Guest guest Report post Posted June 7, 2000 --- Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote: > Namaste, > > That is your spontaneous humility, Frankji! > > Would it not be equally or more encompassing > to say that from the view > of moksha "whatever is, is perfect! sense or > nonsense", in accordance with > the verse: " puurNamadaH puurNamidam.h " ? > > Regards, yes, quite so!! namaste Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 7, 2000 Hari Om: If I remember correct, the reference to Vedas is mentioned verses 42-46(Gita Chapter 2). Bhagawan Sri Krishna distinguishes what is temporary and what is permanant. Those who are caught up in the ritualistic aspects of Vedas can gain power and properity for a limited time. They may even go to heaven for their good deeds but eventually they come back thier normal life. To attain liberation from the bondage, He suggests Arjun to perform true karma with the yagna spirit (Verse 47). The teacher distinguishes true karma from ritualistic Vedic sacrifices. Ritualistic sacrifices are directed to the acquisition of material rewards. But true karma yoga renounces all selfish selfish desires and it is offered with true devotion. Lord Krishna suggests to Arjuna to fight and accept the outcome whatever it may be. Vedavyasa, the compiler of Bhagavad Gita is the foremost reformer of Ancient India and he was quite critical on the ritualistic aspects of Vedas. Gita quite convincingly distinguishes between materialistic and spiritualistic aspects of human life. regards, Ram Chandran Note: I request, Sri Sadanandaji, the Acharya of our list shred more insights to your question. anurag wrote: > > and there Shri Krishna advises Arjuna not to get > caught in the > Alankaarmayi language of Vedaas. > I think Shri Krishna means to say don't hold on even > vedas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 7, 2000 advaitin , Ram Chandran <ramvchandran> wrote: > Hari Om: [snip] > There is nothing wrong for me to believe RM and RK as > Jivamuktas and faith is a fundamental ingredient for > finding the Truth. My faith will ultimately help me to > see what I believe. Even this statement is my belief! > > regards, > > Ram Chandran I agree, and didn't mean to suggest otherwise. That is, faith will move mountains and provide the path whereby Truth can enter our lives, provided that path is clear of the roadblocks of expectation about what the Truth will be like when it arrives. Regarding Ramakrishna, while it is very clear that he was truly liberated in every way, a study of his life called "Kali's Child: The Mystical and Erotic in the Teachings of Ramakrishna" demonstrates just how human he was. Even a casual reading of Nikhilananda's Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna proves his humanity quite readily. The rendering of a Jivanmukti given by the webpage you cited is quite skewed toward an ideal that the life of Ramakrishna didn't always fit. Not because Ramakrishna wasn't a Jivanmukti, but simply because this traditional ideal is almost never met by the realities of being human. Jai Ma! --jody. [snip] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 7, 2000 advaitin , <anurag@s...> wrote: [snip] > I think we are discussing about the point when one goes in to total > Samadhi. Meaning will soul leave the body ?. This says that we are thiking > that there is something that entered the body and there is something that > will leave the body. There is nowhere to go. We are all the Self right now, in this moment, realized or not. When we consider the question, "Who are we," there is something in the perception of the answer that *is* the direct awareness of the Self. It is in us all right now, but it is exceedingly subtle, and it requires Maya's permission to be known by the jiva. [snip] > i don't know if the quote of Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa which says that > "conciousness frozes in to different forms just for the love of devotee" > goes to some extent in to this thought or not. Ramakrishna was describing how bhakti worked. He said that the love of the devotee "cools" the ocean of consciousness (Brahman) into the form of the devotee's Ishta Devata. That is, the sincere love of the devotee will cause Brahman to take the form of his/her chosen ideal. In this way we can be assured that our love for a form of God extends to the formless God as well. [snip] > A yogi doesn't need to eat and do all these things. Yogi is free from any > kind of dependence. Its just that one does to live a life of ordinary > person among the ordinary ones. This is a quaint idea, but it is not true. That is, all beings in bodies need to eat. All the saints and avatars experienced hunger when their bodies needed food. No matter how much of a saint or avatar they were, their coming to this plane limited their existence while in this plane to the same conditions we all endure. This is easy to prove. Ramakrishna died of cancer. [snip] > What will one confess, Who will confess and To whom will one confess. The jiva enjoys the state of realization. It is confessed to other jivas. --jody. [snip] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 7, 2000 - K. Sadananda <sada <advaitin > Cc: <vivekananda Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:08 AM Re: Re: Jivanmukta > Interesting discussions on Jivanmukta. In an answer to the original > questions from the Ramakrishna list, here is my understanding of jivanmukta > state. > > > 1. When we are discussing about the state that is beyond our intellectual > comprehension (beyond the mind and intellect), and at the same time if we > donot want to rest our understanding completely on the statements of a > Sadanandaji, Great stuff, and thanks for taking your valuable time and patience to explain this stuff for the benefit of all of us. I intend to file this discourse and even share it with some folks who are not fortunate to be on the internet. For free of course -no sales involved here ok or maybe you need to copyright these discourses. Best Regards ~dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 7, 2000 Dave thanks for your kind comments - there is nothing of mine for me to own anything since it is a teaching that is given to me free from my teacher who got it free from his teacher and so on. I am learning in the process. One day I will try to put all my discussions in internet together and put in a book form for the benefit of all. By all means use and share whatever is beneficial - that is the object of this list serve. Hari Om! Sadananda > > >> Interesting discussions on Jivanmukta. In an answer to the original >> questions from the Ramakrishna list, here is my understanding of >jivanmukta >> state. >> >> >> 1. When we are discussing about the state that is beyond our intellectual >> comprehension (beyond the mind and intellect), and at the same time if we >> donot want to rest our understanding completely on the statements of a >> > >Sadanandaji, > >Great stuff, and thanks for taking your valuable time >and patience to explain this stuff for the benefit of >all of us. I intend to file this discourse and even >share it with some folks who are not fortunate >to be on the internet. >For free of course -no sales involved here ok or >maybe you need to copyright these discourses. > >Best Regards >~dave > > >------ >Old school buds here: >http://click./1/4057/5/_/489436/_/960399787/ >------ > >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives >are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To >from the list, send Email to <advaitin- > For other >contact, Email to <advaitins > K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 7, 2000 On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, jody wrote: > advaitin , <anurag@s...> wrote: > > [snip] > > > I think we are discussing about the point when one goes in to total > > Samadhi. Meaning will soul leave the body ?. This says that we are thiking > > that there is something that entered the body and there is something that > > will leave the body. > > There is nowhere to go. We are all the Self right now, in this > moment, realized or not. When we consider the question, "Who are > we," there is something in the perception of the answer that *is* > the direct awareness of the Self. It is in us all right now, but > it is exceedingly subtle, and it requires Maya's permission to be > known by the jiva. > I was tryig to look in to it by thinking at dvaita and advaita both. As per the thoughts of reincarnation, previous births, sins and existence of different lokaas dvaita thought does exist. And ur query that why should one not confess implies the existence of Dvaita thought. may be this thiking can serve the purpose. We have this physical body so there exists this physical world relative to this physical body. When something that leaves body ( viewing in realtion to body) then we have some other form which is restricted. we can say that still we have a body though its not physical now. As i read that the bosy at this level is made up of three tatvaas ( or was it three gunaas i am not sure). So Souls do exist relative to this physical body. So it can be that all the lokaas, Gods and Godesses do exist with respect to this physical and subtle body. But this subtle body too can be discarded. And this is where the Advaita philosophy will come in and the same time Dvaita makes some sense. I think its not needful to quote the experiences of the subtle body ( something which exists after leaving body) for they have been plenty and almost in every part of world educated/uneducated scientific/unscientific. > [snip] > > > i don't know if the quote of Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa which says that > > "conciousness frozes in to different forms just for the love of devotee" > > goes to some extent in to this thought or not. > > Ramakrishna was describing how bhakti worked. He said that the love > of the devotee "cools" the ocean of consciousness (Brahman) into the > form of the devotee's Ishta Devata. That is, the sincere love of the > devotee will cause Brahman to take the form of his/her chosen ideal. > In this way we can be assured that our love for a form of God extends > to the formless God as well. Very true and i was using this quote to say that conciousness exists everywhere. > > [snip] > > > A yogi doesn't need to eat and do all these things. Yogi is free from any > > kind of dependence. Its just that one does to live a life of ordinary > > person among the ordinary ones. > > This is a quaint idea, but it is not true. That is, all beings in > bodies need to eat. All the saints and avatars experienced hunger > when their bodies needed food. No matter how much of a saint or > avatar they were, their coming to this plane limited their existence > while in this plane to the same conditions we all endure. This is > easy to prove. Ramakrishna died of cancer. Jody i refer you to the "Autobiography of a Yogi" for the yogi who never ate till she lived after she was initaited in to spirituality. The book is available even on net. I think you might have read it. And i have personally met a yogi who was trying to live just on liquid diet and his liquid diet is very limited and of course he never drinks water. There is also one incident between Sri Krishna and Rukmini (Read ti somewhere). Where Rukmini feeds a yogi and yet Sri Krishna explains her that he is yogi who doesn't need to take food ( i have forgotten one word for it. ) Sri Krishna told her that just to honour your offering he is taking the food you have offered otherwise he doesn't need to take food. > > [snip] > > > What will one confess, Who will confess and To whom will one confess. > > The jiva enjoys the state of realization. It is confessed to other > jivas. The pesron who will confess is in question. > > --jody. > > [snip] > love, Anurag Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 7, 2000 eternal perfect beloved everything is permeated with buddha nature literally immersed and completely soaked in it but one cannot see it before merging in the profoundly one. concepts of voidness and emptiness don't help; they are themselves immersed in buddha nature which is beyond conception. you are that imperceptible unconsciousness of which consciousness is made and by which it is sustained. whether the buddha calls you no-self or krishna calls you self, reality remains unaffected by the words; only labels change. experience the beyond-experience and know what words cannot say. Eric Solibakke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 7, 2000 Here is Sankara, in his viveka-chUDAmaNi (Verses Nos.420 to 443, on jIvan-mukta: When one reaches the state of Perfection, i.e., the jIvan-mukta state, whether he is in samadhi or not, he is in full enjoyment of the bliss of brahman. Dispassion has ended up in Self-Realisation; from Self-Realisation comes non-involvement; from non-involvement results the Peace of the Blissful Experience of the Self. Non- involvement (nivRttiH), because, there is nothing remaining to be done. There is nothing to be obtained any more, therefore a total satisfaction (paramA tRptiH), happiness. This happiness is unparalleled (anupamaH) and not dependent (svataH) on any object, instrument or reason. When suffering occurs (for the body) because of prArabdha, there is anudvegaH, no reaction or excitement. Whatever shameful was done during the period of delusion, how can it be repeated when one has crossed the delusion stage? The consequence of Knowledge is non-involvement from everything unreal, non-existent; ignorance, on the other hand results in involvement in the mirage of the seen world. This is the visible difference between the Knower and the non-knower. There is no reason for the Knower to be involved, because the desire, the will, that arises out of Ignorance, has completely vanished. Even when there is the object to be experienced, the fact that there is no vAsanA, tendency, to take it as good or bad, is the apex of dispassion. The fact that the the feeling of 'I' does not arise is the apex of Realisation. The intellect that has merged its functioning (=vRttiH) in brahman does not rise up again to function in respect of any other object -- this is the apex of uparati, non-involvement. Such a jIvan-mukta behaves as follows: All the time he is established in the state of the Self.His intellect has receded from everything associated with objects. He is as if in sleep. He is as if he is a child. Others have to tell him that the objects are impacting on him. Sometimes he looks at the world as if in a dream. He is the one who is spoken of in Upanishads as the Experiencer of Unlimited Bliss. Such a person is described in the gItA as sthitha- prajna. PrajnA is that functioning of the intellect which takes in only the Undifferentiated Consciousness, the Atman-brahman. He who has this prajnA always is sthita-prajna. He is the jIvan-mukta. His prajnA is firmly rooted, his bliss is uninterrupted. It is as if he has forgotten all that is worldly -- 'as if' because he may also sometimes come out of his samadhi and talk about his experience.The jIvan-mukta state is different from the state of sleep; for his cognition now has no vAsanA to colour it either way. All his worldly activities have subsided, even though he 'talks' and 'walks'. All his knowledge (that has been learnt) has given way to his present cognition of brahman-and-nothing-else. His body is there for him just as the shadow is there for the body; there is no I- ness or my-ness. No recollection of the past, no thinking of the future, and indifference to the present because of non-attachment - these are the qualities of this jIvan-mukta. The attributes, pluses and minuses of the objects of this world have all disappeared and there is perfect equanimity. There is no like or dislike; so what appears to us as this is good for him or this is bad for him, does not create any reaction from him - such is the state of this jIvan- mukta. His mind is enjoying the taste of eternal bliss; it knows nothing else, either 'inside' or 'outside'. The attitude of 'mama' namely, that this has been done by me, or that this has to be done by me, will not be there in a jIvan-mukta. The feeling of 'I', namely, that I am a person, I see, I smell, I touch, I feel, I hear, - this feeling will not be there in a jIvan-mukta. There is no identity of oneself either with the body or the senses and there is no cognition of 'this' or 'that' . So there is no distinction for him between brahman and this universe. Whether the people of the world respect or worship him or whether the people of the world hurt him - it is of no concern to him. Just as all rivers merge in the ocean, so also all the 'good' and 'bad' objects or experiences have all merged as brahman in him. Such is the jIvan-mukta. praNAms to all advaitins, profvk profvk My two books, one on Science and Spirituality and the other on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought, Vision and Practice, can both be accessed at the address: http://www.geocities.com/profvk/ Talk to your friends online with Messenger. http://im. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 7, 2000 advaitin , anurag@s... wrote: [snip] > Jody i refer you to the "Autobiography of a Yogi" for the yogi who never > ate till she lived after she was initaited in to spirituality. The book is > available even on net. I think you might have read it. And i have > personally met a yogi who was trying to live just on liquid diet and > his liquid diet is very limited and of course he never drinks water. I have read this book. It is full of the usual Indian hyperbole. That is, certain aspects of the lives of certain people are "amplified". I'm not saying that the human condition is always limited to the needs of the body, but that in most cases it is, and unless I see it for myself, I'm inclined to conclude that a bit of embellishment has occurred. Ramakrishna was full of needs he expressed regularly. He loved his sweets, his food had to be cooked a certain way, he became anxious when his devotees didn't come around. What does it all mean? Simply that he was a very human incarnation of God. I maintain that all incarnations of God, and all saints, are just as human as you and I. To believe otherwise places realization out of our reach, for how can we (mere mortal humans) aspire to be God? > There is also one incident between Sri Krishna and Rukmini (Read ti > somewhere). Where Rukmini feeds a yogi and yet Sri Krishna explains her > that he is yogi who doesn't need to take food ( i have forgotten one word > for it. ) Sri Krishna told her that just to honour your offering he is > taking the food you have offered otherwise he doesn't need to take food. Who can deny that the Puranas are not chock full of hyperbole? > > [snip] > > > > > What will one confess, Who will confess and To whom will one confess. > > > > The jiva enjoys the state of realization. It is confessed to other > > jivas. > > The pesron who will confess is in question. This person will always be in question to those who are not realized, especially if said person behaves outside of what someone assumes a realized person would behave like. Ramakrishna used to say, "Sometimes a Paramhamsa behaves like a mad man, sometimes he behaves like a little child." The upshot is this, don't expect the realized soul to behave in a certain way, for your expectation will prevent you from enjoying the benefit of his company. However, no matter how outrageous the behavior of the realized soul, the other realized souls will be able to recognize him. It is a matter of subtle discrimination, but the realized can detect realization in the words and actions of the realized. > > --jody. > > > > [snip] > > > > love, > Anurag Thanks Anurag, for staying with the discussion. Take care. --jody. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 8, 2000 Jody do you think a person who plays a role of beggar to its best in a play will really be a beggar. > > I have read this book. It is full of the usual Indian hyperbole. > That is, certain aspects of the lives of certain people are > "amplified". I'm not saying that the human condition is always > limited to the needs of the body, but that in most cases it is, > and unless I see it for myself, I'm inclined to conclude that a > bit of embellishment has occurred. Any conclusion means judgement and our judgement do have a probability of being wrong for we still have much to learn. As you said that one shouldn't expect enlightened to behave in some particular manner. > > Ramakrishna was full of needs he expressed regularly. He loved > his sweets, his food had to be cooked a certain way, he became > anxious when his devotees didn't come around. What does it all > mean? Simply that he was a very human incarnation of God. I > maintain that all incarnations of God, and all saints, are just > as human as you and I. To believe otherwise places realization > out of our reach, for how can we (mere mortal humans) aspire to > be God? > To get enlightened doesn't mean that one give aways everything. Enlightement means that one understands the reality of everything. And its there understanding of everything and our understanding of evrythig that differs. The way we eat our food and the way they eat there food. There is lot of difference in both these acts even if the food is same, human body is same, Atmaa is same but mind is different. Why do you call yourself as mere human. > > There is also one incident between Sri Krishna and Rukmini (Read ti > > somewhere). Where Rukmini feeds a yogi and yet Sri Krishna explains > >her that he is yogi who doesn't need to take food ( i have forgotten > >one word for it. ) Sri Krishna told her that just to honour your > >offering he is taking the food you have offered otherwise he doesn't > >need to take > >food. > > Who can deny that the Puranas are not chock full of hyperbole? > Don't know for haven't read them. > > > [snip] > > > > > > > What will one confess, Who will confess and To whom will one > confess. > > > > > > The jiva enjoys the state of realization. It is confessed to > other > > > jivas. > > > > The pesron who will confess is in question. > > This person will always be in question to those who are not realized, > especially if said person behaves outside of what someone assumes a > realized person would behave like. Ramakrishna used to say, > "Sometimes a Paramhamsa behaves like a mad man, sometimes he behaves > like a little child." The upshot is this, don't expect the realized > soul to behave in a certain way, for your expectation will prevent you > from enjoying the benefit of his company. > > However, no matter how outrageous the behavior of the realized soul, > the other realized souls will be able to recognize him. It is a > matter of subtle discrimination, but the realized can detect > realization in the words and actions of the realized. > Very true! love, Anurag Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 8, 2000 advaitin , <anurag@s...> wrote: > > Jody do you think a person who plays a role of beggar to its best in a > play will really be a beggar. Not necessarily. What does this have to do with our discussion? Ramakrishna didn't play the role of being human. He *was* human. That's the point I'm trying to make. > > I have read this book. It is full of the usual Indian hyperbole. > > That is, certain aspects of the lives of certain people are > > "amplified". I'm not saying that the human condition is always > > limited to the needs of the body, but that in most cases it is, > > and unless I see it for myself, I'm inclined to conclude that a > > bit of embellishment has occurred. > > Any conclusion means judgement and our judgement do have a probability > of being wrong for we still have much to learn. As you said that one > shouldn't expect enlightened to behave in some particular manner. If we can't trust our own judgment, we are truly lost. This isn't to say that we will never be wrong. On the contrary, to discover that one is wrong is a great blessing, for it affords the opportunity to improve one's judgment. However, the only way to do this is to put it out there and see if it stands the test. > > Ramakrishna was full of needs he expressed regularly. He loved > > his sweets, his food had to be cooked a certain way, he became > > anxious when his devotees didn't come around. What does it all > > mean? Simply that he was a very human incarnation of God. I > > maintain that all incarnations of God, and all saints, are just > > as human as you and I. To believe otherwise places realization > > out of our reach, for how can we (mere mortal humans) aspire to > > be God? > > To get enlightened doesn't mean that one give aways everything. > Enlightement means that one understands the reality of everything. And its > there understanding of everything and our understanding of evrythig that > differs. Perhaps. > The way we eat our food and the way they eat there food. There is lot of > difference in both these acts even if the food is same, human body is > same, Atmaa is same but mind is different. While it makes sense to anticipate a difference between the mind of the Jivanmukta and the mind of an ordinary person, we see examples of Jivanmuktas behaving as ordinary people, and examples of ordinary people expressing deep wisdom. > Why do you call yourself as mere human. It's a rhetorical device meant to contrast the perceived difference between the devotees and their spiritual heroes. The point is the Ramakrishna, Ramana, Vivekananda, et al. are held up on a very high pedestal as much more than just human. I contend that even while they were paragons of spirituality and realization, they were simultaneously *quite* human, as human and you and I, and sometimes just as susceptible to the foibles of being human. [snip] > love, > Anurag Thanks Anurag, take care. --jody. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 8, 2000 advaitin , f maiello <egodust> wrote: [snip] > the shift is really a minor one, and not at > all some vast and exotic transformation. > > OM shaanthi Before realization--carry water, chop wood. After realization-- carry water, chop wood. Before realization, I am Jody. After realization, I am the Self, known experientially, having an apparent experience of being Jody. > ________________ > > in the Re: Pedestals post: > > Perfection exists only as the Self. In the relative > world even > > the Avatars take on its imperfections. A close > study of the lives > > of the saints, one that ventures past the > hagiographies, finds that > > even they were full of the imperfections we qualify > as humanity. > > the idea of perfection is based on a > relativstic polarity; which is not really > inherent in the nature of brahman. > rather, brahman is a mysterious blend > of perfectiom/imperfection, both and > neither. The perfection of Brahman is in Its Absoluteness. That is, Brahman is Brahman, untouched by anything of the world, even while it projects the world. Relative perfection has nothing at all to do with Brahman, as this relative perfection can only exist in the context of imperfection. > there are critical misconceptions about > moksha and the nature of What Is. Hear, hear! > if we're open enough to investigate deep > the paradigm of Existence [from its primal > Unmanifest to relative Manifest] we would > see its *timeless* archetypal condition. > if the Manifest Life and its attending range > of pathos were something to be rid of like > some hopeless disease, how and why > did it come into being at all? this alone > should tell us there's something to it that > we're failing to recognize. the rig veda, > as i often mentioned, describes the in- > beween (pralaya or night of brahma) > state that *somehow* experienced a > frustration and *desired* to see and know > Itself...thus Its reflected projection in lila. > this, i contend, is an eternal archetype. > if not, then brahman had to have been in > an unrealized state to *desire* such! > > fact is, this whole process is inscrutable > and beyond relative analysis. however, > to conclude that the jiva's release [via > moksha] implies a permanent divorce > from the effects in/of relative Life, is > ostrich logic! the Real overview is being > ignored. Time and time again, in the context of these sort of email discussions, and in the context of satsangs being given all over the world, misconceptions about realization abound. Thank you for providing us with the cool breeze of experiential wisdom, which is worth oh so much more than Shastras parroted outside of one's own direct understanding. --jody. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 8, 2000 Hari Om Dear Frankji: Thank you Frankji for your frankness! Honestly, it didn't raise my eybrows and I sincerely admire your humility and dignity. I have visited quite a few time your homepage and enjoyed reading the works of Bhagawan presented by you. Honestly your statements do not violate the =========================================== popular ideas with the proper understanding. =========================================== Thanks again for sharing, regards, Ram Chandran f maiello <egodust wrote: > > what i'm about to say will doubtless raise > some eyebrows, yet i have compelling > evidence based on personal experience > to support it. (for those interested, some of > my background [inspiring me to make such > claims] is divulged on my website, and may > shed light on the origins of what may be > regarded as my sometimes making > outrageous and provocative statements > that seem to violate popular ideas held. > ......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 8, 2000 On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, jody wrote: > advaitin , <anurag@s...> wrote: > > > > Jody do you think a person who plays a role of beggar to its best > in a > > play will really be a beggar. > > Not necessarily. What does this have to do with our discussion? > Ramakrishna didn't play the role of being human. He *was* human. > That's the point I'm trying to make. you must be knowing the words by Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa which say that this world is like a stage. Its in reference to that. We don't know that this is a game but poeple like Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa are very much aware of this play. Thats where the difference lies. They are playing the role of human being. Its not necessary that they be in human form. They can take any form to do which needs to be done. > > > > I have read this book. It is full of the usual Indian hyperbole. > > > That is, certain aspects of the lives of certain people are > > > "amplified". I'm not saying that the human condition is always > > > limited to the needs of the body, but that in most cases it is, > > > and unless I see it for myself, I'm inclined to conclude that a > > > bit of embellishment has occurred. > > > > Any conclusion means judgement and our judgement do have a > probability > > of being wrong for we still have much to learn. As you said that one > > shouldn't expect enlightened to behave in some particular manner. > > If we can't trust our own judgment, we are truly lost. This > isn't to say that we will never be wrong. On the contrary, to > discover that one is wrong is a great blessing, for it affords the > opportunity to improve one's judgment. However, the only way > to do this is to put it out there and see if it stands the > test. > Very True! so lets see can we be worng. > > The way we eat our food and the way they eat there food. There is > lot of > > difference in both these acts even if the food is same, human body > is > > same, Atmaa is same but mind is different. > > While it makes sense to anticipate a difference between the mind of > the Jivanmukta and the mind of an ordinary person, we see examples > of Jivanmuktas behaving as ordinary people, and examples of ordinary > people expressing deep wisdom. The work is same but the understanding of that differs. Understanding exists in mind. Their understanding can't be know by just looking at the ordinary work they do. Their understanding can only be known by knowing whats their in their mind. And their mind can be known by what they say and by attaining a state of mind similar to theirs. Thats why we misinterpret their ordinary work as ordinary. Dog undertands a dog better, Sheep understands a sheep better, lion understand a lion better, human being understands human being better, only a saint can understand a saint better. When the spark of divinity within a individual lights up its then that wisdom pops out. i refer you to "Raja Yoga" by Swami Vivekanada which i guess you must have read. > > > Why do you call yourself as mere human. > > It's a rhetorical device meant to contrast the perceived difference > between the devotees and their spiritual heroes. The point is the > Ramakrishna, Ramana, Vivekananda, et al. are held up on a very > high pedestal as much more than just human. I contend that even > while they were paragons of spirituality and realization, they > were simultaneously *quite* human, as human and you and I, and > sometimes just as susceptible to the foibles of being human. > Hope here we are not trying to justify and cover up our shortcomings by looking at something in them which appears to us as shortcomings. Even if one feels that they failed at something then we have a chance of being greater than them by not doing the faults which they did and at the same time possessing all the good they had. Can senses be trusted. Intellect derived from senses too will be faulty. Outside intellect will always lead us to believe in the mirage of a desert. Only intellect which shines from within can be taken as truth something which has been approved by our Atmaa and heart. As said by Pujya Gurudev if we can understand what a Guru does then we oursleves have become a Guru. Then we no longer remain shishyaas. But such is not the case. With our limited intellects and vision we can't make out why does a Guru do such an such act or why has he asked us to do this work. We can never understand what Guru does and why do he do that. love, Anurag ps - Jody in the words of Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa this is the difference between a Human Being and Enlightened one. "Bondage is of the mind, and freedom is also of the mind. A man is free if he constantly thinks" 'I am a free soul. How can i be bound, whether I live in the world or in the forest ? I am a child of God, the King of Kings. Who can bind me?" "Do all your duties, but keep your mind on God. Live with all - with wife and children, father and mother - and serve them. Treat them as if they were very dear to you, but you know in your heart of hearts that they do not belong to you." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 8, 2000 - jody <jodyr <advaitin > Thursday, June 08, 2000 2:49 PM Re: Jivanmukta > advaitin , f maiello <egodust> wrote: > > [snip] [Jody] > Hear, hear! > [Frank] > > if we're open enough to investigate deep > > the paradigm of Existence [from its primal > > Unmanifest to relative Manifest] we would > > see its *timeless* archetypal condition. > > if the Manifest Life and its attending range > > of pathos were something to be rid of like > > some hopeless disease, how and why > > did it come into being at all? this alone > > should tell us there's something to it that > > we're failing to recognize. the rig veda, > > as i often mentioned, describes the in- > > beween (pralaya or night of brahma) > > state that *somehow* experienced a > > frustration and *desired* to see and know > > Itself...thus Its reflected projection in lila. > > this, i contend, is an eternal archetype. > > if not, then brahman had to have been in > > an unrealized state to *desire* such! > > [Jody] > Time and time again, in the context of these sort > of email discussions, and in the context of satsangs > being given all over the world, misconceptions > about realization abound. > Thank you for providing us with the cool breeze > of experiential wisdom, which is worth oh so much > more than Shastras parroted outside of one's own > direct understanding. Hi Jody & Frank In line with your "legal" arguments and the Shastras, may I offer the following inquiry for your consideration... Enjoy ~dave Q: Why does Spirit bother to manifest at all, especially when that manifestation is necessarily painful and requires that It become amnesiac to Its true identity? Why does God incarnate? A: Oh, I see you're starting with the easy questions. Well, I'll give you a few theoretical answers that have been offered over the years, and then I'll give you my personal experience, such as it is. I have actually asked this same question of several spiritual teachers, and one of them gave a quick, classic answer: "It's no fun having dinner alone." That's sort of flip or flippant, I suppose, but the more you think about it, the more it starts to make sense. What if, just for the fun of it, we pretend -- you and I blasphemously pretend, just for a moment -- that we are Spirit, that Tat Tvam Asi? Why would you, if you were God Almighty, why would you manifest a world? A world that, as you say, is necessarily one of separation and turmoil and pain? Why would you, as the One, ever give rise to the Many? Q: It's no fun having dinner alone? A: Doesn't that start to make sense? Here you are, the One and Only, the Alone and the Infinite. What are you going to do next? You bathe in your own glory for all eternity, you bask in your own delight for ages upon ages, and then what? Sooner or later, you might decide that it would be fun -- just fun -- to pretend that you were not you. I mean, what else are you going to do? What else can you do? Q: Manifest a world. A: Don't you think? But then it starts to get interesting. When I was a child, I used to try to play checkers with myself. You ever tried that? Q: Yes, I remember doing something like that. A: Does it work? Q: Not exactly, because I always knew what my "opponent's" move was going to be. I was playing both sides, so I couldn't "surprise" myself. I always knew what I was going to do on both sides, so it wasn't much of a game. You need somebody "else" to play the game. A: Yes, exactly, that's the problem. You need an "other." So if you are the only Being in all existence, and you want to play -- you want to play any sort of game -- you have to take the role of the other, and then forget that you are playing both sides. Otherwise the game is no fun, as you say. You have to pretend you are the other player with such conviction that you forget that you are playing all the roles. If you don't forget, then you got no game, it's just no fun. Q: So if you want to play -- I think the Eastern term is lila -- then you have to forget who you are. Amnesis. A: Yes, I think so. And that is exactly the core of the answer given by the mystics the world over. If you are the One, and -- out of sheer exuberance, plenitude, superabundance -- you want to play, to rejoice, to have fun, then you must first, manifest the Many, and then second, forget it is you who are the Many. Otherwise, no game. Manifestation, incarnation, is the great Game of the One playing at being the Many, for the sheer sport and fun of it. Q: But it's not always fun. A: Well, yes and no. The manifest world is a world of opposites -- of pleasure versus pain, up versus down, good versus evil, subject versus object, light versus shadow. But if you are going to play the great cosmic Game, that is what you yourself set into motion. How else can you do it? If there are no parts and no players and no suffering and no Many, then you simply remain as the One and Only, Alone and Aloof. But it's no fun having dinner alone. Q: So to start the game of manifestation is start the world of suffering. A: It starts to look like that, doesn't it? And the mystics seem to agree. But there is a way out of that suffering, a way to be free of the opposites, and that involves the overwhelming and direct realization that Spirit is not good versus evil, or pleasure versus pain, or light versus dark, or life versus death, or whole versus part, or holistic versus analytic. Spirit is the great Player that gives rise to all those opposites equally -- "I the Lord make the Light to fall on the good and the bad alike; I the Lord do all these things" -- and the mystics the world over agree. Spirit is not the good half of the opposites, but the ground of all the opposites, and our "salvation," as it were, is not to find the good half of the dualism but to find the Source of both halves of the dualism, for that is what we are in truth. We are both sides in the great Game of Life, because we -- you and I, in the deepest recesses of our very Self -- have created both of these opposites in order to have a grand game of cosmic checkers. That, anyway, is the "theoretical" answer that the mystics almost always give. "Nonduality" means, as the Upanishads put it, "to be freed of the pairs." That is, the great liberation consists in being freed of the pairs of opposites, freed of duality -- and finding instead the nondual One Taste that gives rise to both. This is liberation because we cease the impossible, painful dream of spending our entire lives trying to find an up without a down, an inside without an outside, a good without an evil, a pleasure without its inevitable pain. Q: You said that you had a more personal response as well. A: Yes, such as it is. When I first experienced, however haltingly, "nirvikalpa samadhi" -- which means, meditative absorption in the formless One -- I remember having the vague feeling -- very subtle, very faint -- that I didn't want to be alone in this wonderful expanse. I remember feeling, very diffusely but very insistently, that I wanted to share this with somebody. So what would one do in that state of loneliness? Q: Manifest the world. A: That's how it seems to me. And I knew, however amateurishly, that if I came out of that formless Oneness and recognized the world of the Many, that I would then suffer, because the Many always hurt each other, as well as help each other. And you know what? I was glad to surrender the peace of the One even though it meant the pain of the Many. Now this is just a little tongue taste of what the great mystics have seen, but my limited experience seems to conform to their great pronouncement: You are the One freely giving rise to the Many -- to pain and pleasure and all the opposites -- because you choose not to abide as the exquisite loneliness of Infinity, and because you don't want to have dinner alone. Q: And the pain that is involved? A: Is freely chosen as part of the necessary Game of Life. You cannot have a manifest world without all the opposites of pleasure and pain. And to get rid of the pain -- the sin, the suffering, the duhkha -- you must remember who and what you really are. This remembrance, this recollection, this anamnesis -- "Do this in Remembrance of Me" -- means, "Do this in Remembrance of the Self that You Are" -- Tat Tvam Asi. The great mystical religions the world over consist of a series of profound practices to quiet the small self that we pretend we are -- which causes the pain and suffering that you feel -- and awaken as the Great Self that is our own true ground and goal and destiny -- "Let this consciousness be in you which was in Christ Jesus." Q: Is this realization an all-or-nothing affair? A: Not usually. It's often a series of glimpses of One Taste -- glimpses of the fact that you are one with absolutely all manifestation, in its good and bad aspects, in all its frost and fever, its wonder and its pain. You are the Universe, literally. But you tend to understand this ultimate fact in increasing glimpses of the infinity that you are, and you realize exactly why you started this wonderful, horrible Game of Life. But it is absolutely not a cruel Game, not ultimately, because you, and you alone, instigated this Drama, this Lila. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 8, 2000 advaitin , anurag@s... wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, jody wrote: > > > advaitin , <anurag@s...> wrote: > > > > > > Jody do you think a person who plays a role of beggar to its best > > in a > > > play will really be a beggar. > > > > Not necessarily. What does this have to do with our discussion? > > Ramakrishna didn't play the role of being human. He *was* human. > > That's the point I'm trying to make. > > you must be knowing the words by Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa which say > that this world is like a stage. Its in reference to that. We don't know > that this is a game but poeple like Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa are very > much aware of this play. Thats where the difference lies. They are playing > the role of human being. Its not necessary that they be in human form. > They can take any form to do which needs to be done. That's a stretch. The only form humanity has been affected by is humanity. We have not seen any other form that has had any impact except the human form. Ramakrishna was not aware of the play from the standpoint of his being human. Ramakrishna agonized over the fact that there were rumors being told about him. He did so to his householder devotees, and this was recorded by M in the Gospel. If he was "much aware of this play," he would have no reason to agonize as he would have precognition of the outcome. To contend that the avatars always have intellectual information about the nature of the play is pure speculation. While a saint or avatar may display a siddhi every now and again, because they take human form they are at times just as in the dark as the rest of us. [snip] > Very True! so lets see can we be worng. I am fully aware that I could be wrong. However, it has yet to be demonstrated in the context of this discussion. [snip] > Dog undertands a dog better, Sheep understands a sheep better, lion > understand a lion better, human being understands human being better, > only a saint can understand a saint better. I agree. Hence my disagreement with our human understanding of the saints lives. > When the spark of divinity within a individual lights up its then that > wisdom pops out. i refer you to "Raja Yoga" by Swami Vivekanada which i > guess you must have read. I agree with this statement. > > > Why do you call yourself as mere human. > > > > It's a rhetorical device meant to contrast the perceived difference > > between the devotees and their spiritual heroes. The point is the > > Ramakrishna, Ramana, Vivekananda, et al. are held up on a very > > high pedestal as much more than just human. I contend that even > > while they were paragons of spirituality and realization, they > > were simultaneously *quite* human, as human and you and I, and > > sometimes just as susceptible to the foibles of being human. > > > > Hope here we are not trying to justify and cover up our shortcomings by > looking at something in them which appears to us as shortcomings. Even if > one feels that they failed at something then we have a chance of being > greater than them by not doing the faults which they did and at the same > time possessing all the good they had. No covering here. My faults are available to all who observe or ask me (at least the ones I'm aware of.) The point is, putting the saints on pedestals puts the goal out of reach. We are all realized right now. Some are blessed to be aware of it, but the statement holds for all. I went and saw Ammachi last night. At one point during the program one of her swamis is praying for us. "Amma, I am a lost child with no hope at all. I am completely dependent on you for I am incapable of doing anything for myself." Do you see the problem with this? If we are all realized right now, how are we going to realize this if we're "incapable"? It takes the power away from us as the Self, and gives it all to a figure who really isn't making the decisions in her own organization! > Can senses be trusted. Intellect derived from senses too will be faulty. > Outside intellect will always lead us to believe in the mirage of a > desert. Only intellect which shines from within can be taken as truth > something which has been approved by our Atmaa and heart. I agree. > As said by Pujya Gurudev if we can understand what a Guru does then we > oursleves have become a Guru. Then we no longer remain shishyaas. But such > is not the case. With our limited intellects and vision we can't make out > why does a Guru do such an such act or why has he asked us to do this > work. We can never understand what Guru does and why do he do that. That sounds like guru propaganda to me. I got a barrage of that last night too. > love, > Anurag > > ps - > > Jody in the words of Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa this is the difference > between a Human Being and Enlightened one. > > "Bondage is of the mind, and freedom is also of the mind. A man is free if > he constantly thinks" 'I am a free soul. How can i be bound, whether I > live in the world or in the forest ? I am a child of God, the King of > Kings. Who can bind me?" You've just made my point beautifully. > "Do all your duties, but keep your mind on God. Live with all - with wife > and children, father and mother - and serve them. Treat them as if they > were very dear to you, but you know in your heart of hearts that they do > not belong to you." Take care. --jody. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
