Whose is Mind and Intellect?

[jaguar 0]

Hello all,

Regarding the Self, there are contradictory opinions on Mind and Intellect. Some say that "I am not the Mind or Intellect, Nor are they Mine" (AshtaVakra Gita), and some say "I am not the Mind or Intellect, but they are Mine" (Swami Sukhbodhananda who often quote Adi Shankara besides Bhagwat Gita) and thus I presume Adi Shankar and/or Bhagwat Gita says so. I agree to the first part of both but the second part confuses me.

Since we all agree Mind is powerful(otherwise why do u need to bring it under control) and important, I wanted to know which one of the above two is true. If someone can quote some Authentic Text(pls no round round discussion like Mind is just a collection of thoughts) and/or put forth a more logical explanation to the perspective the authors to the above texts are coming from then I would be further Enlightened.

[melvin 1]

 

Hello all,

Regarding the Self, there are contradictory opinions on Mind and Intellect. Some say that "I am not the Mind or Intellect, Nor are they Mine" (AshtaVakra Gita), and some say "I am not the Mind or Intellect, but they are Mine" (Swami Sukhbodhananda who often quote Adi Shankara besides Bhagwat Gita) and thus I presume Adi Shankar and/or Bhagwat Gita says so. I agree to the first part of both but the second part confuses me.

Since we all agree Mind is powerful(otherwise why do u need to bring it under control) and important, I wanted to know which one of the above two is true. If someone can quote some Authentic Text(pls no round round discussion like Mind is just a collection of thoughts) and/or put forth a more logical explanation to the perspective the authors to the above texts are coming from then I would be further Enlightened.

 

To understand this we have to go back to the basics, advaita and dvaita. In dvaita, one says, " I am not the mind and intellect, nor they are mine. In advaita, one says, " I am not the mind and intellect but they are mine." Actually, mind and intellect are the subtle forms of God`s external (inferior) energy whose predominating Deity is Durga( Search Brahma-samhita Text 44).

The self however is different because it`s a spirit soul part and parcel of the Supreme Soul, God. The self is not a product of this material nature(Maya or Durga).

[Sonic Yogi 0]

The mind and the intelligence are separated energies created by Lord Krishna.

 

 

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 7.4

 

bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ

khaḿ mano buddhir eva ca

ahańkāra itīyaḿ me

bhinnā prakṛtir aṣṭadhā

 

SYNONYMS

 

bhūmiḥ — earth; āpaḥ — water; analaḥ — fire; vāyuḥ — air; kham — ether; manaḥ — mind; buddhiḥ — intelligence; eva — certainly; ca — and; ahańkāraḥ — false ego; iti — thus; iyam — all these; me — My; bhinnā — separated; prakṛtiḥ — energies; aṣṭadhā — eightfold.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego — all together these eight constitute My separated material energies.

 

PURPORT

 

The science of God analyzes the constitutional position of God and His diverse energies. Material nature is called prakṛti, or the energy of the Lord in His different puruṣa incarnations (expansions) as described in the Sātvata-tantra:

 

viṣṇos tu trīṇi rūpāṇi

puruṣākhyāny atho viduḥ

ekaḿ tu mahataḥ sraṣṭṛ

dvitīyaḿ tv aṇḍa-saḿsthitam

 

tṛtīyaḿ sarva-bhūta-sthaḿ

tāni jñātvā vimucyate

 

"For material creation, Lord Kṛṣṇa's plenary expansion assumes three Viṣṇus. The first one, Mahā-Viṣṇu, creates the total material energy, known as the mahat-tattva. The second, Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, enters into all the universes to create diversities in each of them. The third, Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, is diffused as the all-pervading Supersoul in all the universes and is known as Paramātmā. He is present even within the atoms. Anyone who knows these three Viṣṇus can be liberated from material entanglement."

 

This material world is a temporary manifestation of one of the energies of the Lord. All the activities of the material world are directed by these three Viṣṇu expansions of Lord Kṛṣṇa. These puruṣas are called incarnations. Generally one who does not know the science of God (Kṛṣṇa) assumes that this material world is for the enjoyment of the living entities and that the living entities are the puruṣas — the causes, controllers and enjoyers of the material energy. According to Bhagavad-gītā this atheistic conclusion is false. In the verse under discussion it is stated that Kṛṣṇa is the original cause of the material manifestation. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam also confirms this. The ingredients of the material manifestation are separated energies of the Lord. Even the brahmajyoti, which is the ultimate goal of the impersonalists, is a spiritual energy manifested in the spiritual sky. There are no spiritual diversities in the brahmajyoti as there are in the Vaikuṇṭhalokas, and the impersonalist accepts this brahmajyoti as the ultimate eternal goal. The Paramātmā manifestation is also a temporary all-pervasive aspect of the Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. The Paramātmā manifestation is not eternal in the spiritual world. Therefore the factual Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa. He is the complete energetic person, and He possesses different separated and internal energies.

 

In the material energy, the principal manifestations are eight, as above mentioned. Out of these, the first five manifestations, namely earth, water, fire, air and sky, are called the five gigantic creations or the gross creations, within which the five sense objects are included. They are the manifestations of physical sound, touch, form, taste and smell. Material science comprises these ten items and nothing more. But the other three items, namely mind, intelligence and false ego, are neglected by the materialists. Philosophers who deal with mental activities are also not perfect in knowledge because they do not know the ultimate source, Kṛṣṇa. The false ego — "I am," and "It is mine, which constitute the basic principle of material existence — includes ten sense organs for material activities. Intelligence refers to the total material creation, called the mahat-tattva. Therefore from the eight separated energies of the Lord are manifest the twenty-four elements of the material world, which are the subject matter of Sāńkhya atheistic philosophy; they are originally offshoots from Kṛṣṇa's energies and are separated from Him, but atheistic Sāńkhya philosophers with a poor fund of knowledge do not know Kṛṣṇa as the cause of all causes. The subject matter for discussion in the Sāńkhya philosophy is only the manifestation of the external energy of Kṛṣṇa, as it is described in the Bhagavad-gītā.

 

So, the mind is a material covering of the soul as is the intelligence.

The soul in illusion identifies with these coverings as if these coverings are the self.

 

So, the mind covers the soul but is not the soul proper.

Intelligence is a covering of the soul but is not the soul proper.

 

As far as what is "ours" not even our own soul is really ours as the soul is a separated energy of Krishna and is therefore technically his.

 

 

 

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 7.5

 

apareyam itas tv anyāḿ

 

prakṛtiḿ viddhi me parām

 

jīva-bhūtāḿ mahā-bāho

 

yayedaḿ dhāryate jagat

 

SYNONYMS

 

aparā — inferior; iyam — this; itaḥ — besides this; tu — but; anyām — another; prakṛtim — energy; viddhi — just try to understand; me — My; parām — superior; jīva-bhūtām — comprising the living entities; mahā-bāho — O mighty-armed one; yayā — by whom; idam — this; dhāryate — is utilized or exploited; jagat — the material world.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature.

 

PURPORT

 

Here it is clearly mentioned that living entities belong to the superior nature (or energy) of the Supreme Lord. The inferior energy is matter manifested in different elements, namely earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego. Both forms of material nature, namely gross (earth, etc.) and subtle (mind, etc.), are products of the inferior energy. The living entities, who are exploiting these inferior energies for different purposes, are the superior energy of the Supreme Lord, and it is due to this energy that the entire material world functions. The cosmic manifestation has no power to act unless it is moved by the superior energy, the living entity. Energies are always controlled by the energetic, and therefore the living entities are always controlled by the Lord — they have no independent existence. They are never equally powerful, as unintelligent men think. The distinction between the living entities and the Lord is described in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.87.30) as follows:

 

aparimitā dhruvās tanu-bhṛto yadi sarva-gatās

tarhi na śāsyateti niyamo dhruva netarathā

ajani ca yan-mayaḿ tad avimucya niyantṛ bhavet

samam anujānatāḿ yad amataḿ mata-duṣṭatayā

 

"O Supreme Eternal! If the embodied living entities were eternal and all-pervading like You, then they would not be under Your control. But if the living entities are accepted as minute energies of Your Lordship, then they are at once subject to Your supreme control. Therefore real liberation entails surrender by the living entities to Your control, and that surrender will make them happy. In that constitutional position only can they be controllers. Therefore, men with limited knowledge who advocate the monistic theory that God and the living entities are equal in all respects are actually guided by a faulty and polluted opinion."

 

The Supreme Lord, Kṛṣṇa, is the only controller, and all living entities are controlled by Him. These living entities are His superior energy because the quality of their existence is one and the same with the Supreme, but they are never equal to the Lord in quantity of power. While exploiting the gross and subtle inferior energy (matter), the superior energy (the living entity) forgets his real spiritual mind and intelligence. This forgetfulness is due to the influence of matter upon the living entity. But when the living entity becomes free from the influence of the illusory material energy, he attains the stage called mukti, or liberation. The false ego, under the influence of material illusion, thinks, "I am matter, and material acquisitions are mine." His actual position is realized when he is liberated from all material ideas, including the conception of his becoming one in all respects with God. Therefore one may conclude that the Gītā confirms the living entity to be only one of the multi-energies of Kṛṣṇa; and when this energy is freed from material contamination, it becomes fully Kṛṣṇa conscious, or liberated.

 

 

http://vedabase.net/bg/en

[sambya 0]

 

Regarding the Self, there are contradictory opinions on Mind and Intellect. Some say that "I am not the Mind or Intellect, Nor are they Mine" (AshtaVakra Gita), and some say "I am not the Mind or Intellect, but they are Mine" (Swami Sukhbodhananda who often quote Adi Shankara besides Bhagwat Gita) and thus I presume Adi Shankar and/or Bhagwat Gita says so. I agree to the first part of both but the second part confuses me.

the true nature of an individual is not mind or intellect nor linked with it . because in sankaracharyas stotra itself you find ....."im not mind nor intellect im chidananda roop shiv himself " . here it is clearly stated that our true nature is entirely divine and has nothing to do with illusory mind and intellect . advaita believes that in the perfectional stage neither mind nor intellect exists . they exist so long as there is this percieved duality due to maya .

 

but dualists does not discard mind and intellect altogether but seperate it from your true self - the atman . dualistic veiw says mind and intellect exists but are under the atman . and its our duty to realise that mind and intellect are not our true self .

 

so i think "I am not the Mind or Intellect, but they are Mine" would be a dualistic explanation .

and "I am not the Mind or Intellect, Nor are they Mine" is a perfect non dualistic explanation . more so because ashtavakra gita is a advaitist text .

[sambya 0]

 

In dvaita, one says, " I am not the mind and intellect, nor they are mine. In advaita, one says, " I am not the mind and intellect but they are mine."

 

 

theres a little mistake !

 

dvaita doesnt say they are not mine but says that they are not my true identities . my true identity is my soul the atman . mind and intellect comes under the material energy and are parts of the subtle body as per gita . dvaita seperates itself from them but does not discard them .

 

advaita strightway discards them . they say that all things like mind and intellect are mere illusion and by meditation , concentration , yoga ,purity and by repeatedly convincing oneself ( the process of na iti na iti i.e. this is not this is not ) one can reach that perfect nondual unity .

 

 

ashtavakra gita is a mostly advaitist book !!

[kaisersose 0]

 

Hello all,

Regarding the Self, there are contradictory opinions on Mind and Intellect. Some say that "I am not the Mind or Intellect, Nor are they Mine" (AshtaVakra Gita), and some say "I am not the Mind or Intellect, but they are Mine" (Swami Sukhbodhananda who often quote Adi Shankara besides Bhagwat Gita) and thus I presume Adi Shankar and/or Bhagwat Gita says so. I agree to the first part of both but the second part confuses me.

Since we all agree Mind is powerful(otherwise why do u need to bring it under control) and important, I wanted to know which one of the above two is true. If someone can quote some Authentic Text(pls no round round discussion like Mind is just a collection of thoughts) and/or put forth a more logical explanation to the perspective the authors to the above texts are coming from then I would be further Enlightened.

 

Clearly, you are admitting there are two different sources saying two different things.

 

But what is the enlightenment you hope to get by picking one of these two? I do not see any value-add in picking one over the other.

 

Cheers

[bhaktajan 0]

 

 

 

There are two kinds of spiritual bodies, as generally understood by common men.

The term “spiritual body” is sometimes taken to refer to a ghostly body.

An impious man who dies after sinful activities is sometimes condemned so that he cannot possess a gross material body of five material elements, but must live in a subtle body of mind, intelligence and ego.

However, as explained in Bhagavad-gita, devotees can give up the material body and attain a spiritual body free from all material tinges, gross and subtle . . .

SB 7.7.23: There are two kinds of bodies for every individual soul—a gross body made of five gross elements and a subtle body made of three subtle elements. Within these bodies, however, is the spirit soul. One must find the soul by analysis, saying, “This is not it. This is not it.” Thus one must separate spirit from matter.

 

An expert in the study of soil can find out where gold is and then dig there. He can then analyze the stone and test the gold with nitric acid.

Similarly, one must analyze the whole body to find within the body the spirit soul. In studying one’s own body, one must ask himself whether his head is his soul, his fingers are his soul, his hand is his soul, and so on. In this way, one must gradually reject all the material elements and the combinations of material elements in the body. Then, if one is expert and follows the acarya, he can understand that he is the spiritual soul living within the body. The greatest acarya, Krishna , begins His teachings in Bhagavad-gita by saying:

“As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.” (Bg. 2.13)

 

The spirit soul possesses the body and is within the body. This is the real analysis. The soul never mixes with the bodily elements. Although the soul is within the body, it is separate and always pure.

 

One must analyze and understand his self. This is self-realization.

 

Neti neti is the analytical process of rejecting matter. By expertly conducting such an analysis, one can understand where the soul is. One who is not expert, however, cannot distinguish gold from earth, nor the soul from the body.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;;;

The in-animated elements within the cosmos are of two kinds:

1 gross matter [earth, water, fire, air, either], and,

2 subtle [mind, intelligence, ego].

Buddhist metaphysics is indeed the same study of the impersonal 24 agrregate material elements of the material energy --as is also studied in the Vedanta metaphysics.

The Buddhist and the mayavada schools of thought both uphold "Nirvana" & "Brahman Realization" as 'Enlightenment'.

BUT, why does it take such voluminous volumes of Vedic Scripture to explain a so-called impersonalistic void-like conclusion to the spiritual path, namely 'Nirvana'? It's because the journey of spiritual enlightenment will take us full circle back to a Persona . . .

 

 

[jaguar 0]

 

To understand this we have to go back to the basics, advaita and dvaita. In dvaita, one says, " I am not the mind and intellect, nor they are mine. In advaita, one says, " I am not the mind and intellect but they are mine." Actually, mind and intellect are the subtle forms of God`s external (inferior) energy whose predominating Deity is Durga( Search Brahma-samhita Text 44).

The self however is different because it`s a spirit soul part and parcel of the Supreme Soul, God. The self is not a product of this material nature(Maya or Durga).

 

Actually ur answer is in direct contrast with "sambya". You say

In dvaita, one says, " I am not the mind and intellect, nor they are mine.

In advaita, one says, " I am not the mind and intellect but they are mine."

 

sambya says

so i think "I am not the Mind or Intellect, but they are Mine" would be a dualistic explanation .

and "I am not the Mind or Intellect, Nor are they Mine" is a perfect non dualistic explanation . more so because ashtavakra gita is a advaitist text .

 

So for the benefit of all let me make my doubt more clear, I AGREE THAT "I am not the mind nor the intellect".

Till here I agree. I also agree that I am the soul. BUT

because of difference of opinion, of the quoted texts, one of them ashtavakra "further" says "..that nor are mind and intellect mine"

whereas adi shankara, swami sukhbodhana, and many be more say "...mind and intellect are mine though I am not them".

This is my crux of confusion so if u now read the doubt, my question has two part of which I have already clarified that I 1000% agree I am the soul, but the second part of causing confusion. On further pondering I discover that they are saying the same thing but from different perspective. Please correct me if I am wrong but due to the fact that in advait Soul == God/ParaBharman, I am the soul and thus God and since nothing exists in this world other than the self, the mind and intellect are created out of me say but my power etc but they are not me. Swami Sukhbodhananda puts this beautifully saying that "This Shirt is Mine, but I am not this shirt", This car is mine but I am not the car, This House is mine but I am not the House, and if you still don't understand then "This donkey is mine,..." you get the picture.

Now coming to Dvaita, it is said that Krishna is the Supreme and Mind and Intellect are made from this Powers which if you re-read my above paragraph is the same thing from different perspective. The only subtle but critical point that now comes up now is that if though we have bringed the gap in perspective reg. Mind and Intellect and Ego blah blah, we are not able to bridge the gap between Soul as per Advait(God) and Dvaita(Soul is one of the power of God Krishna). hmmm interesting discussion, but we need to iron this out because if Self is the Ultimate truth, then there can simply be no two Truths.

[jaguar 0]

Sonic Yogi said: As far as what is "ours" not even our own soul is really ours as the soul is a separated energy of Krishna and is therefore technically his.

 

So it effectively means that you don't exists at all independently or are not Eternal-Eternal but are relatively Eternal i.e as long as this Universe or Kalpa exists and thus on Pralay you don't exist, which contradicts that the Soul is Unborn and external and will thus never die as we never know we will be in next Kalpa as we will never be we. Infact if u try to read it, you can say everything in the Bhagwat Gita from the Advaita point of view also. Simply reply the "I" in BG that Krishna says to the "Self"/Soul. Ofcourse Krishna is a Self Realised Soul and thus we can view it that the "I" in BG is refered to the Self/Soul and not the Krishna the Person/Entity merely.

[jaguar 0]

but if Ashtavakra Gita is Advait and Adi Shankara being the proponent of Advait, how can their views be different. The former says "Mind and Intellect are not mine" and Adi says they are mine but not me.

[jaguar 0]

Yes I agree to all that u mentioned above BUT my question was NOT on the identity of the Soul but on the identify or ownership of other aspects particularly Mind and Intellect. Ego as Ramana Maharishi puts it is false self or the "I" thought wrongly associated with the body and material aspects is anyways not my concern, but Mind and Intellect are more important to discuss as most books tend to only concentrate and go ga ga over soul completely belittling these other aspects particularly Mind and Intellect. Remember in such discussions, we always have the attitude that Mind and Intellect are polluted, unholy, corrupt, bad, sinful etc etc and thus we tend to discard them outright but forget that there are pious Mind and Intellect to. If not so, why do u even have to control and Mind and the Intellect as we have already assue them to be unworthly and all the text loudly claim that Self cannot be known by Mind or Intellect as it is above them. So I specifically want to know the Position or relevance of these subtle aspects in the travel of Self Realisation. I know they are not the Self but we need to control them if they are not mine, not me, completely unholy where as the soul is Holy blah blah, why bring it under control? if it is such a Taboo. This should automaticall strike a bell in ur Mind that they are relevant but what and how? This is the subject matter of this Thread.

[sambya 0]

 

but if Ashtavakra Gita is Advait and Adi Shankara being the proponent of Advait, how can their views be different. The former says "Mind and Intellect are not mine" and Adi says they are mine but not me.

 

there might be a mistake in translation ! maybe you should check out a few other translations . interpreting sanskrit in english is really tough !!

[jaguar 0]

Translations moving around on the web is by one John Richards and there is another by Bart Marshall(there cud be more). Bart marshall is silent on "I am not the body or the mind or the intellect nor are they mine" but Richard's translation spells this out. Bart Marshall says "I am not the body or the mind" which we all agree and know. hmmm so there is difference in translation either purposely or by mistake. In either case, personally I would not like to go with something I don't agree with until I experience it myself. I would want to mediate on it, "experience this myself" only then I will believe it. If I start reading 100s of books,scriptures,articles and opinions, I will end up nowhere. So have decided to be with Swami Sukhbodhana's explanation about Vedanta which incl. Adi + Gita in it + the fact that I have experienced it myself in meditation so I can definately vouch for it to be true until another experience comes forth which can stand the test.

[sambya 0]

personally i dont put much of trust in translations done by western people . firstly because they had to learn sanskrit from begining and tune their thinking to indian culture and ethos before they could start translating . but a learned indian scholar is already aqquainted with hindu culture and indian values along with sanskrit language . he might not know the language initially but is definately aqquainted with the metaphors and syntax used in it , because our own vernacular languages are also so close to sanskrit . so i would put a greater trust in an indian translation .

 

so many western translations were later termed as incorrect . even max muller's rik-samhita was discarded by tilak .

 

but one needs to be carefull even with indian translators . quite often i've seen sectarian preachers willfully twisting the meanings in their own favour . sanskrit being a highly abstract language actually helps in the process .

 

 

personally I would not like to go with something I don't agree with until I experience it myself. I would want to mediate on it, "experience this myself" only then I will believe it.

 

 

 

thats good !! it shows your sincirity in search for truth . but after initial speculations , i think you have to force yourself to believe in some basic things . because belief comes first in spirituality , then realization . that initial belief is indeed very hard to come .............. skeptical minds never wants to believe .!!

 

by the way , is swami sukhabodhananda the one with short beard seen on television ... shaiva is he ?

[sant 0]

 

by the way , is swami sukhabodhananda the one with short beard seen on television ... shaiva is he ?

 

 

No he teaches mixture of zen,buddism ,gita ,etc. advait.

The one you are talking about is baba shivanand ji.

Although he is also advait. but teaches shiv sadhana

[sambya 0]

 

No he teaches mixture of zen,buddism ,gita ,etc. advait.

The one you are talking about is baba shivanand ji.

Although he is also advait. but teaches shiv sadhana

 

Ah yes !! shivananda ...........right !!

 

then i dont know this sukhabodhananda ............

[jaguar 0]

Swami Sukhabhananda (www.prasannatrust.org) comes regularly on Astha and Sanskar on sun around 9:00 pm on Sanskar generall wearing Saffron Kurta and sometimes Saffron Shawl. On somedays(gen. weekdays) on Astha at 11:00 pm (see astha timetable ticker). In anycase the abv website shud give u ample details. What I like abv swamiji is his authentic, well research, non-dogmatic teachings. U have to hear him to know what am talking abt.

[jaguar 0]

Avadhoot Baba Shivananji is my Guru. I have Sanjeevani Diksha from him.

[sant 0]

 

Avadhoot Baba Shivananji is my Guru. I have Sanjeevani Diksha from him.

 

do you?

i have been looking for a person like you.

What about shambovi shakti.

[jaguar 0]

Yes I have that too by Baba's grace and will.

[allisone 0]

I use to think my mind/interlect was mine, until one day I found myself in a place of pure Consciousness, where I was shown all are connected, all is one, very dificult to put into words, and love that filled my whole being, I cant say body, because I never had one, just Consciousness.

[jaguar 0]

I know what u felt coz I had similar experience. But my contention is that if u don't have mind and intellect how do you think. Consiousness alone cannot think just as Conciousness cannot see without the sense of seeing. Ofcourse needless to say, the the Mind and Intellect may not necc. look like our brain or heart or for that matter they may not be seperate but intrinsic. Considering the unimaginable definations given to describe 'The Self', it becomes even more difficult to explain this point. But while meditating, I could feel the neccesity of 'The Self' to have a Mind and Intellect though they are distinct from Pure Consiciousness but still there somewhere in subtle form otherwise 'The Self' could not have thought or had a desire to create this world as the Vedas say. Subtle form or Subtlest it has to be there. The reason this thread came up was, contrary to my observations in meditations, the quoted Text in the opening message claims contrary and wanted to know if someone had been this deep and have found the perspective which I feel is diff. of the author of those text from mine only, rest we both agree.

[allisone 0]

Perhaps it is a higher Mind/Interlect/Consciousness, belonging to the Source of all, but accesable by all on the physical plane of existance, when the time is right for that individual to access it.

[bhaktajan 0]

Pure Consciousness is part and parcel of "ananda (blissfullness)" --therefore it is only when all anxiety [mental, emotional, physical, psychi, social, mortal] is vanquished. This act of vanquishing such ego-based-body-consciousness is often achieved ONLY in fleeting Glimpses, passing like a flash, that of course, was thoroughly witnessed by one's 'being' and thus, preceived as a 'Higher-Vision'.

 

Such a 'Higher-Vision' is temporary. Thus, the quandry of living life in pursuit of Happiness/Fulfillment/Satifaction/Bliss . . . versus . . . letting-go of material baggage and feeling the emancipation of being 'Carefree'.

 

with that said . . . now . . . get Back to Work,

Bhaktajan

[sambya 0]

what ? bhaktajan and such a small post ?? i must say , you are deviating from the tradition that you have upheld for so long .......................pull your socks up and resort back to your roots . fill up the places with pastings from e-books and hare krishna literatures !!