Guest guest Report post Posted June 10, 2003 Shastras (Sacred scriptures) and the axioms contained in them such as "Aham Brahamasmi" and that Brahman is Sat-Chit-Ananda can only be understood fully after clear Self Recognition. However, even before that, if you grasp the essence of the scriptures, which is actually quite simple, the desire to acquire book knowledge may diminish. All knowledge, including vedic knowledge, etc. although useful to a point, is thrown away before Self Realization. Scriptures no matter how profound and beautiful in the way they point, must fall silent before the Self. The state of true detachment is not indifference to action but indifference to the agency of action. That is what is meant when the scriptures say, devote all actions to the Lord, in whatever way one conceives Her/Him. All knowledge and powers belong to the domain of the mind. If one becomes indifferent to the mind itself, how can any knowledge, including shastric knowledge, be helpful at all? However, you cannot give up shastric knowledge by will. Only a Self Realized sage can say that it is all the same, and that all knowledge falls short of Self Realization. The instrument of acquiring knowledge, shastric or otherwise is only the mind. So, if one offers the mind as food for the Lord, that's it. After that one may study and enjoy shastras or one may engage in other pursuits that come naturally. To a person who is ready to give up shastras or is indifferent to such knowledge, the question cannot arise should I study shastras or not. There is no confusion at all. As long as there is confusion, one should probably study shastras and meditate on the words and instructions of the Guru that You are the Self. Sri Ramana used to say that there is no point in gaining other knowledge when one does not have Self-Knowledge. After Self-Knowledge, one sees that there is really no other knowledge worth chasing after. Love to all Harsha Prasad Balasubramanian wrote: > namasthe, > > I've a question on Sastra vAsana - the > attachment to studying scriptures. > > In jIvan mukthi vivEka, Acharya says that > it is not possible to study all the Sastras > and the more we learn, it becomes only a burden. > He gives examples of Rishi durvAsA and others who want to > gain knowledge in more and more > fields but are made to know that this gaining > of knowledge in various domains only becomes a burden > and will not help in realizing the brahman. > Acharya says that one who aims at realizing brahman > should remove this SAstra vAsanA completely. > > But simulataneously, many Acharyas preach > that learning should be continuous and > should go on until the last moment as > any kind of knowledge gained will not go > unused. They as well preach that if the > knowledge gained in this janma goes unused, > it will certainly be useful in the forth > coming janmas. > > Both these seem to be contradictory. When > and how does one come to the conclusion that > one is done with his studying the SAstras. > Though one is in the path of realizing brahman, > how long should he be studying SAstras and when > does he put an end to it ? > > namasthe > Prasad > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 10, 2003 > So, if one offers the mind as food for the Lord, that's it. That is it. Pratya-ahara - different food. The ananda is then in a child-like apprecaitaion of all the gifts of the Lord, wheteher karma, jnana, bhakti or a beautiful synthesis! Reading shastras and sharing 'spiritual' views for the joy of decsribing the Undescribable. km Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 11, 2003 Namaste' Harsha and Friends, Every sage has said, "Know Thyself". What does it mean to know? Have you ever noticed that the more you know, the more there is to know, that the answer to a question leads to more questions... And, that no matter how much you know that you can never know everything... All of the above points to an eternity - even if you knew eternity you mak ask, 'What is eternity unfolding into?' or some such question... Exploring in this way reveals one's true nature - not as the the answer to some question but rather to the 'quest' itself where the quest is the quest-ion is the unfolding 'living' answer. In this way there is the insight that to 'know thyself' means to be open to the unknown and the unfolding journey of life where the unknown reveals itself in the eternal living present. This unknowing does not come *from* you (the known) - it flows *through* you when you are open/innocent and it reveals itself to itself - you are the journey itself. One can never know this journey, yet it can be knowingly lived. The path (knowledge) is formed by walking it. Love and Gratitude, James , Harsha wrote: > Shastras (Sacred scriptures) and the axioms contained in them such as > "Aham Brahamasmi" and that Brahman is Sat-Chit-Ananda can only be > understood fully after clear Self Recognition. > > However, even before that, if you grasp the essence of the scriptures, > which is actually quite simple, the desire to acquire book knowledge may > diminish. All knowledge, including vedic knowledge, etc. although > useful to a point, is thrown away before Self Realization. Scriptures no > matter how profound and beautiful in the way they point, must fall > silent before the Self. > > The state of true detachment is not indifference to action but > indifference to the agency of action. That is what is meant when the > scriptures say, devote all actions to the Lord, in whatever way one > conceives Her/Him. > > All knowledge and powers belong to the domain of the mind. > > If one becomes indifferent to the mind itself, how can any knowledge, > including shastric knowledge, be helpful at all? > > However, you cannot give up shastric knowledge by will. Only a Self > Realized sage can say that it is all the same, and that all knowledge > falls short of Self Realization. The instrument of acquiring knowledge, > shastric or otherwise is only the mind. > > So, if one offers the mind as food for the Lord, that's it. > > After that one may study and enjoy shastras or one may engage in other > pursuits that come naturally. > > To a person who is ready to give up shastras or is indifferent to such > knowledge, the question cannot arise should I study shastras or not. > There is no confusion at all. As long as there is confusion, one should > probably study shastras and meditate on the words and instructions of > the Guru that You are the Self. > > Sri Ramana used to say that there is no point in gaining other knowledge > when one does not have Self-Knowledge. After Self-Knowledge, one sees > that there is really no other knowledge worth chasing after. > > Love to all > Harsha > > Prasad Balasubramanian wrote: > > > namasthe, > > > > I've a question on Sastra vAsana - the > > attachment to studying scriptures. > > > > In jIvan mukthi vivEka, Acharya says that > > it is not possible to study all the Sastras > > and the more we learn, it becomes only a burden. > > He gives examples of Rishi durvAsA and others who want to > > gain knowledge in more and more > > fields but are made to know that this gaining > > of knowledge in various domains only becomes a burden > > and will not help in realizing the brahman. > > Acharya says that one who aims at realizing brahman > > should remove this SAstra vAsanA completely. > > > > But simulataneously, many Acharyas preach > > that learning should be continuous and > > should go on until the last moment as > > any kind of knowledge gained will not go > > unused. They as well preach that if the > > knowledge gained in this janma goes unused, > > it will certainly be useful in the forth > > coming janmas. > > > > Both these seem to be contradictory. When > > and how does one come to the conclusion that > > one is done with his studying the SAstras. > > Though one is in the path of realizing brahman, > > how long should he be studying SAstras and when > > does he put an end to it ? > > > > namasthe > > Prasad > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 11, 2003 , "james " <nisarga@c...> wrote: > > Namaste' Harsha and Friends, > > > Every sage has said, "Know Thyself". > > > What does it mean to know? > Have you ever noticed that the more you know, the more there is > to know, that the answer to a question leads to more questions... > > And, that no matter how much you know that you can never know > everything... > > All of the above points to an eternity - even if you knew > eternity you mak ask, 'What is eternity unfolding into?' or some such > question... > > > Exploring in this way reveals one's true nature - not as the the > answer to some question but rather to the 'quest' itself where the > quest is the quest-ion is the unfolding 'living' answer. > > > In this way there is the insight that to 'know thyself' means to > be open to the unknown and the unfolding journey of life where the > unknown reveals itself in the eternal living present. This unknowing > does not come *from* you (the known) - it flows *through* you when you > are open/innocent and it reveals itself to itself - you are the > journey itself. > > > One can never know this journey, yet it can be knowingly lived. > > The path (knowledge) is formed by walking it. > > > Love and Gratitude, > James > thank you for the insight james, by the way if i recall the inscription was on the temple of delphi and said more: "know thyself" "nothing in excess" "don't take any wooden drachma (money)" :-) eric Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
