Meaning of Happiness

[Guest guest]

Hello Dennis,

In the state of oppression by avidya

happiness is a good companion but a poor teacher. Like

a cat sunning on a warm sill we accept what is our due

and bask at the centre of the tribute of a benign

cosmos. Religion offers ways of dealing with climate

but neverthless we remain convinced that unaltering

bliss is the condition most suited to our nature.

Is this infantile clinging or a vestige of wisdom? The

loss of original felicity may make the pilgrim look for

that state which is permanently blissful. Thomas

Traherne in his 'Centuries of Meditations' out of a

full heart declares:

 

"Yet further, you never enjoy the world aright, till

you so love the beauty of enjoying it, that you are

covetous and earnest to persuade others to enjoy it.

And so perfectly hate the abominable corruption of men

in despising it, that you had rather suffer the flames

of Hell than willingly be guilty of their error.

There is so much blindness and ingratitude and dammed

folly in it. The world is a mirror of infinite

beauty, yet no man sees it. It is a Temple of

Majesty, yet no man regards it. It is a region

of Light and Peace; did not men disquiet it. It is

the paradise of God. It is more to man since he is

fallen than it was before. It is the place of Angels

and the Gate of Heaven. When Jacob walked out of his

dream, he said "God is here and I wist it not. How

dreadful is this place! This is none other than the

House of God and the Gate of Heaven.

 

*dreadful = awe inspiring

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji:

 

I like the present approach and this will help to focus our mind to

get full understanding of the meaning of happiness. As always, you

provided a comprehensive view of 'happiness' and as always, we are

likely have good interactive discussion.

 

Let me provide some thoughts for further discussion:

 

Using the advaitic framework, happiness may be understood

differently at paramarthika and vyavaharika level:

 

Paramarthika level (Absolute Reality):

I am the Brahman

I am the Self

I am the Truth

I am at peace

I am happy

I am beyond space and time

Brahman represents eternal Truth

Brahman represents eternal happiness

etc., other such potential statements.

 

Though there are many statement, at the absolute level, they all

mean the same. In otherwords, Brahman, the knower of everything only

knows the meaning of happiness! From the advaitic point of view, We

are all always happy whether we recognize this fact or not. Any

question including the question on the 'meaning of happiness' can

occur only in the presence of ignorance. This implies that those

who 'detach' their identity from 'everything other than I' are

eternally happy. This statement is necessarily always true and

doesn't require any proof!

 

At Vyavaharika level (Relative relaity)

i am the self

i identify self as my body, mind and intellect

i become a perceiver, feeler and thinker accordingly

i relate my happiness to degree of fulfillment of my desires

i feel happy when my desire is fulfilled and unhappy otherwise

i relate my happiness to to degree of success of my actions

i am happy when i succeed and unhappy otherwise

i am happy when my desire is fulfilled and unhappy otherwise

 

It is possible to generate thousands of more other statements such

as above as clarifications of jiva's perception of 'self' and

happiness. In this framework, 'self' is ever changing and

consequently, perceptions change continuously and the meaning and

understanding of 'happiness' also changes. In the spiritual

context, the understanding and meaning of happiness raises to higher

level when a person spiritually grows higher. Within the vedantic

context, when a person spiritually grows, he/she looks for happiness

more inward than outward. The spiritual person detaches his/her

doership while conducting actions, thereby turning more inwards. It

is possible attain spiritual growth using several approaches: (1)

conducting actions with the yagna spirit (karma yoga); (2) conduct

actions with an attitude of total surrender and dedicate them to

Ishwara (Bhakti yoga); and (3)Divert all thoughts toward seeking the

utltimate truth with total focus (jnana yoga, mind purification and

meditation).

 

It seems that seeking true happiness is the same us seeking

the 'Truth.' The true meaning of truth is 'Truth' and similarly the

true meaning of happiness is "Happiness," and it is the truth and

nothing but the Truth.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandrn

 

> advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...>

wrote:

> > Hi All,

> >

> > I suppose it wasn't really sensible thinking that I could post

the

> material

> > in three separate parts and we could discuss each in turn.

[Guest guest]

Benjamin said (3rd March): "I would certainly agree that we must learn

detachment at least to the point where unfulfilled desires no longer cause

mental frustration."

 

I don't think this is possible, Benjamin. The two are effectively

synonymous. While we still have desires, we are bound to have mental

frustration. In fact, I suggest that the frustration is desire (or its

converse, fear).

 

"After all, the pig wallowing in mud is quite contented. Yet do we envy

him?"

 

What's the expression - chacun a son gout? I'm sure most of us still have

our own particular variety of mud!

 

"Some of my happiest moments are when I am lying in the grass, on a pleasant

summer day, contemplating the beautiful clouds, without a care or worry or

desire."

 

Yes - with no trace of ego. And it is this that is the 'cause' of the

happiness, not the clouds.

 

"Yet my sweet tooth remains, and I do not worry about it while enjoying the

sweet."

 

Or, to paraphrase T. S. Eliot - you are the sweetness while the sweetness

lasts.

 

"And I can't help but feel that True Romantic Love would be very beautiful."

 

I suppose we could have another month-long discussion about this sometime!

But, in the end, I think that what we have to say is that, whilst there is

an 'object' of our love, it is not 'true' love and is certain to lead to

disappointment. Happiness is our true nature and is non-dual. Just the same

for love. Ultimately, love for 'another' is found to be love for our real

Self.

 

Chittaranjan quoted a long passage from Nietzsche, much to my surprise. In

my latest book (which, I must confess, is on the topic of meaning, purpose

and happiness - surprise, surprise!) I was summarising relevant views from

western philosophy. My concluding paragraph on Nietzsche was:

 

"But Nietzsche was wide of the mark when he set his aims. His ideals were

mistaken, participating in those aspects of man's nature that are part of

his limitations. He was seeking the empowerment of the ego, not the

realisation of his true nature. His is the way of fear and led the man

himself to insanity at the age of 44."

 

Though I have a copy of 'Also sprach Zarathustra' somewhere, I haven't

actually read it. (Oops!) Am I completely off mark in my uninformed summary?

 

Michael said (3rd Mar): "...but neverthless we remain convinced that

unaltering bliss is the condition most suited to our nature."

 

Yes. As you effectively go on to say, this is because we know deep down,

though this is habitually covered over by ignorance, that it IS our true

nature.

 

ProfVK (3rd Mar.) made two very valuable points that I have not covered in

my posts, namely that concern over things lost in the past equals grief

while concern over possibly losing things in the future equals fear. Both

take us away from the present, which is the only place we can find

happiness.

 

I found the use throughout of the word 'happiness' a bit confusing. You said

that "The Upanishads are never tired of declaring that happiness is one's

natural state of being." This then agrees with my use of the word to refer

to our true nature, i.e. Ananda. But you then go on to say: "If you start

chasing it you become unhappy." And: "Happiness, pleasure, bliss are always

with us in the initial state. Whenever we want something, we move from this

initial state."

 

I'm afraid this is potentially misleading. If we agree to use the word

happiness for the shruti term Ananda, then we cannot say that we become

unhappy. Happiness is our true nature and that can never change. Similarly I

have used the word pleasure to refer to the evolutionary adaptation of the

brain, if you like, which is the opposite of pain. Both of these come and go

all the time and may or may not be 'with us in the initial state'. I know

that you know this but, since there will be readers with only a little

knowledge of Advaita, we must be careful not to confuse. Hope you don't mind

my quibbling over this!

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

I'm afraid this is potentially misleading. If we agree to use the word

happiness for the shruti term Ananda,

 

praNAm prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Actually, I was the one who has taken the above stand while drafting my

understanding of Happiness. Prabhuji,

I am not able to make out the subtle difference between happiness &

shruti's Ananda. prabhuji, you've differentiated *happiness* from pleasure

well. I failed to understand the difference between happiness & Ananda

( what is equivalent word in english...would *bliss* be the appropriate

word here??). What is the source of happiness if it is not object

oriented?? if happiness is indriyAthIta, what is the difference between

happiness & our Ananda/bliss svarUpa??

pls. clarify prabhuji.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji.

 

Nothwithstanding all the agreement that I, as an advaitin, have found

with the Buddha, I have to take exception with regard to your quote

of Him. I am sure this would delight the pure Sankara fans who had

previously questioned me on my empathy with Him.

 

The world is not painful. It is happiness.

 

I have cervical spondylosis. It hurts much on the neck, the collar

bones and the hands. I have Achilles heels with calcaneal spurs.

That also hurts. Both give me immense opportunities to call out to

Her in pain! My sugar levels also trigger thoughts of Her! That is

happiness, Sir. That is when I see my body as just a thing that I

incidentally possess and know that the pains are on that possession.

>From that angle, physical agony and conjugal paroxysm (Sorry,

brahmachArins!) make no difference. They are all one.

 

There is the body staggering in daze chanting Her names. It is full

of cakrAs - not the traditional six or seven of them but an infinite

number of them from toes to top. I am the Kundalini that light them

up as crimson lotuses with She seated on all of them. I should be

really ignorant to see them differently as pain and pleasure, then

groan and gyrate like a fool!

 

Tell me now where is unhappiness. Where is the pain Buddha found?

 

I am praying with my eyes closed. Mrs. Nair walks in with a mundane

problem for which she wants an immediate solution. The TV doesn't

switch on. She can't wait. I see a disturbance. My happiness in

prayer is disturbed. I can get irritated, be unhappy and spoil the

rest of the day. No Sir. That is erecting pain where it is really

absent. See the Lady in the disturbance again seated on yet another

lotus. She has brought Mrs. Nair out there to test me. Salute Her,

attend to the other lady's problem and, if possible, return to the

prayer where also She is there in full. If I don't get to complete

my prayer, that again is Her will. Why fret? Prayer not completed

is worry only for the one with prayership. Salute the Lady once

more. Where is unhappiness?

 

I don't know if Dennisji will take this point of view. But, I am

speaking from experience although I still have a long way to go.

 

We have pain only when we falsely identify with our body, mind,

intellect, ego and roles. Otherwise, there is only happiness where

we are always free like the end of the journey Buddha described. We

are already at the end. We just fail to realize that.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________________

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> And now, lest Nairji accuse me of bringing in one more Westerner

> while ignoring the Indian Buddha, let me end by quoting from the

> Dhammapada:

>

> "It is painful to leave the world; it is painful to be in the

world;

> and it is painful to be alone amongst the many. The long road of

> samsara is a road of pain to the traveller: let him rest by the

road

> and be free."

>

> And in the end that had no beginning...

>

> "The traveller has reached the end of the journey! In the freedom

of

> the infinite he is free from all sorrows, the fetters that bound

him

> are thrown away, and the burning fever of life is no more."

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste, all learned members

 

<<<<Benjamin said (3rd March): "I would certainly agree that we must learn

 

detachment at least >>>>

 

Detachment is neither necessary nor possible. Do I have to detach from my shadow

when it falls on, say, a dirty ditch? I will never be successful in doing that.

I only have to “know” that I am not the shadow, whatever happens to it.

 

Warm regards to all and Hari Om

Mani

 

Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:Benjamin said (3rd March): "I would

certainly agree that we must learn

detachment at least to the point where unfulfilled desires no longer cause

mental frustration."

 

I don't think this is possible, Benjamin. The two are

 

 

 

 

Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

 

<<<<I have cervical spondylosis. It hurts much on the neck, the collar bones

and the hands. I have Achilles heels with calcaneal spurs. That also hurts.

Both give me immense opportunities to call out to Her in pain! My sugar levels

also trigger thoughts of Her! That is happiness, Sir. That is when I see my

body as just a thing that I>>>

 

Pain, i.e. Vedana means calling attention of the person suffering from pain to

the area of pain, so that, proper treatment can be taken. I do not think

Advaitins should stop attending to their physical problems, just because they

know everything is consciousness. The spirit of Advaita knowledge, at least as I

understand, is not that.

 

Yes, it corrects the notion “I am painful” as the locus of the pain is not Atma,

“I”. Knower of Self also feels the pain, hunger, thirst, etc. However, even

while in pain, he has calmness internally, as he “knows” that will also

pass(“Thitheeksha”) sooner or later, as whatever is “evident” to the “self

evident” Atma, cannot affect Atma at all, which is Anandaswaroopa itself.

 

Warm Regards & Hari Om

 

Mani

 

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:Namaste Chittaranjanji.

 

Nothwithstanding all the agreement that I, as an advaitin, have found

with the Buddha, I have to take exception with regard to your quote

of Him. I am sure this would delight the pure Sankara fans who had

previously questioned me on my empathy with Him.

 

The world is not painful. It is happiness.

 

I have cervical spondylosis. It hurts much on the neck, the collar

 

 

 

 

 

Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

>

> ProfVK (3rd Mar.) made two very valuable points that I have not

covered in

> my posts, namely that concern over things lost in the past equals

grief

> while concern over possibly losing things in the future equals

fear. Both

> take us away from the present, which is the only place we can find

> happiness.

>

> I found the use throughout of the word 'happiness' a bit

confusing. You said

> that "The Upanishads are never tired of declaring that happiness

is one's

> natural state of being." This then agrees with my use of the word

to refer

> to our true nature, i.e. Ananda. But you then go on to say: "If

you start

> chasing it you become unhappy." And: "Happiness, pleasure, bliss

are always

> with us in the initial state. Whenever we want something, we move

from this

> initial state."

>

> I'm afraid this is potentially misleading. If we agree to use the

word

> happiness for the shruti term Ananda, then we cannot say that we

become

> unhappy. Happiness is our true nature and that can never change.

Similarly I

> have used the word pleasure to refer to the evolutionary

adaptation of the

> brain, if you like, which is the opposite of pain. Both of these

come and go

> all the time and may or may not be 'with us in the initial state'.

I know

> that you know this but, since there will be readers with only a

little

> knowledge of Advaita, we must be careful not to confuse. Hope you

don't mind

> my quibbling over this!

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Namaste, Dennis-ji and all

 

Your point about my use of the word 'happiness' to denote at one

time the Ananda of the Upanishads and at another time to denote the

pleasure-signal that the brain sends to the body and mind, is well-

taken. Thank you for the correction.

 

Regards and PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Nairji,

Namaskaram,

I do know, I just mentioned only.

Warm regards and Hari Om

Mani

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Don't worry Ji. I am take medical advice and medications whenever

needed. I said so much only to illustrate the point I was trying to

get across regarding Buddha's painful samsAra.

MN

___________________

 

advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote:

> Pain, i.e. Vedana means calling attention of the person suffering

from pain to the area of pain, so that, proper treatment can be

taken. I do not think Advaitins should stop attending to their

physical problems, just because they know everything is

consciousness. The spirit of Advaita knowledge, at least as I

understand, is not that.

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

Sponsor

Click Here

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.

 

 

[Guest guest]

R. S. Mani raised further queries about 'degrees of happiness', commenting

that there are no degrees in Ananda. It did seem inevitable that there would

be confusion or even argument over this aspect.

 

In my understanding there is actually only one 'thing', call it what you

like. In reality, of course, this has to be so - there is only brahman - but

even in vyavahAra, I think we can get away with just one feeling/attribute,

whatever you want to call it. Imagine a bright light shut up in a box with a

sliding lid. The lid is tight fitting with black velvet edges so that, when

it is closed, no light escapes. As you slide back the lid, more and more

light is emitted until, with the lid totally open, there is brilliant light

illuminating everything.

 

The light in the metaphor is our true nature and the lid represents the

mind-ego. Identification with mentations of whatever sort (objects,

thoughts, emotions) equates to the lid closed to varying degrees. Moments of

excitement, involvement or whatever, when the ego is temporarily forgotten,

equates to lid open to varying degrees. Enlightenment equates to no lid -

all of the internal light shines forth. And, of course, the amount of light

equates to the varying degrees of happiness. The pleasure of eating a cream

cake has the lid only a little open perhaps, the initial stages of romantic

love might correspond to an ecstasy of the lid quite widely open. Having no

lid at all is the bliss of Ananda.

 

At least this seems a more accurate way of looking at the matter than trying

to say that some states are 'temporary' or 'homogeneous' or whatever,

implying that some are real and others not. If anyone can think of any

improvements to the metaphor (which I have only just thought of) please let

me know.

 

As R. S. Mani points out, pleasure requires the sense organs so this could

differentiate it from happiness but I think it is probably better just to

say that, with the presence of mind and senses (i.e. the lid), it is

inevitable that the extent of the revealing of our true nature is bound to

be limited.

 

Chittaranjan recklessly introduced the 'problem of determinism and

free-will'. Clearly he does not realise that this is one of my hobby horses!

I will not rise to the bait however and merely refer him to my essay on the

subject at my website.

 

Agree with all of Sri Ram's statements on absolute and relative meanings of

happiness - clear categorisation.

 

Benjamin said: 'Ignorance is bliss'. I like it! I had completely forgotten

about that expression. I suppose in many cases it is partially true. As soon

as people hear about something that they feel they might have preferred not

to know about, they immediately start worrying, totally identified with the

idea. How does it affect 'me'; what can 'I' do and so on.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

The following quotes from Swami Chinmayananda can provide further

insights on the meaning of Happiness in worldly situation:

 

 

To love and to be loved is the greatest happiness.

 

The tragedy of human history is decreasing happiness in the midst of

increasing comforts.

 

He who depends on chances and situations to be happy, is a Sansari

(Sansari is the one who lives a worldly life)

 

Happiness depends on what you can give, Not on what you can get.

 

Don't put the key to your happiness in someone else's pocket.

 

The cultured give happiness wherever they go . The uncultured

whenever they go.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> R. S. Mani raised further queries about 'degrees of happiness',

> commenting

> that there are no degrees in Ananda. .

>

> In my understanding there is actually only one 'thing', call it what

> you

> like.

 

There is no degree of light in the sunlight per sec. But the degree of

light permeating through the fully transparent vs. translucent vs.

opaque mind differs. The one who is enclosed within the walls of the

mind sees the degree of light permeating through his mind! The cleaner

the mind more transparent it becomes. When it is completely transparent,

the mind in its essence has disappeared.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Good insights to the meaning of happiness are available in well

known quotations and here are a few:

 

"Happiness is as a butterfly which, when pursued, is always beyond

our grasp, but which if you will sit down quietly, may alight upon

you." Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804-1864)

 

An act of goodness is of itself an act of happiness. No reward

coming after the event can compare with the sweet reward that went

with it. Maurice Maeterlinck (1862-1949)

 

Three grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to

do, to love, and to hope for. Addison

 

As a well-spent day brings happy-sleep, so as a life well spent

brings happy-death. Leonardo Da Vinci

 

There is this difference between happiness and wisdom that he that

thinks himself the happiest man really is so; but he that thinks

himself the wisest is generally the greatest fool. Colton

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Bhaskar wrote:

>I am not able to make out the subtle difference between happiness &

>shruti's Ananda. prabhuji, you've differentiated *happiness* from pleasure

>well. I failed to understand the difference between happiness & Ananda

>( what is equivalent word in english...would *bliss* be the appropriate

>word here??). What is the source of happiness if it is not object

>oriented?? if happiness is indriyAthIta, what is the difference between

>happiness & our Ananda/bliss svarUpa??

>pls. clarify prabhuji.

 

One way of looking at the difference between bliss (ananda) and happiness is

that ananda is bliss without an object whereas happiness (and pain also)

requires some relationship with an object. Ananda is intrinsic in one's true

Self: Satchidandanda. As the sruti state and several respondents have

indicated, aspirants, even under the sway of avidya, ignorance, are, in truth,

swimming in the limitless ocean of bliss. The wise declare that ananda has no

object; it just is. So, the wise one experiences all kinds sense-objects as

they come (without any hankering or desire). And as Adi Shankara says in

"VivekachUdAmani, 17-20," inquiry or discrimination between the Real and the

unreal--viveka--is required for experiencing ananda, which is "undiluted,

constant Bliss" ("VivekachUdAmani" [Madhavananda translation], 536).

"Happiness" involves a want ( in both senses of the word) of some gross or

subtle object. There is an attachment to a gross or subtle sense-object. One is

submerged, drowning, in the ocean of Samsara (relative existense). One is

in the grips of maya, illusion, ignorance, and ultimately, death and

transmigration.

So, appreciation of the difference between happiness and our Ananda/bliss

svarUpa is a fine appreciation, indeed, being on the razor's edge, as

Yama/Death told NachiketA in the Katha Upanishad(I.ii.2 and II.i.1):

 

'The preferable and the pleasurable approach mankind. The man of

intellkigence, having considered them, separates the two. The intelligent one

selects the electable [the preferable, the supreme goal{freedom}] in preference

to the delectable [pleasurable]; the nonintelligent one selects the delectable

for the sake of growth and protection (of the body etc.). (GambhIrAnanda

translation)

. . . . . . . . . . .

 

"The self-existent Lord destroyed the outgoing senses. Therefore one sees the

outer things and not the inner Self. A rare discriminating man, desiring

immortality, turns his eyes away and then sees the indwelling Self."

Or, as the Purohit Swami/Years translation puts this last verse:

"Death said: "God mad sense turn outward, man therefore looks outward, not

into himself. Now and again a daring soul, desiring immortality, has looked

back and found himself."

 

So, ananda/bliss has no source. It is immortal, our inner Being, the Self.

So, distinguishing between happiness and ananda/bliss is the challenge before

us, O daring souls.

 

All the Best,

Kenneth Larsen

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:I failed to

understand the difference between happiness & Ananda

> ( what is equivalent word in english...would *bliss* be the

appropriate

> word here??). What is the source of happiness if it is not object

> oriented?? if happiness is indriyAthIta, what is the difference

between

> happiness & our Ananda/bliss svarUpa??

 

 

Namaste,

 

A visit to Webster's Dictionary/Thesaurus gave quite a wide

choice of synonyms. Maybe the etymologists couls help in identifying

the scale for these words:

 

happiness

Function: noun

Text: a state of well-being or pleasurable satisfaction

 

Synonyms

 

beatitude, blessedness, bliss,ecstasy

 

felicity, rapture;

 

contentedness, satisfaction;

 

cheerfulness,

 

gladness; gaiety, jollity, joy;

 

delectation, delight,

 

enjoyment, pleasure;

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji,

 

I bow down to you, Sir, for you see Her Divine presence everywhere.

But you will agree that Her play is quite wild and mad, and now in

this mad play She wants me to bring in a word of dissent with what

you are saying. I would like to ask what happens to people when they

are blinded to Her presence in this world? Doesn't it then become sad

and painful? I think it is this truth that the Budhha was speaking

about when he said that this world is painful.

 

You ask to be told where that unhappiness is and where is the pain

that Buddha found. I will do that, for I am presently given over to a

mood of sadness, to a deep quality of sadness that pervades this

entire world of samsara. It is the primordial sadness where all of

life must be painful, where there is a sadness that even underlies

our happiest moments. I am just back from a scene of death, and I

have in the last two days seen the void and abyss that one find

oneself in when somebody who is dear and near to you is suddenly no

more. This sadness suddenly comes to the fore in such situations and

confronts you with its utter incomprehendibility. It is not merely

the sadness pertaining to the death of a particular person, but a

sadness that belongs to the very core of life-in-the-world as it

springs forth into this creation. It is the sadness that you see when

suddenly confronted with that truth that made Yudhishtira remark

about the strangeness of life where we see death everywhere, where we

know the inevitability of death, and yet continue to live unheeded to

this fact, blinded to the truth that lies verily in front of our

eyes. The Buddha's call was a call to die to this world of inevitable

pain and to awaken to That Presence (by whatever name you may call

it, whether it be Void or the Goddess) wherein lies freedom from

pain. You, Nairji, are talking of the happiness that lies in the

vision of Truth when you say the world is not painful, and the Buddha

is talking of the pain when you are blinded to Truth. And there is no

better expression of this pain and sorrow that lies at the bottom of

samsara than what you find in the words of the Buddha, no, not even

in Vedanta.

 

I made a mention about the incomprehendibility of this sadness. This

incomprehendibility lies in the unanswerability of the question of

why there is evil or sadness in the world. It doesn't go away by

saying that avidya is beginningless. It doesn't go away with any

answer at all that we give in samsara. Its going away is only self-

referencing to its going away in liberation - that is all that we can

be provisionally satisfied with. And the true sadhaka is one who is

not satisfied with provisional answers.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Chittaranjanji.

>

> Nothwithstanding all the agreement that I, as an advaitin, have

found

> with the Buddha, I have to take exception with regard to your quote

> of Him. I am sure this would delight the pure Sankara fans who had

> previously questioned me on my empathy with Him.

>

> The world is not painful. It is happiness.

>

> I have cervical spondylosis. It hurts much on the neck, the collar

> bones and the hands. I have Achilles heels with calcaneal spurs.

> That also hurts. Both give me immense opportunities to call out to

> Her in pain! My sugar levels also trigger thoughts of Her! That is

> happiness, Sir. That is when I see my body as just a thing that I

> incidentally possess and know that the pains are on that

possession.

> From that angle, physical agony and conjugal paroxysm (Sorry,

> brahmachArins!) make no difference. They are all one.

>

> There is the body staggering in daze chanting Her names. It is

full

> of cakrAs - not the traditional six or seven of them but an

infinite

> number of them from toes to top. I am the Kundalini that light

them

> up as crimson lotuses with She seated on all of them. I should be

> really ignorant to see them differently as pain and pleasure, then

> groan and gyrate like a fool!

>

> Tell me now where is unhappiness. Where is the pain Buddha found?

>

> I am praying with my eyes closed. Mrs. Nair walks in with a

mundane

> problem for which she wants an immediate solution. The TV doesn't

> switch on. She can't wait. I see a disturbance. My happiness in

> prayer is disturbed. I can get irritated, be unhappy and spoil the

> rest of the day. No Sir. That is erecting pain where it is really

> absent. See the Lady in the disturbance again seated on yet

another

> lotus. She has brought Mrs. Nair out there to test me. Salute

Her,

> attend to the other lady's problem and, if possible, return to the

> prayer where also She is there in full. If I don't get to complete

> my prayer, that again is Her will. Why fret? Prayer not completed

> is worry only for the one with prayership. Salute the Lady once

> more. Where is unhappiness?

>

> I don't know if Dennisji will take this point of view. But, I am

> speaking from experience although I still have a long way to go.

>

> We have pain only when we falsely identify with our body, mind,

> intellect, ego and roles. Otherwise, there is only happiness where

> we are always free like the end of the journey Buddha described.

We

> are already at the end. We just fail to realize that.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ______________________________

>

>

>

>

> advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

> <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> >

> > And now, lest Nairji accuse me of bringing in one more Westerner

> > while ignoring the Indian Buddha, let me end by quoting from the

> > Dhammapada:

> >

> > "It is painful to leave the world; it is painful to be in the

> world;

> > and it is painful to be alone amongst the many. The long road of

> > samsara is a road of pain to the traveller: let him rest by the

> road

> > and be free."

> >

> > And in the end that had no beginning...

> >

> > "The traveller has reached the end of the journey! In the freedom

> of

> > the infinite he is free from all sorrows, the fetters that bound

> him

> > are thrown away, and the burning fever of life is no more."

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji,

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Chittaranjan quoted a long passage from Nietzsche, much to

> my surprise.

 

This was only to emphasize that happiness is innate to Self, and

therefore shines through more clearly when the mind is still. This is

not different than what you are saying. In the uncontained happiness

of Zarathustra's noontide, I thought that the correlation between

stillness and happiness was quite unmistakable, but I could be

mistaken.

> In my latest book (which,I must confess, is on

> the topic of meaning, purpose and happiness - surprise,

> surprise!) I was summarising relevant views from

> western philosophy. My concluding paragraph on Nietzsche

> was:

>

> "But Nietzsche was wide of the mark when he set his aims.

> His ideals were mistaken, participating in those aspects

> of man's nature that are part of his limitations. He was

> seeking the empowerment of the ego, not the realisation of

> his true nature. His is the way of fear and led the man

> himself to insanity at the age of 44."

>

> Though I have a copy of 'Also sprach Zarathustra' somewhere,

> I haven't actually read it. (Oops!) Am I completely off mark

> in my uninformed summary?

 

No Dennisji, you are not completely off the mark, but I think you are

missing out on something. It is necessary to recognize that, like the

man himself, Nietzsche's philosophy is neurotic and cannot be read as

a single verse. There are two contradictory verses running through

Nietzsche, one of them being deeply spiritual and the other a

pampering of the ego. Nietzsche's Overman is born by discarding the

posturing of the mind to build a table of values that is free of

disgust and envy. Nietzsche's Will to Power is not about conquering

the world, but truly about conquering the man within oneself so that

he may become Overman. The Overman is a light-hearted child that

acquiesces to the Will - his own Will. If Christ said that you must

turn the other cheek when somebody slaps you, the Overman says that

you must laugh and say that I hit myself (Thus Spoke Zarathustra).

Can we not hear the words of the aborning Overman in Zarathustra?

 

"There it was too that I picked up the word 'Overman' and that man is

something that must be overcome, that man is a bridge and not a goal;

counting himself happy for his noontides and evenings, as a way to a

new dawn...."

 

"As a poet, reader of riddles, and redeemer of chance, I taught them

to create the future, and to redeem by creating - all that was past."

 

"To redeem that part of mankind and to transform every 'It was',

until the will says: 'But I willed it thus! So shall I will it."

 

"This did I call redemption, this alone did I teach them to call

redemption."

 

 

Nietzsche recognized that redemption was actually the loss of ego, of

one's individual will, and in the chapter of the "Stillest Hour", we

see him shrinking back from this truth:

 

"Then voicelessly, something said to me: 'You know, Zarathustra?' And

I cried out for terror at this whisper, and the blood drained from my

face: but I kept silent.... 'You know Zarathustra, but you do not

speak!'"

 

"And I wept and trembled like a child and said: 'Alas, I want to, but

how can I? Release me from this alone! It is beyond my strength!"

 

"Then something said to me voicelessly: 'Of what consequence are you,

Zarathustra? Speak your teachings and break! 'You are not yet humble

enough. Humility has the toughest hide.'"

 

 

Surely, Nietzsche had seen the truth of what stays the soul from

itself. But Nietzsche's neurotic ego refused to acquiesce. Again, can

we not hear the ego refusing to die in these words of Zarathustra?

 

"O my soul's predestination, which I call destiny! In-me! Over-me!

Preserve and spare me for a great destiny!

 

"And your last greatness, my will, save for your last - that you may

be inexorable in your victory! Ah, who has not succumbed to his own

victory!

 

"O Will, my essential, my necessity, dispeller of need! Spare me for

one great victory!"

 

 

Surely, Nietzsche's philosophy was sprung out of an epiphany. This

passage from his autobiographical "Ecce Homo" is evidence of that

fact:

 

"Has anyone at the end of the nineteenth century a distinct

conception of what poets of strong ages called inspiration? If not I

will describe it, - If one has the slightest residue of superstition

left in one, one would hardly be able to set aside the idea that one

is merely incarnation, merely mouthpiece, merely medium of

overwhelming forces. The concept of revelation, in the sense that

something suddenly, with unspeakable certainty and subtlety, becomes

visible, audible, something that shakes and overturns one to the

depths, simply describes the fact. One hears, one does not seek; one

takes, one does not ask who gives; a thought flashes up like

lightning, with necessity, unalteringly formed - I have never had any

choice. An ecstasy whose tremendous tension sometimes discharges

itself in a flood of tears, while one's steps now involuntarily rush

along, now involuntarily lag; ... a depth of happiness in which the

most painful and gloomy things appear, not as an antithesis, but as

conditioned, demanded, as a necessary color within such a superfluity

of light;.... Everything is in the highest degree involuntary but

takes place as in a tempest of a feeling of freedom, of absoluteness,

of power, of divinity."

 

 

But Nietzsche was a nihilist, and he sought to build the earth on a

misguided principle of the Dionysian affirmation of life - and it is

this misreading of Dionysis rather than nihilism that was responsible

for Nietzsche's fall from sanity. From "Beyond Good and Evil":

 

" .. what questions has this Will to Truth not laid before us! What

strange, perplexing, questionable, questions! .... That this Sphinx

teaches us at last to ask questions ourselves? Who is it that puts

questions to us here? .... Granted that we want the truth: why not

rather untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance? The problem of the

value of truth presented itself before us -- or was it we who

presented ourselves before the problem? Which of us is the Oedipus

here? Which the Sphinx? The falseness of an opinion is not for us any

objection to it; it is here, perhaps, that our new language sounds

strangest. The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering,

life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps species-rearing; and we

are fundamentally inclined to maintain that the falsest opinions are

the most indispensable to us .... To recognize untruth as a

condition of life; that is certainly to impugn the traditional ideas

of value in a dangerous manner, and a philosophy that ventures to do

so, has by this alone placed itself beyond good and evil."

 

 

Surely we are compelled to ask Nietzsche whether it is truth or

falseness that is the life-furthering principle when we put our

fingers into the fire.

 

My apologies for this rather long digression, but Nietzsche affects

me like that. To me, Nietzsche is both the luminous and dark

representative of the crisis of God and Christianity in the West at

its decisive turning point. Nietzsche poignantly symbolizes the loss

of faith – God is dead! – and the innocent desire to give birth to

God through man, the Overman. But the ego had to have its say – If

there were gods, how can I bear not to be a god!. I see in Nietzsche

an example of what may happen to a man in whom the Kundalini awakens

without the ego having begun to bow down to the guru.

 

> Chittaranjan recklessly introduced the 'problem of

> determinism and free-will'.

 

Yes, Dennisji, I am aware that I have a reckless streak in me. It is

a fault that I must learn to temper and control.

 

> Clearly he does not realise that this is one of my hobby

> horses! I will not rise to the bait however and merely

> refer him to my essay on the subject at my website.

 

I was only pointing to the fact that placing the cause of pleasure

outside of the self and into the brain was making pleasure appear

rather deterministic. The brain as cause is a causality placed in

space-time by the Self, and if one considers this, then all causes

remain within the Self. Thus the cause of pleasure too is to be

sought within the happiness of Self, perhaps as the radiance of that

same happiness as it filters through the pneumatic prisms of mind and

body. That was all that I wanted to say, and I assure you that I

wasn't placing any bait. (I had of course already read your essay on

Free Will and Determinism.) :-)

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik

wrote:

> This

> incomprehendibility lies in the unanswerability of

> the question of

> why there is evil or sadness in the world. It

> doesn't go away by

> saying that avidya is beginningless. It doesn't go

> away with any

> answer at all that we give in samsara. Its going

> away is only self-

> referencing to its going away in liberation - that

> is all that we can

> be provisionally satisfied with. And the true

> sadhaka is one who is

> not satisfied with provisional answers.

 

Namaste,

 

May I please offer something from Shankara Digvijaya

of Madhava Vidyaranya trans. by Swami Tapasyananda.

After Shankara had spent some time discussing the

Brahma Sutras with Vyasa it became necessary for Vyasa

to leave.

(59-67) Though himself an illumined sage, Shankara

felt sad at the departure of the great Vyasa. How can

any person help feeling sad when the force of

circumstances separates him from such centres

radaiating universal love? Shankara, the greatest

among Sannyasins, somehow assuaged his own grief by

feeling Vyasa's presence in his heart through

meditation, and soon started, as desired by him, on a

spiritual conquest of the whole land of Bharata.'

 

Although I write with understanding of the emptiness

following a death may I please also offer the

following. I have a friend who has spent her adult

life serving people and her home has been turned into

a temple for the weekly bhajans. Last year she had a

serious back operation, her elderly mother died, her

husband died suddenly and then she herself had a

stroke and lost her power of speech for a few weeks.

All these events occurred with a space of about one

month.

Having been firmly set on her devotional path she had

recently begun to search for a more 'jnani'

understanding. Unfortunately she has got stuck with

this question 'Why?'.

It is a great obstacle and time after time drives her

back into depression. I cannot help her to rest in the

much more useful question, 'Keneshitam'...by whose

will is it? 'Why' always leads to ahamkara, hence

attachment. 'Who' as a question directs us to the true

nature of the person whose embodiment has ended as

well as our embodiments which are continuing for

whatever reason.

 

This has been more easily established for another

friend who has advanced MS and whose wife, upon whom

he has been dependant, died last November after a

brain haemorrhage. Although he frequently wakes

wishing that he had not awoken to another day he

understands that all this is under observation so it

cannot maintain its grip, so he does not get stuck. It

is only attachment that prevents us from

understanding:

 

'Birth and death are events only noticed by others.'

 

May you all rest in the peace that never departs,

 

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> And there is no

> better expression of this pain and sorrow that lies at the bottom

of

> samsara than what you find in the words of the Buddha, no, not even

> in Vedanta.

 

 

Namaste,

 

Not so!

 

Brihadaranyaka upan. 4:4:14 -

"Verily, while we are here we may know this: if not, we would be

ignorant, great is the destruction. Those who know this become

immortal while others go only to sorrow."

 

Shvetashvatara upan.:

"That which is beyond this world is without form and without

suffering. Those who know that become immortal., but others go only

to sorrow." 3:10

"When men shall roll up space as if it were a piece of leather, then

will there be an end of sorrow, apart from knowing God." 6:20

 

Chandogya 6:26:2

"He who sees this does not see death, nor illness, nor sorrow."

 

Gita :

"...no more this home of transience and misery...." 8:15

 

"...Having come into this impermanent and unhappy world, engage

yourself in My worship..." 9:33

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ken-ji,

 

I might have been a bit reckless - a trait in me that Dennisji

correctly points out - by saying that a true sadhaka is one who is

not satisfied with provisional answers. Of course, this is only true

for sadhakas in the questioning path and not for a bhakta that is not

concerned with the "why" of things. After all, the end of questioning

is the dissolving of this question, and it would seem that the bhakta

with his faith in the Lord is more efficient in reaching the end.

Perhaps it is all a question of where one is situated in one's

journey through the unnumbered births.

 

But Kenji, I don't believe that the question "why" leads to ahamkara.

The question "why" is the other side of avidya. Ahamkara is not the

same as avidya, though avidya leads to ahamkara sending out its

armies on wild conquests to build its vain empires.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

advaitin, ken knight <anirvacaniya> wrote:

>

> --- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik>

> wrote:

> > This

> > incomprehendibility lies in the unanswerability of

> > the question of

> > why there is evil or sadness in the world. It

> > doesn't go away by

> > saying that avidya is beginningless. It doesn't go

> > away with any

> > answer at all that we give in samsara. Its going

> > away is only self-

> > referencing to its going away in liberation - that

> > is all that we can

> > be provisionally satisfied with. And the true

> > sadhaka is one who is

> > not satisfied with provisional answers.

>

> Namaste,

>

> May I please offer something from Shankara Digvijaya

> of Madhava Vidyaranya trans. by Swami Tapasyananda.

> After Shankara had spent some time discussing the

> Brahma Sutras with Vyasa it became necessary for Vyasa

> to leave.

> (59-67) Though himself an illumined sage, Shankara

> felt sad at the departure of the great Vyasa. How can

> any person help feeling sad when the force of

> circumstances separates him from such centres

> radaiating universal love? Shankara, the greatest

> among Sannyasins, somehow assuaged his own grief by

> feeling Vyasa's presence in his heart through

> meditation, and soon started, as desired by him, on a

> spiritual conquest of the whole land of Bharata.'

>

> Although I write with understanding of the emptiness

> following a death may I please also offer the

> following. I have a friend who has spent her adult

> life serving people and her home has been turned into

> a temple for the weekly bhajans. Last year she had a

> serious back operation, her elderly mother died, her

> husband died suddenly and then she herself had a

> stroke and lost her power of speech for a few weeks.

> All these events occurred with a space of about one

> month.

> Having been firmly set on her devotional path she had

> recently begun to search for a more 'jnani'

> understanding. Unfortunately she has got stuck with

> this question 'Why?'.

> It is a great obstacle and time after time drives her

> back into depression. I cannot help her to rest in the

> much more useful question, 'Keneshitam'...by whose

> will is it? 'Why' always leads to ahamkara, hence

> attachment. 'Who' as a question directs us to the true

> nature of the person whose embodiment has ended as

> well as our embodiments which are continuing for

> whatever reason.

>

> This has been more easily established for another

> friend who has advanced MS and whose wife, upon whom

> he has been dependant, died last November after a

> brain haemorrhage. Although he frequently wakes

> wishing that he had not awoken to another day he

> understands that all this is under observation so it

> cannot maintain its grip, so he does not get stuck. It

> is only attachment that prevents us from

> understanding:

>

> 'Birth and death are events only noticed by others.'

>

> May you all rest in the peace that never departs,

>

>

> Ken Knight

>

>

>

>

>

> New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji,

 

Of course I was not meaning that the expression of sorrow is not

there in the Vedas. As you point out, it is very much there. The

Vedas however cover every aspect of life in the pursuit of all the

four aims of life - kama, artha, dharma and moksha - and accordingly

one finds in it the expression of sorrow embedded amongst other

expressions. But in Buddhism, sorrow is very central: it is the first

of the four noble truths that the Buddha discovered and accordingly

the expression of sorrow pervades its doctrine. It is in this respect

that I meant that there is no better expression of the sorrow

underlying this world than one can find in the Buddha's words.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

> <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> > And there is no

> > better expression of this pain and sorrow that lies at the bottom

> of

> > samsara than what you find in the words of the Buddha, no, not

even

> > in Vedanta.

>

>

> Namaste,

>

> Not so!

>

> Brihadaranyaka upan. 4:4:14 -

> "Verily, while we are here we may know this: if not, we would be

> ignorant, great is the destruction. Those who know this become

> immortal while others go only to sorrow."

>

> Shvetashvatara upan.:

> "That which is beyond this world is without form and without

> suffering. Those who know that become immortal., but others go only

> to sorrow." 3:10

> "When men shall roll up space as if it were a piece of leather,

then

> will there be an end of sorrow, apart from knowing God." 6:20

>

> Chandogya 6:26:2

> "He who sees this does not see death, nor illness, nor sorrow."

>

> Gita :

> "...no more this home of transience and misery...." 8:15

>

> "...Having come into this impermanent and unhappy world, engage

> yourself in My worship..." 9:33

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Of course I was not meaning that the expression of sorrow is not

> there in the Vedas. As you point out, it is very much there. The

> Vedas however cover every aspect of life in the pursuit of all the

> four aims of life - kama, artha, dharma and moksha - and

accordingly

> one finds in it the expression of sorrow embedded amongst other

> expressions. But in Buddhism, sorrow is very central: it is the

first

> of the four noble truths that the Buddha discovered and accordingly

> the expression of sorrow pervades its doctrine.

 

Namaste,

 

Buddha may have been anticipating this 'Iron Age'! (Kali Yuga)

 

It seems ironic that the name of his leading disciple

was 'Ananda'! Buddha never commented on the Upanishadic Noble Truth

of 'tat tvam asi'(That Thou Art) or 'shruNvantu vishve amritasya

putrAH' (May all the sons of the Immortal listen!).

 

A later path made 'sin' the central theme.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>And there is no better expression of this pain and sorrow

>that lies at the bottom of samsara than what you find in

>the words of the Buddha, no, not even in Vedanta.

 

 

Your entire message was quite eloquent. My condolences on the

departure of your loved one.

 

If I may be allowed to speak in rough general terms, I think that the

Buddha's vision was that of the 'sensitive' soul and the Vedantic

vision is that of the 'cosmic' soul. The first is sensitive to the

pain of the ephemeral, and the second thrilled by the bliss of the

eternal.

 

When stated in these terms, I find the second quite preferable. And

this choice has a lot of personal meaning for me. For many years, I

was prone to sadness, melancholy, depression, and so forth. And I

know how futile and insensitive it is to tell someone in such a state

to simply cheer up since it is 'all in the mind'. His reply would be

that suffering is painful, regardless of where it is.

 

Yet I now realize that happiness and sadness are primarily and merely

modifications of the mind. We need to observe them with detachment,

like the witness, in order to understand their true nature and become

free of them. I now wish to have peace of mind above all else. So I

discard any sad thought when it arises, if I can, for I know that

once it 'takes hold' I may spiral down into depression, through

psychological cause and effect. I simply brush it aside in my mind

while it is still a faint impression, if I can.

 

You may say that this is impossible in extreme cases, such as the

death of a family member. For so many years I was so sad because I

had no one to cling to (i.e. a wife). This may sound like an

embarrassing personal confession to most readers, but I assure you

that an important part of spiritual development is to analyze all

attachment, to both objects and people, from the standpoint of the

detached witness. We need to understand this blind urge, this dark

and tamasic impulse, to cling to someone for comfort and security. I

am not saying it is 'wrong' in itself; I am saying that it makes us

vulnerable to misery if we do not have it. This urge is also

craving, and it can enslave our minds.

 

Frankly, I am glad that I spent a life alone, for I have finally

learned how to be at peace with myself. I may get sad sometimes, but

if I just meditate for long enough, the sadness dissolves into a

luminous tranquility. It is all in the mind, no matter how

oppressive and real it may seem when we are under its influence.

 

An important step towards spirituality is to *want* to have a

peaceful and luminous consciousness under all circumstances. I do

not say I am there yet, but I have made considerable progress, and it

was slow and painful. And I know how dark clinging can take hold of

our mind, so that we end up clinging to the sadness itself. In

other words, we are not just sad because of what we don't have, but

we become addicted to the sadness itself. This may sound unlikely

but believe me it is true. Most people in this condition simply

don't realize it, because they are so self-absorbed (i.e.

ego-absorbed) and their mind is thus filled with darkness.

 

One reason I have left Christianity is because of what I consider an

unhealthy emphasis on suffering. I don't think that Christ nailed on

a cross is a good image to have permeating our subconsciousness.

Yes, I know it is all about self-sacrifice, but I still consider it a

depressing and unhealthy influence. It leads to that dark and

tamasic state of melancholy I was just discussing. Look at the

Indian Gods, both Hindu and Buddhist. Krishna is charming,

optimistic and happy. Buddha is serene and peaceful. The big

picture of Shiva and Parvati where I go to satsangh has them both

with smiling faces and outstretched palm in a gesture of

friendliness. This is the correct and positive image to plant on our

consciousness (or subconsciousness as the case may be).

 

By the way, as I said yesterday, the melancholy Buddha is the Buddha

of Early Buddhism. The later Mahayana became much more positive and

'cosmic' in its outlook, and Buddha became a Hindu God for all

practical purposes. As I have said so many times, the 'emptiness' of

Mahayana is nothing but the peace and bliss of Pure Consciousness.

How is that different from Vedanta?

 

If we surrender to the infinite consciousness, whatever we call it,

we can reach peace and communion with the infinite. Then all is a

dream, and death is no different than an actor leaving the stage. We

should simply love whichever manifestations we are with and see no

difference between them, since them are all reflections of the Self.

It is all a game, a drama, a colorful dream, the play of

consciousness. Not always easy to do in practice, but at least it is

possible. We should think this way at all times, even if we still

have moments of weakness.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

R. S. Mani said:

 

"<<<Children are an excellent example of how happiness is not in the

object.>>>

Because they have (more or less) total ignorance, and it is when they pick

up notions about the Self, as they grow up, they develop all the problems

shadowing their happiness."

 

I don't think it is ignorance that children have - ignorance in the sense

being discussed means wrong notions about life. I think 'innocence' is a

more appropriate word.

 

Nairji sees happiness amidst the pains and frustrations of day to day life

and says: "I don't know if Dennisji will take this point of view." Well, I

can't say that I have yet attained to this state but of course I agree that

'in reality' all is happiness - even misery.

 

Actually, the 'light-in-a-box' metaphor applies to practically anything you

like. Inside the box is the light (Ananda-truth-love or whatever) but with

the lid of our mind-ego-ignorance we cover it over to greater or lesser

degrees. Even with the lid tightly closed and experiencing deep depression

and hating everything around us, the bliss and love is still there within,

waiting to shine forth if only we would let it. The misery and pain is just

like the rope mistaken for a snake.

 

Ramji asks: "I will put the question in the reverse direction: "Is there any

case when a man who has possessions is happy all the time?"

 

Yes - if the 'man' is self-realised. But then, of course, you will say that

they are not his possessions and pedantically this is always true for

everyone. The problems arise when we identify with them, claiming them as

'ours'. Many of those that we think of as true sages certainly renounced

everything - Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi - or lived in poverty -

Nisargadatta Maharaj - but presumably there are some who continued to live

in relative comfort, merely no longer feeling any attachment to their

'possessions'? Perhaps Sri Atmananda? Ramesh Balsekar? There remains a

question mark over many of the current teachers, of course, in respect of

their complete enlightenment so maybe we cannot give many other examples.

 

Benjamin said: "You think that unfulfilled desires inevitably lead to mental

frustration, so that it is best to pull up the desires by the roots, as it

were."

 

Did I say that? I don't think so and certainly don't recollect it. 'Pulling

the desires up by the roots' sounds suspiciously like trying to get the ego

to commit suicide! My understanding is that the only way to 'conquer'

desires is to take up higher desires. As Advaitins, we endeavour to take up

the highest desire of all - that of realising the Self.

 

There was also a long paragraph about dreams. Not sure what to say about

that. I'm still intending to write a novel about dreams sometime. Perhaps we

should have a topic on the subject sometime. (Offers Benjamin?) Certainly on

the face of it, all they have to offer us from the Advaitin viewpoint is

alerting us to the illusory nature of the waking state. But there must be

more to it than this. Love is another potential topic but perhaps that will

all be covered under j~nAna and bhakti?

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Thank you Benjaminji. After reading your message - which was not at

all rough - I would say that you are a sensitive soul with a cosmic

outlook.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>

> >And there is no better expression of this pain and sorrow

> >that lies at the bottom of samsara than what you find in

> >the words of the Buddha, no, not even in Vedanta.

>

>

> Your entire message was quite eloquent. My condolences on the

> departure of your loved one.

>

> If I may be allowed to speak in rough general terms, I think

> that the Buddha's vision was that of the 'sensitive' soul

> and the Vedantic vision is that of the 'cosmic' soul. The

> first is sensitive to the pain of the ephemeral, and the

> second thrilled by the bliss of the eternal.

>

> When stated in these terms, I find the second quite

> preferable. And this choice has a lot of personal meaning

> for me......