He was always telling stories
3. He loved green pastures
But perhaps the most compelling evidence..... THREE PROOFS
THAT........JESUS
WAS A WOMAN........
1. He had to feed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was no food!
2. He kept trying to get the message across to a bunch of men who JUST
DIDN'T GET IT!
3. Even when He was dead, He had to get up because there was more work
for him to do
I think the formula is simply "daily remembrance"—meaning a habit of inward looking: seeing, not thinking (that happens all by itself anyway). It is the seeing, or attempt to see, that is important. Visualization is not seeing. Therefore oblique looking is effective. That oblique looking is looking at conflict. All conflict is an affliction to the sense of self and opens the connection in a timeless instant for one to see directly what one is, one's Source, BUT the individual immediately looks away. That looking away is experienced as the onrush of emotions and thoughts that provide a substitute object for the attention. This is tricky in that you cannot just sit and attempt to make your mind blank. You have to look at something. You cannot look at nothing. The way to ask the "Who Am I?" question is to ask it obliquely by recalling afflictions to the sense of self. The attention splits—a piece of it stares directly into that very sense of self and from whence it arises—another piece spins off in reaction. Eventually the latter collapses in on itself leaving only what's left when that self, or sense of self, falls away: NOTHING of you remains. And that somehow brings certainty to the individual who lives this life—amid the largely same set of circumstances and attendant problems.
Bob
Murali,
I have posted the link to David's comments in my first post. My original question was related to this itself.
salutations to all:
ravi spoke about 's.' surfacing... [where can i go? i am here] hahahahaha...sounds familiar? :-))) if there is anything on 'vichara', i read with attention. the rest either bores me or i really have nothing to say or add!
murali: this comment of david is perhaps the one that confused our dear maneesha, and who knows, a few others as well... 'vichara', as ramprax said and maneesha re-iterated, is a self-correcting process... earnestness followed by effort is pretty much enough in the beginning (what happens eventually, i don't know, only bhagavan or the self may know, and in any case, why bother about by what the self may know or not know (as the nAsadIya sUkta puts it))... now, there are plenty of stories from which one can draw inspiration, and different seekers will draw such inspiration from different stories... with all respects to david as a blessed seeker, what david says is not at all the same as bhagavan saying, isn't it? after all, david is not bhagavan's interpreter :-)... hope all of you agree with that...
so, has bhagavan said 'grace shall be withdrawn', or anything remotely close to that? no, bhagavan obviously would never say that because he fully knew the limitations of those who approached him...if david suspects a withdrawal of grace on account of this or that, it is his opinion, and if he says that asking the 'nAn yAr' question now & then is helpful, please note that it's helpful to david and can't be generalised to be the best way of doing self-enquiry... his words are at best indicators from which some may benefit and to some it may be irrelevant... to presume what's good for oneself also has to good for the rest, is one of the biggest delusions any sAdhaka has to contend with...
please don't get me wrong folks (including david)... david has done a great service to us through all his wonderful writings but that doesn't imply david has "the" best way of understanding bhagavan or vichara - just as a scholar after having spent 3 decades pouring through advaitic texts may have well understood all the subtle descriptions of mAyA & mukti but that has little to do with either comprehending mAyA or experiencing mukti!! (neither bhagavan nor vichara nor realisation, if any, is a measure of scholarship or experience)
Dear David,
In the preface of Chapter 5,Self-enquiry - Practice book in 'Be As You Are', there is a quotation of Bhagavan's words;
'Do not meditate - be!, Do not think that you are - be!, Don't think about being - be!'.
The reference says it is from a book 'The secret of Arunachala' by Abhishiktananda (Henri Le Saux), a Benedictine monk.
As I know little about Henri Le Saux and I do not know the context in which this quotation is, I would like to ask how reliable it is that this quotation is really Bhagavan's words.
It seems Abhishiktananda met Bhagavan only briefly.
Akira
'The Secret of Arunachala' was first published in 1978 by ISPCK in Delhi. The book contains two long stories about devotees Abhishiktananda met while he was living in a cave on the hill. These accounts correspond well with other versions of their lives that have been written elsewhere.
I think the quote you ask about is probably reliable. It is consistent with Bhagavan's teachings ('Your duty is to be, not to be this or that,' for example) and it comes from someone who seems to have been a reliable reporter on events that were going on around him.
Dear David,
I understand. Thank you very much for your clarifications.
I asked the question because it looked like Bhagavan's words, but at the same time it did not look like Bhagavan's words. I could not judge.
I think Bhagavan said somewhere that it is impossible for Sadhaka to 'just be'. Although 'just be'is the final goal, only the self-realized souls can 'just be'. That is why we need practice such as vichara. So I wondered if Bhagavan really told us to 'just be'.
I wondered if it might be a summary of Bhagavan's teaching by someone else, not actual Bhagavan's words.
Once an Indian friend said that Bhagavan taught that one should concentrate on the right side of the chest in vichara. I asked him where Bhagavan said that, where that quote come from. And it is found out that it is not Bhagavan's actual words, but a summary by that friend. He summarised it according to his understanding.
People summarise Bhagavan's teachings according to their understanding.
Therefore if it is a summary by someone else, we have to take that with a pinch of salt.
That is why I wanted to know if it is Bhagavan's actual words.
I am really not self-conscious of inquiry journaling at this beautiful site. But two thoughts... One that happened to me is sometimes there are times where inquiry seems difficult. For instance, I felt a really intense feeling of dullness, stupor, headache, facial tension (perhaps tamas). Not feeling good. One of the things I thought about in that moment was that rather then resisting, or fighting that tamasic moment, seeing it as part of the temporary phenomenon, sensory experiences that are temporary and not important. And allowing it to cycle through that tamasic moment. Then a little bit later, I was thinking about, but it is still I find so difficult to put into practice, there are rare instances, where this becomes easier. When we say look into the I-notion, or look at the notion of individuality. For some reason, it can be difficult to find the actual false entity, and look at oneself, and instead look at something else, or end up engaging in a fight with thoughts, or clenched repression, or any number of things. When the inquiry is a peering into, looking to see if there is a self at all. Or I should say, that it seems from all I've read, the realization to be aimed for is that there is indeed no self. But it's so easy to end up doing so many other things then this. But then other angles are that, when I'm thinking about all these things, but particularly worrying about things, wishing, that kind of thing, something I sometimes catch, is that I'm ending up in imagination, and not being with, in, engaging Reality, and if I stop imagining, I rest in a natural state. Not to get carried away in imagination or anything, but I sometimes feel pulled to comment here on this site, about inquiry related experiences. And sometimes I'm not sure why. But I'm guessing it's something to do with the grace involved in this site.
Another author, that I've at times found extremely helpful to read, and I think started me in the same direction that Maharshi talks about was/is Don Miguel Ruiz. Specifically his 4 agreements. I was thinking about how they are pretty helpful aids as well.
1. Be impeccable with your word. i.e. don't use thought or word against yourself, which means also not using it against others because that is the same. Don't think mean, depecrating thoughts about yourself, and also don't think or act abusively toward others, because ultimately that hurts you. (he writes better about this, this is me paraphrasing)
2. Don't take anything personally.
Nothing anyone says or does has anything to do with you. What they say, do, think, is not because of you, and you need not take it personally.
3. Don't make assumptions, but have the courage to find out if something is true, and ask and investigate, but don't make assumptions about what is true.
4. Try your best, always. So that way there is no regret.
I was just thinking about how some of my obstacles have to do with making assumptions about things I don't know.
In response to s.'s thing. Um, that again brings me back to the issue I was saying. When we talk about the grace of the guru. The guru, and grace are everpresent. They are not a physical body somewhere else. And the guru is revealed, I think, when I realize that the self, me, I, the personality, that is the protagonist of my life-dream is unreal. It seems that is what 'inquiry' is focused on simply realizing is something that does not exist, and never existed. And that is the way to commune with the ever present guru. If a human form guru plays a role, being simply that guru, that is the way to prostrate before them, when I see that this individual self is unreal, and stop taking myself to be this protagonist of the individual story dream. That is why it seems weird to me to speak of the ripe-ness or eligibility of the seeker. I might speak of my eligibility for a job, or my eligibility for a sports team. But this is ever-present reality, and I don't think the question in these teachings is the eligibility of any individual. When it is spoken of a ripe devotee who shows up before Maharshi, countless chronicled on this site. It seems that we are speaking of that that person is resting more in the natural state of Being, without accompanying with themselves a sturdy notion of self. It's not that they have a strong spiritual notion of self, or have egoically accomplished something great, or fought something off. It is that more and more they are resting in their own natural state. And even when samadhi is spoken of, that is what that is. Nirvikalpa, I suppose is those for me, more rare moments where I can really see clearly and easily that this protagonist, person, the me, of the waking, life-dream, is conjured.
attentively washing dishes
the ‘I’ appears
“who are you?”
“where did you come from”?
………. attentively washing dishes
As soon as I hear someone utter the words, "I'm a non-dualist," I know they have no idea of what they just said. In fact, I'm beginning to view users of that term with some disdain, though to do so would surely brand me with the error of dualism.
In fact, during a recent discussion, I was accused of dualism. I was trying to paint a picture of my internal experience—of the ebb and flow of the strength of the manifestation of this world and the presence of something Real. "That's dualism!" was shouted out by more than one person. Apparently, I had been unmasked, exposed, and was ready to be drummed out.
Dualism, however, makes it easy to turn the tables.
"What are you," I said, "other than dualism?" Are you not living in this world? Are you not speaking with words, employing a body and brain, existing in a mind that cannot conceive of anything other than this and that, self and not-self? Or are you imagining within that mind, what is perhaps (!) beyond the mind?
Not that my accusers were non-dualists. They did, however, have a box into which they crammed all their conceptions of non-duality, enlightenment, the Absolute, and what-have-you. They, and you, carry around that box and measure what you hear against it, rather than listening with your intuition or heart.
It is better to know nothing that to be bogged down with preconceptions and misconceptions. It is better to be utterly confused than mistakenly confident. It is better to feel you just awoke in a strange room, than that you are going to sleep in your familiar bed.
One last thought to ponder in case you are ever accosted by a non-dualist or find your self drifting in that direction: would a true non-dualist even be visible to us?
Shawn Nevins
This whole grace is something that comes without any precedent, and has nothing to do with my own efforts. It seems to me, from my own experiences, not just intellectual opinion, that grace and earnestness are almost the same thing. My sincere determination, and love of truth, and the experience, awareness, presence of grace in my life are the same thing in a sense. To the degree I'm joyful, is the degree I'm in a state of grace. And I'm only not joyful because of attachments, which I can investigate and find that they are baseless. So, in my experience, grace isn't just some outside force that decides randomly to bestow on some and ignore others. One of the beautiful things about this teaching or reality, that is I think different from the other 'things' i was exposed to. Is success in the world, can be through sheer dishonesty and manipulation. Infact alot of successful people in the world are perhaps not very sincere or earnest people. And being earnest, doesn't necessarily guarantee one success in the world, or so it seems. But here, in this teaching, all that is required is earnestness, and sincerity, love of truth, determination. It is beautiful in that regard. Whereas, luck has to do alot with my circumstances in the world. True soul beauty, which is pretty much a choice I think, is all that is required. Perhaps that is why so many sages say enlightenment is the easiest thing, the difficulty is kind of like Jesus said about the richman and the eye of the needle. The person triumphant in the world, their accomplishments, their domination of others, that is where they are storing their treasures. Not finding the kingdom of heaven within. It's difficult but by choice, that person doesn't want to be good. So how is going to find the goodness within. If someone has a preference for the good, a love of truth, what could possibly stop them?
It is not necessary to meet your guru on the
physical plane. The guru is not external.
- Neem Karoli Baba
hj
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdB-7VdZLBg&feature=related
This was interesting, this is an interview with Don Miguel Ruiz, and the whole thing is great! But this particular part, surprised me, this anecdote the interviewer brought up, reminded me of Maharshi saying the saint performs miracles, but does not know they perform miracles.
LMM,
I read in Padamalai, about effort from our side; that if we take one step, He takes 9 steps for us. From personal experience, when we don't let Him go, He does reciprocate back. As in, when in rajas/tamas state, I just take His name, as I can't enquire. I also honestly confess that I am taking His name mechanically and that He needs to help me to get better frame of mind... In matter of mintes, and sometimes, in hours, I get back to Sattvic mind. As you said, if we pay attention to any thought at that point, we will simply get carried away by those thoughts. The best part about the way that I just said is that, it has double benefits: when the mind turns satvic, we can catch it at the point and make best use of it. Else, I guess we will not even recognise when we swithc from non-satvic to satvic state of mind. The second benefit is that the Self is never out of you mind. You are in contemplation, though in a not-so-deep one. I feel only this can lead to the oil-flow-like meditation for novices like me.
I guess this is same as the plan-b that DG(David Godman) had long time back spoken of and Nnadu has poosted here.
Anonymous,
"“who are you?”
“where did you come from”?"
I guess this is where we stumble many a times. It is never "you". Calling "I" as "you" is theif turning into police I guess. We need analyze "our" personality... Not objectively, but subjectively.
LMM,
I have long wondered how to earn Grace. Bhagawan, when asked about other devotees having been shown more Grce, had told that each one takes as much as the size of the bucket that the devotee gets. But when asked how to make the vessel big, He just says Grace is ever there. :) Tricky, He is. :)
As I read along your Grace, by the tiem you reached the conclusion, i too, somehow reached nearly the same conclusion. That, earning Grace is basically knowing that Grace is ever present. So, as we go ahead with the sadhana, this fact unfolds itself with all the more clarity and as a matter of fact.
Q: What is awakening? A: Knowing that everything IS as it IS. Q: Why
can't I do it? A: Because you have an individual 'me'. Q: If I no
longer have a 'me', will I awaken? A: If there is no 'me',
who wants to awaken?
In a nutshell
Friends,
I wish to ask all practitioners of Self enquiry-Sri Bhagavan in akshara maNa mAlai says:
39.
Jñâma/liyir/kê/dâ
Nâ/nen/nuru/diyâ
Nâ/dinin/nuru/vên
Arunâ/chalâ.
(a) (A dog can scent out its master); am I then worse than a dog? Steadfastly I will seek Thee and regain Thee, Oh Arunachala!
(b) Worse than a dog (for want of scent), how can I track Thee (to Thy home), Oh Arunachala?
In the above there is an implication of a strong sense of Attraction-Bhakti element that is unmistakeable.There seems to be more than just paying attention to the 'I' thought or feeling.No doubt that even this turning of attention on the 'I' Feeling would help one cross past the tyranny of thoughts.This is not enough,there must be a feeling of a strong Pull towards the source of oneself.
I wish to also point out that for Sri Bhagavan ,the word Arunachala used to resonate within-even as a young boy this had a fascination for him as something Grand and sublime.Although Sri Bhagavan seemingly described his 'death experience' in a clinical fashion,there seems to be something more to it-that it was the pull of the Self(Arunachala siva) that precipitated the death experience and more.
Friends,you may share your views, experience and practice on this aspect.
Namaskar.
Ravi
In Arunchala Ashtakam, verse one, Bhagavan wrote:
Look, there [Arunachala] stands, as if insentient. Mysterious is the way it works, beyond all human understanding. From my unthinking childhood, the immensity of Arunachala had shone in my awareness. But even when I learnt from someone else that it was only Tiruvannamalai, I did not realise its meaning. When it stilled my mind and drew me to itself and I came near, I saw that it was stillness absolute (K. Swaminathan translation)
On the surface this is an autibiographical account of how Bhagavan heard about Arunachala and was subsequently physically drawn to it. If you go through the last sentence carefully, though, it also becomes apparent that he is also talking about his own realisation and the role Arunachala played in it. The key word is 'achala', which means both 'stillness' and 'mountain'.
The line 'When it stilled my mind and drew me to itself and I came near, I saw that it was stillness/a mountain' can also be a comment on the journey his 'I' made to the inner Guru, Arunachala.
Arunachala, he says, 'stilled my mind and drew me to itself'. It quietened his mind and pulled him into the Heart. There Bhagavan discovered and became one with the true nature of the mountain, 'absolute stillness'.
The dog tracing his master by his scent is an idea that appears in Maharshi's Gospel. There, the 'I'-thought is the scent that leads one the the Master, the Self.
"In the above there is an implication of a strong sense of Attraction-Bhakti element that is unmistakeable.There seems to be more than just paying attention to the 'I' thought or feeling.No doubt that even this turning of attention on the 'I' Feeling would help one cross past the tyranny of thoughts.This is not enough,there must be a feeling of a strong Pull towards the source of oneself."
Well, one thing is, so often really turning attention on the feeling of 'I' is not what is being done. Because if I really think about, the feeling of 'I', it isn't what I'm writing here, it's the very core sense of me, that I exist. I think that is what is being turned toward. I think that Existence, that is innate, and always, is really potent and profound, and not just a mental activity. I think from what I've read, the pull toward Arunachala, and that pull to look within, at the very core of 'I', which although it is self-evident that I'm always existing, it is so often ignored, and other things are taken to be, and i'm so caught up in thoughts. And it seems like inquiry involves a shift toward existence itself, away from the belief in what thoughts are about as being reality. And God, or Arunachala, grace, Christ-Consciousness, Siva, Brahman. I think they are all words signifying the grand, omnipotent, blissful state of existence, which is always, and is our true identity even self-evidently. And starting to see that the other thing is imagination, unreal, conjured. and so more and more, it gets for some reason easier to just focus on the fact that I exist, and abide in that existence. So in that sense I think Self-inquiry, or turning toward the feeling of 'I' as you put it, is true bhakti. Because it is assocation with the true Self. And when I suppose one is praying to God, it is also starting to focus away from the unreal, toward the real. Because God is omnipotent existence, whereas the thought me, imagination, experiences, the whole mental thing, is this very transitory, dissoluble thing. And I think that is why inquiry is surrender and is devotion. If inquiry were just a mental exercise, of turning toward my conception of self, it wouldn't amount to much. But if I actually turn, look at, become aware of, my own sense of existence, that existence starts taking over more and more, and it gets easier and easier to be blissful or happy. I think as Ramana said, Aruncahala was his external guru, which means it was a natural association with his own Self. In my own life, that took the form of the experience at SAT temple with Sri Nome, and being exposed to Ramana's teachings. I think this desire to turn inward, inwardly, and this external experience of being swept up to better and better teachings, I think were one movement. And it's not really a movement, because existence itself is not moving. Is completely still. I don't think Ramana treated his death-experience in a clinical fashion. I mean, it seems that was an extremely profound occurance, equal to the things you love about Ramakrishna. That current of I, and the way he writes so blissfully about Arunachala, I think are the same thing.
David,
What I have asked is not at a physical ,geographical level.Sri Bhagavan did not know that there was a place on Earth called Arunachala-still less that it was a Hill.Later on,physically he travelled to Tiruvannamalai and the rest is well known.
What is the nature of this 'pull' within?Is it something that can be substituted by turning the attention on 'I' Thought or feeling?How strongly is this pull 'experienced' by turning the attention on the 'I' thought?Quietude is not stillness-as Sri Bhagavan says in one other Hymn:
87.
Mau/niyây/kar/pôl
Mala/râ/dirun/dâl
Mau/namil/dâ/mô
Arunâ/chalâ.
Is it true silence to rest like a stone, inert and unexpansive, Oh Arunachala?
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.
salutations to all:
ravi: thanks for all your wonderful comments... your last post spoke about vichara w.r.t verse 39 from aksharamaNamAlai...
yes, indeed it's most likely the 'pull' of something (grace?)(as of now, the 'self' is just a concept for me) that at some level makes me try vichara... am sure, but for that 'pull', no one may even be inclined to try any practice, much less try out vichara which mostly doesn't even offer any this & that siddhi on the way! in my case, i experience nothing like a pull or anything even remotely resembling such a pull... perhaps, the only pull i can think of is an urge to try & keep trying vichara more & more, as often as i possibly can... why, i don't know & neither do i care for a 'why' :-)
but after this initial trigger, vichara, based on my very little continuing practice, is self-sustaining... let me confess, it's indeed a blessing to get naturally inclined to vichara because just holding on to the practice alone brings about all the necessary pre-requisites that one may need for truth. there is absolutely no need to 'cultivate' any habit or alter anything what one may be used to doing in the present (even so-called bad habits)... those that aren't in consonance with realisation would keep reducing & getting terminated of its own (imagine a situation where one is severely addicted to drinking; for some reason, if this person gets inclined to vichara and keeps doing it, the addiction will gradually disappear, all this without any attempt to curtail the addiction!) isn't that fabulous?
Dear s.,
You wrote - with all respects to david as a blessed seeker, what david says is not at all the same as bhagavan saying, isn't it? after all, david is not bhagavan's interpreter :-)... hope all of you agree with that...
I say this from personal experience. David Godman does not interpret. I have read almost all of the books that have his name on the cover as an author.
The one thing that comes across very, very clearly is that I am yet to find David Godman the author in any of them.
To me his books are the perfect example of Arthur Osborne's poem - 'I am a pipe that the wind blows through, Be Still, it's the wind that sings'.
Though you will find David's own style of dry humour in a few scattered places in Papaji's biography. In the paragraphs in italics.
I can say this with authority. He does not interpret. He recounts with amazing accuracy, the words of Bhagavan. The listener interprets.
Guess that is one long disagreement with your post.
Nandu Narasimhan
This is in response to Ravi's and S's posts on the pull of Arunachala.
Personally, I have never felt a pull towards vichara itself, as is happening with S.
Mine own is a pull towards Bhagavan and Arunachala. Sometimes, it is towards the name and the Form. On other occasions it manifests itself as a feeling of 'separation'.
Separation from what? I don't know. But that feeling of separation is nice. And the periods when the feeling isn't there is not so nice!
Have to agree with Ravi's choice of verse from Aksharamanamalai.
Who knows what Arunachala is? If it indeed is a mere structure of rock, it seems pretty lacking in physical beauty. Yet, for almost all of us, it is the most beautiful thing in the world (let me pause to blow a kiss to A).
It pulls but once. And after that, we are all happily stuck.
nandu Narasimhan
salutations to all:
nandu:
as long as there is a mind, there will be ahankAra, and there will be an interpretation... when one reads sankarA's writings, so often his explanations are so beautiful that one may get totally carried away... it's only when one reads madhvA's counter arguments that one understands that sankarA has been interpreting the veda according to his school (vedanta here)... the issue here is not whose interpretation is right... this is to highlight that when this is the case with the great AchAryAs, what to talk of people like us? yes, will always consider david (& everyone in the blog) far above me, but then no one here is also comparable to a sankarA or a madhvA!
one can be a brilliant writer /translator, yet even in a translation, that too when it comes to some of the subtle sayings/writings of bhagavan, interpretations can always creep in pretty clandestinely, at times even quite oblivious of the translator/narrator! the words of a sage, such as our bhagavan, is 'sruti' and thus may very often be quite incomprehensible to us; thus when one attempts to even slightly elaborate on them, one runs the risk of unintentionally interpreting them... even the perfect logical system of abstract mathematics is not free from interpretations! there may of course be nothing wrong with such interpretations but it's equally important for the reader to be aware of such situations :-)
the only thing that's beyond interpretation, in my little opinion, is the direct receipt of a sadguru's dIkshA, which bypasses the thinking faculty (such as the nayana dIkshA of bhagavan to many, or the sparsa dIkshA of thakur to many, or parasurAmA's beheading of his mother on his father jamadagnI's command) for everything else, (as you know tamizh): 'nettrikaN thirandAlum kuttram kuttramE' :-))) but for bhagavan, the rest of us, whoever it may be, is fallible and hence, neither unconditionally acceptable nor can i offer my unbridled admiration devoid of discrimination.
It is interesting the last part on the ripeness of a devotee. because out of need I've taken to sometimes observing the breath sometimes lately, once a day (atleast) for a half hour or so. I don't watch the time. But I do it until things are calmed. It seems it gives the power to concentrate on that one thing, instead of the mind wandering. I went to a hatha yoga class the other day, and afterwards was definitely way opened up. So out of need, i've gone back to some of those practices. Observing the breath seems really powerful, and maybe it's a good idea while doing it, I sometimes I don't allow the subject, ego to survive unscrutinized. So I'm using it as a jumping off point.
Even so... I don't find it helpful to decide for myself whether I'm advanced. I think I don't find it helpful to think in terms of becoming a more ripe person. Since the whole basis of the inquiry is to see that I'm not a person at all. so as I was saying earlier, it seems like that ripeness, isn't like other ripeness, where the person has become something more then they were before. And another thing, I've never gotten the impression from reading Maharshi, that I should somehow doubt my ability to get free of vasanas, or free myself from my own self-created suffering. i.e. if only I was an advanced devotee, maybe I could... That seems like a really defeatist attitude. I mean, the value of spiritual practice, and inquiry is immediate. Even those other practices that Maharshi mentions have immediate benefit. And it seems by the time, I'm a so-called advanced devotee. It's kind of like a jnani is seen to be a person from the outside, but as David Godman pointed out in a recent post (quoting sages), jnanis, are not incarnations at all. In the same way, an advanced devotee, a ripe devotee, I would think is closer to that. They are not someone who thinks they are pure or advanced, they are someone who rests in natural bliss, is content almost all of the time. And maybe in that contentness, they've communed with their personal god. And their association with a jnani like Maharshi is very clear, Maharshi's darshan does not encounter much resistance. I guess, thinking in terms of whether I'm advanced or not, is just another false thing to strive for, that grows not lessens my person-hood. And then finally, there is the issue of sincerity. If someone is so insincere that they think they are almost Realized when they are not, I don't know how telling them they are really a beginner is going to help them. And if someone is sincere, then like in my last comment, if our motives are to become more at peace, more selfless, more in harmony, more joyful, more without conceit, more in touch, more loving. Then, I'm not afraid to resort to beginner practices if I have to. I have no conceit to lose. I do what is necessary. With sincerity, it doesn't relaly seem to matter, how advanced you are.
Oh yeah, and if david godman speculated, Maharshi was maybe telling about the thorn bush because some devotee needed to hear that the sage could enlighten anyone. (assuming that is true) Honestly, I don't think jnanis ever lie. I mean, speaking from my correspondence with Nome. That is a distinct feeling I get, that even though different things are talked about or mentioned in his responses. They are all true at anytime. So... even if Maharshi mentioned it for that reason, it probably means that it is true. So while it does require one to be ripe, also the jnani can enlighten anyone he/she wants. (and maybe those aren't in conflict, maybe the jnani wants to enlighten the ripe, is drawn to enlighten the ripe, so they are both two aspects of the same thing) That is something that seems to be the case to me. Even though, reading Day by Day, Maharshi mentions different things that are probably more relevent to that particular seeker. They are all, I think, true for everyone, at all times. Because I think, everything Maharshi says, resonates very much with the real reality. So as I was saying my impression is that a jnani does not say something that is less true in regards to the ultimate teaching, to help a particular devotee. Everything he said has a very strong resonance with the underlying blissful Reality, all his words are manifestations of Being-Consciousness-Bliss. They are not intellectual statements, to be taken as an ideology, I don't think.
On the effort/ no effort question, this is what I've come to. The effort in this teaching isn't like most effort, because really all I've gotta to do is "be", or be quiet. The question isn't really of doing something, but most of my thoughts are useless thoughts. I almost on facebook, made a political statement, and then I was like, do I need to do this? I feel like inquiry or this kind of practice is more like that. Ceasing to leave peace and bliss for other things. There would eb no reason to make a political statement on FB except to annoy some people. So I didn't. And the same for a whole lot of other thoughts, or tendencies. Do I need them? But if I can just be, that is the highest practice. If I can just be happy, that seems like a much higher practice. But when I'm having unhappy thoughts, then I question the attachment. Can this imagination, or the attainment I want really satisfy, or is happiness the nature of being, and then go back to just being. When I stop leaving being, when I stop getting caught up in thoughts and imagination that are unhappiness, and just be in myself, all the questions in this teaching I think are answered in that being. There were a couple prohibitions that I got from the correspondence with Nome, or this is how I interpreted. Actually one prohibition comes from Annamalai Swami, do no evil, do not harm other beings. The other my interpretation of Nome letters, don't indulge in angry thoughts. Visceral negative feelings, I think are perhaps irrelevent. They are just states of the body. But negative thoughts means attachments need to be questioned. Angry thoughts, indulging in them, the reason they are such a problem for this teaching is because I'm not only suffering, but feeling justified in that suffering. So it's a much bigger obstacle to actually inquire into why I am suffering, and the root of that suffering, if I think I am suffering rightly, or am justified in suffering. Ultimately, though I'm learning that if you can just be, that is what this teaching is getting at. ajata, all the really difficult things to understand will become clear, when being becomes the only thing left, and being is never left.
s/Nandu/Friends,
Interesting to read your comments-Nandu,the 'missing' that you have expressed is a great blessing.S has spoken about the self sustaining nature of Enquiy and less about the 'nature' of enquiry-I understand that in these matters,the mental understanding of what is happening may not be easy to come by.I recall how sri Bhagavan thought of some such stirrings as 'Fever'.
Here is yet another verse from Akshara Mana Alai:
16.
Kân/tami/rumbu/pôl
Kavarn/denai/vidâ/mal
Kalan/denô/dirup/pây
Arunâ/chalâ.
As a lode-stone attracts iron, magnetizing it and holding it fast, so do Thou to me, Oh Arunachala!
Namaskar.
Dear S.,
Agree with all you say. My opinion on the subject is not based on my interpretation, but by what you said - that understanding which comes from within and is free from all bias.
There was a time when I used to read a lot. I no longer do. And on the rare occasions when I do, I go with that'something' that rises up when one reads a particular passage.
Alas, in my case, that rising up happens only once in a while. And when that happens, I trust that it is coming not from the words but from the power that put those words down.
Nandu Narasimhan
Why objectify God?
Subjectify That!!
Go straight to the Light,
immediately jump into It
and don't write an article about it on the way.
Keep Quiet,
entertain no doubt,
raise no desire.
Remove all objects and remain as That!
All pain belongs to objectification.
Do not let ego own Freedom,
so do not objectify the Truth.
Do not call it a gain or an acquisition,
simply identify with it as you do
when you see your face in a mirror.
Forget this visitor called mind
and just idenfity as That!
Papaji
Great papaji quote, and I think true. More and more I realize the glory in just being, not being this or that. It is a new phase of practice lately, being and being happy. Something I notice is, that sometimes something mildly distressing will come along to awaken me from complascency, i.e. tamas. But if I remember supreme happiness is within, it is WHO I AM! And the various attachments are just illusions. Then more and more all suffering is abolished. But ultimately, just being. Being!
Reminded me of Nome's mandala on Being.
MANDALA ONE
Being
The SElf is just Being,
It is not being this or that.
It is just Being.
Self-Realization is just Being.
It is not being this or that.
It is just Being,
Being knows no alternative.
The Self is just Being.
Being never changes its nature.
That which truly is never ceases to be.
That which ceases never actually is.
That which truly exists never changes.
That which changes never truly exists.
That which is changeless is without destruction.
The indestructible
is only
That which is without creation.
The unborn is the undying.
The unchanging is alone Being.
Being never changes its nature.
The Self ever is
Just as it is
There is no time
When Being is altered.
Just as it is,
The Self ever is.
Being alone knows itself,
The "I"-less "I" realized as "I,"
Forever undefined, the only Existence.
The only Knowledge,
The only Knower
Thus is Brahman, Absolute Reality,
Always present, unmarred perfection,
The unformed Void, attributeless Being,
Ever itself just as it is.
The only identity, the only reality,
Being alone knows itself.
Without any other is Absolute Being,
Formless and nondual, the only Existence.
Two that are formless cannot be.
Undivided, homogenous,
Alone is Being,
Nothing outside it and no outside;
Nothing within it;
Alone is Being.
Nothing comes before eternal Being;
Nothing comes after eternal Being,
Without any other is Absolute Being.
The Truth of Being
Is solely Reality.
Not from illusory things
Falsely experienced
Does the sense of reality
In every experience derive,
But only from the Self,
The only source, the Real.
Real Being depends not
On anything else to be.
Uncaused itself, the Absolute Self,
Does not cause anything else.
Infinite, there is
Nothing beyond it produced by it.
Mistake not perception or conception
For Existence itself.
Reality is solely
The Truth of Being.
The Uncreated alone is all.
The all-transcendent
Is the all-pervasive.
Neither dualism nor a concept of unity
Is the Nondual Truth.
Nonobjective Being is not a multiplicity;
Nor is it one-in-many;
Nor is it many-in-one.
Attributeless indivisibility it is.
The Uncreated alone is all.
Be as you are.
Realization is just Being.
Final meditation upon the Truth
Consists of being it,
For which there is no alternative.
Being is neither a state nor an attainment.
Being is neither a thing nor an activity.
Being is and alone is.
Be as you are.
The Self alone exists, eternally.
Solitary and indivisible,
The Self is Being-Consciousness-Bliss,
Without beginning and without end.
The Self alone exists;
The Self alone is real.
Nothing exists but the Self.
The Self alone exists, eternally.
One Self is.
Never is there
A multiplicity of selves.
One infinite, indivisible,
Undifferentiated Self forever is.
Like space it is, endless, formless;
Like space it is, everywhere, pervading all;
Like space it is, colorless, immeasurable.
Ungraspable, having neither within nor without,
One Self is.
Nondual is Realization,
Of the nature of the invariable SElf.
The Self is never impure.
So, Self-Realization is
Not of the nature of purification.
The Self is never born.
So, Self-Realization is
Not of the nature of production.
The Self is never other than its own nature.
So, Self-Realization is not of the nature of acquisition.
Of the nature of the invariable Self,
Nondual is Realization
Abide free of imagination.
The Self, your real identity,
Is the Absolute and ever free.
Do not imagine otherwise.
There is no distance
Between you and Brahman,
Between yourself and the Self.
Abide free of imagination.
Know the Self as it is,
The Self is not matter, thought, or entity.
The Self is never modified,
Has no conditions,
Never becomes.
Beyond matter - no birth and no death.
Beyond thought - nonobjective and inconceivable.
Beyond ego - no individuality and no separation.
Never having entered the body,
The Self does not exit it.
The bodiless is birthless, locationless, and deathless.
It does not come, is not contained, and does not go.
The Self is known by the wise to be bodiless.
Never having entered the mind,
The Self is not bound by it.
The mind-free is unconceived and unperterbed. It does not think or cease to think.
It knows no state, no mode, and no thought.
The Self is known by the wise to be of no mind.
Never having become individualized,
The Self is innately egoless.
The egoless is boundless, attributeless, illusionless.
It does not become bound and does not become liberated.
The SElf is known by the wise to be egoless.
Know the Self as it is.
Only the Self ever is.
Nothing is experienced continuously
Except the SElf.
The continuous alone is real;
The discontinuous never really is.
It comes from nowhere.
And it goes nowhere.
It has no birth
And it has no death.
It shines in its own Light, self-existent.
Only the Self ever is.
How to compare the incomparable?
Vast like space,
Unmoving like the mountain,
Self-luminous like the sun,
With no shape like water,
Burning all the straws of ignorance like fire,
Tranquil like the moon's light,
Deep like the ocean.
How to compare the incomparable?
The Self is:
In all beings, their very Being.
in all selves, the true identity,
In all minds, Consciousness,
In all things, the unseen Existence,
In all joys, Bliss,
In all places, space,
In all time, endlessness,
In every heart, the love.
The Self is.
But O how wonderful!
I am the unbounded deep
in whom all living things naturally arise,
rush against each other playfully,
and then subside.
- Ashtavakra Gita
hj
As far as setting up myself in a better situation, job-wise, or relationship-wise, not necessarily much better. Though my ability to relate with people has grown quite a bit. But the area where I have grown immensely over the last several years, especially since being exposed to Ramana Maharshi, writing on this blog, corresponding with Sri Nome, is in terms of how happy am I? I would say I have spent a much far greater time in the last few years at ease, in a state of contentment and happiness. Which does have the benefit of being a selfless presence in other people's lives more and more, so yes, friendships are much better. But yeah, "nectarean" bliss, is something I'm becoming more and more acquainted with, and I still leave it, but the length of duration of being happy increases lots.
Ravi:
You said: 'Friend,the key thing is to get hold of the least spark in us-whatever that be.Just hold onto this and live this.This will gradually lead to all the rest. '
This message, along with the rest of your reply, resonated with me.
Thank you.
Best,
m
"I understand that the swami is alluding to the 'interpretaton' of Sri Bhagavan's Srishti-Drishti vada exposition.If this is deemed that the world is created by the PERSON,it is a form of Solipsism;The logical conclusion to that would be that the suffering of 'others' can be ignored as a fanciful projection of the (one's)PERSON's mind.Nothing else needs to be done."
I think one of the reasons, that I couldn't be led down a road of solipsism by Maharshi's teachings, is simply that the need that gave rise to being interested in the first place, was intense and harrowing suffering (panic attacks, depression). So accepting solipsism would just not do the trick. But at the same time, everything I think, is just a thought, and what of my opinions about the so-called 'world' is not just a thought, and so in a sense it seems to me, my ego, or imagined self, and it's issues, and experiences, and opinions, the thing that is the so-called 'norm' is solipsism. When I inquire deeply, and the way experientially I would describe it is, being back in bliss. I started to suffer again, I practiced, I ended up back in bliss. But in that bliss, I'm so much more attentive to so-called others, because there is not so much self and it's selfishness. Ultimately it makes sense to me, and maybe I have some experience of it, that without a self, and without a reified 'world' projected or imagined out of that self, there is only what they call That. But in That, there isn't all the usual selfishness and alienation that is totally a concoction of the ego-notion. So it's kind of that concomitant thing. Like the 3 statements. The world is unreal, Brahman alone is. The universe is Brahman. That 3rd statement, kind of links them up, so that there is total one-ness with anything and everything, no alineation, no hatred, whatever. I don't know how to describe this, but I guess maybe the best way it seems in these teachings, is it seems that the reason this isn't solipsism, and the reason Maharshi's teachings don't cause someone to be selfish, evil, or indifferent, is because the Self is real, there is only the Self, and everything (and everyone) is the Self. So it's not a cutting off, but a total merger, and so in a sense, almost concomitantly, there would be in the jnani's state, which is really our own state, I don't want to forget that fact, there is no jnani's point of view seperate from my point of view, which seems to be the point of this teaching. The jnani is the Self, it is myself, the only Self. The external jnani is perfectly and only that Self. But in the jnani's point of view, when I give up the imagination, resting in my natural state without a reified sense of self, there would be total merger with whatever is happening, or being done, and that's really evident in the Ribhu Gita, where some of the verses, talk about how the world is unreal, and there is only the Self. But then other verses talk about how all those things, like the table, the other person, the king, the house, are all also only the Self. So that side of things, is total merger with everything,but there's kind of the side where nothing is real, and I am not the doer. But really because there is only that one existence, which is our own existence, and if the imaginary self and everything that that implies goes away, I am not the doer, because there is no individualized I, but I'm also totally merged and present for whatever action is being performed, so present in a sense it seems that there is no me, there is world, and there really is no action. Someone asked Nome, my teacher (paraphrasing), "Is thought needed for anything?" and he responded (paraphrasing what I remember), "of course, thought is needed for everything, everything is only a thought", he laughed.
Scott,
Wonderful post.Thanks very much.
Namaskar.
"To be indifferent is a greater peril.I will come back to you a little later as to what Grandma Avvai has to say on this."
It seems to me, that there is a kind of positive indifference that grows also. In the sense that the more sattvic, the more blissful, the more unaffected I am by anything that happens. Someone says something mean to me, it doesn't effect me, or lessen my bliss. I think you mean almost more apathy, where I would not help others. Well, helping others, seems to me to be a weird thing. What exactly is helping others? And even then, I get the impression in jnana, even if the jnani is helping someone who is suffering, emotionally or physically, the jnani isn't less blissful, even in the circumstances of great horrors (especially taking into account the verses David Godman quoted). Because there is just that peace. And people can 'help' others, but maybe it is more damaging then helpful. For instance, when someone asks me for something, that they can do for themselves. In that more blissful state, if I'm more blissful, because those are the deeper experiences I have, I may be more ignoring of the request. I'm not going to be claiming to be mature, or anywhere close to being a jnani. I have no idea about that. But I was really in a deep state of joy earlier today, and talking to someone, and someone kind of butted into the conversation really aggressively asserting their opinion, and I found myself laughing almost bordering on ridicule at everything they said (not everything, but alot of what they said). But I didn't feel malice, or mean-ness, or putting them down. There was just not the feeling in that peace, that I could validate anything he was saying, I turned my back on him, utterly ignored him, later on in the conversation, I started paying more attention. But afterward, when suffering ego started to creep back in, I started to feel guilty, like what did my friend think of my callous response. But it was a natural response, and I was joyful, and there was no enmity. So I can only say that it was probably close to being the right response. And the more and more I do this, and abide in a peaceful, blissful state, more egoless state, it seems more and more that that is the greatest help, because it is really people's egos that are harming them. And I'm not eschewing physical help. There was a friend the other day, I bought lunch for. But, even in my own case, nothing harms me more then my own ignorance. And if I clear that up in myself, and abide in joy, regardless of what is happening, it's almost like I can feel when someone is coming from some more 'out of sorts' state, and whatever it is, it comes naturally not to validate their arrogance. And now, any help that doesn't come from that joy, seems almost useless. Someone could be running a soup kitchen of sorrows, run by people in a bad state, and maybe actually psychologically harming the people they are giving food. So what is help? And then statements like Maharshi's and others, about how the saint does more then others. Make alot of sense.
Friends,
I never tire of sharing this moving incident from Sri Bhagavan's Life:
Apology to Hornets
"Also of note is the question-verse by Muruganar that elicited the following verse from Bhagavan:
When I was stung by hornets in revenge
Upon the leg until it was inflamed,
Although it was by chance I stepped upon
Their nest, constructed in a leafy bush;
What kind of mind is his if he does not
At least repent for doing such a wrong?
The "Apology to the Hornets" verse pertains to the incident that occurred during theVirupaksha Cave days. One day Bhagavan was walking around the hill alone, went into the forest not to far from the Pachaiamman Temple, saw a huge banyan-tree leaf drift across his path, which reminded him of the sloka from the Arunachala Purnam that tells of the banyan tree under which the Arunagiri Yogi was seated. He started walking in the direction from which the leaf came and saw a large tree on an elevated spot and, while proceeding towards it, his thigh brushed against a hornets nest. Bhagavan appeared to feel remorse for disturbing the nest and stood still to allow the hornets to sting him to their heart's content. He then left the area and slowly made his way back to Virupaksha Cave by nightfall, with a badly swollen thigh and leg.
After this incident there was much speculation about the giant banyan tree, its location and the Arunagiri Yogi. Bhagavan never again felt inclined to look for the tree, for reasons he never clearly explained. This added even more intrigue to the incident. He also, unsuccessfully, warned others not to go looking for it, and that is another story.
Muruganar seemed puzzled why Bhagavan should feel remorse for an accidental incident, something destined, with no ill will intended. In verse, he questioned Bhagavan thus:
Sighting an overgrown, green-leaved bush, and
When stepping on it and stung by hornets to have legs swollen,
Venkata, in truth, why was an accidental intrusion
Treated without mercy, just as a wanton transgression?"
-----------------------------------
Did Sri Bhagavan feel remorseful?
One does not have to dispense with his humanity in order to become a jnani.
This is the single most wonderful thing that I find extremely attractive about Sri Bhagavan?
It is this aspect that I care about.
A jnani without this aspect -well that jnana might be of use to that one,as for as I am concerned,such a one is 'Brahman' for me-i.e as good as the one who is never born!(or Dead!)
Namaskar.
Dear Friends,
If I cannot save, fix or help myself how can I expect to
save, fix or help others?
If I cannot recognize truth how can I expect others to
recognize truth?
If I cannot simply be how can I expect others to simply be?
If I cannot be joy and happiness how can I expect others to
be joy and happiness?
If I cannot drop endless idle speculation how can I expect
others to drop endless idle speculation?
What to do or not do? What to do or not do?
May we all be in It As-It-Is and have the experience of It
As-It-Is.
Peace Victor
"One does not have to dispense with his humanity in order to become a jnani.
This is the single most wonderful thing that I find extremely attractive about Sri Bhagavan?"
I agree, and me too. At the same time, I find it harder and harder to validate people's suffering. Because it becomes more and more obvious how they are causing it for themselves, because I'm realizing the same for me. And so, my love toward others who have 'problems' becomes tougher and tougher. It becomes extremely hard to validate the drama in people's minds, when I'm clearing up the drama in my own mind. Things become clear cut, helping others seems to become clear cut. It isn't necessarily for me, about patting someone on the back, or giving them a hug when they are crying. Because so often, just like me, when someone is crying about their sorrows, their sorrows are totally their own invention, and not at all real, and same with mine. (I don't think when we talk about our humanity we are talking about ajnana, ignorance, sorrows, feeling pity, that has to go, because it isn't even what we call someone's humanity, or atleast not the better angels of our nature) Especially as effulgent bliss becomes more and more my continuous existence. "so and so treated me so badly..." when people say things like this, it becomes clear, that it is their choice to be effected by the behavior of another. And they can choose to be happy, to immerse themselves in their own happiness, and to disregard the bad behavior of what are unreal minds. But also...physical help becomes so much easier. Physical help is totally a different matter. I just gave a friend $40 to get some ID that he needed. He didn't ask, I just gave. If he had of begged me, or I sensed that kind of psychological dependence on my help, I may find myself going somewhere else, to not validate their unreal psychological dependence. They don't need me. And if anyone thinks they need me, or need my help, that is totally in their mind. And the more and more I'm immersed in the joy, there is no way to validate or cooperate with that. So I agree with you. But the ignorance, of suffering, I don't take to be humanity, or someone's humanity. Someone may despite their best efforts have less access to certain resources, it may in the love and joy of the Self make total sense to help them attain those resources, or give of our own resources to them. (like I did earlier, it came naturally). But there is a specific person who spare changes near where I live, and I cross the street to avoid him, because there's something I pick up on, something negative in his psychological state. It's not selfishness or needing money that keeps me from giving to him. It's actually that he thinks I or anyone who passes, owes it to him to do that.
Friends,
I will share the Traditional view of advaita vedanta.I recall posting how the 'whole of Life' in all its aspects is vital and is behind the Sustenance and robustness of the Sanatana Dharma(eternal Dharma).As it is said,that although it is the kernel of rice that needs to be eaten,to sow and grow rice you need the 'whole grain'.
This explains the Physical,psychological and social basis-why these are important -why this structure ensures the continual procession of Saints and Sages that is the Hallmark of Sanatana Dharma.
Here is the excerpt from 'The Voice of Divinity'-of the Sage of Kanchi,one of the very best exemplars of this Tradition-He was not just a 'pontiff'(Shankaracharya of Kanchi),but also a Jnani, a Sage with unmatched encyclopaedic Knowledge on any subject-be it Arts or Sciences.
He says:
"5. If we start off with thinking as to what is the need for all this, then it can end only in neither being here nor there! Yes, it is true that Aachaaram(the Recommended Practices-Ravi) on its own does not create or make apparent our inner reality as a direct effect. But one day if we are to reach that level of inner perfection, then it has to begin with bodily, family and social cleanliness, discipline and strict control! Without Aachaaram, it can only end in making that ideal unattainable!
6. It is said that, "...aachaara heenam na punanti vedaa:...". For a person devoid of Aachaaram can never hope to become cleansed to purity through any amount of study of the Veda-s! However much sacred the waters of the Ganges or some such Teerta Sthan, in an utencil of skull bone it will still be cause for abhorrance only! However good the milk, in a bag of animal skin, it will still be undrinkable! However well read you may be in the Saastraa-s, all your expertise is only a waste for your self and the world, without the moderating influences of the good actions of Aachaara-s say the Saastraa-s.
7. Some modern Swamiji-s talk very knowlegeably about the Veda-s and Upanishad-s. With much research and analysis, books are written with extensive cross references of quotable quotes! But that alone cannot give them the authority without the cleansing influences of the Aachaaraa-s in their inner attitude and outer behaviour. Having themselves left the practices of the Aachaara-s there is no value in their advices either. The value of your speech has to be borne by your exemplary behaviour too. For generations after generations a whole pantheon of great Rishis and Saints have shown the path by living it. That is how the words 'Sadaachaaram and Sishtaachaaram' have evolved to indicate the rigorous practice by excellent people of a very high order of discipline and noble intensions of self abnegation for purposes of common good! That is the human asset which endowed India with Sruti Smruti and Purana-s and nurtured the Sanatana Dharma of Hinduism!"
Namaskar.
Friends,
The Sage of Kanchi used to invariably give this advise to the seekers from the world over who were keen to pursue 'Advaita vedanta'.
He invariably recommended that these seekers should know more about their own religious traditions and govern their lives as per that-with the clear understanding that the Principles of Advaita Vedanta are in no way in opposition to the principles and practices of any tradition.
I recall one incident concerning a Muslim who contributed to a Hindu Temple.When the matter was brought to the attention of the Sage,the Great one expressed a desire to meet that Muslim gentleman.When he came,the sage was very happy to see a person who could cut across religious divide.After the preliminary enquiries,the sage told him-'I am very happy to know about your good work and service rendered to the temple.Tell me whether you are faithfully adhering to the Dharma of your religion.How many times you do Namaz?'(Muslim Prayer).
'Sir,I do Namaz Five times every day,without any omission'
'May I request you to do it six times.Did not Prophet Mohammed did six times-once at midnight as well.This practice has been discontinued by muslims.'
The muslim gentleman was amazed as this is something that the muslim religious leaders have not told him.
The Sage gave him some sugar candy as 'prasad'(avoiding the sacred ash and Kumkum that is usually given as Prasad)and he departed joyously saying-"I have met someone who is like Allah"
Namaskar.
I don't know if what I'm thinking or saying here, is in conflict or not with the point Ravi seems to be making. But, I definitely do not see this conflict between inner and outer discrimination. Infact, I experimented with alot of outer discrimination before I even came to this inner inquiry discrimination. And as far as being dutiful, and helpful in the world. All the previous discriminations, seem now sadly inadequate. Based on duty, ideology, etc. The questions of what should I do? Different religions will tell me I should do different things, and abstain from differnt things. That Christian preacher said I should proselytize in an aggressive way Christianity or else I would go to hell. Radical anarchists and socialists would say I should join their revolution. Mainstream people will say, I should dress, and act normal, and behave in a conformist way. So if I use my mind, or fear of not doing the right thing, to decide which ideology, religion I should follow, I don't get less confused. I could go on for years, and probably lifetimes, and not get any less confused. Because there is no objective standard. I have not found that through the mind, through the ego, there has been anyway to discern what are the best actions. Some really good, dutiful action could actually be harmful. One may say sex is impure, but then by repressing sex I get neurotic, and it actually puts me further back, or the contrary, maybe I indulge too much in a way that is addictive in some pleasurable behavior, and also get more tamasic, and more enslaved. Maybe I start a soup kitchen, but it is so condescending, and disempowering, and un-equal with the people who eat there. Patting myself on the back that I'm doing my duty. What if I go and kill in some war, that through the mind I decided was righteous. Or arrest some criminals, who I believed were guilty based on looking suspicious to my ideas, or I say police are unnecessary, and we should be more lenient on criminals, and one kills a bunch of people. From the ego stand-point, I don't think it is possible to make good decisions, what seems to be good may be very bad. What seems very bad, may be good. So this whole idea that I should do some other thing, before engaging in inquiry. That there is some preperation needed, before I can lose my ego, really does not resonate with me. I think I am so intent on inquiry, partly because the experiential peace and bliss is the first barometer that I have ever experienced that I feel like gives me a very strong clue of what is real and not, what is helpful and not. This idea that advaita without preparation leads to all sorts of selfish behavior. I would guess selfish behavior leads to insincerity when pursuing advaita. I haven't at some point mis-interpreted advaita, because my intentions were sincere. There was nothing in advaita teachings that was ambiguous. I never felt like something in Maharshi's teachings could lead to terrible behavior if mis-interpreted. Though people may abuse it, as part of their wish to do terrible things. Misinterpretation of Maharshi's teachings, on not accepting an orthodox religion surrounding it, I don't think is the problem. Many of the things in Hinduism, or Christianity, or Islam. There are iffy things in all the religions. And if I didn't have any experience of grace, as a result of sincerity in pursuit of Realization, I wouldn't be able to judge those things very clearly. So, I think Maharshi's teachings are complete. I don't think anything else is needed as an auxillary. Things can help it, but it is complete in itself. What is important in all the religions is conveyed perfectly by Maharshi. I don't need Maharshi, and an orthodox religion. It's fine, if that works for someone. But it's not dangerous without it.
And I think the reason is. Because...I don't think you can go wrong with happiness. Happiness is the cause of selflessness, courage, fearlessness, honesty. That there isn't an ego and it's fear. If I first decide out of unhappiness, I'm going to be courageous. It may lead to increasingly foolish and scary activities. I know this experientially. Or honesty, feeling like I need to tell every compromising secret to someone. Or selflessness, I need to give my house to the thief on the corner. (That is why the aspect of advaita teachings that action only leads to more action makes alot of sense to me, or Shankara's action does not lead to liberation, Knowledge alone leads to liberation) But if I'm happy first, then it is easy to see what resonates with that happiness. And when I'm happy, I'm always selfless, but also discerning (wise as a serpent, innocent as a dove). It's when I'm unhappy that I'm selfish. I struggled with action, but I think the key to good action, is action that is a result of being in a happy, natural state. With that happiness I can discern what aspects of teachings are in accord with it. Only Maharshi's teachings, and a few other true jnani's teachings seem in perfect accord with it. But I could say, I'm going to be a dilligent Hindu, and without that knowing of happiness being within, I may join some fascistic anti-muslim movement, even burn down mosque's thinking that I'll get a good birth next life. So...that's what I love about Maharshi's teachings, is I don't have to figure it out with the mind. i don't have to take someone's word for it. I don't have to obey a book uncritically. It's the experience that counts, and that experience is positive, happiness and peace. So... things like that if the family doesn't abstain more from sex, they will get the bad imprints from their deceased relative. I can go, well is that in touch with Truth? And I would say, probably not. But if I used my mind, how do I decide what is Truth? Maybe I should scream at people they are going to hell if they don't believe not only in Christ, but my fringe, sect of Christianity with a few people in it. How do I not get led down some to use anonymous' metaphor, cul-de-sac? And I think again, Maharshi's teachings are the purest I've found for that, because they resonate with perfect experiential happiness and peace, and I don't have to accept anybody's opinion, I don't have to take on any ideation as being true, I don't have to wonder about things I can't really know about.
"He invariably recommended that these seekers should know more about their own religious traditions and govern their lives as per that-with the clear understanding that the Principles of Advaita Vedanta are in no way in opposition to the principles and practices of any tradition."
See, I don't think that's true. I think the experiential depth of inquiry and abidance as one's own true Self, may indeed be in conflict with many aspects of many traditions. That is why Maharshi's statement along the lines, follow the rules of conduct of your society, unless there is a conflict between it and the inquiry. I think when I was talking to that Christian preacher, I really experienced that. It was the inquiry, and the Bliss, that allowed a clearer seeing, of maybe that's not what I want to do. There may be aspects of many traditions that are in accord with inquiry. But I think the Bliss, the Silence, the Self is as Maharshi said, what gives all the religions life. So in this teaching I'm going straight to the well-spring that feeds the religions. I don't want to drink the contaminated water, filled with people's close minded, ideas (metaphorical religious giardia). If I accept advaita as an ideology, take on the words of advaita. That's not advaita. Advaita is only purely experience. It's not ideas. Advaita, to me, is just another name for the Self. It's not a philosophy, it's not an ideology, it's not imitating the kinds of phrases Maharshi or Shankara used, it's not a religion in that sense. It's a direct experience of grace, uncontaminated with ideation. If someone needs the crutch of other practices, or beliefs. But I think if they hinder being happy and at peace, I would say perhaps they are more of a hinderance.
Scott/Friends,
It helps to be receptive to anything that has been said-take time to understand it.One may reject it if one does not find anything that is useful.
The smritis that deal with the achaarams,etc are akin to the 'Best Practices' in the Industry-be it software or manufacturing,etc.Yes,things can very well go on without ISO 20000 or CMMI certifications and best Practices.The Certification Process/Practices ensures that collective effort is channelised and sustained for the good of all.They also provide a convenient and reliable structural framework and checklists that ensure that each and every member is able to collaborate and help each other to achieve a common objective-Happiness and Peace for all.
'Sarve janaha Sukhino Bhavanthu'-as the vedas say.
I do not need to point out what Nome has already written to you about how the 'Tradition' has been excellently preserved in Sanatana Dharma and how it has never given roomfor'rampaging','inquisition','jehad',etc.Despite invasions and proselytizations from misguided zealots,Sanatana Dharma has outlasted all such attempts.This is not just on account of a 'Jnani' or 'Prophet'-but on account of the Best Practices that have seeped into the cultural ethos of the common man.It is this that is the strength of sanatana Dharma.
Outer modes of living do get changed-but as long as the core of the Achara shilas are sustained-that is the key and that is what will ensure the best interests of collective living.
-----------------------------------I think I gave this example in my post to Broken Yogi-one may indeed drive on any side of the Road-one may claim to be an expert driver and be confident of Reaching the destination.What if all the rest of the drivers also take it into their heads to do likewise!It always helps to have conventions-like driving on one side of the Road,to stop when the signal Light turns red,etc.This way it helps the weakest of the Human chain.It also does not bind in any way the Strongest.
Namaskar.
Ravi,
In one of your posts, You have mentioned about 'how we can learn a lot from the way the saints lead their own lives'.
I came across an extract about the way Bhagavan led his life -In this blog- and I would be grateful if you post anything about the way other saints led/lead their lives, esp Sri Ramakrishna, and, if it is not too much to ask, even Sage TGN-as you might have observed him from close quarters.
The reason I ask is: If I can even follow an iota of it, I might at least, become a better human being.
Thanking you,
Best,
m
Ravi, I think the Sanatana Dharma is a clear and wonderful road map.
Nevertheless Ramana's teaching is experiential.
Sure there were a large group of scholars clustered around him. As an example it was the humble, unlearned Mastan that grasped the divine truth, hence the samadhi built for him.
Reading volumes and being proud of your book learning may impede or delay understanding.
hj
David,
Can you please post something on The Divine Silence that Bhagawan and Dakshinamurthy expounded? I know its in a way contradictory to ask this. But, that is something that really inspires me. Would be good if you could post something about it.
Anonymous(hj),
"As an example it was the humble, unlearned Mastan that grasped the divine truth, hence the samadhi built for him.
Reading volumes and being proud of your book learning may impede or delay understanding."
Thanks very much for this post.I absolutely love this.
Namaskar.
Ravi
You wrote:
The Sage of Kanchi used to invariably give this advice to the seekers from the world over who were keen to pursue 'Advaita vedanta'.
He invariably recommended that these seekers should know more about their own religious traditions and govern their lives as per that-with the clear understanding that the Principles of Advaita Vedanta are in no way in opposition to the principles and practices of any tradition.
This may have the the sage of Kanchi's way, but it was not Bhagavan. Many people came from the West to see Bhagavan. If they were committed to a western religious tradition, Bhagavan would not ask them to change, but if they came with a desire to receive Bhagavan's grace and learn his teachings, he was more than happy to pass on self-enquiry and the advaita world view that underpinned it. You can read dialogues between visitors such as Cohen and Frydman and Bhagavan, and at no point does Bhagavan tell them to immerse themselves in the western traditions they ere brought up in.
David/Anonymous(hj),
"This may have the the sage of Kanchi's way, but it was not Bhagavan."
There is no contradiction here.It was the Sage of Kanchi who was instrumental in leading Paul Brunton to Bhagavan.There are always exceptions and mature souls are guided towards advaita Sadhana.Paul Brunton was not the only one to be thus guided in Advaita Sadhana by the sage.
I wished to post the following excerpt from the Life of Sri Bhagavan and this incidentally reveals how Sri Bhagavan does exactly what the Sage of Kanchi does!
This is another story that is dear to me:
""Once during a visit to the Ashram in the 1940s
I was sitting outside the Old Hall with many
devotees, facing Sri Bhagavan who was reclining
on a couch. A group of learned pundits were discussing
certain passages from the Upanishads with
great enthusiasm and profundity. All, including
Bhagavan, appeared to be attentively listening to
this interesting discussion when, all of a sudden,
Bhagavan rose from his couch, walked thirty meters
to the north, and stood before a villager who was
standing there looking lowly with palms joined.
Immediately the discussion stopped and all eyes
were turned to Bhagavan and the villager standing at
a distance. They appeared to be conversing, but at such
a distance no one could tell about what. Soon Bhagavan
returned to his couch and the discussion resumed.
I was curious about this villager and why Bhagavan
had gone out of his way to meet him. So, while
the discussion continued I slipped away and caught
up with him before he left the Ashram. I asked the
villager what he and Bhagavan had talked about. He
said that Bhagavan had asked him why he was
standing there so far away. “I told Bhagavan, ‘I am
only an ignorant, poor villager. How am I to approach
you who are God incarnate?’”
“What did the Maharshi say then?” I asked.
“He asked me my name, what village I was from,
what work I did and how many children I had, etc.”
“Did you ask Him anything?”
“I asked Him how I could be saved and how I
could earn His blessings.”
“What did He tell you?”
“He asked me if there was a temple in my
village. I told him there was. He wanted to know the
name of the deity of that temple. I told Him the
name. He then said that I should go on repeating the
name of that deity and I would receive all the
blessings needed.”
I came back to Bhagavan’s presence and sat
among the devotees listening to the learned discussion,
in which I had now lost all interest, realizing
that the simple humility and devotion of this peasant
had evoked a far greater response from our
Master than any amount of learning. I then decided
that, though a scholar by profession, I should always
remain a humble, ignorant peasant at heart,
and pray, like that villager, for Bhagavan’s grace
and blessings.
—Professor K. Swaminathan"
-----------------------------------
We should not imagine that just because we can use our intellectual acumen,we are better than that villager.It is the other way round.
Namaskar.
Anonymous(m),
"The reason I ask is: If I can even follow an iota of it, I might at least, become a better human being."
Friend,you are blessed.If this humility is there,it will lead to all the rest.You have asked about Sri Ramakrishna and TGN-some lessons to learn from their lives and Teachings.I will attempt to share what I can.
Master TGN was living in a 6 storied apartment in Chennai.One evening when master returned home,there was a power cut.The Lift was not operational and one other inmate who was frustrated was cursing the State Electricity Board for frequent power cuts.
He said to Master:'I need to climb up to the Fourth floor.This sort of Powercut has become the bane of this city,etc,etc.'
Master simply told him:'Yes,I live in the apartment on the 6th floor.I will tell you how you can make climbing stairs enjoyable and pleasant.Breathe in as you climb two steps,breathe out as you climb up the next two steps and so on.You will find yourself Refreshed and it will be a good cardiovascular exercise as well.Above all it will help you to secure your peace of mind that is now dependant on the efficiency of the State Electricity Board!'.
Master will use everday situations to advantage.
Master use to say that peace is your precious property;Do not invest it in the world outside.
He used to say with regard to the word Property-'You say that the property of Fire is to burn and that of water is to wet.You say that Oxygen aids in combustion,Hydrogen is Combustible and the Compound formed out of this combustion-i.e water helps in dousing combustion.In all these matters you speak of the 'intrinsic' nature of those substances.now if someone asks you to declare your propert,you point out to the land that you have purchased,The Apartment that you own,The bank balances that are deposited in assorted banks and share market,etc,etc.You hardly refer to anything 'intrinsic' in you as your property.Don't you see the absurdity of it all.Find out what your true property is and secure it!'
Friend,Thanks very much for giving me this opportunity to say something about Master.
Namaskar.
Oh my point earlier, was not singling out Hinduism by itself. I was just making the point that there are aspects of all religions that could indeed lean me down a bad road. And of course some of the founders/saints that all religions are based on, were in the same state, or lack of states that Maharshi was/is in. I guess, I was saying that without the inquiry (and the direct experience of grace, that for me manifests as intense happiness), it's hard to decide what is in accord with that. Many of the recorded things Jesus said, seem to me, to be very similarly statements of a jnani so to speak. And I'm not doubting that certain codes of conduct may be helpful, at times, for some. But it is noteable to me, that Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam, without that inner discernment sects and aspects of the religion can be accepted uncritically that can indeed lead to things like religious fascism. (I watched a documentary on Hindu (perhaps pseudo-Hindu) fascism in the conflict with Pakistan), and the same for other religions. Actually, ironically, it was surrender to Christ, that led me to Maharshi. But I feel like inquiry itself is the direct path to being at peace completely, and permanently. And since my goal is to be happy and at peace, I don't want to drink contaminated water, that will lead me to something else. The beautiful thing about Nome's teachings to me, is that he doesn't depart at all from Maharshi's teachings, and has just helped me understand them better. From what I've heard, the Sage of Kanchi would probably not be my guru. It's kind of like people may intellectually think they understand what the Upanishads are saying, or Shankara meant. But it's really the experience that counts. If they aren't happy and at peace, and losing the conceit of their ego, but having it reinforced by their 'understanding', that person is not going to be of any help to me. Even if he knows the definition of a bunch of sanskrit terms, and what this sage, or saints said. And most people will not be of much help to me. Really, I've found, only those who are fully Realized, or in earnest pursuit of it, can be of help. The thing that is so beautiful about Maharshi's teachings, is that there is such a clear barometer for what is true and what is not true, that is experiential, and I don't have to rely on anything else. I don't have to rely on, maybe this book is true. I don't have to rely on so and so said. I can investigate directly whether I have an ego, a sense of individuality, and I can investigate directly where my happiness is, I can find directly that which is lasting and always.
Alot of my current feelings seem to be nicely summed up in the blog post here, "Yes, but what do I do?"
Anonymous(m)/Friends,
One of the salient features of Master TGN is his vast palette-inspiration from all masters will be served.One of his favourites among others is The Buddha and his teachings.
I will share this story of Buddha and Meghiya that I have heard from Master:
In the thirteenth year of his enlightenment,Gautama Buddha happened to stay on the Chalika hill,accompanied by the elderly Meghiya.On their round for alms,Meghiya was attracted to a lush mango-grove and he told the enlightened One:"Master,I would like to retire to that grove for meditation."
Buddha said:"Wait,Meghiya,until another monk arrives to take your place here."
Meghiya,however became impatient and on his voicing the request for the third time,the Great One spoke:"What shall I say,Meghiya,when you want to meditate?Do as you think fit."
Meghiya joyfully sought the grove and sat down to meditate;but soon three thoughts rose in his mind:"Why did I renounce the World that can provide endless series of sense-pleasures?My brother deprived me of cultivable lands;I should settle accounts with him,I should also retaliate in some manner."Alarmed over these thoughts Meghiya rushed back to the chalika hill and sobbed at the feet of the Master.
Buddha spoke:"For an aspirant mind to mature,Meghiya,five things(This is the beauty of the Buddha-he will give a COUNT so that it is easy to recall-Ravi)are conducive:
1.Satsang;2.Unremitting practice of virtue;3.Effort to subdue unwholesome thoughts and cultivate wholesome thoughts;4.Effort to acquire the wisdom to discern the transience of World-objects and appearances;and 5.Timely counselling from the Enlightened One tending to dispassion and nibbana."
Then, on realizing its significance, the Lord uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance:
Trivial thoughts, subtle thoughts,
Mental jerkings that follow one along:
Not understanding these mental thoughts,
One runs back and forth with wandering mind.
But having known these mental thoughts,
The ardent and mindful one restrains them.
An awakened one has entirely abandoned them,
These mental jerkings that follow one along."
The venerable Meghiya experienced peace returning to his mind;and thereafter he never left the Master's side till stabilisation of his Realisation.
-----------------------------------
Master will add that Jnanis will only give hints /suggestions and the aspirant should be awake to take note and practice.
Namaskar.
Clarification: to avoid my last comment seeming directed at what it wasn't. I wasn't making any negative claim about the sage of kanchi whom I know nothing about. I forgot to clarify, I was speaking of a hypothetical person whose understanding is intellectual, and how that would be of no help to me, in my seeking to understand. But yeah, the "yes, but what do I do?" post is extremely helpful. Lately, I've made a point to remember that the final state is just Being itself. So not being a doing, and when ever there is that confusion, of not knowing how to proceed, usually that means becuase there isn't some obvious vasana arising to the surface so to speak, and so I just Be at that point. I was also thinking about how, no matter what the practice is, once peace is experienced, it seems, that the practice becomes more and more intense to always be at peace, or to always be immersed in the meditative state. I start off with yoga and tai chi, and meditation because of stress, and those may be at an alloted time, but more and more it becomes unsatisfactory to be sometimes at peace, to be sometimes free, to be sometimes joyful, and so the practice deepens in that sense. And that seems to me, that that must be how it deepens to full on Realization of the Self, when the natural state of meditation is all that is left over. I mean these days, almost unconsciously, I try so hard, in a way that I couldn't even stop trying so hard. It's like so recognized that at this point, not only happiness and peace, but even any kind of good worldly experience, anything good, arises from being in a state that is deep, peaceful, joyful, meditative. That is something that I've realized is that what is considered good, is what the Self is referring to in these teachings. So good can take care of itself, it's the negative tendencies, that have to be eliminated. I suppose, Maharshi said it doesn't matter whether it's good or bad thoughts. But good thoughts aren't necessarily a deep happiness. Happiness itself though, is natural. Not the idea of happiness. But when I'm happy, it's as Maharshi said in Who am I? because there is awareness of the Self. It's conscious diving.
I think I comment here, and almost in such an undisciplined way, because I don't know if I can describe it, but my ego doesn't get validated here much. And so it's another venue to not have my ego validated, either negatively or positively. And David Godman's stuff so to speak, I don't know whether David Godman is always immersed in the Self or not, but certainly the posts here are not just intellectual treatise, they are very beautiful and concise. I always feel like commenting here, whether anyone reads what I writes, or responds to it, there is something that does awaken me to a deeper level. The waters here are not very contaminated. When I write here, I'm drinking from the water source here. When I read the posts as well.
Something that has become kind of foremost in my mind, in regards to inquiry, is that the Self is not something I create, or through doing some maneuver, I become aware of. The Self is something that is always, and cannot be created or destroyed. I keep that in mind. That I don't get Self-Realized through effort. That doesn't negate the necessity of effort, but the effort is more and more becoming getting to the root of the confusion that is causing me to not just be the Self, or know the Self. Clear up the root attachments, confusions about who I am, that are preventing resting in the natural, real Self. And more of an awareness, that the Self is something I can let take over, instead of through Herculean effort grabbing onto. And I think that comes to that key barometer, I think which is happiness. Knowing that happiness is the nature of Being, as opposed to something gotten through an experience, seems so central. Because the thing that lets me know something is a vasana, or delusion, is that I'm less happy because of that assumption. And so, I can see that in some way, in that assumption, I'm making an incorrect assumption. So it becomes more a matter of clearing up those incorrect assumptions and not some other kind of doing, or creating. This is kind of an interesting developement in my practice. I guess, that the Self doesn't need me to do something to maintain it. The Self is the basic substratum, and something that can be rested in, as. But if there is a suffering, is the telltale sign of vasanas. And vasanas usually involve the belief that happinesss is in some objective experience, or that the person based on thought is me, and not as it self-evidently is, imagined.
I had requested yesterday for a post on Silence. And I landed in this post that David had long time back posted.
http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.com/2008/06/silence-in-teachings-of-sri-ramana.html
David, if u were thinking of posting of a new post about this subject, please do post ;)
Anonymous(m),
You asked about Sri Ramakrishna.I will share from Paul Brunton's 'A search in Secret India'-How Paul Brunton comes to know about Sri Ramakrishna from his dear disciple-Mahendranath Gupta,popularly known as the Master Mahasya who wrote the wonderful Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna.Even Sri Ramakrishna used to call him 'master' just like other young disciples,as M was a headmaster in a school.
This how paul Brunton describes Master Mahasaya as he sees him for the first time:"A venerable patriarch has stepped from the pages of the Bible,and a figure from Mosaic times has turned to Flesh.This man with bald head,long white beard,and white moustache,grave countenance and large ,reflective eyes;this man whose shoulders are slightly bent with the burden of nearly eighty years of mundane existence,can be none other than the Master Mahasaya."
Paul Brunton asks:"Will you tell me something about your master Ramakrishna?"
"Ah,now you raise a subject about which I love best to talk.It is nearly half a century since he left us,but his blessed memory can never leave me;always it remains fresh and fragrant in my heart.I was twenty-seven when I met him and was constantly in his society for the last five years of his life.The result was that I became a changed man;my whole attitude towards life was reversed.Such was the strange influence of this god-man Ramakrishna.He threw a spiritual spell upon all who visited him.He literally charmed them,fascinated them.Even materialistic persons who came to scoff became dumb in his presence."
"But how can such persons feel reverence for spirituality-a quality in which they do not believe?"I interpose,slightly puzzled.
The corners of Mahasaya's mouth pull up in a half smile.He answers:
"Two persons taste red pepper.One does not know its name;perhaps he has never even seen it before.The other is well acquainted with it and recognizes it immediately.Will it not taste the same to both?Will not both of them have a burning sensation on the tongue?In the same way,ignorance of Ramakrishna's spiritual greatness did not debar materialistic persons from 'tasting' the radiant influence of spirituality which emanated from him"
"Then he really was a spiritual superman?"
"Yes,and in my belief even more than that....Strangely too,he possessed the power of inducing a similiar state in his disciples by means of a single touch;in this state they could directly understand the deep mysteries of God by means of direct perception."
------continued-------------
Anonymous(m),
Sri Ramakrishna....Continued....
Master Mahasaya continues-"Let me tell you how he affected me.I had been educated along western lines.My head was filled with intellectual pride.I had served in calcutta colleges as professor of English Literature,History and political Economy,at different times.Ramakrishna was living in the temple of Dakshineswar ,which is only a few miles up the river from Calcutta.There I found him one unforgettable spring day and listened to his simple expression of spiritual ideas born of his own experience.I made a feeble attempt to argue with him but soon became tongue-tied in that sacred presence,whose effect on me was too deep for words.Again and Again I visited him,unable to stay away from this poor ,humble but divine person,until Ramakrishna humorously remarked:
"A peacock was given a dose of opium at four o'clock.The next day it appeared again exactly at that hour.It was under the spell of opium and came for another dose."
"That was true symbolically speaking.I had never enjoyed such blissful experiences as when I was in the presence of Ramakrishna,so can you wonder why I came again and again?And si I became one of his group of intimate disciples,as distinguished from occasional visitors.One day the master said to me:
'I can see from the sign of your eyes,brow and face that you are a Yogi.Do all your work then,but keep your mind on God.Wife,children,father and mother,live with all and serve them as if they are your own.The tortoise swims about in the waters of the lake,but her mind is fixed to where her eggs are laid on the banks.So,do all the work of the world but keep the mind in God.'
"And so,after the passing away of our master,when most of the other disciples voluntarily renounced the world,adopted the yellow(Ochre-ravi)robe,and trained themselves to spread Ramakrishna's message through India,I did not give up my profession but carried on with my work in education.Nevertheless,such was my determination not to be of the world although I was in it,that on some nights I would retire at dead of night to the open verandah before the senate house and sleep among the homeless beggars of the city,who usually collected there to spend the night.This used to make me feel,temporarily atleast ,that I was a man with no possessions......"
Mahasaya finished his long recital and relapses into silence.
-------------continued-------------
I was thinking on my way home, that the thing I really like about Maharshi's teachings is that they are very parsimonious. I was sitting in this bookstore, and this older person sat down next to me. I was very intent on the inquiry as I walked around, which really comes down to just Being. But this person was talking about some new religion he had come upon, and believed in. And at first I was agreeing with him, that some of the things were similar to what I've been going by. But then there were other things he talked about like going to other planets through consciousness, and all these different terms he was using. And that is the thing, taht I love about Maharshi's teachings, parsimony. I can get caught up in all sorts of speculative imagination. But Maharshi's teachings are very simple, and to the point. As were his Realized devotees. All coming back to the sense of I. That I know I exist.
Anonymous(m),
Sri Ramakrishna.......continued....
"As I look at his face anew,I am struck by the non-Hindu colour and cast of his face.Again I am wafted back to a little kingdom in Asia Minor,where the children of Israel find a temporary respite from their hard fortunes.I picture Mahasaya among them as a venerable prophet speaking to his people.How noble and dignified the man looks!His goodness,honesty,virtue,piety and sincerity are transparent.He possesses that self-respect of a man who has lived a long life in utter obedience to the voice of conscience.
"I wonder what Ramakrishna would say to a man who cannot live by faith alone,who must satisfy reason and intellect?"I murmur questioningly.(This question can be deemed as valid for all the present day rationalists-Ravi)
"He would tell the man to pray.Prayer is a tremendous Force.Ramakrishna himself prayed to God to send him spiritually inclined people,and soon after that those who later became his disciples or devotees began to appear."
"But if one has never prayed-What then?"(Asked on our behalf as well!-Ravi)
"Prayer is the lastresort.It is the ultimate resource left to man.Prayer will help a man where the intellect may fail."
"But if someone came to you and said that prayer did not appeal to him temperament.What counsel would you give him?"I persist gently.(All present day objections are here!-Ravi)
"Then let him associate frequently with truly holy men who have had spiritual experience.Constant contact with them will assist him to bring out his latent spirituality.Higher men turn our minds and wills towards divine objects.Above all,they stimulate an intense longingfor the spiritual life.Therefore,the society of such men is very important as the first step,often it is also the last,as Ramakrishna himself used to say."(Typical of M that he always only spoke what Ramakrishna said-No advice ever came as 'his' advise!!!This guru Bhakti is the ultimate resource-Ravi)
Thus we discourse of things high and holy,and how man can find no peace save in the eternal Good.Throughout the evening different visitors make their arrival,until the modest room is packed with Indians-disciples of Master Mahasaya.(M never considered any one as his disciple-Ravi).They come nightly and climb the stairs of this four-storeyed house to listen intently to every word uttered by their teacher.
----------continued---------------
Anonymous(m),
.....Ramakrishna....Continued....
And for a while I,too,join them.Night after night I come,less to hear the pious utterances of Mahasaya than to bask in the spiritual sunshine of his presence.The atmosphere around him is tender and beautiful,gentle and loving;he has found some inner bliss and the radiation of it seems palpable.Often I forget his words,but I cannot forget his benignant personality.That which drew him again and again to Ramakrishna seems to draw me to Mahasaya also,and I begin to understand how potent must have been the influence of the teacher when the pupil exercises such a fascination upon me.(This needs to be read over and over again.This is the mark of a Genuine Master-You get hooked without any need for 'words'-Ravi)
When our last evening comes,I forget the passage of time,as I sit happily at his side upon the divan.Hour after hour has flown by;our talk has had no interlude of silence,but at length it comes.And then the good master takes my hand and leads me out to the terraced roof of his house where,in the vivid moonlight,I see a circling array of tall plants growing in pots and tubs.(M had brought a twig from the panchavati-the garden where sri RK did sadhana at Dakshineswar and had planted it in his house.Everything about his master was sacred for him-Ravi).Down below a thousand lights gleam from the houses of calcutta.
The moon is at its full.Mahasaya points up towards its round face and then passes into silent prayer for a brief while.I wait patiently at his side until he finishes.He turns,raises his hand in benediction and lightly touches my head(Our heads as well!-Ravi)
I bow humbly before this angelic man,unreligious though I am.(What humility!This may be sometimes hidden behind a tough exterior-Ravi).Afer a few more moments of continued silence,he says softly:
"My task has almost come to an end.This body has nearly finished what God sent it here to do.Accept my blessings before I go."
(PB adds -Before long I was apprised of his death)
He has strangely stirred me.I banish the thoughts of sleep and wander through many streets(Such is the power of a blessing of a true master-Ravi).When,at length,I reach a great mosque and hear the solemn chant,"God is most Great!"break forth upon the midnight stillness,I reflect that if anyone could free me from the intellectual scepticism to which I cling and attach me to a life of simple faith,it is undoubtedly the master Mahasaya.
----------------------------------
m,Thanks very much.
Namaskar.
It is so funny, I was thinking just now, about how religion, how no matter what is true, someone benefits from believing in something bigger, and then I thought, because basically it is going to the question, what is the first cause? Whether something is attributed as that cause or not. And then the words of the 1st verse of Ulladu Narpadu came to my mind, and just where I happened to scroll down to, when I looked at the screen was that verse.
"Because we see the world, it is indisputable that there exists a first cause [substratum or basic reality] which has the power to appear as many.’ "
How beautiful the story of the Master Mahasaya. Of course he became addicted to Ramakrishna. He went back again and again to get "his fix". The effulgence of the Master is addictive.
In addition an absolutely charming booklet is Residual Reminiscences of Ramana by S.S. Cohen. It really depicts rather well, the day by day events at the Ashram.
hj
Anonymous(hj),
Cohen and Chadwick were wondeful devotees of Sri Bhagavan.Here is an excerpt from the residual reminiscences:
"On this 16th day of December 1949 I was passing by the Ashram’s office when I saw Major Chadwick
entering it. Contrary to his habitual reticence, he was heard speaking about Bhagavan’s fourth operation
which was fixed for the 19th. After a few preliminary words, he grew heated at the news. Raising his
gigantic voice, he admonished the authorities: “How long are you going to cut Bhagavan? Let him go
without this torture. So many times you operated, what good did it all do? Let him, let him, let him
go....” gathering his vocal momentum at each ‘let him’. He stunned all the people present; even the
hardy Sarvadhikari was numbed into silence till the Major left after a few minutes.
My sympathy was all with Chadwick, but nobody’s advice was worth anything before that of the
advisory inner Council which was paying the allopathic piper.
Those who visited the Ashram after the Mahanirvana of Bhagavan know that the old hall had since
become the most holy meditation hall of the Ashram, due to its longest association with the Master as
his reception hall, bedroom, office, study, and the receptacle of his sublime teaching.
And when one raises one’s eyes and see his life-sized photograph installed on the very couch he had
used, leaning on the very cushions which had supported his back and limbs for a good number of
years, one transcends the illusion of time and space and feels as if the physical presence is actually
there too, and, so, one cannot but respond in love and adoration of him who used to be called Bhagavan
Ramana Arunachala, the Guru of Gurus and Supreme Consciousness and Grace personified."
-----------------------------------
All devotees would attest to what cohen has so beautifully expressed.
Namaskar.
...And what is the point in coming back? [after enlightenment] I don’t know whether it’s more valuable to come back or more valuable to stay. But one thing is, for your fellow man, for the fellow on the rung below – and of course this was incorporated into my vector, strangely enough. Because I was very angry in my youth. I ran into phonies, all sorts of hucksters, wanting money for everything. For every little bit of wisdom they give you they want to rake you off for a few thousand dollars, and so they degenerate into rackets.
So that I swore that if I ever found something I would make it available.
Richard
Dear Ravi,
With joy, I read your accounts on Sage TGN, sri Ramakrisha, Lord Buddha and M. Thanks so much for posting them.
The initial account on Sage TGN talking about 'property' was true and ironic. His advice on using everyday situations to our advantage is something I need to apply in my own life .
I came across 'M' in the 'Disciples of Sri Ramakrishna' and was struck by his Humility. It is easy to see that, not unlike Annamalai Swami, every utterance of his master was sacred to him.
Beautiful passages, Ravi.
Thank you.
Best,
m
Ramana maharshi's expression still far surpasses any other that I've encountered.
I'm not absolutely sure this is correct, but I'm pretty sure this is close. Pretty much, I was thinking, the thing I love about inquiry, or attempting it, is basically bathing in bliss, and consequently harmonious responses to things. And it gets more and more crucial to be in that state. So, when I think about inquiring, primarily I'm thinking about how to in essence stop thinking. All this thinking about useless matters, or even harmful matters. There's all this thought about all these different things, sometimes leading to participation in things that are not the best. Not to mention then getting depressed, anxious, craving, angry. And then... unwise, or untuned responses to things. So basically, I think if I'm honest with myself, it's less an interest in some full on Realization state, or becoming a jnani, or a spiritual teacher. (though perhaps those could also result from this) It's more, how do I do the right thing for myself? And more and more, the most appropriate thing seems to be being in the appropriate state. And inquiry, seems like, in essence, I can't be free of thought, by repressing thought. But it seems like a key ingredient that Maharshi was giving is, that there is a root of all thought, and that is the ego, or the individual entity that is thinking. (but the thinker is not really seperate from the thought, it seems the thinker and thought arise as one object, it's a thought, with an individual-entity or personality implied as the protagonist of the 'life-story') When I think about the "I am the body" notion. It doesn't work for me to think, "I am not the body". I don't get at peace that way. I've also had very little experiential success with just asking "Who am I?" as a question, or repeated to myself. Because, then it's just another thought. And thought, is sort of the way in which I'm tormenting myself. But I think it seems to me that Maharshi was saying, that you can undercut all thought by a focus on the one who is thinking. And it seems to me that other things like "I am the body", "I am the doer" will fall off naturally in that inquiry. Becuase it's not that "I am not the body". It's that there is only, and I am this resting Consciousness, which is metaphorically like being bathed in bliss. But, more crucial then that, it seems, and I think I'm having sometimes more success lately, with just being, and letting thought go. Wherever I am. And it's a different state of consciousness that is brought on. Blissful, often. And, when something needs to get done, I may do it. But it's different, where in the other frame, maybe the more egoic frame, I would be thinking in an urgent panicked way. Compared to this, that is almost a much-ado-about nothing. It also kind of prevents me from running away from situations. Like I may stay in that coffee shop just sitting there for another hour. Until something really needs to get done. Things are done out of necessity rather than urgency. And lately, I may let my room get a little messier, because it's necessary.
I may let my room get messier, because it's not necessary to clean it. But certain things may be. So I guess I'm just saying, in this state of Being, there doesn't seem to be any sense of urgency or panic. But a calm and happy doing what is necessary when it arises.
It doesn't make sense to me to avoid talking as if I can't say, I'm the doer of actions. It seems this non-doership, is describing something at a higher level, then simply not taking responsibility. (much less an altered way of talking about oneself) But still, I think in that happiness, there isn't the panicked urgency, I guess I'm saying, it is a different way of engaging the world. Because it isn't out of fear of things going wrong.
In a sense with the inquiry it almost seems like, maybe it isn't an intense focusing on the thinker, as much as a noticing, or calling attention to that the thoughts need the thinker. And I am not the thinker, I am my own existence. There is an underlying Existence, which is self-evident, and no one would deny. It is obvious, it's not esoteric. As Maharshi said, we know that we exist. this isn't some big spiritual secret. And it seems to me, maybe the inquiry is a realizing that I exist, and that thought with it's implied thinker are a figment of my imagination, that I can cease creating. And I can abide as Existence itself. I'm capitalizing it because that seems to be a typical Vedantic thing.
More and more, my focus lately has been on the experiential-side of immersing myself in that Existence, Bliss. And ceasing that emphasis on thought. Emphasis changed to Being, Existing, and immersed in my own happiness, and emphasis no longer feeding thought, and it's associations.
Things like the Self. (the issue I almost have with that, is the Self makes me think of "a something". Another object, another concept). And...then I'm thinking again. My thoughts are latching on to these concepts and I'm no longer Being. So why is the term "the Self" used? Other then maybe the Self, or the sense of Existence is very real. The self, that is thinker, the sense of "me" arising in thoughts is not, is self-evidently a figment. Things like reincarnation. I almost would have to take somebody else's word for it. My experience of these teachings, has not yet, given me anything to believe that there is reincarnation. And it makes me wonder if Maharshi was using it as a metaphor, because his emphasis was not on reincarnation, it seemed, because it seemed his rhetorical response to that was, "yeah, but are you incarnated even now?". And so, in a sense he was kind of using it as a metaphor, because what re-incarnation, or for that matter, "a world" is there besides me saying there is one? Yet, the world, that is observed, the physical world, is not apart from that Existence, so it's hard to say that Maharshi was really denying the existence of the physical world. But if the physical world is real, it is only the one Self, and it almost seems like he's referring more to the mind, mental objectification. Because, lets say I'm an empiricist, a scientist, infact I majored in molecular biology. I could do my science work no problem, and in that field, observe the natural world through experimentation, etc. And kind of like, "I am not the body" has not worked for me. Dismissing the world as unreal, has not really worked either. I can't describe it, because it's paradoxical. But if there is no ego, then there is no life, so there is no one living, and so in a sense there is no...the whole story dissolves. And so I suppose, then questions of is there a world? are moot. I might still be doing my lab-work experimentation, and writing papers on bacteria.
http://www.thework.com/thework.asp
I really think this method is helpful. Because it helps to question the underlying ideas of repetative suffering, which helps with the actual Self-inquiry I think alot. There is the judge your neighbor worksheet, I remember Byron Katie said it is better to write it down, I don't know why, but I found it more effective that way. And then the 4 questions. Is it true? Can you absolutely know that it is true? How does this thought effect you? And what would you be without that thought? And then turn it around to various opposite statements, and examine the truth of that statement. It's significantly dealt with at the link I just posted.
I'll give an example of one I did. I was getting really angry with Republicans and their reactions to Obama, and I did it. And the turn around was from my initial statement: "I am angered by the news media, and their portrayal of Obama, and just really bad ideas."
It turned around to: I am angered by my own portrayal of Obama, and just really bad ideas". And examining the truth of that statement. (clearly my anger was predicated somewhat on my positive portrayal of Obama-illusions, and needing them not to be questioned)
I remember the turn around should not be done without the previous questions or it can seem unduly harsh toward self. And I remember that only judging others statements is safe to do, so it should always be a directed outward reaction that is being questioned. I'm finding that these methods, can all perhaps open up a space to do actual Self-inquiry, where I question the notion that I am even an individual self. It can really call attention to, that my reactions to things are like a building without ground below it. In a way I think that is a good analogy for my deeper experiences. When I was in Nome's presence the first time, it was kind of like that, where in a sense, our whole thinking, seems as if it is rooted in a real solid structure, the self. All these things I think undermine the illusion of that structure. So it's like a building without a foundation.
I'm kind of an all means necessary kind of person and lately spiritual practice has turned into a kind of, when I started becoming too in the head, and thinking about things, and there starts to be that sinking feeling, or suffering, I do whatever it takes to get back to peace. The one clear thing experientially for me, is that joyful effulgence, peace, stillness, silence. And I've noticed different 'techniques' have different abilities to return me to just being myself, which is where I want to be. Today, I did the 4 questions of Byron Katie, I hadn't done them in a while, they are it seems really potent as a method if nothing else is working. Because it seems to kind of undermine the underlying assumption or idea, that the suffering thoughts or sprouting out of. More and more though, it's getting to be, the spiritual practice, is just to be, and at peace. To keep quiet. But if necessary something else to return me there. And today, the 4 questions really did the trick, I could feel my mind stilled by it in a really deep and profound way. I've sometimes lately taken to observing the breath. Just whatever is necessary, to be at peace. I think that is the key. Realization, I think is related to being at peace, content within. And I think that seems to be for me what the spiritual quest is, is making a determined effort to be at peace, and to stay at peace. Using whatever means necessary. Sometimes yoga may help. Other times, maybe it's really unnecessary. Maybe sometimes, the inquiry Maharshi is talking about will be more clear, how to proceed. But ultimately Maharshi's teachings, seemed to be that utter stillness, when there is no ego at all. And I think maybe I've had a glimpse of that. But I know when I'm not at peace. I want to say over time, but it's more like over the duration of spiritual practice, it seems like deeper and deeper, more open spaces are revealed. When I did the 4 questions earlier, everything was totally still. And I went about and did various things, and then another thing happened and started to upset me again. But not as bad. I remember Nome saying that all spiritual practice is cumulative. I would have to agree, that seems to be the case.
David and friends, Who was V. Venkataraman?
Bhagavan the guru:
perhaps it was with V. Venkataraman that Sri Bhagavan came nearest to an explicit admission that he was the guru. He told him once: "Two things are to be done, first to find the guru outside yourself and then to find the guru within. You have already done the first."
hj
One thing that it seems to me, is many methods may bear fruit, but I don't think one method can be counted upon all the time. Pretty much the sign that I'm getting into ego, is that I'm not joyful, and am starting to suffer.
Many different kinds of thoughts, reactions may be involved. And so, then the process starts of trying to undermine those thoughts, and their consequent feelings. Like yesterday, Byron Katie's 4 questions were profoundly effective. Sometimes observing breathing. Sometimes a more mental discrimination, where the truth of the thoughts are actually challenged. Like, is that true? Will that make me happy?
Do I need that? Sometimes, the methods I choose, really are not working, or they put me in a dull, stupor-ish state. My tact then usually is to stop whatever I'm doing. Often, lately, remembering to just be, and not to be this or that. (laugh). Just go back to being. Which I think is keeping quiet. It's not repressing thoughts, but it's ceasing to get carried away by them. The correspondence with Nome, sometimes things he has said, are recalled that challenge the thoughts that I'm having.
(paraphrasing)"Perhaps you'd find it more blessed to give then to receive."
"All the love and happiness you are seeking are to be found within". If it comes down to it, maybe in the midst of panic or anxiety, prayer can actually be helpful. This is what sadhana looks like for me lately. It's not a rote pattern, but more a poking and prodding, and using different tools.
And I know I'm successful, when I start to feel good again, when the vice around my emotions is letting go. I prefer to do this, then just to ask Who am I? I think as far as Maharshi's teachings, they come into play, more as a certain set of principles, or things to keep in mind. For instance that the ego itself, which is the sense of individual-self is really unreal. I think it is an aspect that is now often kept in mind, and when I start to feel good, that sense of self starts to dissapear to some degree. The Self is Being-Consciousness-Bliss, is something remembered. That Bliss and Being are one.
I don't quite understand what Consciousness is referring to, other then that I'm always Conscious. But Being, to just Be. Bliss, that Being and happiness are one. When I'm just Being, I'm happy. As opposed to, I'm unhappy, because of this, I want this, because then I can be happy. Other aspects, that time is unreal. But you know there they are referring to experiential time. I still, might look at a clock to meet someone, or in a science experiment, empirical time can be a factor. But experientially, time is not something experienced in deep sleep. It requires there to be an ego, and an objective 'world' experience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHV0jzi7BBQ
I really like Byron Katie, and find her teachings helpful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT1pX07nihY
particularly what she said near the end here, reminded me very much of Ramana.
YOUR TREASURE HOUSE - Houi-hai as a young man traveled to the monastery of Ch'an master Ma-tsu about 1,200 years ago and recorded the following conversation:
Ma-tsu: What do you hope to gain by coming here?
HH: I have come seeking the Buddha-Dharma (i.e. the Way).
MT: Instead of looking to the treasure house which is your very own, you have left home and gone wandering far away. What for?
HH: Please tell me to what you alluded when you spoke of a treasure house of my own.
MT: That which asked the question is your treasure house. It contains absolutely everything you need and lacks nothing at all. It is there for you to use freely, so why this vain search for something outside yourself?
"That which asked the question is your treasure house. It contains absolutely everything you need and lacks nothing at all. It is there for you to use freely, so why this vain search for something outside yourself?"
The whole happiness within thing, makes so much sense, yet it is so hard to truly realize. Strong, but perhaps illusory attachments.
David,
I have an important question for you. Did Bhagavan approve or disapprove of any particular profession? For example, a financial analyst may direct his clients to invest some money in a company with poor principles and hence earn some bad karma. Is any of this an obstacle in Bhagavan's eyes, or is the only sin 'identification with the body'?
Well, I would suppose, the closer you get to jnana, the more your choices are ethical, and not karma producing. I would guess, that there may not be in any specific profession, but one may more and more opt out of unethical situations.
It seems like it would have to be the identification with the body, that drives the selfishness that would allow one to participate in activities that harm others. If the job doesn't harm others, then I don't know what the problem would be.
This is an interesting thought. From reading Papaji, there are some things he said that make me wonder if, fulfillment of desires is something that happens along the way to Realization. For instance, with the woman who worked at his ashram in the previous life, who became his wife in this life. I was wondering if maybe some underlying desires will become fulfilled, in the process of sadhana. If one goes for the desires, without inquiry, then it will just be more attachment and suffering.
Dear Mr. Godman,
I recently visited Ramana ashram for the first time and stayed in the guest house on the opposite side of the road. I saw a sign in the ashram saying 'Meals for invitees only' or something to the effect. I heard before that anyone can join in the meals. What exactly is the practice? I dont want to raise this issue with the Ashram administrators. Just curious.
Anonymous
Anyone who stays at or works in Ramanasramam is entitled to eat in the ashram dining room. The 'invitees' word on the sign outside the dining room refers to non-ashram residents and people who do not work there.
Some people who live outside the ashram have an arrangement whereby they eat occasionally in the ashram.
Also, when a devotee pays for all the costs of an ashram lunch, he or she is entitled to invite a limited number of outside people to come and eat that day.
Maharshi resonated to me as not only Realized but genuine in a way that, many other so-called 'spiritual' people and teachers have not. I mean certainly the same for his Realized devotees. Crystal clear, simple, and not pretentious. I don't know if it is disappointing, but sometimes it feels disappointing that there are so many pretentious, so-called spiritual teachers, or even knowledgeable spiritual people. I guess it shouldn't be disappointing. But maybe there is guilt of association. Sometimes, it makes me extra cautious of mentioning things even about Maharshi to people who don't already know about him, because I think sometimes, any remotely 'spiritual' statement can be, but I guess that's the thing, that's what makes Maharshi the real deal, is that there isn't any of that pretentiousness. And all you need is to be. So, it really isn't my place to be disappointed, it's the way it is. But I don't look at spirituality as a technical field. If I want a technical field I'll continue my molecular biology major. Maharshi's teachings are incredibly simple. That's why I don't waste my time calling Self-inquiry atma vichara. I mean, they are certainly things that are not commonly noticed, that the individual-self is unreal, that the world is a projection of that individual-self, happiness and being are one. I guess they are simple, but the experience is a whole nother matter. Like with Paul Brunton, I don't know whether he is a fake or not, or egotistical, and pretentious. I don't know. He looks like it. And I feel kind of a revulsion to him. Whether he expresses this or not (I don't really want to investigate), the whole "I am so smart about spirituality" thing seems incredibly foolish to me. I can boil down my interest in Maharshi's teachings, to simply, I've been very unhappy, and I want to know how to be happy. I've been very alienated, and I want to know how to be connected. I don't know how common or rare jnanis really are, but it is largely rare, someone who is sincere, and has something worthwhile to offer. There are countless obnoxious egos touting how great they are, even worshipped by others, but are quite incompetent and foolish. I mean, when I do inquiry, when I do this stuff, there is an awareness, of how great a person is, if they are humble, how much they are a star in other people's eyes. There is an awareness as Maharshi said (paraphrasing) that humility is greatness. Papaji and Maharshi specifically come to mind. The greatness that other perceived, was because they had realized they were nothing, and so everything that came out of them was sincere and authentic, and not contaminated with slimy, immature egoic motives. And it's not just 'fake' or 'deluded' spiritual teachers, or knowledgeable spiritual people, it's this world. But a dog sees dogs, an enlightened person only sees other enlightened. Good advice to self. Self?
So, I encountered this on-line, youtube, guru-ish person, who was kind of interesting, and funny. And kind of mixed taoist philosophy with dating advice, and stuff. So I was kind of interested in that latter topic what he might have to say. And there were a few interesting suggestions. But... that, to get his real answers, it required payment, makes me very suspicious. And that kind of fits with anonymous' stuff about paying for spiritual things. It's one thing, paying for goods, I don't know what I think about capitalism. But, if someone is truly Realized and knows the Self, and for instnace while I doubt this person is a jnani, they certainly had a certain level of mind-transcendence going on, and so there was something interesting about him. The thing is though the Self, and happiness, and spiritual Realization provided we are earnest, seems like a birth-right. And the Self, I would think, including it's Realizers, would want to liberate minds that don't realize it, provided we are earnest. So, the money charging thing is weird. And from what was talked about with Ramana Maharshi, he didn't charge for grace, or teachings. But books could be sold. Right? That's the thing, though the essential teachings of anyone who has the goods spiritually I would expect would be free. (I didn't have to pay to read Who am I?, Upadesa Sarem, 40 verses, Maharshi's Gospel, Talks and Day by Day are all free on-line as well)With Nome all the essentials including satsang were/are free. But there are some books and CDs for a price. I've bought a few books, but the instruction I needed was free. That's the thing spirituality seems inherently free of capitalism. I AM, does not cost money.(laugh). The fact that I exist, I don't have to pay for. So it feels like paying for something that is innate. In the world it's not innate that I have an X-Box or play station, but it is always innate in whatever circumstances, that I exist, that I'm conscious. So it feels weird, to pay anyone, to remind one, of what is their own innate knowledge. Ribhu Gita (which I gave a way to a homeless friend), and a few other books were a good investment. I even feel funny about things like martial arts costing money. Because even in that, you are learning to move in a way the body innately moves. But spirituality, one's relationship with God, or with their own Self, is not a capitalistic enterprise. And someone who sets themselves up, as an intermediary that you have to pay, that is always suspect to me. Another thing, is lets say I Realized the Self, or deepened to a much deeper state of wisdom, so that I had something to offer others. I would greatly, I think benefit by sharing that naturally with people I encounter. It would be a great service, and it would pay-back itself.
I guess I'm just saying, that from what I've seen of true gurus, ones who have really realized the egoless state, is that they don't need to worry about their own physical needs. I'm not saying that they wouldn't work, or take care of themselves. But that if they are meant to help others, it's taken care of, if devotees are meant to look after them, the Self kind of arranges it. Not to advertise Nome, I'm only sharing this because it's interesting to me, and relates to my own experiences. I really kind of saw that, I think, with him. An utter non-concern for his own well being, as far as it being taken care of by grace. I don't wnat to talk about what I don't know. Some devotees may be destined to take care of a true guru, if needed, but I don't get the impression taht a true-guru really asks for that, or manipulates others into paying for their physical well-being, because they know the Self. And the Self really does almost miraculously take care of jnanis. So... like when someone has at all a manipulative vibe, where I feel like they are trying to get something. Like this "guru" I was watching, he was really smart and funny, definitely understood spirituality in some genuine ways, and I don't think was a fraud, but I think, there was too much capitalism involved. I don't think he was a true guru. He wasn't really claiming to be either. But yeah, a true jnani Realized the Self, to Realize the Self, not to become a teacher, not to have a following, not to make money, not even for service to others. They realized it because it's their nature. And that is my motivation, I just want the happiness. In that happiness, how could I think of how to manipulate people for my own self-aggrandizement, based on insecurity?
In response to Fame, I'm not sure when Maharshi talks about the I-thought sinking into the Heart. The way Heart is used in these teachings, seems to be another name for the Self, it's not really limited to the body. So it seems like for any experience, whatever it is, it's still objective to me, it's still imaginary, it's still a thought. I think Maharshi's teachings are describing something much more self-evident. The most self-evident thing, existence. The Self that is to be realized is the most self-evident one, not the one that changes, and is transient. So when I say, "I exist", I'm referring to the Heart. When I say, "I'm joyous, blissful", I am referring to the Heart. The false one, is false because it causes illusory suffering.
Of all the practices tested over the years, the one I repeatedly return to above all others, is simply to sit quietly, turn within and allow the mind to settle into Silence of its own accord; like sediment settling in a dirty glass of water.
I understand that Ramana Maharishi declares, whilst abiding as such, one should also ask, “Who am I?”
When I enquire this way, the question is experienced as a sledge-hammer shattering an enormous pane of glass within. The question is coarse and grating, spoiling the sublime Silence, pulling me back into “everyday” mind.
(Please do not misunderstand me. I do not claim my meditation is some lofty, mystical experience. Rather, the Silence is simple, clear, natural.)
Furthermore, Maharishi himself declares that the mind must be rendered quiescent in order to gain release. Hence to ask, “Who am I?” whilst in a state of quiescence would act to spoil the quiescence. Would it not!!
* * * * *
Thus I propose that self-enquiry is suitable for the “everyday” mind, but counter-productive in subtler states such as deeper meditation.
What are your thoughts?
This really happened. I posted the link to this blog on Facebook. It had a picture of Arunachala, and below the picture of Ramana. Normally it only had the first (when I post links to this blog), Arunachala. But then about 5 minutes later, the picture of Ramana totally replaced the picture of Arunachala (and doubled in size), for no discernible reason. And another thing, when I hit the link to this blog from my Facebook wall it didn't open a seperate window, and wouldn't let me go back from this blog. Today, I hit on it, and other links, so that was not normal. Guru's Tiger Jaws?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWwe8HzUJu8&playnext_from=TL&videos=VKiLL1VhBr8&feature=grec
In this clip with Papaji, sometimes with the other person, did her mind really expolode, and is that genuine gales of laughter, or is that all a put-on on her part. I really can't tell. I could imagine that under Papaji's direct instruction like that, it could really blow up one's mind, and put one in a profound state of peace, and if they were really stressed out about lots of things, that release, could cause very huge reactions. But I couldn't tell.
I have just been sent a link to a fifteen minute radio show that was broadcast on American Public Radio.
Go to: http://snapjudgment.org/
and open a programme entitled 'The Gold Ring', which is half way down on the right. It is a very entertaining story of how Jeff Greenwald, an American journalist, met Papaji in 1993.
The story refers to an interview he had with Papaji in 1993. The interview appears in 'Papaji Interviews', and the video of it can be purchased from Avadhuta Foundation in Colorado, USA.
Thanks, David.
David,is n't there a technical problem in that Jeff Greenwald interview.Jeff says Papaji is the reincarnation of Gautama Buddha and him Buddha's horse.How can Buddha reincarnate?
That story is breath-taking about Papaji!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4690207072142445292#
This is a complete interview of Papaji by I believe Jeff Greenwald. I don't know if it is the interview, he was relating, I'm still at the beginning. I'm interested to see if that happened.
Anonymous
Papaji never claimed to be an incarnation of the Buddha. He made it clear on a number of occasions that jnanis don't reincarnate.
I think what happened in this case was that Jeff turned up with a story in his head: he wanted to see a Buddha and had a deep conviction that he had had some physical association with the Buddha in the past. I think that Papaji intuitively sensed this and whispered to him that there had been this connection in the past. The choice of the story and the whispered remarks about it were enough to trigger a great experience in Jeff.
I think Papaji just tuned into Jeff's yearning and used it to bring about the desired result.
There was a part in the interview 37 minutes in, taht I thought might have been what Jeff Greenwald was relating I wasn't sure. In that part Papaji is relating about the Buddha, it doesn't exactly transpire the way Jeff says, but I wonder if that's because of the intense state Jeff was in. But in this part Papaji does almost seem to speak of the Buddha and himself as one, or that their stories are inextricably woven. So he really seems to relate with the Buddha's realization. But I wouldn't doubt to the degree, that he might have had flashes of insight into it, or flashes of insight into Jeff's experience with the mural. I mean, if Papaji could see all a person's past lives just by looking into their eyes, who knows what else he could see.
David/Friends,
There is a difference between Incarnation Of God and Reincarnation of Jiva.It is not as if the jiva Buddha reincarnated as Jiva Christ,etc.It Is GOD Manifest as The Buddha and Again Manifests as Christ.This power of God may manifest-this is invoked by the aspiration of the individual or the mankind as a whole.If it is the individual that invokes it can partially manifest in someone who is fit enough to be a receptacle.
On the other hand if it is the whole of mankind that is invoking this sort of manifestation,then God Manifests fully in an incarnation like Sri Krishna or The Buddha or The Christ.This is why Sri Krishna says in the Gita -Sambhavami yuge yuge-(I Manifest from age to age to Protect the virtuous and destroy the vice and establish the Dharma).
I am yet to visit the link that you have posted,yet I get the drift and I do not see any contradiction here.The Problem in understanding these deep psychological aspects is that the external mind rationalizes and comes to silly conclusions.
Like how Sri Bhagavan says in his opening lines of the translation of Atma Bodha-"‘Can Shankara, the enlightener of the Self, be different from one’s own Self? Who but he, does this day, abiding as the inmost Self in me, speak this in the Tamil language?'.
In this way all Great Masters may be invoked-as they are all aspects of God.(for our understanding).It is God that manifests as all this and less and more or none!
who is to say that this is only true and not that,etc,etc.How much a little vessel can hold of the water in an ocean!
Namaskar.
Friends,
An excerpt from 'Inspired Talks ' of Swami Vivekananda:
TUESDAY, July 30, 1895.
Christs and Buddhas are simply occasions upon which to objectify our own inner powers. We really answer our own prayers.
It is blasphemy to think that if Jesus had never been born, humanity would not have been saved. It is horrible to forget thus the divinity in human nature, a divinity that must come out. Never forget the glory of human nature. We are the greatest God that ever was or ever will be. Christs and Buddhas are but waves on the boundless ocean which I am. Bow down to nothing but your own higher Self. Until you know that you are that very God of gods, there will never be any freedom for you.
All our past actions are really good, because they lead us to what we ultimately become. Of whom to beg? I am the real existence, and all else is a dream save as it is I. I am the whole ocean; do not call the little wave you have made "I"; know it for nothing but a wave. Satyakâma (lover of truth) heard the inner voice telling him, "You are the infinite, the universal is in you. Control yourself and listen to the voice of your true Self."
The great prophets who do the fighting have to be less perfect than those who live silent lives of holiness, thinking great thoughts and so helping the world. These men, passing out one after another, produce as final outcome the man of power who preaches.
* * *
Knowledge exists, man only discovers it. The Vedas are the eternal knowledge through which God created the world. They talk high philosophy — the highest — and make this tremendous claim. . . .
Tell the truth boldly, whether it hurts or not. Never pander to weakness. If truth is too much for intelligent people and sweeps them away, let them go; the sooner the better. Childish ideas are for babies and savages; and these are not all in the nursery and the forests, some of them have fallen into the pulpits.
It is bad to stay in the church after you are grown up spiritually. Come out and die in the open air of freedom.
All progression is in the relative world. The human form is the highest and man the greatest being, because here and now we can get rid of the relative world entirely, can actually attain freedom, and this is the goal. Not only we can, but some have reached perfection; so no matter what finer bodies come, they could only be on the relative plane and could do no more than we, for to attain freedom is all that can be done.
The angels never do wicked deeds, so they never get punished and never get saved. Blows are what awaken us and help to break the dream. They show us the insufficiency of this world and make us long to escape, to have freedom. . . .
A thing dimly perceived we call by one name; the same thing when fully perceived we call by another. The higher the moral nature, the higher the perception and the stronger the will.
......continued............
Friends,
...'Inspired Talks' contd....
TUESDAY AFTERNOON.
The reason of the harmony between thought and matter is that they are two sides of one thing, call it "x", which divides itself into the internal and the external.
The English word "paradise" comes from the Sanskrit para-desa, which was taken over into the Persian language and means literally "the land beyond", or the other world. The old Aryans always believed in a soul, never that man was the body. Their heavens and hells were all temporary, because no effect can outlast its cause and no cause is eternal; therefore all effects must come to an end.
The whole of the Vedanta Philosophy is in this story: Two birds of golden plumage sat on the same tree. The one above, serene, majestic, immersed in his own glory; the one below restless and eating the fruits of the tree, now sweet, now bitter. Once he ate an exceptionally bitter fruit, then he paused and looked up at the majestic bird above; but he soon forgot about the other bird and went on eating the fruits of the tree as before. Again he ate a bitter fruit, and this time he hopped up a few boughs nearer to the bird at the top. This happened many times until at last the lower bird came to the place of the upper bird and lost himself. He found all at once that there had never been two birds, but that he was all the time that upper bird, serene, majestic, and immersed in his own glory.
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.
Hello.
May I ask a question?
Sometimes Bhagavan said that this world was like a dream and it would disappear when ignorance was removed.
In ajata doctrine, is the world as like a dream admitted or not?Or, does the world not exist in any sense, so it is no nees to explain?
Shiba,
Ajata means 'unborn' and simply refers to the fact that Atman is neither created or destroyed.This is like the screen on which the movie pictures are projected is neither wetted by the rain or burnt by the Fire.
The question of existence of anything is reduced to whether it is noticed or not!
This is something like a Goldsmith would only notice Gold(as substantial)in a necklace;yet he would also admit the 'utility' of a chain,a bangle,etc.
This 'utility' value may be attributed to the world we live in-We eat Brahman,breathe Brahman,Think Brahman,serve Brahman in others,call part of Brahman as our Relatives,some Brahman as 'others',etc.
This is the Truth behind the advice -Advaita should be in Bhava and not in action. A dog needs to be treated as a dog,a Tree as a Tree,a Chair as a Chair,etc.
Now do not ask me how to treat'Man'.He may belong to any of the above categories!(Just joking!yet there is some Truth here!)
Coming to Sri Bhagavan,he always said-Leave aside the world.You know you exist.Find out the Truth of this.Later on we shall see how the world exists(or not!).
All vadas are so many lies,however refined!
Namaskar.
Friends,
Here is a message from David.
"I can't access my blog at the moment, and haven't been able to for about twenty four hours. I can't access any other Google blogs either."
-----------------------------------
Looks like there may be some delay in the posting of messages here until David figures a way out.
Namaskar.
Is there a term called 'Vijnani' in Ramana speak?
The following are the words of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa about the difference between Jnaani and Vijnaani. But I haven't come across such word in any of Ramana literature.
http://www.belurmath.org/gospel/chapter03.htm
Jnani and Vijnāni
"The jnani gives up his identification with worldly things, discriminating, 'Not this, not this'. Only then can he realize Brahman. It is like reaching the roof of a house by leaving the steps behind, one by one. But the vijnāni, who is more intimately acquainted with Brahman, realizes something more. He realizes that the steps are made of the same materials as the roof: bricks, lime, and brick-dust. That which is realized intuitively as Brahman, through the eliminating process of 'Not this, not this', is then found to have become the universe and all its living beings. The vijnāni sees that the Reality which is nirguna, without attributes, is also saguna, with attributes.
A man cannot live on the roof a long time. He comes down again. Those who realize Brahman in samādhi come down also and find that it is Brahman that has become the universe and its living beings. In the musical scale there are the notes sa, re ga, ma, pa, dha, and ni; but one cannot keep one's voice on 'ni' a long time. The ego does not vanish altogether. The man coming down from samādhi perceives that it is Brahman that has become the ego, the universe, and all living beings. This is known as vijnāna."
The above words of the Master directly contrast with that of Ramana Maharshi or is it just the choice of vocabulary of either that of the biographer(Sri M) or that of the Master not the same as that of Ramana.
Can anybody please explain.Thanks.
Follow the Rabbit...
Anonymous(Follow the Rabbit),
Interesting point that you have made-throws me back by 3 and a half decades when we cousins discussed and hotly contested this!Discussions apart we always knew that neither Sri Thakur nor Sri Bhagavan can be faulted!The problem,if at all is only in our understanding this or that 'system'.With this clear,I will refer you to this interesting article that deals with how Sri Ramakrishna is the precursor to Sri Aurobindo's Integral Yoga.
Before I refer you to this article,I will recall the truly insightful quote from Sri Aurobindo's Synthesis of Yoga-The Master truly brings he very essence of the Sri Ramakrishna Manifestation.He writes:
"In the life of Ramakrishna Paramhans, we see a colossal spiritual capacity, first diving straight to the divine realization, taking, as it were, the kingdom of heaven by violence, and then seizing upon one Yogic method after another and extracting the substance out of it with an incredible rapidity always to return to the heart of the whole matter, the realization and possession of God by the power of love, by the extension of inborn spirituality into various experience and by the spontaneous play of an intuitive knowledge....Its object was...to exemplify in the great and decisive experience of a master-soul the truth, now most necessary to humanity, towards which a world long divided into jarring sects and schools is with difficulty labouring, that all sects are forms and fragments of a single integral truth and all disciplines labour in their different ways towards one supreme experience. (Sri Aurobindo, 1955, p. 34) "
This is Sri Ramakrishna in a nutshell.Truly no other Master combined this sort of a simplicity and complexity and catholocity.
-----------------------------------
Now to refer you to the article(Let me just say that I have only skimmed through this article,that I came across a few minutes back-yet it covers something that I have always suspected as true.More of it later.Pl visit:
http://www.integrativespirituality.org/postnuke/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=463&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.
I have been having problems accessing my blog. I can edit, publish and moderate on the dashboard, but until this morning I haven't been able to view the published contents of the blog. Each time I do, I get a DNS error. For about thirty-six hours I was unable to view any Google blogs at all, not just mine, but I could access anything else I wanted to view online. Does anyone have any suggestions? I worked through all the 'help' menus and online advice offerings on this topic, without success. I have the same problem in both Explorer and Firefox: everything works except getting access to the published contents of Google blogs.
Shiba
Here is a Papaji quotation that is a belated response to your earlier query about whether jnanis see the world:
Papaji: In that place [the silence of the Heart] and in that place alone, one can say, 'Nothing has ever happened. Nothing has ever existed. The world never came into existence or disappeared from it.' That place is my real home. It is where I always am. One can say this with authority only when one abides in that place where nothing has ever happened.
A few weeks ago someone asked me, 'You say that the world is a projection of the mind, and that you yourself have no mind. If you have no mind, how does the world still appear to you?'
I answered, 'I don't see any world, so I don't need any explanation for its appearance. If I ever see a world in front of me, then I will have to think up an explanation for it.'
That is one way of answering this question. I could also have said that the world is Brahman, and that everything that is seen is Brahman.
You can see the world as real, as Brahman, or, like the Buddha, you can say that it is not there at all. He never saw anything. Both statements are equally valid.
I can say that the world never existed or that the world is Brahman. Both statements are equally true, but this is very hard to understand. The world is real because it is Brahman, not because it appears as names and forms. It is the names and forms that never existed.
Nothing Ever Happened, volume three, pp. 223-4
Thank you for replies,Mr.Ravi and Mr.David.
I understand the Bhagavan's standpoint that first Realize truth, then you will know.But ,continuing sadhana,I am sometimes tempted to seek intellectual undersatanding of advaita.
about Papaji...
The world seen as Brahman is real is also said by Sankara,but I can't understand the necessity of the statement.The world mean 'which is seen'.After realisation, who see the world? and what is seen?
The standpoint that the world is non-existent and no need to explain have no contradiction,but impossible to understand for me.
Q: Take me over.
NM: I am doing it, but you resist. You give reality to concepts, while concepts are distortions of reality. Abandon all conceptualization and stay silent and attentive. Be earnest about it and all will be well with you.
I have sorted out my access problems, or at least found out why I had them. My server (Reliance) is (temporarily I hope) not recognising blogspot.com addresses as valid. I have temporarily switched to another server.
I think it kind of makes perfect sense. That the world is unreal, and it is also Brahman. Because, I think what is saying, is if in the absence of ego, which divides, there is the one indivisible experiential reality, it includes the world. And so the world is real, but there is only one indivisible reality, experience. The division of self, and seperate universe, is created by the false sense of the individualized me. If I ask Who am I? the figment of that individualized me, and it's thoughts about the world dissapears. Granted, this is not my all the time experience (or else I would be a jnani), it still makes sense to me. Why isn't it my experience all the time? I was reading the Power of the Presence that I got, part II. And I could relate with Lakshmana Swami's experience more then the first time I read it, and same with Muruganar. But yet, today, I was involved in all kinds of suffering tendencies. In a sense they are obvious. I don't adhere to these teachings, to the degree necessary to keep off the alternative. It's weird to me, taht that the words of these teachings blossom more and more into an obvious experience, but the words don't change, and so even if I fully realized it, my explanations would be as perplexing, as they were to me, when I first encountered them.
Today, mainly from the correspondence with Nome, there were different thoughts that countered other thoughts. And that kind of helped, give me again glimpses of that indivisible reality. Ahimsa, non-harm with body, speech and mind, which is a basic principle, I'm angry about something. Adhering to ahimsa. So that I'm not defending my ego, it removes my egos defenses, and is incredibly difficult to do. Another instruction, the time being unreal is of no consequence, it doesn't matter how many times I get caught up in ignorance, the real existence is there for me to realize and abide in, all the same, time is of no consequence. On action: free of the basic mistake that I'm an embodied entity, the organs of body, speech and mind are freed up to do good in the world.
Anonymous(Follow The Rabbit)/Friends,
There are a couple of more references in the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna where the Master does make a pointed difference between Jnani and Vijnani.Here is an excerpt:
"Brahman and Divine Incarnations
"The jnanis think of God without form. They don't accept the Divine Incarnation.
Praising Sri Krishna, Arjuna said, 'Thou art Brahman Absolute.' Sri Krishna replied,
'Follow Me, and you will know whether or not I am Brahman Absolute.' So saying, Sri
Krishna led Arjuna to a certain place and asked him what he saw there. 'I see a
huge tree,' said Arjuna, 'and on it I notice fruits hanging like clusters of
blackberries.' Then Krishna said to Arjuna, 'Come nearer and you will find that
these are not clusters of blackberries, but clusters of innumerable Krishnas like
Me, hanging from the tree.' In other words, Divine Incarnations without number
appear and disappear on the tree of the Absolute Brahman.
"Kabirdas was strongly inclined to the formless God. At the mention of Krishna's
name he would say: 'Why should I worship Him? The gopis would clap their hands
while He performed a monkey dance.' (With a smile) But I accept God with form
when I am in the company of people who believe in that ideal, and I also agree with
those who believe in the formless God."
M. (smiling): "You are as infinite as He of whom we have been talking. Truly, no
one can fathom your depth."
MASTER (smiling): "Ah! I see you have found it out. Let me tell you one thing. One
should follow various paths. One should practise each creed for a time. In a game of
satrancha a piece can't reach the centre square until it completes the circle; but
once in the square it can't be overtaken by any other piece."
-----------------------------------
The crux of what Sri Ramakrishna is saying is exactly what the Upanishads have also said-'Brahman in its essence can be known but there is no way one may know it in its entirety.
He used to say that even Sages like Suka are like bigger ants that may carry at the most seven or eight grains out of this Sugar Hill that is Brahman.
He used to say-As long as I live so long do I learn-meaning that there is no end into the exploration of the experiencing of Brahman.
Human mind is quite uncomfortable in dealing with this sort of 'limitlessness'-It wants a Definitive Goal achieving which everything that it ever hoped for is consolidated.It is eager to bring things to a logical conclusion(even as an experience-Like the dissolution of Ego as the ultimate Goal,etc).
In the Mundaka upanishad Shaunaka approaches sage Angiras and asks "Revered Sir, by knowing what everything will be known ?"
...to be continued......
Anonymous(Follow the Rabbit)/Friends,
....Sri Ramakrishna continued...
The nature of jnanis and vijnanis
MASTER: "The vijnani always sees God. That is why he is so indifferent about the
world. He sees God even with his eyes open. Sometimes he comes down to the Lila
from the Nitya, and sometimes he goes up to the Nitya from the Lila."
PUNDIT: "I don't understand that."
MASTER: "The jnani reasons about the world through the process of 'Neti, neti',
and at last reaches the Eternal and Indivisible Satchidananda. He reasons in this
manner: 'Brahman is not the living beings; It is neither the universe nor the twentyfour
cosmic principles.' As a result of such reasoning he attains the Absolute. Then
he realizes that it is the Absolute that has become all this—the universe, its living
beings, and the twenty-four cosmic principles.
729
"Milk sets into curd, and the curd is churned into butter. After extracting the
butter one realizes that butter is not essentially different from buttermilk and
buttermilk not essentially different from butter. The bark of a tree goes with the
pith and the pith goes with the bark."
PUNDIT (smiling, to Bhudar): "Did you understand that? It is very difficult."
All-embracing realization of the vijnani
MASTER: "If there is butter, there must be buttermilk also. If you think of
butter, you must also think of buttermilk along with it; for there cannot be any
butter without buttermilk. Just so, if you accept the Nitya, you must also accept
the Lila. It is the process of negation and affirmation. You realize the Nitya by
negating the Lila. Then you affirm the Lila, seeing in it the manifestation of the
Nitya. One attains this state after realizing Reality in
both aspects: Personal and Impersonal. The Personal is the embodiment of Chit,
Consciousness; and the Impersonal is the Indivisible Satchidananda.
"Brahman alone has become everything. Therefore to the vijnani this world is a
'mansion of mirth'. But to the jnani it is a 'framework of illusion'.
-----------------------------------
The process of 'Negation' and 'Affirmation' is what Sri Aurobindo refers to as the 'Ascent' and 'Descent'.From the absolute standpoint there is neither ascent or descent-What is is-This is the position stressed by Sri Bhagavan.
Sri Bhagavan would calls this as the Prarabda of the 'jnani'-these sort of differences in the outer expression of Living and carrying on in the world.
Namaskar.
Post a Comment