Easy enlightenment versus bumpy flying with a real guru

[Guest guest]

Om Namah Shivaya!

 

I am really happy for those folks who have reached easy non-dual

enlightenment...and I wish everyone enlightenment and grace...I

sincerely pray daily for that time when we have an outbreak of

hundreds of spontaneous enlightenments everywhere on this planet..

 

But, have you noticed that when people adopt a traditional

guru/master such as our Amma, life does not always become "Easy"? In

fact the purification can be very difficult at times.

 

What is the discrepancy? Some people are gliding along "enlightened"

even without a guru ....whilst some are struggling.

 

Although we may think we are enlightened, Amma has said in her talks

that the fully realized beings on earth could be counted on your

hands. I think full, genuine enlightenment is difficult. I believe

full enlightenment happens with a fully loving heart and fully loving

mind: Combined.

 

The mind, normally can glide along and feel "good", the personality

can feel strong...but if you really puncture into the nature of self

and personality, I believe that it is an electric mountain of fears,

attachments, wounds, weaknesses. This is hard to experience and

frightening to become aware of. The very fabric of the our small

personal self is transistory and truly fears its own dissolution at

death or mergence with the ocean of divinity at (enlightenment).

 

Since non-dualists tend to be intellectual by nature, the natural

tendency of the transient mind/small personal self is survive with

its personal desires and motivations intact by claiming to be

a "master", "enlightened". Around Amma we don't get away with this.

 

Around Amma we are being introduced to the reality of our "karma" or

our own personal mountain of illusions: the sooner we balance our

karmas, the sooner we come to true divine awareness. This can't even

begin to happen until we are stabilized in the Satvic mode (virtuous

behavior and Pure Love=Prema). Sometimes, the only place I feel I can

honestly "be" is in the mood of a loving child of a divine mother.

 

The purportedly enlightened non-dualist who has no sense of humilty,

no code of good behavior, no sense of needing to be careful or no

respect for the paths of others is in my mind some one who is riding

out a wave of good karma, who may be in for a "wipe out".

 

This is a hard won bit of discrimination for me, recognizing that

the "easy" and seductive paths are sometimes very sweet at the

beginning and very bitter at the end.

 

If I am incorrect about this, please let me know.

 

Hoping to realize a full heart with Amma!

Chris

[Guest guest]

Hari OM! OM Amriteswariye Namaha!

 

 

Blessed Chris,

 

In Vedanta, Advaita is all along described, all the non-dualists are

not core arrogant,

 

And I have the doubt of half enlightment or fully enlightened What

do you mean by that? There is no half enlightened, it is enlightened

only.

 

Prema, Bhakthi and Knowlege is necessary for all of us mortals, We

can never compare ourselves with Amma, because that much impurities

are in our minds, Even when you say that non-dualists are pseudo

people itself is a discrepency of the mind, let the non-dualist

become like that, but not all of them. Comparison itself is the

scarcity of discrimination. We are all required uniquely for this

play of GOD in this creation, every body is required for the well

being or welfare of soceity.

 

Bhakthi(Devotion) and (Knowledge)Jnana both are the wings of same

brid with only one wing the bird cannot fly. Both are necessary, if

you have only Bhakthi you become a fanatic, and if you have only

Jnana you become arrogant. So Love all serve all.

 

May Amma Bless all of us

 

Om Amriteswariye Namaha!

Om Nama Shivaya

 

With Love & OM!

 

Krishna

 

 

 

 

 

Ammachi, "ckeniley2003" <ckeniley2003>

wrote:

> Om Namah Shivaya!

>

> I am really happy for those folks who have reached easy non-dual

> enlightenment...and I wish everyone enlightenment and grace...I

> sincerely pray daily for that time when we have an outbreak of

> hundreds of spontaneous enlightenments everywhere on this planet..

>

> But, have you noticed that when people adopt a traditional

> guru/master such as our Amma, life does not always become "Easy"?

In

> fact the purification can be very difficult at times.

>

> What is the discrepancy? Some people are gliding

along "enlightened"

> even without a guru ....whilst some are struggling.

>

> Although we may think we are enlightened, Amma has said in her

talks

> that the fully realized beings on earth could be counted on your

> hands. I think full, genuine enlightenment is difficult. I believe

> full enlightenment happens with a fully loving heart and fully

loving

> mind: Combined.

>

> The mind, normally can glide along and feel "good", the

personality

> can feel strong...but if you really puncture into the nature of

self

> and personality, I believe that it is an electric mountain of

fears,

> attachments, wounds, weaknesses. This is hard to experience and

> frightening to become aware of. The very fabric of the our small

> personal self is transistory and truly fears its own dissolution

at

> death or mergence with the ocean of divinity at (enlightenment).

>

> Since non-dualists tend to be intellectual by nature, the natural

> tendency of the transient mind/small personal self is survive with

> its personal desires and motivations intact by claiming to be

> a "master", "enlightened". Around Amma we don't get away with

this.

>

> Around Amma we are being introduced to the reality of our "karma"

or

> our own personal mountain of illusions: the sooner we balance our

> karmas, the sooner we come to true divine awareness. This can't

even

> begin to happen until we are stabilized in the Satvic mode

(virtuous

> behavior and Pure Love=Prema). Sometimes, the only place I feel I

can

> honestly "be" is in the mood of a loving child of a divine mother.

>

> The purportedly enlightened non-dualist who has no sense of

humilty,

> no code of good behavior, no sense of needing to be careful or no

> respect for the paths of others is in my mind some one who is

riding

> out a wave of good karma, who may be in for a "wipe out".

>

> This is a hard won bit of discrimination for me, recognizing that

> the "easy" and seductive paths are sometimes very sweet at the

> beginning and very bitter at the end.

>

> If I am incorrect about this, please let me know.

>

> Hoping to realize a full heart with Amma!

> Chris

[Guest guest]

Dear Chris, for whatever it's worth, I thought this was a very beautiful and

wise post.

A friend of mine commented awhile back that I "seem so self-realized." I guess

I'm

self-realized to the extent that I know I'm nowhere near self-realized. But I

suppose

knowing your ignorance is the first step. ;-) My life has become many

wonderful

things since meeting Amma. However, "easy" is not one of them. ;-) Love,

Iswari

 

Ammachi, "ckeniley2003" <ckeniley2003> wrote:

> Om Namah Shivaya!

>

> I am really happy for those folks who have reached easy non-dual

> enlightenment...and I wish everyone enlightenment and grace...I

> sincerely pray daily for that time when we have an outbreak of

> hundreds of spontaneous enlightenments everywhere on this planet..

>

> But, have you noticed that when people adopt a traditional

> guru/master such as our Amma, life does not always become "Easy"? In

> fact the purification can be very difficult at times.

>

> What is the discrepancy? Some people are gliding along "enlightened"

> even without a guru ....whilst some are struggling.

>

> Although we may think we are enlightened, Amma has said in her talks

> that the fully realized beings on earth could be counted on your

> hands. I think full, genuine enlightenment is difficult. I believe

> full enlightenment happens with a fully loving heart and fully loving

> mind: Combined.

>

> The mind, normally can glide along and feel "good", the personality

> can feel strong...but if you really puncture into the nature of self

> and personality, I believe that it is an electric mountain of fears,

> attachments, wounds, weaknesses. This is hard to experience and

> frightening to become aware of. The very fabric of the our small

> personal self is transistory and truly fears its own dissolution at

> death or mergence with the ocean of divinity at (enlightenment).

>

> Since non-dualists tend to be intellectual by nature, the natural

> tendency of the transient mind/small personal self is survive with

> its personal desires and motivations intact by claiming to be

> a "master", "enlightened". Around Amma we don't get away with this.

>

> Around Amma we are being introduced to the reality of our "karma" or

> our own personal mountain of illusions: the sooner we balance our

> karmas, the sooner we come to true divine awareness. This can't even

> begin to happen until we are stabilized in the Satvic mode (virtuous

> behavior and Pure Love=Prema). Sometimes, the only place I feel I can

> honestly "be" is in the mood of a loving child of a divine mother.

>

> The purportedly enlightened non-dualist who has no sense of humilty,

> no code of good behavior, no sense of needing to be careful or no

> respect for the paths of others is in my mind some one who is riding

> out a wave of good karma, who may be in for a "wipe out".

>

> This is a hard won bit of discrimination for me, recognizing that

> the "easy" and seductive paths are sometimes very sweet at the

> beginning and very bitter at the end.

>

> If I am incorrect about this, please let me know.

>

> Hoping to realize a full heart with Amma!

> Chris

[Guest guest]

One of my favorite things to say is... "The more I learn, the more I

realize I know nothing".

 

Hari OM

 

Niseema

 

Ammachi, "ammasiswari" <iswari@n...> wrote:

> Dear Chris, for whatever it's worth, I thought this was a very

beautiful and wise post.

> A friend of mine commented awhile back that I "seem so self-

realized." I guess I'm

> self-realized to the extent that I know I'm nowhere near self-

realized. But I suppose

> knowing your ignorance is the first step. ;-) My life has become

many wonderful

> things since meeting Amma. However, "easy" is not one of them. ;-

) Love, Iswari

[Guest guest]

>From my own experience, trying to clear away the dust on the mirror

of my soul has been a very ardious process, indeed! There are so many

times when I feel that my insides are being scrubbed with sandpaper

or steel wool. However, in the end, I am always progressing and

learning, so it is worth it.

 

With each layer of the onion that gets peeled way, I realize how

little I know or realize, and how vast this pool really is.

 

Hari OM

 

With love,

Niseema

 

Ammachi, "Krishna Prasad" <rkrishp99>

wrote:

> Hari OM! OM Amriteswariye Namaha!

>

>

> Blessed Chris,

>

> In Vedanta, Advaita is all along described, all the non-dualists

are

> not core arrogant,

>

> And I have the doubt of half enlightment or fully enlightened What

> do you mean by that? There is no half enlightened, it is

enlightened

> only.

>

> Prema, Bhakthi and Knowlege is necessary for all of us mortals, We

> can never compare ourselves with Amma, because that much impurities

> are in our minds, Even when you say that non-dualists are pseudo

> people itself is a discrepency of the mind, let the non-dualist

> become like that, but not all of them. Comparison itself is the

> scarcity of discrimination. We are all required uniquely for this

> play of GOD in this creation, every body is required for the well

> being or welfare of soceity.

>

> Bhakthi(Devotion) and (Knowledge)Jnana both are the wings of same

> brid with only one wing the bird cannot fly. Both are necessary, if

> you have only Bhakthi you become a fanatic, and if you have only

> Jnana you become arrogant. So Love all serve all.

>

> May Amma Bless all of us

>

> Om Amriteswariye Namaha!

> Om Nama Shivaya

>

> With Love & OM!

>

> Krishna

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namah Shivaya.

 

> But, have you noticed that when people adopt a traditional

> guru/master such as our Amma, life does not always become "Easy"? In

> fact the purification can be very difficult at times.

 

Now that our sister Snehalata is blessing us with pearls From Amma's Heart,

this sister will offer a few from Racing along the Razor's Edge:

 

"In truth, no matter what we may do, we cannot remove the ego by ourselves.

Amma says that ego is the only thing in creation that was not created by

God. The ego is our creation, and we cannot undo our own creation. For that,

we need the help of a Satguru. Removing the ego is the Satguru's primary

job."

 

"We all have many disturbances in our minds. As soon as we come to a true

Master, it may seem that the Master also contributes to those

disturbances--as though the ones we have are not enough! The Guru will

create certain situations for us and will tell us, "See, this is our

problem." In this way the Guru will make us aware of the negativity within

ourselves. This is an important part of the Guru's work. We need to be aware

of our defects in order to correct them."

 

In Amma¹s boundless grace,

premarupa

Aum Amriteshvaryai Namah

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Chris, and others,

 

Namah Shivaya.

 

Think about it.

 

Easy or bumpy, enlightenment is enlightenment.

 

If it is gotten easy, all the better! who wants to be bumped up?

 

and who is to say who will get it easy? only God can! only Grace can!

 

and who can judge on the behavior of one who got it 'easy'? only He

again!

 

Reminds me of the cat's child vs the monkey's child story Amma

mentions frequently.... I would like to recount it verbatim to offer

another viewpoint on this, but I am very bad at remembering details

or in my observation of animals, so my narrative will be slightly

compromised on details, but I will make my point anyways.

 

One animal's child clings on to the mother for everything while the

other expects the mother to take care of it for everything. So,

accordingly, the mothers of the animals behave.

 

She went on to say that the animal child who clings on to the mother

is like a person who likes to do a lot of effort to reach

enlightenment, whereas the other child who expects the mother to do

everything is like a person who has a childlike faith in God's

ability to take care of him.

 

The former likes to think he has 'worked' his way into God (a sign

of ego), while the latter has just demanded it as his right (a

natural state).

 

Now, coming to easy vs bumpy, if we consciously or unconsciously

choose 'bumpy', then that could very well be our ego saying, "I

don't think it is so easy; it had better be hard. else why am I not

expeiencing it? So, it is hard, i.e. I can expect a bumpy ride!"

 

Just another viewpoint on the same thought.

 

This is NOT to say that all should think 'easy', not 'bumpy'.

 

All I am saying is that THINKING is the first evil. Thinking easy or

Thinking bumpy maybe the real cause, rather than the 'easy'

or 'bumpy' which sound more like the symptom.

 

Stop thinking. Start surrendering... to your karma, to your life

situation, to everything.

 

Just another viewpoint.... may not mean anything to anyone, but

thought I will offer it anyways.

 

Jai Ma!

Manoj (a.k.a. one of the biggest, bloated egos floating around in

the universe)

[Guest guest]

Dearest Manoj,

 

Excellent points!

 

And, to add to this, who is to say what is "easy" vs "bumpy"? To me,

something may be very difficult/hard, but to someone else it may be a

breeze. I guess it's all our karma that leads up to this life, thus

making things seem easier or more difficult. Maybe someone who seems

to have it "easy" has really done a lot of sadhana in his/her former

life.

 

Thank you, Manoj!

 

Jai Ma!

With love,

Niseema

 

 

Ammachi, "manoj_menon" <manoj_menon>

wrote:

> Chris, and others,

>

> Namah Shivaya.

>

> Think about it.

>

> Easy or bumpy, enlightenment is enlightenment.

>

> If it is gotten easy, all the better! who wants to be bumped up?

>

> and who is to say who will get it easy? only God can! only Grace

can!

>

> and who can judge on the behavior of one who got it 'easy'? only He

> again!

>

> Reminds me of the cat's child vs the monkey's child story Amma

> mentions frequently.... I would like to recount it verbatim to

offer

> another viewpoint on this, but I am very bad at remembering details

> or in my observation of animals, so my narrative will be slightly

> compromised on details, but I will make my point anyways.

>

> One animal's child clings on to the mother for everything while the

> other expects the mother to take care of it for everything. So,

> accordingly, the mothers of the animals behave.

>

> She went on to say that the animal child who clings on to the

mother

> is like a person who likes to do a lot of effort to reach

> enlightenment, whereas the other child who expects the mother to do

> everything is like a person who has a childlike faith in God's

> ability to take care of him.

>

> The former likes to think he has 'worked' his way into God (a sign

> of ego), while the latter has just demanded it as his right (a

> natural state).

>

> Now, coming to easy vs bumpy, if we consciously or unconsciously

> choose 'bumpy', then that could very well be our ego saying, "I

> don't think it is so easy; it had better be hard. else why am I not

> expeiencing it? So, it is hard, i.e. I can expect a bumpy ride!"

>

> Just another viewpoint on the same thought.

>

> This is NOT to say that all should think 'easy', not 'bumpy'.

>

> All I am saying is that THINKING is the first evil. Thinking easy

or

> Thinking bumpy maybe the real cause, rather than the 'easy'

> or 'bumpy' which sound more like the symptom.

>

> Stop thinking. Start surrendering... to your karma, to your life

> situation, to everything.

>

> Just another viewpoint.... may not mean anything to anyone, but

> thought I will offer it anyways.

>

> Jai Ma!

> Manoj (a.k.a. one of the biggest, bloated egos floating around in

> the universe)

[Guest guest]

--- ammasiswari <iswari wrote:

> Dear Chris, for whatever it's worth, I thought this

> was a very beautiful and wise post.

> A friend of mine commented awhile back that I "seem

> so self-realized." I guess I'm

> self-realized to the extent that I know I'm nowhere

> near self-realized. But I suppose

> knowing your ignorance is the first step. ;-) My

> life has become many wonderful

> things since meeting Amma. However, "easy" is not

> one of them. ;-) Love, Iswari

>

> Ammachi, "ckeniley2003"

> <ckeniley2003> wrote:

> > Om Namah Shivaya!

> >

> > I am really happy for those folks who have reached

> easy non-dual

> > enlightenment...and I wish everyone enlightenment

> and grace...I

> > sincerely pray daily for that time when we have an

> outbreak of

> > hundreds of spontaneous enlightenments everywhere

> on this planet..

> >

> > But, have you noticed that when people adopt a

> traditional

> > guru/master such as our Amma, life does not always

> become "Easy"? In

> > fact the purification can be very difficult at

> times.

> >

> > What is the discrepancy? Some people are gliding

> along "enlightened"

> > even without a guru ....whilst some are

> struggling.

> >

> > Although we may think we are enlightened, Amma has

> said in her talks

> > that the fully realized beings on earth could be

> counted on your

> > hands. I think full, genuine enlightenment is

> difficult. I believe

> > full enlightenment happens with a fully loving

> heart and fully loving

> > mind: Combined.

> >

> >

> > Since non-dualists tend to be intellectual by

> nature, the natural

> > tendency of the transient mind/small personal self

> is survive with

> > its personal desires and motivations intact by

> claiming to be

> > a "master", "enlightened". Around Amma we don't

> get away with this.

> >

> > Around Amma we are being introduced to the reality

> of our "karma" or

> > our own personal mountain of illusions: the sooner

> we balance our

> > karmas, the sooner we come to true divine

> awareness. This can't even

> > begin to happen until we are stabilized in the

> Satvic mode (virtuous

> > behavior and Pure Love=Prema). Sometimes, the only

> place I feel I can

> > honestly "be" is in the mood of a loving child of

> a divine mother.

> >

> > The purportedly enlightened non-dualist who has no

> sense of humilty,

> > no code of good behavior, no sense of needing to

> be careful or no

> > respect for the paths of others is in my mind some

> one who is riding

> > out a wave of good karma, who may be in for a

> "wipe out".

> >

 

Dear Chris, I sincerely take exception to some of your

comments regarding non-dualists. Who said non-

dualists are buch of heartless intellectuals who

critisize other paths? This is genereal mis-conception

by the westerners. Let us consider some prominent

Advaitans.

 

Hmmm! let us start with Adi Shankara, the epitome of

Advaita, yes he was responible for ultra-extreme Non

Dual works like "Upadesha Sahasri" and "Viveka

Chudamani" but he was Known for "Soundarya Lahari"

where goddess is praised, "Shivanada Lahari" where

Shiva and Shakti are invoked. Infact Adi Shankara is

regarde as Shiva himself.

 

Next ,Swami Rama Tirtha. SRT was second prominent

Hindu monk to visit USA (first decade of 20th century)

after Swami Vivekanada. SRT was followed by

Paramahmasa Yoganada. SRT hailed from Northen India, I

think from Prayag (corrupted to "Allahabad" by

Moghuls). He spoked from his Realisation, he realiased

the truth and He was in Perrenial Bliss. If anybody

reads his biography, they will be simply elevated. You

don't find any criticsm in his works. To my knowledge,

ahead of Ammachi, SRT was the only Hindu religious

saint to visit Middle east. Infact he spoke for huge

gathering in a Cairo Mosque.

 

Lastly, Ramana Maharshi,Hercules of Adviata, Perhaps

the most misunderstood figure in the West. There are

numerous websites by the Westerners caliming to e

Self-Realised, and their inspiration Ramana Maharshi

or Papaji, Papaji was a disciple Sri Ramana. If one

follows the methods implemented by these Neo-Vedatins,

they seem like some kind of Psycho Anlaysis. They

don't encourage any Sadhana, neither they have any

tradition. One wonders how are these people are

connected to Ramana Maharshi? Ramana realised truth

when he was 16, came to Arunachala Temple,

Tiruannamalai in 1896 stayed there untill he attained

Maha samadhi in 1950. If Ramana was just devotionless

"Intellectual", why should he spend more than 50 years

in Arunachala Temple, where Shiva is said to be taken

form of "fire". Ramana composed numerous hyms praising

Shiva. Ramana saw Shiva as his father himself, infact

what Kali was to Sri Ramakrshna, Shiva was to Ramana.

 

Problem with Westners(Not to be offended)is this, Its

either '0' or '1'. Either srictly follow ISKCON whose

essence lies in condeming Advaita as a Philosophy of

Kali Yuga (dark age)and Sri Shankara as a Mayavadi

Philosopher, infulenced by atheistic Buddhism OR

follow Neo Advaita where methods seem some kind of

Freud or Carl Jung Psycho Analysis and outrightly shun

bhakti as a emotional path(no worship, no prayer))

which never leads to truth since there is always

dichotomy as perceiver and perception. Its like George

W Bush " Either you are with us or with them".

 

Interestingly this confusion is never found in

majority of Indians.

 

Regards

Avinash.

 

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

 

[Guest guest]

I did not get the impression that Chris was denying the very existence of

enlightened

non-dualists or their ability to be in bliss. It seemed that the point was along

the lines

of their being a danger, as Amma, Herself, has said, to walking around thinking

"I am

Brahman," from a place of intellectual understanding, which feeds our ego,

rather

than from a place of genuine Self-realization, in which we have no need to puff

ourselves up. We do tend to deceive ourselves in this way -- and I don't think

this is

only true of westerners. In fact, I have heard the swamis/renunciates talk about

their

own arrogance in thinking this way, especially in their early experiences with

Amma.

Chris referred to "the purported non-dualist" who is arrogant and treats others

without respect. That doesn't mean that this is true of *all* non-dualists, or

that there

is, in fact, no such thing as non-dual realization. It only means that there

may be

certain dangers/pitfalls along that path (as there are along most paths) --

perhaps

especially for those seeking easy answers, who are not inclined toward spiritual

discipline -- in the same way that there are dangers when people are simply

seeking a

spiritual high! But even for those who do engage in sadhana, the ego becomes

more

and more subtle in its grasping. I'm sure we can all relate to this phenomenon!

;-)

 

> Problem with Westners(Not to be offended)is this, Its

> either '0' or '1'. Either srictly follow ISKCON whose

> essence lies in condeming Advaita as a Philosophy of

> Kali Yuga (dark age)and Sri Shankara as a Mayavadi

> Philosopher, infulenced by atheistic Buddhism OR

> follow Neo Advaita where methods seem some kind of

> Freud or Carl Jung Psycho Analysis and outrightly shun

> bhakti as a emotional path(no worship, no prayer))

> which never leads to truth since there is always

> dichotomy as perceiver and perception. Its like George

> W Bush " Either you are with us or with them".

 

I remember in one of Amma's "Awaken Children" books, she quoted Ramakrishna, in

talking about how we should both be able to say "I am the 'I' that fills the

entire

universe" and "I am the dust on the feet of the servant of your servant." That

made a

lot of sense to me....although I haven't quite reached that state yet! =)

 

Iswari

[Guest guest]

-

ammasiswari

Ammachi

Saturday, December 06, 2003 5:07 AM

Re: Easy enlightenment versus bumpy flying with a real guru

 

 

I did not get the impression that Chris was denying the very existence of

enlightened

non-dualists or their ability to be in bliss.

I have just been curious about how we (list members) define non-dualist; I

really am very new to the language of the path(s) and could easily have ben

confused here. If I've understood the term correctly, bliss would be present in

all enlightened non-dualists.

 

It seemed that the point was along the lines

of their being a danger, as Amma, Herself, has said, to walking around

thinking "I am

Brahman," from a place of intellectual understanding, which feeds our ego,

rather than from a place of genuine Self-realization, in which we have no need

to puff ourselves up.

I don't think this is all Mother says: in "From Amma's Heart," She makes a

very, very clear distinction between TPYES of Vedantins. This is from p. 81:

Amma: Which Vendantins are you talking about? A bookworm Vedantin who

repeats the scriptures like a trained parrot or a tape recorder may not, but a

true Vendatin will. A Vedantin who doesn't accept the world and the path of

devotion is not a true Vendatin. Accepting the world and recognizing the may

but at the same time seeing the one Truth in the many is a real Vendatin.

A Vendatin who considers the path of lvoe to be inferior is neither a

Vendatin nor a true spiritual seeker. True Vendatins cannot do their spiritual

practices without love.

The form will take you to the formless, provided you do your spiritual

practices with the proper attitude. Saguna (form) is (nirguna) manifested. If

one doesn't understand this simple principle, what is the point of calling

oneself a Vendatin?

 

We do tend to deceive ourselves in this way -- and I don't think this is

only true of westerners.

I am totally lost here: why would it be a deception to accept, on pure faith,

that, as Amma, Yogananda, Mother, etc teach, that That That IS is within all of

us? I have believed that since I was a young child and saw no arrogance in it-

I thought it was a plain old fact. That doesn't mean that I anticipate

experiencing that Truth any time soon.

 

It only means that there may be certain dangers/pitfalls along that path (as

there are along most paths) -- perhaps especially for those seeking easy

answers, who are not inclined toward spiritual discipline

Again, someone please help! I feel like a kindergartner here: Why can't I

have ice cream for every meal? I turly am not trying to extend this string...I

am just blown away by how different my "understanding" seems to be. I really,

really fail to see where the nondualist path would be an esy one..and as Amma

said in the quote above, true Vendatins cannot do their spiritual practices

without love. Doesn't this imply that the quest is not necessarily for easy

answers - and that nondualists still perform devotions? And I still can't

figure out how that would be the simpler path: I had presumed to "succeed"

(what a crappy language!) in self-realization by accepting the no-separation

path, one would have to surrender ALL attachments, ALL objectives and agendas,

and ALL personal personality/life. Good lands, what could be a harder mission?

I am a non-dualist (I think, altho right now I may be more of a lump of

misconceptions) and I can't even relinquish getting b----- when my beloved

husband bakes bread late at night and fails to clean up after himself...how on

earth am I ever going to give up the big stuff? I am strong willed and highly

disciplined...went back to college while working full time when I was past

forty-five and maintained a 4.0 average...I can 'study', recite mantras, be in

Mother's presence, etc. forever and if the Truth doesn't become a living reality

for me, I'll probably get and "A" for practice and another thousand

incarnations!

 

> Problem with Westners(Not to be offended)is this, Its

> either '0' or '1'. Either srictly follow ISKCON

As I said, I accepted the many as One before I entered school because of

Sunday School songs...have heard of Jung, of course; I was an Ed. major...and

still have no clue what ISKCON is. Can't I just believe as I do without being

part of any school of thought?

 

I remember in one of Amma's "Awaken Children" books, she quoted Ramakrishna,

in

talking about how we should both be able to say "I am the 'I' that fills the

entire

universe"

Again, this is unsettling: shouldn't we be able to accept that ideal simply

because Mother says it's true - and understand that we should be able to say

that, not that we can say it from a viewpoint of self-realization? To me,

believing it as a Truth doesn't mean that I can surrender and open myself to an

extent that would let me experience it first hand...but I believe Mother is That

and I can't experience the whole of Her being, either.

 

Somebody, please help clarify this further; if I am way out in left field,

please help me get turned around.

 

Namaste,

Snehalata

Iswari

 

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

 

Aum Amriteswarayai Namaha!

Ammachi

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

-

avinash ramidi

Ammachi

Saturday, December 06, 2003 1:13 AM

Re: Re: Easy enlightenment versus bumpy flying with a real

guru

 

 

 

--- ammasiswari <iswari wrote:

>> > But, have you noticed that when people adopt a traditional

> > guru/master such as our Amma, life does not always > become "Easy"? In

> > fact the purification can be very difficult at > times.

> > Personally, my life has become a blessed mess.

>

> >

Dear Chris, I sincerely take exception to some of your comments regarding

non-dualists. Who said non-dualists are buch of heartless intellectuals who

critisize other paths? This is genereal mis-conception by the westerners.

I would have thought true nondualists would be the last to be this way:

wouldn't a belief that their essence is the same essence as That preclude such

behavior? Is not, in reality, Amma a self-realized, God-realized nondualist? I

AM NOT SAYING THAT NONDUALISTS ARE LIKE MOTHER - A BELIEF IN NONDUALITY AND THE

LEVEL OF PERSONAL ATTAINMENT ARE, FOR ME, TWO VERY, VERY DIFFERENT THINGS!

 

. If Ramana was just devotionless

"Intellectual", why should he spend more than 50 years in Arunachala Temple,

where Shiva is said to be taken form of "fire".

Along this same line, Mother told Judith Cornell that yes, indeed, She is the

Sri Yantra -incarnation of the Divine Feminine -obviously, since we have Amma's

very cute, itty, bitty human form to hug and Her "admission" that She is

actually much more (She says that if she showed the physicist she was talking to

even a fragment of Her 4th dimension, he would not be able to withstand it),

aren't we seeing another example of a nondualist who indeed has sense of humor,

respect for other paths, etc?

 

 

Interestingly this confusion is never found in majority of Indians.

No offense whatever intended here to either of us, but I assume you mean

"Indian" as in dots, not feathers - I am an "Indian" of the other sort -

feathers, not dots and I am

totally, totally confused about all of this. All I am sure of is that my ego

and monkey mind are giving each other high fives over this one - I can jsut hear

them giggling "She's thinking again; we win!"

Namaste,

Snehalata

 

Regards

Avinash.

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

 

Aum Amriteswarayai Namaha!

Ammachi

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ammachi, "Dixie Thacker" <dixielou@s...> wrote:

 

> We do tend to deceive ourselves in this way -- and I don't think this is

> only true of westerners.

> I am totally lost here: why would it be a deception to accept, on pure

faith, that,

> as Amma, Yogananda, Mother, etc teach, that That That IS is within all of us?

 

Of course, it's not a deception to accept a belief on faith...but it is a

deception to think

that just because we believe something, or have had glimpses of this awareness,

we

have manifest the truth of that in our lives. That's all I was saying. =)

 

> I really, really fail to see where the nondualist path would be an easy one..

 

Who said that it was? I don't recall noticing that...

 

(Although maybe a distinction could be made here between easy and simple? I

often

find that the hardest things to get are usually the simplest!)

 

> I was an Ed. major...and still have no clue what ISKCON is.

 

ISKCON = International Society for Krishna Consciousness (Hare Krishnas).

 

> Can't I just believe as I do without being part of any school of thought?

 

I don't see why not! =)

 

> > I remember in one of Amma's "Awaken Children" books, she quoted

> > Ramakrishna, in talking about how we should both be able to say "I am the

'I'

> > that fills the entire universe"

> Again, this is unsettling: shouldn't we be able to accept that ideal simply

because

> Mother says it's true - and understand that we should be able to say that,

not that

> we can say it from a viewpoint of self-realization? To me, believing it as a

Truth

> doesn't mean that I can surrender and open myself to an extent that would let

me

> experience it first hand...but I believe Mother is That and I can't

experience the

> whole of Her being, either.

 

Personally, I never said or meant to imply that we shouldn't accept things on

faith. I

was only referring to instances in which people claim to have achieved

enlightment

based on knowledge or belief alone (without *being* in that state of

consciousness).

 

Hopefully, this makes a bit more sense! =)

 

Iswari

[Guest guest]

Great post Manoj,

 

> Think about it.

>

> Easy or bumpy, enlightenment is enlightenment.

>

> If it is gotten easy, all the better! who wants to be bumped up?

>

> and who is to say who will get it easy? only God can! only Grace

can!

>

> and who can judge on the behavior of one who got it 'easy'? only He

> again!

>

> Reminds me of the cat's child vs the monkey's child story Amma

> mentions frequently.... I would like to recount it verbatim to

offer

> another viewpoint on this, but I am very bad at remembering details

> or in my observation of animals, so my narrative will be slightly

> compromised on details, but I will make my point anyways.

>

> One animal's child clings on to the mother for everything while the

> other expects the mother to take care of it for everything. So,

> accordingly, the mothers of the animals behave.

>

> She went on to say that the animal child who clings on to the

mother

> is like a person who likes to do a lot of effort to reach

> enlightenment, whereas the other child who expects the mother to do

> everything is like a person who has a childlike faith in God's

> ability to take care of him.

 

 

Thank you for sharing this story by Amma. It never ceases to amaze me

how well-versed Mother is in classical philosophy. The reference is

to Marjata and Markata (monkey and cat ways) margas which is the

cornerstone of Srivaishnava philisophy- these two approaches founded

by Pillai-Lokacharya and Vedanta Desika are what are followed by the

two dominant sects of Srivaishavism today.

 

 

Another viewpoint on easy vs. bumpy- those that are having it easy

today had finished the bumpy portion of the ride in a previous life.

We have to have the full plethora of human experiences possible

before we exit out of this world- this includes a good share of bumpy

experiences. Now coming back to bumpy experiences- every great

transformation in our lives happens because of a string of adverse

circumstances, which forced us to change; bumpiness is natures way of

saying "mend your ways or else.."

 

> Just another viewpoint on the same thought.

>

> This is NOT to say that all should think 'easy', not 'bumpy'.

>

> All I am saying is that THINKING is the first evil. Thinking easy

or

 

THINKING wishfully is the first evil- this is the ego prodding you.

but when you think and will "easy", , then you are acting like

achild of God and then nature has no option but to concede; afterall

are we not embodiments of divinity, but admittedly thinking and

willing "easy" takes a lot of hard work :-)

 

And what is surrender- surrender is only meaningful when we try to do

everything to the best of our ability, and if we still fail, then we

ask for divine grace; to ask for grace without striving is an

admission of one's cowardice.

 

-yogaman(the one with the biggest ego; Manoj, when it comes to ego-

hood, i think am i several notches above you LOL, actually you are

not at all egoistic)

 

 

> Jai Ma!

> Manoj (a.k.a. one of the biggest, bloated egos floating around in

> the universe)

[Guest guest]

realized, God-realized nondualist? I AM NOT SAYING THAT NONDUALISTS

ARE LIKE MOTHER - A BELIEF IN NONDUALITY AND THE LEVEL OF PERSONAL

ATTAINMENT ARE, FOR ME, TWO VERY, VERY DIFFERENT THINGS!

 

Well said Snehalata-ji, a lot of people say they "believe" in non-

duality; since that belief is not conditioned by actual experience it

is nothing more than an intellectual conviction; they might as

well "believe" in duality or anything else with little difference.

Yet I have heard that as one advances spiritually, then it is vital

to have the right beliefs, for reality is shaped by one's belief

especially for one whose consciousness is at the anahata/heart- this

is the center where conscious creation becomes possible( the

paradigm "I'll believe it when I see it" changes to "I'll see it when

I believe it")

 

>you mean "Indian" as in dots, not feathers - I am an "Indian" of the

>other sort - feathers, not dots and I am

 

LOL. Now there was a native american chief who gifted Amma some rare

feathers last year, so I guess that makes Amma the Indian with dots

AND feathers??:-)

 

-yogaman

[Guest guest]

-

ammasiswari

Ammachi

Saturday, December 06, 2003 1:19 PM

Re: Easy enlightenment versus bumpy flying with a real guru

 

 

Ammachi, "Dixie Thacker" <dixielou@s...> wrote:

 

Dear Iswari,

 

I am so, so sorry; I sent a message saying my emails were really tangled. I

agreed with your responses to Chris and was intending to have Chris clarify a

bit more. You are such a sweet heart; I really didn't mean to challenge you at

all - nor do I mean to challenge Chris, I just am trying to understand the

"other" nondualists.

 

The only response to you as far as I clearly recall was our common

"Indianness" - but my difference in that I'm totally befuddled.

 

Love from a sorry sister,

Snehalata

 

> We do tend to deceive ourselves in this way -- and I don't think this is

> only true of westerners.

> I am totally lost here: why would it be a deception to accept, on pure

faith, that,

> as Amma, Yogananda, Mother, etc teach, that That That IS is within all of

us?

 

Of course, it's not a deception to accept a belief on faith...but it is a

deception to think

that just because we believe something, or have had glimpses of this

awareness, we

have manifest the truth of that in our lives. That's all I was saying. =)

 

> I really, really fail to see where the nondualist path would be an easy

one..

 

Who said that it was? I don't recall noticing that...

 

(Although maybe a distinction could be made here between easy and simple? I

often

find that the hardest things to get are usually the simplest!)

 

> I was an Ed. major...and still have no clue what ISKCON is.

 

ISKCON = International Society for Krishna Consciousness (Hare Krishnas).

 

> Can't I just believe as I do without being part of any school of thought?

 

I don't see why not! =)

 

> > I remember in one of Amma's "Awaken Children" books, she quoted

> > Ramakrishna, in talking about how we should both be able to say "I am the

'I'

> > that fills the entire universe"

> Again, this is unsettling: shouldn't we be able to accept that ideal

simply because

> Mother says it's true - and understand that we should be able to say that,

not that

> we can say it from a viewpoint of self-realization? To me, believing it as

a Truth

> doesn't mean that I can surrender and open myself to an extent that would

let me

> experience it first hand...but I believe Mother is That and I can't

experience the

> whole of Her being, either.

 

Personally, I never said or meant to imply that we shouldn't accept things on

faith. I

was only referring to instances in which people claim to have achieved

enlightment

based on knowledge or belief alone (without *being* in that state of

consciousness).

 

Hopefully, this makes a bit more sense! =)

 

Iswari

 

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

 

Aum Amriteswarayai Namaha!

Ammachi

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Please, there is nothing to be sorry about! I wasn't offended or hurt at all.

=)

 

Love,

Iswari

 

Ammachi, "Dixie Thacker" <dixielou@s...> wrote:

 

> Dear Iswari,

>

> I am so, so sorry; I sent a message saying my emails were really tangled.

I

agreed with your responses to Chris and was intending to have Chris clarify a

bit

more. You are such a sweet heart; I really didn't mean to challenge you at all

- nor

do I mean to challenge Chris, I just am trying to understand the "other"

nondualists.

>

> The only response to you as far as I clearly recall was our common

"Indianness" -

but my difference in that I'm totally befuddled.

>

> Love from a sorry sister,

> Snehalata