Enlightenment,,,,,,,,

[Guest guest]

Blessed Self <br><br>Allow me to comment on your

argument, viz.,<br><br><<Why Krishna is so illogical

giving riches to one, and poverty to one, health to one

and cancer to other, life for one and death for

other, marriage for one, rapes for other>>

yourself. For me, answer to every 'why' is 'why

not?'<br><br>I found your above comment of "why not?" to be

disrespectful and misleading. <br><br>If you do not know the

answer, it is enough to admit that you don't know. You do

not have to be defensive and attack the person asking

the question.<br><br>The answer to the question lies

in karma, the events described are neither good or

bad. They are responses to our own actions, ways of

educating us to the futility or inappropriateness of prior

actions. As well, they are signposts pointing to the

direction that we should be taking. Our reaction to

those<br>events determines if more signposts will be coming our

way.<br><br>The question cannot be answered if it is posed, as

yours is, in emotional terms. One has to be outside of

emotion and be absorbed in Satchidananda to know the full

answer to that type of question. Only a Self-Realized

Guru knows the details of a person's karma and he or

she isn't about disclose that knowledge.<br><br>Om

and Prem

[Guest guest]

<<So there are many examples of people not

attempting to save themselves from impending death because

they have a greater vision or good in mind.

>><br><br>It is the conditioning that works in every case. In

case of Shankara, the conditioning was to run away

when attacked by a beast. In case of Sivananda, it was

something different. But it was conditioning nevertheless.

<br><br>So many soldiers die in battlefield by chosing to

fight rather than to run away. That is their

conditioning. If a soldier returns alive and says he fought on

because he had a vision of 'Pure Consciousness', I would

say, 'Oh really?'.<br><br>Conditioning is the word.

Even after enlightenment, the conditioning remains.

The only difference is that the sage is not in

conflict with his conditioning. He accepts his own

conditioning and that of the others.<br><br>Hare

krishna.<br><br>Rajeev

[Guest guest]

<<Only a Self-Realized Guru knows the

details of a person's karma and he or she isn't about

disclose that knowledge.>><br><br>A self-realized

guru is not concerned with the person. He or she is

concerned with freedom from the person. He wouldn't

disclose the knowledge simply because he has no interest

in the karma of the body-mind mechanisms he comes

across. He is concerned about the plight of the body-mind

mechanisms which have an ego that produces thoughts that

give rise to a person who thinks that the karmas

happening through that body-mind mechanism are 'his'

karmas. Whew!<br><br>It is really simple. Our

conditioning makes it complex. We just do not want to accept

that the person around whom we have built such

beautiful concepts as soul, karma, retribution, life after

death, eternal life, divine body, etc. etc., doesn't

exist at all. It is a phantom. A nuisance.<br><br>Hare

krishna.<br><br>Rajeev

[Guest guest]

Deshpanderajeev<br><br>Again your sophistry

rises, but sophiistry not withstanding, a self-realized

guru is indeed concerned about the person whom he

chooses as a shishya. That is the entire point of the

guru-shishya relation. They are bound together until the

shishya attains Self-realization.<br><br>So the guru does

have an interest in the karma of the "mind-body

mechanisms", as you call them. He must have that interest in

order to be "concerned about the plight of the

mind-body mechanisms", as you put it . Their karma is their

plight! He or she would not be a guru if they did not

have such an interest. They would simply enter

mahasamadhi and be done with the illusion.<br><br>Yes, all is

an illusion but that is not saying anything useful

to anyone who is mesmerized by the illusion. A guru

knows the illusion from the inside and the outside

(please don't get pedantic on me and say there is no

inside or outside. Just go with the analogy). It is the

guru's task to lead the shishya to break the hold of the

ego.<br><br>Om and Prem

[Guest guest]

Deshpanderajeev<br><br>You brought up the idea

that people always act to save their own lives. My

response was to point out that that is not so.<br><br>To

bring in the idea of "conditioning" now, is again

misleading, perhaps even deceptive. In the case of Swami

Sivananda, are you trying to suggest that Pure Consciousness

is a form of conditioning? If so, the value of Pure

Consciousness and of the sadhana required to attain it are

tainted and no more preferable that any other form of

conditioning. With your theory, one just chooses which

condition he or she wants to aspire to-sage, tyrant,

murderer, guru, business tycoon, Liberated Soul, Head of

State - and then goes through a conditioning process to

arrive at that condition. I think not.<br><br>The

purpose of sadhana is to remove conditioning and to crack

the ego. Self-realization is the result of that

process.<br><br>Om and Prem

[Guest guest]

<<, one just chooses which condition he or

she wants to aspire to-sage, tyrant, murderer, guru,

business tycoon, Liberated Soul, Head of State - and then

goes through a conditioning process to arrive at that

condition. I think not.>><br><br>chooses on the basis

of what ?<br>past conditioning ?<br>is there a

choice ?<br>the foolish ego would like to live in the

delusion that it HAS a choice because it(ego) is nothing

but ALL the rigid past conditioning put

together.<br><br><<The purpose of sadhana is to remove conditioning and

to crack the ego. Self-realization is the result of

that process.>><br><br>You are perfectly right

in this.<br>But i think rajeev's intellectual

standpoint is different from yours , hence the

confusion.<br>You stand in reality as many(including myself)

percieve it.<br>But rajeev , as he admitted takes a

stand(intellectual) of a realised soul and says there is nothing much

to do.<br><br>Which is better ? i don't

know?<br>Whatever one feels 'inclined' to is better.

[Guest guest]

what is a foolish ego?all ego is foolish !<br><br>dhruba

[Guest guest]

Dear audarya you wrote<br><br><<<<I

have to say from reading this that you are suffering

from the very problem that you are

addressing.>>>>><br><br> If everyone else is free here to post

one's

ideas, do I not enjoy this liberty ? I am neither a Guru

nor an elightened soul...I am as truth seeking and

ignorant sadhka as you or others are. <br><br> What I have

said is the truth revealed in Upanishadas--Advait

Vedanta is not my personal discovery. Upanishadas

revealed some truths and some saints interpreted them in

simple words. Now some take one meaning as truth, others

take a different explanation as truth. <br><br> We

have with Dear Mayeswara discussed this in details,

perhpas you may like to read the old messages as there is

no use repeating the same arguments and

counter-arguments.<br><br>further u wrote <<This statement makes it at

least

appear that you view Advaita Vedanta as the Absolute

truth - >>> You are putting words into my

mouth...i never said it is absolute truth.<br><br> Advait

vedanta,dwaita, Krishna, Shiva, Shakti and Kundalini are all

highest truths of our religion and they are

interconnected and interwoven. Togather they make the abolute

truth...or perhaps still a part of the absolute truth.

Rather these truths are like circumference of the

truth...each encircling the centre (the absolute) none above

none below, none new none old, none first none last...

and each if joined by a perpendicular, reaches

straight to the centre(Absolute truth).<br><br> As i wrote

earlier too there is NO untruth in this Universal

system...what appears as Untruth to our mind is either a Truth

in the Making or truth in the Breaking !!<br><br> So

instead of proving others wrong...let us establish our

faith in our own path taking it as highest truth....and

reach The Excellent !<br><br> Why not write the Amrit

Vachna of your gurujee, or about meditation or its

obstacles and results....sadhna is away from this

confusion...Sadhna is sadhna it is same for all the paths...it is a

common connecting thread of all faiths.<br><br>Let us do

sadhna....let us wake up to the truth !!<br><br>Hari Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

here is an answer in the same mood as your

reply<br><br>the ego is foolish because :<br><br>-you had to judge

"all ego is foolish !"<br>-instead of concentrating on

the issue you have to go into vague semantics, to

prove what but the foolishness of the ego.<br>-i am

having to reply to you out of 'ego'<br>-your id is

'realized soul'<br>- there is ego<br>-and there is ego that

laughs upon itself and its own vanity, is it foolish

?<br>-strangely, it is the ego that deludes us and it is the ego

that carries us beyond itself.<br>-anything that you

are 'doing', is it outside of the confines of the ego

?<br>-ask yourself? not me.<br><br>-So many alter egos on

the web, who can say which single mind is behind how

many ids ?

[Guest guest]

Dear Silent Soul,<br><br>I agree that we are here

to help each other grow spiritually. I also like

your suggestion to post the words of my beloved

Gurudeva. Thank you very much.<br><br>Of course you are

free to post here as everyone. I wasn't challenging

you or looking for a verbal contest. I was merely

pointing out the discrepency in your words in that you

stated a problem and then participated in it -

bas.<br><br>I agree that truth itself must encompass and

account for all truths.<br><br>Anyway, happy day - hare

krsna<br><br>your servant,<br>Audarya lila dasa

[Guest guest]

tks for understanding me dear. It is very easy to

discuss after reading a few books....but it is a great

thing to become a Bhakta.<br><br> I personally feel, a

tear dropped for our beloved Krishna is millions times

more valuable than great sadhna, tapasya or

gyana.<br><br> Krishna loves us all....only we do not love

him....In a bowl song the singer sings "Gyaner Agamya

Tumhi..Prem ke Bhikhari, Dware Mango Prem Nayne te

Vari"<br><br> O Hari You who are not even understood by great

gyanis...have come to my door with tears in your eyes..asking

for my love !<br><br> I will be grateful if you could

enlighten us with the Sadhna of Gaudiya Darshan and what

Moksha means to you.<br><br><br>With

love<br><br>silentsoul

[Guest guest]

Saraswati_chandra<br><br>If you are going to

quote one of my posts, at least have the decency to

quote the whole sentence. Then, it would be evident

that the statement does not express my personally-held

belief but is a response to another's post. The

statement is pointing out implications of that other

person's statements and asking if that is what he really

believes and intended to say. Your comments concerning my

post are irrelevent, especially in view of the next

paragraph of my post.<br><br>Please let the poster rely for

himself. Muddying the waters serves no

purpose.<br><br>Your second comment about a 'stand (intellectual) of a

realized soul' is an impossibility and, again, serves no

useful purpose. One cannot have an intellectual

appreciation of Self-realization. To pretend otherwise is just

an exercise in ego. And that was the point of my

comments to the poster. I am asking the poster to make his

presentation more cogent with fewer logical lapses. That way

we can see what he really has to say. <br><br>As

this a message board, we are reduced to using words

and logic. So there should be clarity and logical

validity. That is all I ask. To avoid either presenting or

commenting on a clear and logically valid presentation by

resorting to a plea of 'conditioning' is not useful and, in

fact, makes one wonder whether or not the poster has

thought out his opinions or is just posting other

people's ideas and words without understanding

them.<br><br>The other type of posting is devotional -- posting

scriptural messages or devotional poetry. That is not the

case with the poster I was responding to.<br><br>Om

and Prem

[Guest guest]

Dear omprem and founders,<br><br>I do not know

why the outburst ?<br>Some direct questions into the

crux of a matter reveal quite a lot about it, hence i

have a feeling that you got "hurt" by them(questions).

All i have highlighted is that you and i have a point

of view which is quite common ie. being unrealized

we have to work toeards enlightenment. And rajeev's

view as i had previously asked a clarification from

hom is that of advaita albeit only intellectually. If

you have read any of the well accepted and

authoritative treatises on advaita like---<br>--Ashtavakra

Geeta<br>--Yoga Vashishta<br>--Nisargadutta<br>and many others,

it would be found by you that what one learns from

this is a total dissociation of the ultimate

reality(I) from the illusion of the world, the workings of

the world being a continium according to its

prarabdha. The question i raised with rajeev is that whather

he has actually realised this to be true or it is an

intellectual stand and i am happy to say that he fully

accepted this to be an intellectual stand but a stand that

he fully believes in. Now to the points that you

have raised :<br><br>1)as to not quoting whole of your

post, i trust anybody can easily access that but anyway

here it is--<br><<To bring in the idea of

"conditioning" now, is again misleading, perhaps even deceptive.

In the case of Swami Sivananda, are you trying to

suggest that Pure Consciousness is a form of

conditioning? If so, the value of Pure Consciousness and of the

sadhana required to attain it are tainted and no more

preferable that any other form of conditioning. With your

theory, one just chooses which condition he or she wants

to aspire to-sage, tyrant, murderer, guru, business

tycoon, Liberated Soul, Head of State - and then goes

through a conditioning process to arrive at that

condition. I think not.>><br><br>There is a grossly

illogical reasoning given by you in the "second

paragraph"--<br>you have wrongly quoted rajeev as implying that 'one

CHOOSES to be a sage or a tyrant etc..' which is not the

case . It was implied that even all choice is

predestined due to pre-conditioning(prarabdha). And realised

souls do not interfere with their prarabdha because

there is no sense of ownership of the body which bears

the prarabdha(my views).<br>2)I do not think only

rajeev has the copyright to reply to your communique to

him on this forum, if you so wish then you should not

be discussing this publicly.<br>3)Please prove it to

be a fact that, to have an intellectual stand of a

realised soul is impossible. And actually nothing like

"intellectual realization" exists as you seem to interpret this

as. It is two different things to be realised and to

to the views of a realized soul ie. ideas of

predestination, "i-am-that" and so on, and rajeev clearly

accepted before that he only has this intellectual belief

only and is not "intellectually self

-realised".<br>For me the waters are quite clear but you think them

to be 'muddied', it is only a different point of

view.<br>4)<<On this message board we a REDUCED to using words

and logic.....>><br>But if words and logic can

be used to point at their own limitations, why not

?<br>the poster(rajeev) had clearly said that his opinions

are somebody else's and only that he strongly

believes in them(may be you didn't read those posts) so

your intention to find this out is

misplaced.<br><br>continued...(for founders)

[Guest guest]

Saraswati_chandra<br><br>I can only assume that

you like to argue for the sake of arguing and hearing

your own voice.<br><br>As Sri Sankaracarya says in

'Vivekacudamani': <br>Two powers the ego has - of covering and of

distracting. To cure the power of distraction is very hard. It

cannot be done unless you have the power to do away with

the covering. The snake in the rope first covers and

then deceives. When you can separate the seer and the

seen. as the swam separates milk from water, then

naturally the power of covering goes away."

(344)<br><br>So, again, please actually read what I post before

responding, do not let your ego cover and

distract:<br><br>For the second time, I did not quote rajeev, rightly

or wrongly, that 'one chooses to be a saint or

tyrant, etc". I am more interested in his answer to my

question than in your comments on it. I wish to find out

what his views are and if he actually understands

those ideas of others that he claims to believe

in.<br><br>The rest of your points are too garbled and confused

to be responded to . Your condescension, your

skewing of my posts, your stream-of-conscious musings and

your wilful manipulations show all too well that you

fancy yourself to be educated but in fact are only

putting up a show of erudition for the sake of convincing

others and yourself that you are a pundit. You are not.

You are just massaging your ego often at the expense

of others. <br><br>Accordingly, I will no longer

respond to your posts as it would be just useless back

and forth banter serving no purpose and illuminating

nothing. "Let them that have ears to hear,

hear."<br><br>"It [self-Realization] cannot be done by talking. You

must burn this, root and all, in the fire of the

Atman, and then rest in that Atman, becoming thus ever

pure knowledge and bliss - the best of the knowers of

Brahman." Vivekacudamani. 413.

[Guest guest]

again thanks for choosing not to respond<br>but

if you are assuming that i may do likewise you are

mistaken.<br>My condescension shines thru ! Good, so it proves

that i have a nice healthy ego.<br>As for my post

appearing garbled to you, well that is not my fault.<br>Any

wilful manipulations etc are here for all to see and

understand, it was not very necessary to guide the

readers.<br>Anyway as you say, i'll wait for rajeev too.<br>Hope

that i have not hurt your ego too much, mine though is

quite intact and not affected much by accusations

without any basis.<br>Are you BTW feeling guilty about

something? Just a passing thought.

[Guest guest]

<<In the case of Swami Sivananda, are you

trying to suggest that Pure Consciousness is a form of

conditioning? >><br><br>No. All I wanted to point out was

that the way one acts in the world has everything to

do with his/her conditioning at that moment.

Sivananda could run away (in the given incident) and still

have an understanding of Pure Consciousness. But he

was probably conditioned to act like a brave man in

every circumstance.<br><br>The ego is a mechanism that

perpetuates the personality (one's self-image) and worsens

the conditioning. Suppose there are two body-mind

mechanisms, A and B. A has a full blown ego and therefore a

self-image whereby he thinks he is invincible and brave. B

is self-realised. When attacked by a mob, both may

resist and act in almost the same way. The difference is

in what happens afterwards. A thinks that 'he' has

saved 'himself', and what if next time the mob is

bigger, etc. B just knows that the body mind mechanism

has acted as per its conditioning at that time, and

is done away with the whole thing. He doesn't give

it a second thought. He is forever in the

present.<br><br>When a sage was asked, 'What would you do if someone

attacks you?' He said, 'I don't know'. And he meant it.

In case of a sage there is no premeditation, since

the mechanism responsible for premeditation, namely

the ego, is totally powerless in his case. He is

spontaneous, since he knows that the body-mind mechanism is

anyway going to act as per its conditioning, and he has

no 'personal' interest whatsoever in altering the

conditioning. Nor is he interested in investigating the

conditioning, hence the reply, 'I don't

know'.<br><br><<The purpose of sadhana is to remove conditioning and

to crack the ego. >><br><br>It is always the

ego which tries to give purpose to everything,

including saadhanaa. So long as complete surrender doesn't

happen, the saadhanaa itself is nothing but a movement of

the ego. The ego is not going to kill itself.

<br><br>UG Krishnamurti, whom many regard as enlightened,

says in his case the enlightenment (he uses words like

calamity and catastrophe) happened *despite* the

saadhanaas that he did prior to that. If you knew what

enlightenment is actually like, you wouldn't want

it.<br><br>Hare krishna.<br><br>Rajeev

[Guest guest]

<<Your second comment about a 'stand

(intellectual) of a realized soul' is an impossibility and,

again, serves no useful purpose.

>><br><br>Self-realisation is nothing but the falling off of the sense of

personal doership. This is the core fact, as it were. Is

it impossible to have an intellectual understanding

of this? It may not serve any useful purpose, but as

I have said in an earlier posting, it was after

this intellectual understanding that I resigned myself

to the possibility that there may not be

enlightenment for me, after all. So there is peace. So in a

way, it has proved useful, however distant it may be

from Enlightement. <br><br><<One cannot have an

intellectual appreciation of Self-realization. To pretend

otherwise is just an exercise in ego.>><br><br>What

do you mean by intellectual appreciation of

self-realization? I have already said that intellectual

understanding is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition

for enlightenment. Is that not clear enough? It is

the ego who has the intellectual understanding. It is

the ego that hopes that maybe this will work. I have

admitted it and shall admit it as often as it is required.

I don't want to pretend about

anything.<br><br><<And that was the point of my comments to the poster.

I am asking the poster to make his presentation

more cogent with fewer logical

lapses.>><br><br>As far as I can see, there has been no logical

lapse. I am glad saraswati_chandra has replied to much

of what you have said in a way quite coherent with

my understanding of the whole thing. Many thanks to

him.<br><br><<That way we can see what he really has to say.

>><br><br>I have to say what advaita vedanta has to say,

since that is what appeals to my intellect at present.

If it suits you, fine. If it doesn't,

fine.<br><br>Hare Krishna.<br><br>Rajeev