Some help needed here ...

01-24-2006, 05:17 PM

|| Aum Sri Gurubhyo Namah ||
|| Hari: Aum ||>>
Dear sisters and brothers in AMMACHI>>

These are some of the most inspiring sentences which I came across while reading
the books of Swami Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda.

• Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self.

• Duty is the midday sun which scorches the tender plant of spirituality.

• Ordinary beings are shattered by the floods of lust, anger, greed, pride,
envy etc…

I would like to have the best commentary on these most valuable content.

Please do your best.

*.*.*.*.*.*.
At Sri Paada
Sridhar Babu

«referrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> ath o:connecttype="rect"
gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f">ath>´`³¤³´`*:»§« ´`³¤*:»§« ´`³¤«
´`³¤³´`*:»

|| Aum Lokah Samastah Sukhino Bhavanthu ||

« ´`³¤³´`*:»§« ´`³¤*:»§« ´`³¤« ´`³¤³´`*:»

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

01-25-2006, 03:21 AM

on 1/25/06 12:17 AM, Sridhar Babu at ammassridhar@... wrote:

> • Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self.

My quick comment: Is a fish or a bit of seaweed a hindrance to the ocean?

01-25-2006, 04:44 AM

--- In Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, Rick Archer wrote:
>
> on 1/25/06 12:17 AM, Sridhar Babu at ammassridhar@y... wrote:
>
> > • Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self.
>
> My quick comment: Is a fish or a bit of seaweed a hindrance to the
ocean?
>

By itself, perhaps not. But if it is the sort of fish and seaweed
that rapidly grows and chokes the body of water, it would be a hindrance.

Nandu

01-25-2006, 04:54 AM

on 1/25/06 11:44 AM, vallathnkumar at vallathn@... wrote:

>
> --- In Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, Rick Archer wrote:
>>
>> on 1/25/06 12:17 AM, Sridhar Babu at ammassridhar@y... wrote:
>>
>>> • Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self.
>>
>> My quick comment: Is a fish or a bit of seaweed a hindrance to the
> ocean?
>>
>
> By itself, perhaps not. But if it is the sort of fish and seaweed
> that rapidly grows and chokes the body of water, it would be a hindrance.

True, but the quote implied that even a single thought was a hindrance.
Thoughts, in their proper proportion, are natural and not a hindrance.

01-25-2006, 05:08 AM

--- In Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, Rick Archer wrote:
>
> on 1/25/06 12:17 AM, Sridhar Babu at ammassridhar@y... wrote:
>
> > • Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self.
>
> My quick comment: Is a fish or a bit of seaweed a hindrance to the
ocean?
>

Maybe not. but fish (thought) is a hindrance to the "realization" of
the ocean (Self).

01-25-2006, 05:19 AM

on 1/25/06 12:08 PM, manoj_menon at ammademon@... wrote:

> --- In Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, Rick Archer wrote:
>>
>> on 1/25/06 12:17 AM, Sridhar Babu at ammassridhar@y... wrote:
>>
>>> • Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self.
>>
>> My quick comment: Is a fish or a bit of seaweed a hindrance to the
> ocean?
>>
>
> Maybe not. but fish (thought) is a hindrance to the "realization" of
> the ocean (Self).

I know why it appears to be, but I'm arguing that it isn't, and that if it
were, no one could get enlightened.

01-25-2006, 06:51 AM

--- In Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, Rick Archer wrote:
>
> on 1/25/06 12:08 PM, manoj_menon at ammademon@g... wrote:
>
> > --- In Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, Rick Archer wrote:
> >>
> >> on 1/25/06 12:17 AM, Sridhar Babu at ammassridhar@y... wrote:
> >>
> >>> • Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self.
> >>
> >> My quick comment: Is a fish or a bit of seaweed a hindrance to
the
> > ocean?
> >>
> >
> > Maybe not. but fish (thought) is a hindrance to
the "realization" of
> > the ocean (Self).
>
> I know why it appears to be, but I'm arguing that it isn't, and
that if it
> were, no one could get enlightened.

Why would enlightenment not happen this way?
>From various accounts, enlightenment is defined as the Silence in
us; the empty thoughtless "state".

The entire process of mantra chanting is to reduce our thoughts and
our need for thinking in this general scheme:

Many thoughts ----> reduced to one constant thought (mantra) --->
reduced to NO THOUGHT with the help of the Guru's Grace, which is
considered as enlightenment.

This means that eventually even the mantra is a hindrance to
realization. Only Grace can overcome that for us.
Looked at it another way, "Even a thought is a hindrance to realize
the Self".

As Einstein said: problems are overcome only at a level higher than
the problem; solutions ca never be at the same level as the problem.

Because the Self is greater than thought, it can't be of the level
of, derived from, or a function of composite, thoughts.

01-25-2006, 07:06 AM

on 1/25/06 1:51 PM, manoj_menon at ammademon@... wrote:
>>
>> I know why it appears to be, but I'm arguing that it isn't, and
> that if it
>> were, no one could get enlightened.
>
> Why would enlightenment not happen this way?
> From various accounts, enlightenment is defined as the Silence in
> us; the empty thoughtless "state".

Yes. Along with activity, which includes thoughts. In other words, the
enlightened one is established in the Silence of the Self, while the mind
engages in thinking and the body performs actions.
>
> The entire process of mantra chanting is to reduce our thoughts and
> our need for thinking in this general scheme:
>
> Many thoughts ----> reduced to one constant thought (mantra) --->
> reduced to NO THOUGHT

While meditating. After meditating, we resume thinking and activity,
hopefully with more silence established.

>with the help of the Guru's Grace, which is
> considered as enlightenment.

Temporary samadhi is not enlightenment.
>
> This means that eventually even the mantra is a hindrance to
> realization.

The mantra is left behind when the mind merges with the transcendent during
meditation. When realization is established, it remains whether or not
thinking or acting are taking place.

> Looked at it another way, "Even a thought is a hindrance to realize
> the Self".

The opposite could be argued. It takes a thorn to remove a thorn. The Self
is realized through transcending thought, and that is done by experiencing
finer states of a thought until thought is transcended. A car is a hindrance
to enjoying the Grand Canyon, but it is essential for getting there. Once
you arrive, you get out of the car.
>
> Because the Self is greater than thought, it can't be of the level
> of, derived from, or a function of composite, thoughts.

It's the other way around. If the Brahman is omnipresent, wholeness, then
everything, including thoughts, is contained within it, like fish in the
ocean.

01-25-2006, 07:23 AM

Relevant quote that just popped up on
http://www.mpeters.de/nisargadatta/index.cfm

Don't fight with what you take to be obstacles on your way. Just be
interested in them, watch them, observe, enquire. Let anything happen - good
or bad. But don't let yourself be submerged by what happens. The mind must
learn that beyond the moving mind there is the background of awareness,
which does not change. The mind must come to know the true self and respect
it and cease covering it up, like the moon which obscures the sun during
solar eclipse. Just realize that nothing observable, or experienceable is
you, or binds you. Take no notice of what is not yourself. You are aware
anyhow, you need not try to be. What you need is to be aware of being aware.
Be aware deliberately and consciously, broaden and deepen the field of
awareness. You are always conscious of the mind, but you are not aware of
yourself as being conscious.

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

01-25-2006, 09:09 AM

Perhaps tomorrow I will feel differently, but just now I need to feel
entirely affirmed and supported in my humanity, warts and all. So to
me, these quotes, taken together, convey a dissonance with humanity
rather than a compassion and embracing of it. It is possible to be
pro-divine without being anti-human. just my .02 and frame of mind (!)
JAI MA caleb

--- In Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Sridhar Babu" wrote:
>
> || Aum Sri Gurubhyo Namah ||
> || Hari: Aum ||>>
> Dear sisters and brothers in AMMACHI>>
>
> These are some of the most inspiring sentences which I came across
while reading the books of Swami Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda.
>
> Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self.
>
> Duty is the midday sun which scorches the tender plant of
spirituality.
>
> Ordinary beings are shattered by the floods of lust, anger,
greed, pride, envy etc>
> I would like to have the best commentary on these most valuable content.
>
> Please do your best.
>
> *.*.*.*.*.*.
> At Sri Paada
> Sridhar Babu
>
> Ž«referrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> ath
o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t"
o:extrusionok="f">ath>Ž´`Ž³Ž¤Ž³Ž´`*:Ž»Ž§Ž« Ž´`Ž³Ž¤*:Ž»Ž§Ž«
Ž´`Ž³Ž¤Ž« Ž´`Ž³Ž¤Ž³Ž´`*:Ž»
>
> || Aum Lokah Samastah Sukhino Bhavanthu ||
>
> Ž« Ž´`Ž³Ž¤Ž³Ž´`*:Ž»Ž§Ž« Ž´`Ž³Ž¤*:Ž»Ž§Ž«
Ž´`Ž³Ž¤Ž« Ž´`Ž³Ž¤Ž³Ž´`*:Ž»
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

01-25-2006, 09:14 AM

I don't think the statement can be literally interpreted, I think rephrasing it
to the following makes sense

"Even the mere asssociation to a thought is a hindrance to realize the self".

It's quite unrealistic to expect no thoughts.

--- In Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, Rick Archer wrote:
>
>
> • Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self.
>
> >> My quick comment: Is a fish or a bit of seaweed a hindrance to the
> > ocean?
> >>
> >
> > Maybe not. but fish (thought) is a hindrance to the "realization" of
> > the ocean (Self).
>
> I know why it appears to be, but I'm arguing that it isn't, and that if it
> were, no one could get enlightened.
>

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

01-25-2006, 09:27 AM

I would definitely agree with Rick. You cannot stop thoughts - that's the nature
of the mind; but when you meditate you make an effort to not associate with
them(same thing when you chant a mantra). Once you gain control on your thoughts
you can use them as your slave. The bottomline is are you the master of your
thoughts or not. I cannot fathom the absence of thoughts not in this world as we
know anyway.

--- In Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, Rick Archer wrote:
>
> on 1/25/06 1:51 PM, manoj_menon at ammademon@g... wrote:
> >>
> >> I know why it appears to be, but I'm arguing that it isn't, and
> > that if it
> >> were, no one could get enlightened.
> >
> > Why would enlightenment not happen this way?
> > From various accounts, enlightenment is defined as the Silence in
> > us; the empty thoughtless "state".
>
> Yes. Along with activity, which includes thoughts. In other words, the
> enlightened one is established in the Silence of the Self, while the mind
> engages in thinking and the body performs actions.
> >
> > The entire process of mantra chanting is to reduce our thoughts and
> > our need for thinking in this general scheme:
> >
> > Many thoughts ----> reduced to one constant thought (mantra) --->
> > reduced to NO THOUGHT
>
> While meditating. After meditating, we resume thinking and activity,
> hopefully with more silence established.
>
> >with the help of the Guru's Grace, which is
> > considered as enlightenment.
>
> Temporary samadhi is not enlightenment.
> >
> > This means that eventually even the mantra is a hindrance to
> > realization.
>
> The mantra is left behind when the mind merges with the transcendent during
> meditation. When realization is established, it remains whether or not
> thinking or acting are taking place.
>
> > Looked at it another way, "Even a thought is a hindrance to realize
> > the Self".
>
> The opposite could be argued. It takes a thorn to remove a thorn. The Self
> is realized through transcending thought, and that is done by experiencing
> finer states of a thought until thought is transcended. A car is a hindrance
> to enjoying the Grand Canyon, but it is essential for getting there. Once
> you arrive, you get out of the car.
> >
> > Because the Self is greater than thought, it can't be of the level
> > of, derived from, or a function of composite, thoughts.
>
> It's the other way around. If the Brahman is omnipresent, wholeness, then
> everything, including thoughts, is contained within it, like fish in the
> ocean.
>

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

01-25-2006, 09:27 AM

on 1/25/06 4:14 PM, Ravi Chivukula at ravichivukula@... wrote:

> I don't think the statement can be literally interpreted, I think rephrasing
> it to the following makes sense
>
> "Even the mere asssociation to a thought is a hindrance to realize the self".

Right. You could also say "overshadowed by thought"
>
> It's quite unrealistic to expect no thoughts.

And unrealistic expectations are a hindrance to enlightenment.

01-25-2006, 10:46 AM

--- In Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Ravi Chivukula"
wrote:
>
> I would definitely agree with Rick. You cannot stop thoughts -
> that's the nature of the mind; but when you meditate you make an
> effort to not associate with them(same thing when you chant a
> mantra).

In fact, in spirituality the mind is defined as a "flow of thoughts",
so that's how it's nature will be. Transcending the mind is the same
as transcending thoughts.

> Once you gain control on your thoughts you can use them as your
> slave. The bottomline is are you the master of your thoughts or not.

Control thoughts. the very term still retains a sense of ego (I and
thoughts are different). Amma would say "Be a witness to the thought
and don't let it overpower you". The real bottom line is are you the
master of yourself (which is also not a bad goal, BTW) or are you the
Self?

> I cannot fathom the absence of thoughts not in this world as we know
> anyway.

I can in a sense, but still can't. More on this in a subsequent post.

> --- In Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, Rick Archer wrote:
> >
> > on 1/25/06 1:51 PM, manoj_menon at ammademon@g... wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I know why it appears to be, but I'm arguing that it isn't, and
> > > that if it
> > >> were, no one could get enlightened.
> > >
> > > Why would enlightenment not happen this way?
> > > From various accounts, enlightenment is defined as the Silence in
> > > us; the empty thoughtless "state".
> >
> > Yes. Along with activity, which includes thoughts. In other words, the
> > enlightened one is established in the Silence of the Self, while
the mind
> > engages in thinking and the body performs actions.
> > >
> > > The entire process of mantra chanting is to reduce our thoughts and
> > > our need for thinking in this general scheme:
> > >
> > > Many thoughts ----> reduced to one constant thought (mantra) --->
> > > reduced to NO THOUGHT
> >
> > While meditating. After meditating, we resume thinking and activity,
> > hopefully with more silence established.
> >
> > >with the help of the Guru's Grace, which is
> > > considered as enlightenment.
> >
> > Temporary samadhi is not enlightenment.
> > >
> > > This means that eventually even the mantra is a hindrance to
> > > realization.
> >
> > The mantra is left behind when the mind merges with the
transcendent during
> > meditation. When realization is established, it remains whether or not
> > thinking or acting are taking place.
> >
> > > Looked at it another way, "Even a thought is a hindrance to realize
> > > the Self".
> >
> > The opposite could be argued. It takes a thorn to remove a thorn.
The Self
> > is realized through transcending thought, and that is done by
experiencing
> > finer states of a thought until thought is transcended. A car is a
hindrance
> > to enjoying the Grand Canyon, but it is essential for getting
there. Once
> > you arrive, you get out of the car.
> > >
> > > Because the Self is greater than thought, it can't be of the level
> > > of, derived from, or a function of composite, thoughts.
> >
> > It's the other way around. If the Brahman is omnipresent,
wholeness, then
> > everything, including thoughts, is contained within it, like fish
in the
> > ocean.
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

01-25-2006, 11:02 AM

on 1/25/06 5:46 PM, manoj_menon at ammademon@... wrote:
>
> Control thoughts. the very term still retains a sense of ego (I and
> thoughts are different). Amma would say "Be a witness to the thought
> and don't let it overpower you".

I agree. In the Gita Arjuna refers to thoughts (or the mind) as being as
difficult to control as the wind, and Krishna says "what can restraint
accomplish?"

>The real bottom line is are you the
> master of yourself (which is also not a bad goal, BTW) or are you the
> Self?

Doesn't knowing the latter accomplish the former?

01-25-2006, 11:41 AM

Why is dissonance wrong? If everyone resonated with the same opinion the world
would be a boring place. But God never gets bored, he makes every person unique.
In India we say there are 3 crore gods(30 million) - I think this says each
person has their own god(who knows may be the population of India was 30 million
when this statement was first made). Indeed God is the creation of man and to
each his own; also this shows that every person has a different mental makeup
and each person creates a God of his own. It also shows the liberal nature of
the Sanatana Dharma - it accepts everything and doesn't condemn anything.

Could you please clarify more on your other comments - what was said that was
pro-divine or anti-human or lacking compassion

--- In Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "cal_ewing" wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps tomorrow I will feel differently, but just now I need to feel
> entirely affirmed and supported in my humanity, warts and all. So to
> me, these quotes, taken together, convey a dissonance with humanity
> rather than a compassion and embracing of it. It is possible to be
> pro-divine without being anti-human. just my .02 and frame of mind (!)
> JAI MA caleb
>
>
>

01-25-2006, 11:59 AM

--- In Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "manoj_menon" wrote:
>
>
> > Once you gain control on your thoughts you can use them as your
> > slave. The bottomline is are you the master of your thoughts or not.
>
> Control thoughts. the very term still retains a sense of ego (I and
> thoughts are different). Amma would say "Be a witness to the thought
> and don't let it overpower you". The real bottom line is are you the
> master of yourself (which is also not a bad goal, BTW) or are you the
> Self?

I meant to say control over your thoughts - since you are the master you can
direct them. Amma herself has said the thought of a devotee in distress reaches
her. Does this thought overpower her? Is she controlling this thought or getting
controlled by this thought? Just because that thought reached her does it mean
she has an ego? If she acts on this thought does it mean she is not
self-realized anymore?

Realization does not mean an absence of mind but mind which is under your
control. I don't personally see the difference between master of yourself and
Self because you are made of the Self. Any self realized master in a body still
has an ego(the last vestige) because there is the one last desire - that of
being a Guru. This is my understanding.

> > I cannot fathom the absence of thoughts not in this world as we know
> > anyway.
>
> I can in a sense, but still can't. More on this in a subsequent post.
>
>

01-25-2006, 12:44 PM

--- In Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Ravi Chivukula"
wrote:
> I meant to say control over your thoughts - since you are the master
you can direct them. Amma herself has said the thought of a devotee in
distress reaches her. Does this thought overpower her?
Is she controlling this thought or getting controlled by this thought?
Just because that thought reached her does it mean she has an ego? If
she acts on this thought does it mean she is not self-realized anymore?

Ravi, very nice point. there is a lot that you said in here. it can
easily be confusing if read in one breath ... let me see if i can make
some sense.

someone mentioned recently: if you have a body, there is then atleast
some ego. How true!

There are two types of ego.
1. The worldly ego (which most of the world has)
2. The functional ego of Realized Masters.

Amma, I believe, has the functional ego. The functional ego is that
which allows her to "function" in this world as a "separate unit of
humanity" that interacts with others of its ilk. Realized Masters can
drop their bodies at will, but have kept it out of compassion for the
devotees and because of a divine calling for them to retain. They have
the power of Ichcha Mrtyu (power to direct the time and place and type
of death of their own body).

This functional ego is what receives the devotees' distress call. She
is neither controlling nor getting controlled by the thought. She
receives it in witness mode.

If she acts on this thought, it is a reflection of the devotee's wish.
AMMA ONLY RESPONDS, SHE NEVER REACTS. and in responding, Amma neither
overpowers nor is overpowered. Amma simply IS....

(Yet I fancy, that with Amma's strong will-power, she can easily
overpower anybody!)

Consider the functional ego of a Master to be like that of a burnt
rope that has retained its structure and (strech the analogy further)
is functioning too. The structure is the apparent ego, the functioning
is the quality around it.

In contrast, we are a like a solid live rope, hardened egos!

> Realization does not mean an absence of mind but mind which is under
> your control. I don't personally see the difference between master
> of yourself and Self because you are made of the Self.

Master of yourself points to a limited identity of self (the body).
There are lots of people in the world with this ability (master of
body and mind), but not necessarily realized. They are worthy of our
respect, but that is not the goal of spirituality.

Master of Self transcends bodily limitations.

> Any self realized master in a body still has an ego(the last
> vestige) because there is the one last desire - that of being a
> Guru. This is my understanding.

Not necessarily. It could be because of a calling. Look at Amma's
case; she was happily mystically immersed till Divine Mother told her
to come down to the level of us earthlings. Desire (as in wanting
something for ourselves) would disqualify a true Guru from happening.
"Desire to serve others" is not qualified as the usually-condemned
Desire quality.

01-26-2006, 12:59 AM

Namah Shivaya.

surely I will clarify. Separately the quotes speak to the values of
stilling the mind and of translating base insticts into higher
purpose, all worthy pursuits, but taken together the three quotes set
up a really severe vib in my heart..MY heart. the portal to divinity
is broad and wide, as you said, but I felt squeezed by this assemblage
rather than positively guided. I felt it asked too much and accepted
too little. The idea of thoughts as a general hinderance, the idea
that humanity and human excess is toxic to 'the ocean', and the idea
that 'duty' is productive only when not perceived as such was too much
to be fed from a single spoonful, or page. I did not feel fed. i felt
marginalized and unsupported, punished almost.

My opinion of this was asked for and I gave it, honestly and
heartfelt. I believe it is entirely consistent with the infinite
variety of Dharma. The ocean refuses no river. ONS C

--- In Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Ravi Chivukula"
wrote:
>
> Why is dissonance wrong? If everyone resonated with the same opinion
the world would be a boring place. But God never gets bored, he makes
every person unique. In India we say there are 3 crore gods(30
million) - I think this says each person has their own god(who knows
may be the population of India was 30 million when this statement was
first made). Indeed God is the creation of man and to each his own;
also this shows that every person has a different mental makeup and
each person creates a God of his own. It also shows the liberal nature
of the Sanatana Dharma - it accepts everything and doesn't condemn
anything.
>
> Could you please clarify more on your other comments - what was said
that was pro-divine or anti-human or lacking compassion
>
> --- In Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "cal_ewing" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Perhaps tomorrow I will feel differently, but just now I need to feel
> > entirely affirmed and supported in my humanity, warts and all. So to
> > me, these quotes, taken together, convey a dissonance with humanity
> > rather than a compassion and embracing of it. It is possible to be
> > pro-divine without being anti-human. just my .02 and frame of mind (!)
> > JAI MA caleb
> >
> >
> >
>

01-27-2006, 09:00 AM

thoughts can cease, however, you have to experience it.it is called no
mind.it is possibly our minds that tell us that thoughts cannot cease.AMMA
says that the mind is A BIG LIE.AMMAs son suggest that we not limit
ourselves based upon what we have not experienced.

through deep and intense chanting ,AMMAs son has expereinced NO-MIND.now he
knows that it is impossible,however prior to that AMMAs son read in an
AWAKEN CHILDREN BOOK where AMMA said that experiecing the STATE OF NO-MIND
was attainable.AMMAs words gave AMMAs son tremendous FAITH.IF WE DONT HAVE
FAITH IN SOMETHING then we block the flow of GRACE that can enable us to
attain whatever we dont believe possible.

thers is a STATE WHERE THOUGHTS CEASE TO EXIST ALL TOGETHER.AMMA calls it
the state of NO-MIND.we can return to the VOID through intense sadhana.from
the LOVE of this heart ,sincerlly your servant.

>From: "Ravi Chivukula"
>Reply-To: Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>To: Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>Subject: [Ammachi] Re: Some help needed here ...
>Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:27:04 -0000
>
>I would definitely agree with Rick. You cannot stop thoughts - that's the
>nature of the mind; but when you meditate you make an effort to not
>associate with them(same thing when you chant a mantra). Once you gain
>control on your thoughts you can use them as your slave. The bottomline is
>are you the master of your thoughts or not. I cannot fathom the absence of
>thoughts not in this world as we know anyway.
>
>
>--- In Ammachi (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, Rick Archer wrote:
> >
> > on 1/25/06 1:51 PM, manoj_menon at ammademon@g... wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I know why it appears to be, but I'm arguing that it isn't, and
> > > that if it
> > >> were, no one could get enlightened.
> > >
> > > Why would enlightenment not happen this way?
> > > From various accounts, enlightenment is defined as the Silence in
> > > us; the empty thoughtless "state".
> >
> > Yes. Along with activity, which includes thoughts. In other words, the
> > enlightened one is established in the Silence of the Self, while the
>mind
> > engages in thinking and the body performs actions.
> > >
> > > The entire process of mantra chanting is to reduce our thoughts and
> > > our need for thinking in this general scheme:
> > >
> > > Many thoughts ----> reduced to one constant thought (mantra) --->
> > > reduced to NO THOUGHT
> >
> > While meditating. After meditating, we resume thinking and activity,
> > hopefully with more silence established.
> >
> > >with the help of the Guru's Grace, which is
> > > considered as enlightenment.
> >
> > Temporary samadhi is not enlightenment.
> > >
> > > This means that eventually even the mantra is a hindrance to
> > > realization.
> >
> > The mantra is left behind when the mind merges with the transcendent
>during
> > meditation. When realization is established, it remains whether or not
> > thinking or acting are taking place.
> >
> > > Looked at it another way, "Even a thought is a hindrance to realize
> > > the Self".
> >
> > The opposite could be argued. It takes a thorn to remove a thorn. The
>Self
> > is realized through transcending thought, and that is done by
>experiencing
> > finer states of a thought until thought is transcended. A car is a
>hindrance
> > to enjoying the Grand Canyon, but it is essential for getting there.
>Once
> > you arrive, you get out of the car.
> > >
> > > Because the Self is greater than thought, it can't be of the level
> > > of, derived from, or a function of composite, thoughts.
> >
> > It's the other way around. If the Brahman is omnipresent, wholeness,
>then
> > everything, including thoughts, is contained within it, like fish in the
> > ocean.
> >
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this me