U.G. Krishnamurti

Dear members,

I'm writing because I recently read an interview with U.G. Krishnamurti
that has left me a little unsettled. In this interview, available at
realization.org, U.G. Krishnamurti talks about his life events,
including his so-called enlightenment. Some of his statements that are
disturbing to me are the ones where he says that if people knew what
enlightenment was like, they wouldn't want it. His entire account seems
full of suffering and bizarre events. Even at the end, there is no
mention by him of peace or anything positive.

I would be interested in reading the opinions and insights of the
members on this person.

Regards,
Nathan

That is the reason why we look for Shastra as pramaana not experience of
individuals.

Enlightment involves suffering is found no where in the shastra. That
it involves renounciation - yes - tyagenaike amRitatvamaanasuH - But
that is the renounciation of the ego and the associated with suffering
with it.

Once one fellow asked Swami Chinmayanandaji - Sir I have been attending
you talks on Bhagavad Geeta and on Upanishads and I understand very well
that I am Brahman - I have no more doubts about it. But question I have
How come I am still suffering?
Swamiji just smiled and replayed - sir, that is also my question - if
you know you are brahman, how come you are suffering?
Knowing Brahman is being Brahman - Brahman means limitless or ananda -
Any suffering is due to limitations that arise with identification with
the limited. It is as simple as that.


Hari OM!
Sadananda

--- Nathan Port wrote:

> Dear members,
>
> I'm writing because I recently read an interview with U.G.
> Krishnamurti
> that has left me a little unsettled. In this interview, available at
> realization.org, U.G. Krishnamurti talks about his life events,
> including his so-called enlightenment. Some of his statements that are
>
> disturbing to me are the ones where he says that if people knew what
> enlightenment was like, they wouldn't want it. His entire account
> seems
> full of suffering and bizarre events. Even at the end, there is no
> mention by him of peace or anything positive.
>
> I would be interested in reading the opinions and insights of the
> members on this person.
>
> Regards,
> Nathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Namaste all,
IMVHO
Suffering is there. But what is the locus of suffering? I think we make a
mistake that suffering is for "I". If suffering is for "I" that suffering must
be there always for "I" but at times that "I" also appears to be free from
suffering, while suffering is already around there. Suffering, not suffering,
happiness, unhappiness, pain, pleasure, and all such dwandwas, are there, but
their locus is not the "real I". It is the "false I" which appears to be
attached to these Dwandwas.
Hariomingly
Mani




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here is what Ribhu Gita states clearly.



"The total discarding of the mind alone is victory,
achievement, bliss, yoga, wisdom and liberation. The
sacrifice of the mind is, in fact, the totality of all
sacred sacrifices." (Ch. 15, v. 7). In the ordinary
language of the world, losing one's mind refers to
insanity. In language of the Heart, losing one's mind
means losing it to one's beloved or absorption in the
Self.



There are many glamorous and sensational accounts of
the so called enlightenment with much suffering and
bizarre events, etc. If one starts reading the
autobiographies of the "enlightened" people, each has a
story better than the other. What can we ordinary
people do except stick to the basics.



Once my teacher said, "Never follow any guru blindly."
I was surprised (because he was my guru). I asked,
"Gurudev, why not." He smiled and said, "What if the
guru goes crazy!" Whenever I think of that I smile.



Love to all

Harsha



_____

From: advaitin (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
[mailto:advaitin (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com] On Behalf Of Nathan
Port
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 6:50 PM
To: advaitin (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
Subject: [advaitin] U.G. Krishnamurti



Dear members,

I'm writing because I recently read an interview with
U.G. Krishnamurti
that has left me a little unsettled. In this interview,
available at
realization.org, U.G. Krishnamurti talks about his life
events,
including his so-called enlightenment. Some of his
statements that are
disturbing to me are the ones where he says that if
people knew what
enlightenment was like, they wouldn't want it. His
entire account seems
full of suffering and bizarre events. Even at the end,
there is no
mention by him of peace or anything positive.

I would be interested in reading the opinions and
insights of the
members on this person.

Regards,
Nathan




_____



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yesterday when I was discusiing some issue with my fiend, he asked me
what is ultimate happiness. I told him, that attaining which you will
never ask for more.(More a theeoritical answer)
Then he asked, how it can be attained. I told him that you can attain
by realizing that "you are happy"
Then I staarted to think on how can we attain ultimate happiness. I
have read from different vedantis that when we were child we were
Happy. We were actually Happy people, but we have become unhappy. When
I started to think about it I realized its because we have started
associating happiness with "IF". If I have this I can be hapy, If I
have that I can be happy. But since shastra tells that materials will
never give us happiness(I think this is where we need to think
Shastras are Prmanas), dropping the association of Happiness with IF
becomes necessary. When we drop that ultimate "IF" that this body is
necessary for Happiness, you will realize that you are brahma.
When we drop that IF, then all the other IF's will automatically drop
off, for the simple reason that what ever we do, we do it for our body.

Thanks
Prashanth.K

Namaste all.

I have also read the experiences (suffering) of UGK. In fact, I found
him interesting only upto that point. I did not read him beyond that.
Now, in retrospect, I think I did the right thing.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

Pranams to one and All

I had the privelege of meeting UG almost everyday durinng winter time, when he
was in Bangalore. One question one has to answer is that " when the mind is
destroyed, what changes occur in the Brain"?

Necessarily channges must take place, not in the Brain, and in the glands and in
the very system. Enlightenment in small doses is satori. When prolonged over a
stretch of time, enlightenment stabilises, and man is liberated. During the
interugnum, body chemistry undergoes vast changes. there will be spells of
swooning, imbalanced walking, sto,ach disturbances, a distaste for anything and
every thing, will loose interest in spicy foods, have visions, and will also get
some powers. It all depends upoon how much the Brain can withstand. That is why
Mahatmas, who attained liberation and led ordinary life, got enlightened at
early ages, like Pramahamsa, Shankara, Ramana Mahrishi, and Swami Vivekananda,
to say the least. The list is long, after ageing, if enlightenment takes place
the grip of Brain Conditioning will cause many upheavals. Those are the bizzare
experiences narrated by UG. No doubt they are horrifying. I have had the taste
of it, and remeber, one will have Migraine for over
20 years. That persistent pain which cannot be diagonised by Doctors , who
would prescribe pain-killers, actually is working of the Universal Mind on the
conditioned Brain. Even ordinary memory will be erased.This is my experience.

Thus in the fiftieth year when UG got enlightened, it is but natural for him to
have had these experiences. he has lost the sense of his own body too, and if
one were to go through the literature compiled on him, & his conversations, one
will easily acknowledge him as Brahman in a Pyjama Kurtha. Apparently one can
see contradiction between his statements and Statements of Ramana or others,
underneath it is one and the same. Liberated Masters employ language knwon to
them. UG has lost knowledge of his mother tongue-telugu-too. He talks from a
borrowed language. Thus the difference apparently not in the Core.

Chidaananda Rupaha Shivoham Shivoham



---------------------------------
Check out Yahoo! India Rakhi Special for Rakhi shopping, contests and lots more.
http://in.promos.yahoo.com/rakhi/index.html

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 8/23/05, Nathan Port wrote:

"I'm writing because I recently read an interview with U.G. Krishnamurti
that has left me a little unsettled..."
I met UG once in 1998 in Calcutta. One time meeting is hardly enough to
understand a person (..and that too a self proclaimed enlightened person
:-)). To me he appeared an extremely intelligent yet shrewd person. I
certainly did not feel any vibes that are usually referred to enlightened
masters. My opinion is subjective and I may be wrong.
Fortunately, shAstras have not left us in the jungle of subjective opinions
in choice of a teacher. shAstras do not stop at "brahma-nishtha" as the sole
qualification of a teacher. They add "shrotriyam" also. Faking
"brahma-nishthA" is not difficult if one has learned some buzz words and
gift of gab. All sorts of babajis can claim to be enlightened (and some may
actually be so.)How does one find out? However, recognizing a "shrotriya" is
not difficult. He has a whole sampradAya behind him. A charltan will be
spotted in no time. Therefore both the qualifications have been considered
essential by shAstra. BhagvAn Raman, though himself a brahma-nishtha, did
not formally accept any disciple respecting the advaita tradition that does
not recognize a non-sampradAyavit as a teacher. Modern gurus are not so
scrupulous.
praNAm


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In advaitin (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Nathan Port" wrote:
> Dear members,
>
> I'm writing because I recently read an interview with U.G.
Krishnamurti
> that has left me a little unsettled. In this interview, available
at
> realization.org, U.G. Krishnamurti talks about his life events,
> including his so-called enlightenment. Some of his statements that
are
> disturbing to me are the ones where he says that if people knew
what
> enlightenment was like, they wouldn't want it. His entire account
seems
> full of suffering and bizarre events. Even at the end, there is no
> mention by him of peace or anything positive.
>
> I would be interested in reading the opinions and insights of the
> members on this person.
>
> Regards,
> Nathan

Namaste,

Simply put, of course people with desires don't want enlightenment,
it is a desireless, mindless, and attributeless state--inexplicable.
Many people who claim to be non dual also do not with the pure Nir
Guna state, they aim for the Sakti/Saguna State of Sat-Cit-Ananada.
Any trace of modification whether it be Sakti or Mind is not full
realisation. Many people prefer the Savikalpa Samadhi to the
Nirvikalpa for there is nothing to enjoy or remember/ecstasy in
Nirvikalpa. So of course the unenlightened with a mind will not want
true Moksha for in the first place the samskaras prevent lucidity,
then mix in loss of ego-identity and you have the dominant fear of
prevention right there.

The Ego will do anything to survive, it drives the mind mad, and can
even kill the body in its desire to keep its delusional existence.

That is why the expression that we must use a thorn to remove a
thorn.........At the right time and with enough Sadhana and
Purification.........ONS...Tony.

Namaste:

The question that we should ask within is : "What
is `enlightenment.' It is possible for any one to state a `scholarly
view of enlightenment." It is also possible to evaluate and rate
such scholarly views of `enlightenment' on the basis of level of
scholarship and spiritual maturity. It is like trying to describe
the `nirguna Brahman.' The available languages of the world of today
and tomorrow can ever be able to describe what is `Brahman.'
According to the sages of the Upanishads, one who recognizes
his/her true identity becomes the Brahman. Now what is the nature of
the Brahaman? For intellectual understanding, the scripture assign
three qualities - Brahman is eternal, Brahman is changeless and
Brahman is without attributes. From this we can infer the following –
Brahman only knows the Brahman! These are the facts that we infer
from the `Scripture' and are confirmed from the subtle messages that
we can gather from the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad
Gita.

Any experience that anyone including Sri UGK can describe such
as `sufferings or `enjoyment' should be coming from the experience
of the `body' and certainly not by the `atman.' When we have love
and respect for a great Vedantic scholar, we do admire such a person
as an `enlightened person.' This is a normal human tendency and there
is nothing wrong to express our love and respect that way. Many of
the modern day `enlightened' gurus may fall into this category and
they were told that they are `enlightened!' We do need to understand
the distinction between `real enlightenment' and `scholarly
enlightenment.' A scholarly enlightened person will likely feel the
pain and pressure to maintain the level of scholarship and keep the
level of admiration from the followers and admirers.

regards,

Ram Chandran

--- In advaitin (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, jayantha srirama
wrote:
>
> Pranams to one and All
>
> I had the privelege of meeting UG almost everyday durinng winter
time, when he was in Bangalore. One question one has to answer is
that " when the mind is destroyed, what changes occur in the Brain"?

Namaste all

After I read this thread I went back to Google, searched for UGK and
got his website. I tried to read some of it. But I stopped after
some time because I felt I was not spending my time usefully.

"nidrAyAH loka-vArtAyAH shabdAder-Atma-vismRRiteH"

The shloka that begins with this line says that things or words
which take you away from the Atman -- like sleep, worldly gossip
etc. -- should be avoided if one is interested in Atma-lAbha.

Secondly, advaita-type of knowledge can be given in several
manifestations of words. We can keep on talking about 'The
Absolute' and get lost in those very words themselves. That is why
great sages like Ramana recommended Atma-vichAra (Enquiry within
oneself about the Self) and not any 'exposition' about the Atman.

I do find 'advaita-like' statements in UGK; but, for me, more
authentic statements from the Upanishads and the Puranas are enough
food for thought or nididhyasana.

Just to illustrate that any profound statement can look like a
Vedantic expression or exposition, worthy of advaitin's
consideration, I am posting in a separate mail, extracts from "The
Four Agreements" by Don Miguel Ruiz, which I read recently, and was
impressed by the Vedanta I could 'find' in it!

PraNAms to all advaitins.
profvk

--- In advaitin (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, kuntimaddi sadananda
wrote:
> That is the reason why we look for Shastra as pramaana not experience
of individuals.

Greetings,

Are not the scriptures too based on the experience of individuals, only
far in the past, which makes them seem infallible?

Regards,
Nathan

> Namaste,
>
> Simply put, of course people with desires don't want
enlightenment,
> it is a desireless, mindless, and attributeless state--inexplicable.
> Many people who claim to be non dual also do not with the pure Nir
> Guna state, they aim for the Sakti/Saguna State of Sat-Cit-Ananada.
> Any trace of modification whether it be Sakti or Mind is not full
> realisation.
>
Greetings,

I understand that the ego doesn't want enlightenment, but can't it
still be said to be desirable and 'good'?

You say that sat-chit-ananda is only in the sakti/saguna state, but
Shankara says in viveka-chudamani: "The 'I'-consciousness is now
rooted in the body. Merge this consciousness in the Atman, which is
absolute existence, knowledge, and bliss."

Regards,
Nathan

--- Nathan Port wrote:

> --- In advaitin (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, kuntimaddi sadananda
> wrote:
> > That is the reason why we look for Shastra as pramaana not
> experience
> of individuals.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Are not the scriptures too based on the experience of individuals,
> only
> far in the past, which makes them seem infallible?
>
> Regards,
> Nathan


In principle yes. But experiences are reconfirmed again and again; and
consistency of the statements - samanvaya - of the vedic statements are
brought out by Badarayana in his Brahmasuutras. These are time-tested
statements.

It is not experience of one individual but several running many
centuries and recorded without any individual ego involved.

Faith is the basis for any Subjective experiences - more so in this
adhyatma vidya or spirtual enlightment- Faith in collective experience
of many yogies in the past is considered better than faith in one
individual that contradicts many.

It is accepted in the Hindu tradition,that Veda's are considered as
supreme pramaana for vedatic philoshophy - These are called astikaas -
that is philosophies that believe in the Vedas as pramaaNa.

Even the statement of Bhagavaan Krishna are considered as valid only if
they agree with the Vedas. Hence Krishna himself repeatedly confirms
that what is teachinig is intune with the Vedas.

When the questions arise - how come this guru's says this way and other
guru's says other way as your own question implies, the settling factor
is only Veda-s, for all these subjective experiences.

Hence scripture forms a basis for advaita vedanta and advaitic
experiences too.

Hari OM!
Sadananda

--- In advaitin (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Nathan Port" wrote:
>
> > Namaste,
> >
> > Simply put, of course people with desires don't want
> enlightenment,
> > it is a desireless, mindless, and attributeless state--
inexplicable.
> > Many people who claim to be non dual also do not with the pure
Nir
> > Guna state, they aim for the Sakti/Saguna State of Sat-Cit-
Ananada.
> > Any trace of modification whether it be Sakti or Mind is not
full
> > realisation.
> >
> Greetings,
>
> I understand that the ego doesn't want enlightenment, but can't it
> still be said to be desirable and 'good'?
>
> You say that sat-chit-ananda is only in the sakti/saguna state,
but
> Shankara says in viveka-chudamani: "The 'I'-consciousness is now
> rooted in the body. Merge this consciousness in the Atman, which
is
> absolute existence, knowledge, and bliss."
>
> Regards,
> Nathan

Namaste,

Sankara taught at different levels depending on the audience, as do
all Masters. The achievment of merging the 'I' means there is no
small I and only the larger I which is aware of its illusory
condition or non happening. On dropping the body the entire creation
disappears as never happening....So Moksha is two instantaneous
steps..........ONS...Tony.

U. G. Krishnamurti (UGK) was not even upto the mark of having
sound morals, let alone being a realized sage. UGK possessed a
big mouth, little intelligence and an enormous ego to boot. They
say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and in UGK's
case, it is right on the money.

To understand what kind of a man UGK was, it is sufficient to
read his experience of meeting with Ramana Maharshi (RM).

Please note: read the "meeting with RM" with a pinch of salt, as
most of UGK's claims regarding his conversations with RM are
false. UGK actually attributes "arrogance" to RM!! Either UGK
misunderstood RM which makes UGK obtuse, or UGK is
misrepresenting RM, which makes UGK a liar. Either way, it is
best to distance oneself from UGK and his "teachings".

http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0031.htm

----------
So, reluctantly, hesitatingly, unwilling, I went to see Ramana
Maharshi. That fellow dragged me. He said "Go there once.
Something will happen to you." He talked about it and gave me a
book, Search in Secret India by Paul Brunton, so I read the
chapter relating to this man -- "All right, I don't mind, let me
go and see." That man was sitting there. From his very presence
I felt "What! This man -- how can he help me? This fellow who is
reading comic strips, cutting vegetables, playing with this,
that or the other -- how can this man help me? He can't help
me." Anyway, I sat there. Nothing happened; I looked at him, and
he looked at me. "In his presence you feel silent, your
questions disappear, his look changes you" -- all that remained
a story, fancy stuff to me. I sat there. There were a lot of
questions inside, silly questions -- so, "The questions have not
disappeared. I have been sitting here for two hours, and the
questions are still there. All right, let me ask him some
questions" -- because at that time I very much wanted moksha.
This part of my background, moksha, I wanted. "You are supposed
to be a liberated man" -- I didn't say that. "Can you give me
what you have?" -- I asked him this question, but that man
didn't answer, so after some lapse of time I repeated that
question -- "I am asking 'Whatever you have, can you give it to
me?'" He said, "I can give you, but can you take it?" Boy! For
the first time this fellow says that he has something and that I
can't take it. Nobody before had said "I can give you," but this
man said "I can give you, but can you take it?" Then I said to
myself "If there is any individual in this world who can take
it, it is me, because I have done so much sadhana, seven years
of sadhana. He can think that I can't take it, but I can take
it. If I can't take it, who can take it?" -- that was my frame
of mind at the time -- you know, (laughs) I was so confident of
myself.

I didn't stay with him, I didn't read any of his books, so I
asked him a few more questions: "Can one be free sometimes and
not free sometimes?" He said "Either you are free, or you are
not free at all." There was another question which I don't
remember. He answered in a very strange way: "There are no steps
leading you to that." But I ignored all these things. These
questions didn't matter to me -- the answers didn't interest me
at all.

But this question "Can you take it?" ... "How arrogant he is!"
-- that was my feeling.
----------

--- Nathan Port wrote:

> Dear members,
>
> I'm writing because I recently read an interview with U.G.
> Krishnamurti
> that has left me a little unsettled. In this interview,
> available at

I strongly urge posters not to discuss about the individuals whether
someone has realized or not, but concentrate only on the subject
relavent to Vedanta.

Sthitaprajna lakshana is only intended to evaluate oneself whether one
has realized or not. Being a subjective experience, it is futile to
judge others about their experience.

It is impertinent whether U.G Krishnamurthy is realized or not -
question only pertaines whether experience of suffering is compatible
with state of self-realization. If so how and if not, why not.

No further discussion is encouraged about the judgement of other
individuals. I urge everyone to refrain from it.

Hari OM!
Sadananda


--- S Jayanarayanan wrote:


> U. G. Krishnamurti (UGK) was not even

praNAm all,

Even Ramana's body suffered cancer and he said that the body itself is a
disease (at that stage). Considering this, I'm reminded of various Kundalini
experiences that people mention and how the body undergoes changes. Whether
the body undergoes any change is quite besides-the-point since the body
*was* a tool for a jnaani. As Ramana seems to have asked "I can give... but
can you take it" would mean precisely that. If one still thinks that the
body is suffering and starts associating it with spiritual developments, one
can't take it!

shivam shaantam advaitam,
--praveen

--- In advaitin (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, praveen.r.bhat@e... wrote:
> praNAm all,
>
> Even Ramana's body suffered cancer and he said that the body itself
is a
> disease (at that stage). Considering this, I'm reminded of various
Kundalini
> experiences that people mention and how the body undergoes changes.
Whether
> the body undergoes any change is quite besides-the-point since the
body
> *was* a tool for a jnaani. As Ramana seems to have asked "I can
give... but
> can you take it" would mean precisely that. If one still thinks
that the
> body is suffering and starts associating it with spiritual
developments, one
> can't take it!
>
> shivam shaantam advaitam,
> --praveen

Namaste,

.....yes.....in reality we are not the body...
and never realy have been...
it is difficult to talk about this.....
en ego mind which is attached to body and mind...is suffering more or
less.....depending how deep are this attachments
this suffering, i think, is more related to an ego-mind than to a
mind which get peace and love....on the path to the Self

once i read that people living with Ramana were so much concerned and
sad about his body disease and cancer.....
he answered:"....but don't you remember that i'm not the body...?"

Regards and Love

Marc

Dear all,

I am myself not enlightened. I am writing this only as a reader.
Although, I wish you have your own views about this matter of UGK, I
thought I may just add a few of my words.

1. Enlightenment is not sorrowful. I am assured of that, but don't
expect you all to beleive me. Why? A steady progress in this path
makes clear to me, the futility in sorrow. The more I look around and
contemplate the conditioned existence of the world, the more I am
clear, that the equanimity resulting from it, the sense of great peace
resulting from it, etc., arise along with a feeling of non-doreship
and non-sufferership. There is noone who is suffering. Then whence the
end of sorrow? But time and again, my desires (even mild things such
as a feeling of being in the body, or the seer, or the smeller etc.)
pull at me and this truth fades from me.

Enlightenment has to be accompanied by the complete dissolution of all
desires, for enlightenment exists always, but is faded or just clouded
by our desires. Of course, you need not take my words.

2. Age does not alter enlightenment. The Buddha was enlightened when
he was nearly 40. Even Sankara points out in his introduction to the
Upanishad Bhashya: "...no age can restrict a person from the bliss of
enlightenment and the knowledge of the Self as said in the Upanishads
....."

3. Enlightenment/Unbinding is not attained. It would be incorrect to
think of enlightenment (or knowledge or wisdom) as an object to be
procured, or as a state to be attained. It is beyond everything. No
amount of sorrow, ill-will, etc. can shake an enlightened one.

4. Renunciation is not a hardship. If one feels it is a hardship, he
is not ready for either renunciation or for enlightenment.
Renunciation is complete freedom from so many bondages, that if one
can really understand the freedom, he would surely want to renounce
everything. A maturity grows and a willful renunciation takes place -
it needs no ritual, wearing of some special clothes etc. But if a
person, thinks that renunciation is only in the mind and enjoys at
home, he is only fooling himself. If however, he truly remains aloof
from the 'all', it hardly matter if he is at home or outside home.

In the last five years of my renunciation, I have found lots of
freedoms. Having to beg for food everyday, having no bondages of a
home, travelling from place to place, (except in the rainy months),
having no diseases, since one eats only once a day, (if at all, you
catch cold or some food is poisoned, herbs are there to help), having
no jealousy, since one has no competition to attain anything with any
fellow bhikku/bhikkuni, I feel a sense of freedom, I had never felt
before. I donot think it is hardship.

5. That the materials donot give happiness is written in many books of
many religions all around the world (not only the Sastras). But not
all the people have renounced their material possessions. And not
everyone can have the spiritual maturity to do so. How one gets
disillusioned about the world and gives up everything, is something of
a wonder. It happens just at the spur of the moment, one feels the
bondages he has to bear, when he feels the need to free himself.
That's when he become mature.

6. I cannot say with certainty if disease will be there after
enlightenment. But if it is there, one won't suffer from it. Just as
an enlightened person is also bound by death, he may have disease as
long as the body persists, but he won't suffer. I don't know, I guess
I'm just reckoning here, but I have no idea what it would be like, to
be enlightened and have a disease. But surely, when I had typhoid 4
months back, I did not suffer as much as I did about 8 years back,
although I did have some painful nights. I think suffering reduces
slowly at the rate at which a person's desires reduce.

-Bhikku Yogi