Guest guest Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Dear RK ji, Let us divide this thread into two. Let one grow through the discussion of " Dridhadi " 3 divisions, and the other about insights. Insight comes from approaching the question under scrutiny in a new light. From were this light come? It comes from consciousness. The Sanskrit word is " Prenja " . There is a sloka in Chanakya Neeti- " Pranje sastram swayam bhati Vistaram Vastu saktita " Meaning, In the consciousness the essence of the subject (the question under scrutiny) appears by itself. The elaboration is the only thing that depends on the ability (accumulated surrounding knowledge etc) of the person. We should encounter questions with the light of our unique consciousness - and questions themselves give us new answers. We collect the surrounding knowledge and use our own abilities (such as vocabulary, ability describe, humor, knowledge of incidents/stories/quotes etc) to elaborate and present the same before the audience. Then it is heralded as an insight. In essence it comes from the consciousness (where there is nothing!) - It is just light, you may say! But still in its presents, everything appears clear, and with a different beauty!! It is not the subject but the consciousness of the person who looks into it is important! (Really, that is an insight!) Then even most irrelevant of the subjects can give us so much knowledge that no others can! => The essence is " Prenja " – which does not contain any knowledge, but the base of all knowledge! It is the essential, and the knowledge, as Osho points out at times, 'know-all-edge' is at the `edge', it is just `peripheral'. Let us go after the essential. Love, Sreenadh , rk dash <arkaydash wrote: > > Dear Sree > Good to have you back. > So you want to excite me. My excited desire on this forum will be to test my fundamentals in light of the views and insights of fellow members (Dr K, Shree Madhu, Sreenivas, to name a few). Put also them (all members) on notice if you want to excite me. > > RK > > Sreenadh <sreesog wrote: > Rk ji, > It happenes due to life circumstances. But still you were all > here, right?! So I think revival is always possible, and is so > easy. > > Now to Astrology:- > ******************************************* > " Dridhadi karma treyakalameeswara kalasworoopa pradadati dehinam " > ******************************************* > In Dasadhyayi there is a sloka- > " Dridhadi karma treyakalameeswara kalasworoopa pradadati dehinam " > Meaning, The effect of space-time continuem on living beings can be > of 3 type - > 1) Dridha = Which can not be modified > 2) Dridhadridha = Which can be modified if we know about it (We > have a choice) > 3) Adridha = Which may or may not happen (Jut a simple possibility) > > This is one of the concepts that is very fundamental to Ancient > Indian Astrology. Instead of me speaking elaborately on the subject, > I quote the words of Osho, when he spoke about the same- > Note:- I have just inserted some headings in between the words of > Osho for better understanding and co-relating of the same with the > above sloka. > ******************************************************** > ============ > The 3 Parts > ============ > " Astrology can be divided into three parts. The first part is > the core, > the essence; it is the essentials, and cannot be changed. It is the > part which is most difficult to understand. The second part is the > middle layer, in which one can make whatever changes one wants. It is > the semi-essential portion in which you can make changes if you know > how, but without knowing, no changes are possible at all. The third > part is the outermost layer which is nonessential, but about which we > are all very curious. > The first is the essence, in which no changes can be made. When it is > known, the only way is to cooperate with it. Religions have devised > astrology in order to know and decipher this essential destiny. The > semi-essential part of astrology is such that if we know about it we > can change our lives -- otherwise not. > If we do not know, then whatsoever was going to happen will happen. > If > there is knowledge, there are alternatives to choose between. There > is > a possibility of transformation if the right choice is made. The > third, nonessential part is just the periphery, the outer surface. > There is nothing essential in it; everything is circumstantial. > But we go to consult astrologers only for the nonessential things. > Someone goes and asks an astrologer when he will get employment -- > there is no relationship between your employment and the moon and > stars. Someone asks whether he will marry or not.... There can be a > society without marriage. Someone asks whether he will remain poor or > become rich.... There can be a socialist or communist society where > there will be no rich and no poor people. So these are nonessential > questions.... > An eighty years old man was walking along when his foot slipped on > some orange peel thrown onto the road. Now, is it possible to inquire > of an astrologer and know from the moon and stars on which road and > on > which orange peel the foot will slip? Such queries are foolish, but > you are curious to know in advance whether your foot will land on an > orange skin and slip if you go out on the road today. This is > nonessential. This has nothing to do with your being or your soul. > These events happen on the periphery, and astrology has nothing to do > with them. But because the astrologers were busy talking only about > such things, the great establishment of astrology collapsed. This was > the only reason. > No intelligent person will be prepared to believe that when he was > born it was written by destiny that on a particular day on Marine > Drive his foot would land on some orange peel and he would fall.... > Neither the falling down nor the orange peel have any relationship to > the stars. Astrology has lost respect because it became connected > with > such things. At one time or the other we all have wanted to know such > things from astrologers -- but these things are nonessential. But > there are certain semi-essential matters such as the birth or death > of > a person: if you can know everything about these, you can take > precautionary measures. If you do not know anything, you can't do > anything. > If our knowledge about the diagnosis of disease is increased, we will > be able to increase the life-span of human beings. We have been doing > it. If our research to make deadlier atom bombs succeeds, we will be > able to kill hundreds of thousands of people at a time -- we have > done > it. This semi-essential world presents a possibility for our being > able to do certain things, if we know in advance what is going to > happen. If we do not know, nothing can be done. By our knowing in > advance, alternatives can be sorted out and selected. > Beyond this, the world of the essential exists -- you cannot do > anything about it. However, our curiosity is to know only about > nonessential things. Seldom does someone reach out to know the > semi-essential. Our curiosity or desire never extends to knowing that > which is essential and unavoidable, that which cannot be changed even > if known. > ================ > Dridha = Essential > ================ > The astrology I am talking about concerns the essential, the > fundamental. At best your curiosity as far as the semi-essential. You > want to know how long you will live or whether or not you will > suddenly die. But you are not curious to know what you will do if you > live -- how you will live. You do want to know how you will die when > the time comes or what you will be doing at that time. Your curiosity > extends to events, not to the soul. > ------------------------------- > The projections of the future also determine the present moments. > This > present moment could not be if there were no future moments. Only > with > the support of future moments can the present moment occur. Our hands > are resting on the shoulders of the future, our feet are on the > shoulders of our past. It is very obvious that if that which is below > me -- on which I am standing and which I can see -- slips away, I > will > fall. But if the shoulders of the future -- on which my outstretched > hands are resting -- slip away then I will also fall. > When a person finds himself connected with this inner unity of past > and future he will be able to understand astrology. Then astrology > becomes a religion, then astrology becomes spiritual. > ======================= > Dridhadridha = Semi-Essential > ======================= > I will tell you a very interesting story so that you may > understand.... Mohammed had a disciple named Ali. Ali once asked > Mohammed's opinion about whether a man is independent and free to do > what he wants, or whether he is bound by his destiny in everything he > does. Ali asked, " Can one do as one wants or not? " -- and man has > been asking this question for a long, long time. " If a man is not > able > to do as he desires, " Ali said, " then it is useless and foolish to > preach to him not to steal, not to tell lies, not to be dishonest. Or > is it destiny that one man should always be there to preach to others > not to steal or not to do this or that, knowing full well that it is > also destiny for a dishonest man to remain dishonest, for a thief to > remain a thief, for a murderer to remain a murderer? All this appears > absurd. If everything is predestined, all education is useless -- all > prophets, all saints and all teachers are useless. " > People have asked such questions to Mahavira and to Buddha also. If > what is going to happen is predestined, why should Mahavira or Buddha > take so much trouble to explain what is right and what is wrong? So, > Ali asked Mohammed what he thought about this controversial matter. > If > such a question was asked to Mahavira or Buddha, they would have > given > a very complicated and deep reply, but Mohammed gave a reply which > Ali > could understand. Many of Mohammed's replies were direct and > straightforward. Ordinarily, answers given by people who are > uneducated or less educated, or who are simple villagers, are direct > and frank. People like Kabir, Nanak, Mohammed and Jesus were simple > in > that way. Answers by people like Buddha, Mahavira and Krishna were > complex -- Buddha and Mahavira were the cream of a rich and highly > developed civilization. The words of Jesus were direct, like a blow > on > the head. Kabir has actually sung: " Kabir is standing in the open > market with a hammer in his hand to hit you! " If anyone came near him > he would, so to speak, break open his head to remove all the rubbish > that was lying inside. > Mohammed did not give any metaphysical reply. He asked Ali to lift > one > leg and stand on it. Ali had asked a question about whether a man is > free to do what he wants. Why should Ali stand on one leg? Mohammed > said, " First lift one leg. " > Poor Ali lifted his left leg and stood there on one leg. > Mohammed then asked him, " Now lift the right leg also. " > Ali was puzzled and asked how it was possible. Then Mohammed > said, " If > you had wanted to, you could have lifted the right leg first, but now > you cannot.... A man is always free to lift the first leg -- it can > be > whichever he wants -- but no sooner has the first been lifted when > the > other becomes bound to the earth. " > With regard to the nonessential part of life, we are always free to > lift the first leg. But once that is done it becomes a bondage for > the > essential part. We take steps that are nonessential, become > entangled, > and then we are not able to do the essential. So Mohammed said to Ali > that he had all the freedom to lift the right or the left leg first. > But once he exercised that freedom and lifted one left leg, he was > incapable of lifting the other leg. So freedom is there within > certain > limits, but beyond those limits there is bondage. > ================== > Adirdha = Non-Essential > ================== > Aall ordinary astrologers are asked about nonessentials. An ordinary > astrologer is > asked questions like: " Shall we win the elections or not? " How are > the > elections connected with the moon and the stars? The ordinary > astrologer who replies, " Everything is predetermined, and no changes, > not even as much as one inch, can be made, " is making a false > statement. > On the other hand there is the rationalist. He says that nothing is > connected inevitably: whatsoever happens is coincidental, > circumstantial and a matter of chance. There is no law, everything is > anarchic. He is also making a false statement. > > ================== > Back to the 3 Divisions > =================== > There is a law: A rationalist is never found so full of joy and bliss > as a buddha. > The rationalist denies God, soul and religion with the help of logic, > but he can never attain the joy of Mahavira. It is definite that > Mahavira must have done something that earned him his joy, Buddha > must > have done something that liberated him, and Krishna must also have > done something which made it possible for him to give out such > distinctly unique magical notes through his flute. > The real thing is the third, which is the quintessence of everything, > which belongs to the innermost and which is absolutely predetermined. > The more one moves toward one's center, the nearer one comes to the > essential, predetermined part. As we move towards the periphery, we > move towards coincidence. The more we talk about external happenings, > the more there is coincidence. When we talk about inner phenomena, > things begin to appear scientific, as if based on a certain law, and > they become more and more decisive. > Between these two conditions -- the essential and the peripheral -- > there is ample room for changes through the exercise of choice. Here, > a person of knowledge makes the correct choice, while a person who is > without knowledge, who is in the darkness of ignorance, drifts to his > destiny. In darkness, circumstance catches hold of him. > So there are three areas of life. In one area, that which is the > essential core, everything is predetermined. Knowing this is knowing > the essence of astrology. In another area, that which is peripheral, > everything is uncertain. To know this is to know the everyday > unpredictable world. There is another area which is in the middle. By > knowing this, a person can save himself from trying to do the > impossible, and can do what is possible. > > ******************************************************** > OK. That were the words of the Osho. Now do you want to look into > the above sloka? And want to know what else, it say? In which way > you are interested in astrology – In essential? Semi-essential? Non- > essential? > Hope to have many replays on the same. > Love, > Sreenadh > > , rk dash > <arkaydash@> wrote: > > > > Interested? No, nobody is. Only you are. And what is your > explanation for the French leave? > > RK > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > Hi All, > > Why this group becomes inactive when I am not here. Is it that no > > body is interested in astrology? Is it that you don't like this > group? > > With such good members with knowledge, this shouldn't happen to > this > > group. And will not happen I know. Come back and let us restart! > > Love, > > Sreenadh > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 Dear Shreenadh, Once again nice smells are emanating from your kitchen, so i came to taste the fish curry. i like the taste of non-Dridhadi insights so would lap up whatever u present on the table including folk tales which i simply adore. i too am involved with some cooking and thought i will share with u all on the same table. This is something that Osho referred to as a book he wanted to underline each line of while reading it. Is called the Tertium Organum and is written by a Russian called Ouspensky who later worked with Gurdieff also for some time. The book was written in 1912 or around that time and he was already talking of the fourth dimension. I have reproduced below the conclusions from this book. -- .. 333 CONCLUSION In conclusion I wish to speak of those wonderful words, full of profound mystery from the Apocalypse and the apostle Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, which are placed as the epigraph of this book. The Apocalyptic angel swears that THERE SHALL BE TIME NO LONGER. We know not what the author of the Apocalypse wanted to convey, but we do know those STATES OF SPIRIT when time disappears. We know that in this very thing, in the change of the time-sense, the beginning of the fourth form of consciousness is expressed, the beginning of the transition to COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS. In this and in phrases similar to it, the profound philosophical content of the evangelical teaching sometimes flashes forth. And the understanding of the fact that the MYSTERY OF TIME is the first mystery to be revealed is the first step toward the development of cosmic consciousness along the intellectual path. But what did the Apocalyptic sentence mean? Did it mean precisely what we are now able to construe in it--or was it simply a bit of verbal art, a rhetorical figure of speech, the accidental harping of a string which has continued to sound up to our own time, through centuries and millenniums, with such a wonderfully powerful, true and beautiful tone of thought? We know not now, nor shall we ever, but the words are full of splendor, and we may accept them as a symbol of remote and inaccessible truth. The apostle Paul's words are even more strange, even more startling by reason of their mathematical exactness. (A friend showed me these words in A. Dobroluboff's From the Book Invisible, who saw in them a direct reference to " the fourth measure of space. " ) Truly, what does this mean? .. . . . That ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the BREADTH and LENGTH and DEPTH and HEIGHT. p. 334 First of all, what does the comprehension of breadth and length and depth and height mean? What is it but the comprehension of space? And we now know that the comprehension of the mysteries of space is the beginning of the higher comprehension. The apostle says that " being rooted and grounded in love, with all saints " they may comprehend what space is. Here arises the question: why must love give comprehension? That love leads to sanctity--this is easily understood. Love in the sense that the apostle Paul understands it (Chapter XIII of the First Epistle to the Corinthians) is the highest of all emotions, the synthesis, the blending of all highest emotions. Incontestably, this leads to sanctity. Sanctity: that is the state of the spirit liberated from the duality of man, from his eternal disharmony of soul and body. In the language of the apostle Paul sanctity meant even a little less than in our contemporary language. He called all members of his church saints; sanctity meant to him righteousness, morality, religiosity. We say that all this is merely the path to sanctity. Sanctity is something more--something attained. But it is after all immaterial how we shall understand his words--in his meaning or in ours--sanctity is a superhuman quality. In the region of morality it corresponds to genius in the region of mind. Love is the path to sainthood. But with sanctity the apostle Paul unites KNOWLEDGE. Saints comprehend what is the breadth and length and depth and height; and he says that all--through love--may comprehend this with them. But may comprehend what, exactly? COMPREHEND SPACE. Because " breadth and length and depth and height " translated into our language of shorter definitions actually means space. This last is the most strange. How could the apostle Paul possibly KNOW that sanctity gives a new understanding of space? We know that it must give it, but FROM WHAT could he know that? None of his contemporaries ever united sanctity with the idea of the comprehension of space; and in general there was no discussion at all about " space " at that time, at least among the Greeks and Romans. Only now, after Kant, and after we have had access to the treasures of thought of the Orient, do we understand that the transition into a new phase of consciousness is impossible without the expansion of the space-sense. p. 335 But we wonder if this is what the apostle Paul wanted to say--that strange man: Roman official, persecutor of the first Christianity who became its preacher, philosopher, mystic; the man who " saw God, " the bold reformer and moralist of his time, who fought for " the spirit " against " the letter " and was of course not responsible for the fact that he himself was understood by others not in " the spirit, " but in " the letter. " Is it this that he wanted to say? We do not know. But let us look at these words of the Apocalypse and the Epistles from the standpoint of our usual " positivistic thinking, " which sometimes condescendingly agrees to admit the " metaphorical meaning " of mysticism. What shall we see? WE SHALL SEE NOTHING! The flash of mystery, which appeared just for an instant, will immediately disappear. The words will be without any content, nothing in them will attract our wearied attention, which will merely glide over them as it glides over everything. We will indifferently turn the page and indifferently close the book. An interesting metaphor, yes: But nothing else! And we fail to observe that we rob ourselves, deprive life of all beauty, all mystery, all content; and wonder afterwards why everything is so uninteresting and detestable to us, why we do not desire to live, and why we do not understand anything around us; we wonder why brute force wins, or deceit and falsification, though to these things we have nothing to oppose. THE METHOD IS NO GOOD. In its time " positivism " appeared as something refreshing, sober, healthful and progressive, which explored new avenues of thought. After the sentimental speculations of naive dualism " positivism " was indeed a great step forward. Positivism became a symbol of the progress of thought. But we see now that it inevitably leads to materialism. And in this form it arrests thought. From revolutionary, persecuted, anarchistic, free-thinking, positivism became the basis of official science. It is decked-out in full dress. It is given medals. There are academies and universities dedicated to its service. It is recognized; it teaches; it tyrannizes over thought. But having attained to well-being and prosperity, positivism immediately opposed obstacles to the forward march of thought. p. 336 A Chinese wall of " positivistic " sciences and methods is built up around free investigation. Everything rising above this wall is condemned as unscientific. And seen in this way positivism, which before was a symbol of progress, now appears as conservative, reactionary. The existing order is already established in the world of thought, and to fight against it is declared to be a crime. With astonishing rapidity those principles which only yesterday expressed the highest radicalism in the region of thought have become the basis of opportunism in the region of ideas and serve as blind alleys, stopping the progress of thought. In our eyes this occurred with the idea of evolution, on which it is now possible to build up anything, and with the help of which it is possible to tear down anything. But thought, which is free, cannot be bound by any limits. The true motion which lies at the foundation of everything, is the motion of thought. True energy is the energy of consciousness. And truth itself is motion, and can never lead to arrestment, to the cessation of search. ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS FALSE. Therefore the true and real progress of thought is only in the broadest striving toward knowledge, that does not recognize the possibility of arrestment in any found forms of knowledge at all. The meaning of life is in eternal search. And only in that search can we find something truly new. -- Did u like the taste of this curry? However, what i am still finding hard to digest is " ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS FALSE " ... " truth itself is motion " , i thought that truth is stationary...and our search should be to reach that zero stationary stage. thougths of course are motion and they have to be arrested....what say u? Of course, this is just a play of imagination where one has no idea of what is truth. i am just parroting the words of others in a cut and paste reality... But just look at the insight of this man!!! He was a genius! , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: > > Dear RK ji, > Let us divide this thread into two. Let one grow through the > discussion of " Dridhadi " 3 divisions, and the other about insights. > Insight comes from approaching the question under scrutiny in a new > light. From were this light come? It comes from consciousness. The > Sanskrit word is " Prenja " . There is a sloka in Chanakya Neeti- > " Pranje sastram swayam bhati > Vistaram Vastu saktita " > Meaning, In the consciousness the essence of the subject (the > question under scrutiny) appears by itself. The elaboration is the > only thing that depends on the ability (accumulated surrounding > knowledge etc) of the person. > We should encounter questions with the light of our unique > consciousness - and questions themselves give us new answers. We > collect the surrounding knowledge and use our own abilities (such as > vocabulary, ability describe, humor, knowledge of > incidents/stories/quotes etc) to elaborate and present the same before > the audience. Then it is heralded as an insight. > In essence it comes from the consciousness (where there is nothing!) > - It is just light, you may say! But still in its presents, > everything appears clear, and with a different beauty!! > It is not the subject but the consciousness of the person who looks > into it is important! (Really, that is an insight!) Then even most > irrelevant of the subjects can give us so much knowledge that no > others can! > => The essence is " Prenja " – which does not contain any knowledge, but > the base of all knowledge! It is the essential, and the knowledge, as > Osho points out at times, 'know-all-edge' is at the `edge', it is just > `peripheral'. Let us go after the essential. > Love, > Sreenadh > > , rk dash > <arkaydash@> wrote: > > > > Dear Sree > > Good to have you back. > > So you want to excite me. My excited desire on this forum will be > to test my fundamentals in light of the views and insights of fellow > members (Dr K, Shree Madhu, Sreenivas, to name a few). Put also them > (all members) on notice if you want to excite me. > > > > RK > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > Rk ji, > > It happenes due to life circumstances. But still you were all > > here, right?! So I think revival is always possible, and is so > > easy. > > > > Now to Astrology:- > > ******************************************* > > " Dridhadi karma treyakalameeswara kalasworoopa pradadati dehinam " > > ******************************************* > > In Dasadhyayi there is a sloka- > > " Dridhadi karma treyakalameeswara kalasworoopa pradadati dehinam " > > Meaning, The effect of space-time continuem on living beings can be > > of 3 type - > > 1) Dridha = Which can not be modified > > 2) Dridhadridha = Which can be modified if we know about it (We > > have a choice) > > 3) Adridha = Which may or may not happen (Jut a simple possibility) > > > > This is one of the concepts that is very fundamental to Ancient > > Indian Astrology. Instead of me speaking elaborately on the subject, > > I quote the words of Osho, when he spoke about the same- > > Note:- I have just inserted some headings in between the words of > > Osho for better understanding and co-relating of the same with the > > above sloka. > > ******************************************************** > > ============ > > The 3 Parts > > ============ > > " Astrology can be divided into three parts. The first part is > > the core, > > the essence; it is the essentials, and cannot be changed. It is the > > part which is most difficult to understand. The second part is the > > middle layer, in which one can make whatever changes one wants. It is > > the semi-essential portion in which you can make changes if you know > > how, but without knowing, no changes are possible at all. The third > > part is the outermost layer which is nonessential, but about which we > > are all very curious. > > The first is the essence, in which no changes can be made. When it is > > known, the only way is to cooperate with it. Religions have devised > > astrology in order to know and decipher this essential destiny. The > > semi-essential part of astrology is such that if we know about it we > > can change our lives -- otherwise not. > > If we do not know, then whatsoever was going to happen will happen. > > If > > there is knowledge, there are alternatives to choose between. There > > is > > a possibility of transformation if the right choice is made. The > > third, nonessential part is just the periphery, the outer surface. > > There is nothing essential in it; everything is circumstantial. > > But we go to consult astrologers only for the nonessential things. > > Someone goes and asks an astrologer when he will get employment -- > > there is no relationship between your employment and the moon and > > stars. Someone asks whether he will marry or not.... There can be a > > society without marriage. Someone asks whether he will remain poor or > > become rich.... There can be a socialist or communist society where > > there will be no rich and no poor people. So these are nonessential > > questions.... > > An eighty years old man was walking along when his foot slipped on > > some orange peel thrown onto the road. Now, is it possible to inquire > > of an astrologer and know from the moon and stars on which road and > > on > > which orange peel the foot will slip? Such queries are foolish, but > > you are curious to know in advance whether your foot will land on an > > orange skin and slip if you go out on the road today. This is > > nonessential. This has nothing to do with your being or your soul. > > These events happen on the periphery, and astrology has nothing to do > > with them. But because the astrologers were busy talking only about > > such things, the great establishment of astrology collapsed. This was > > the only reason. > > No intelligent person will be prepared to believe that when he was > > born it was written by destiny that on a particular day on Marine > > Drive his foot would land on some orange peel and he would fall.... > > Neither the falling down nor the orange peel have any relationship to > > the stars. Astrology has lost respect because it became connected > > with > > such things. At one time or the other we all have wanted to know such > > things from astrologers -- but these things are nonessential. But > > there are certain semi-essential matters such as the birth or death > > of > > a person: if you can know everything about these, you can take > > precautionary measures. If you do not know anything, you can't do > > anything. > > If our knowledge about the diagnosis of disease is increased, we will > > be able to increase the life-span of human beings. We have been doing > > it. If our research to make deadlier atom bombs succeeds, we will be > > able to kill hundreds of thousands of people at a time -- we have > > done > > it. This semi-essential world presents a possibility for our being > > able to do certain things, if we know in advance what is going to > > happen. If we do not know, nothing can be done. By our knowing in > > advance, alternatives can be sorted out and selected. > > Beyond this, the world of the essential exists -- you cannot do > > anything about it. However, our curiosity is to know only about > > nonessential things. Seldom does someone reach out to know the > > semi-essential. Our curiosity or desire never extends to knowing that > > which is essential and unavoidable, that which cannot be changed even > > if known. > > ================ > > Dridha = Essential > > ================ > > The astrology I am talking about concerns the essential, the > > fundamental. At best your curiosity as far as the semi-essential. You > > want to know how long you will live or whether or not you will > > suddenly die. But you are not curious to know what you will do if you > > live -- how you will live. You do want to know how you will die when > > the time comes or what you will be doing at that time. Your curiosity > > extends to events, not to the soul. > > ------------------------------- > > The projections of the future also determine the present moments. > > This > > present moment could not be if there were no future moments. Only > > with > > the support of future moments can the present moment occur. Our hands > > are resting on the shoulders of the future, our feet are on the > > shoulders of our past. It is very obvious that if that which is below > > me -- on which I am standing and which I can see -- slips away, I > > will > > fall. But if the shoulders of the future -- on which my outstretched > > hands are resting -- slip away then I will also fall. > > When a person finds himself connected with this inner unity of past > > and future he will be able to understand astrology. Then astrology > > becomes a religion, then astrology becomes spiritual. > > ======================= > > Dridhadridha = Semi-Essential > > ======================= > > I will tell you a very interesting story so that you may > > understand.... Mohammed had a disciple named Ali. Ali once asked > > Mohammed's opinion about whether a man is independent and free to do > > what he wants, or whether he is bound by his destiny in everything he > > does. Ali asked, " Can one do as one wants or not? " -- and man has > > been asking this question for a long, long time. " If a man is not > > able > > to do as he desires, " Ali said, " then it is useless and foolish to > > preach to him not to steal, not to tell lies, not to be dishonest. Or > > is it destiny that one man should always be there to preach to others > > not to steal or not to do this or that, knowing full well that it is > > also destiny for a dishonest man to remain dishonest, for a thief to > > remain a thief, for a murderer to remain a murderer? All this appears > > absurd. If everything is predestined, all education is useless -- all > > prophets, all saints and all teachers are useless. " > > People have asked such questions to Mahavira and to Buddha also. If > > what is going to happen is predestined, why should Mahavira or Buddha > > take so much trouble to explain what is right and what is wrong? So, > > Ali asked Mohammed what he thought about this controversial matter. > > If > > such a question was asked to Mahavira or Buddha, they would have > > given > > a very complicated and deep reply, but Mohammed gave a reply which > > Ali > > could understand. Many of Mohammed's replies were direct and > > straightforward. Ordinarily, answers given by people who are > > uneducated or less educated, or who are simple villagers, are direct > > and frank. People like Kabir, Nanak, Mohammed and Jesus were simple > > in > > that way. Answers by people like Buddha, Mahavira and Krishna were > > complex -- Buddha and Mahavira were the cream of a rich and highly > > developed civilization. The words of Jesus were direct, like a blow > > on > > the head. Kabir has actually sung: " Kabir is standing in the open > > market with a hammer in his hand to hit you! " If anyone came near him > > he would, so to speak, break open his head to remove all the rubbish > > that was lying inside. > > Mohammed did not give any metaphysical reply. He asked Ali to lift > > one > > leg and stand on it. Ali had asked a question about whether a man is > > free to do what he wants. Why should Ali stand on one leg? Mohammed > > said, " First lift one leg. " > > Poor Ali lifted his left leg and stood there on one leg. > > Mohammed then asked him, " Now lift the right leg also. " > > Ali was puzzled and asked how it was possible. Then Mohammed > > said, " If > > you had wanted to, you could have lifted the right leg first, but now > > you cannot.... A man is always free to lift the first leg -- it can > > be > > whichever he wants -- but no sooner has the first been lifted when > > the > > other becomes bound to the earth. " > > With regard to the nonessential part of life, we are always free to > > lift the first leg. But once that is done it becomes a bondage for > > the > > essential part. We take steps that are nonessential, become > > entangled, > > and then we are not able to do the essential. So Mohammed said to Ali > > that he had all the freedom to lift the right or the left leg first. > > But once he exercised that freedom and lifted one left leg, he was > > incapable of lifting the other leg. So freedom is there within > > certain > > limits, but beyond those limits there is bondage. > > ================== > > Adirdha = Non-Essential > > ================== > > Aall ordinary astrologers are asked about nonessentials. An ordinary > > astrologer is > > asked questions like: " Shall we win the elections or not? " How are > > the > > elections connected with the moon and the stars? The ordinary > > astrologer who replies, " Everything is predetermined, and no changes, > > not even as much as one inch, can be made, " is making a false > > statement. > > On the other hand there is the rationalist. He says that nothing is > > connected inevitably: whatsoever happens is coincidental, > > circumstantial and a matter of chance. There is no law, everything is > > anarchic. He is also making a false statement. > > > > ================== > > Back to the 3 Divisions > > =================== > > There is a law: A rationalist is never found so full of joy and bliss > > as a buddha. > > The rationalist denies God, soul and religion with the help of logic, > > but he can never attain the joy of Mahavira. It is definite that > > Mahavira must have done something that earned him his joy, Buddha > > must > > have done something that liberated him, and Krishna must also have > > done something which made it possible for him to give out such > > distinctly unique magical notes through his flute. > > The real thing is the third, which is the quintessence of everything, > > which belongs to the innermost and which is absolutely predetermined. > > The more one moves toward one's center, the nearer one comes to the > > essential, predetermined part. As we move towards the periphery, we > > move towards coincidence. The more we talk about external happenings, > > the more there is coincidence. When we talk about inner phenomena, > > things begin to appear scientific, as if based on a certain law, and > > they become more and more decisive. > > Between these two conditions -- the essential and the peripheral - - > > there is ample room for changes through the exercise of choice. Here, > > a person of knowledge makes the correct choice, while a person who is > > without knowledge, who is in the darkness of ignorance, drifts to his > > destiny. In darkness, circumstance catches hold of him. > > So there are three areas of life. In one area, that which is the > > essential core, everything is predetermined. Knowing this is knowing > > the essence of astrology. In another area, that which is peripheral, > > everything is uncertain. To know this is to know the everyday > > unpredictable world. There is another area which is in the middle. By > > knowing this, a person can save himself from trying to do the > > impossible, and can do what is possible. > > > > ******************************************************** > > OK. That were the words of the Osho. Now do you want to look into > > the above sloka? And want to know what else, it say? In which way > > you are interested in astrology – In essential? Semi-essential? Non- > > essential? > > Hope to have many replays on the same. > > Love, > > Sreenadh > > > > , rk dash > > <arkaydash@> wrote: > > > > > > Interested? No, nobody is. Only you are. And what is your > > explanation for the French leave? > > > RK > > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > Why this group becomes inactive when I am not here. Is it that no > > > body is interested in astrology? Is it that you don't like this > > group? > > > With such good members with knowledge, this shouldn't happen to > > this > > > group. And will not happen I know. Come back and let us restart! > > > Love, > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 Dear Vinita ji, Thanks for good mail. Yes, I remember reading the words of Osho which mentions the 'Russian (mathematician?) called Ouspensky who later worked with Gurdieff also for some time' and still later become one of the opponents of Gurdieff's ideas. But that is not relevant here. Let us look into the words that catches our attention- " ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS FALSE " ... True! Any thing that 'arrests' (forcefully stops) the motion of thought is 'false' (illusion created by mind, and does not reflect the revealing of true consciousness). One shouldn't try to 'arrest' the motion of thought, but instead it should stop naturally! Osho used to say, if we tries to 'suppress' sex, it will take its revenge in full force. Same with 'arresting' thought - it is certain to take its revenge by making us mad! It is 'suppressing'/'arresting' that needs to be avoided. But this does not prevent us from understanding (if not by experience, at least intellectually) that, consciousness is a thoughtless state, and that the enlightened is beyond sex (he is not suppressing it, nor controlled by it). " truth itself is motion " True! How can it be otherwise when the one without change is only change itself?! 'Change' IS 'Motion'. You says " i thought that truth is stationary...and our search should be to reach that zero stationary " How can it be? Anything that is stationary, is dead, not dynamic, not creative, and can not produce anything new. Life is dynamic, Universe is dynamic, consciousness is dynamic, God is dynamic - Ever evolving! Kali is dancing on Siva! Nataraja is dancing! EVERYTHING is dynamic! Consciousness in meditative mode is not stationary, but it is dynamic, full of life, vital and resonance with and is one with truth. It can not be the other way round! Ouspensky was right - we know it only because what he says reflects in our being. Love, Sreenadh , " vinita kumar " <shankar_mamta wrote: > > Dear Shreenadh, > > Once again nice smells are emanating from your kitchen, so i came to > taste the fish curry. > > i like the taste of non-Dridhadi insights so would lap up whatever u > present on the table including folk tales which i simply adore. > > i too am involved with some cooking and thought i will share with u > all on the same table. This is something that Osho referred to as a > book he wanted to underline each line of while reading it. Is called > the Tertium Organum and is written by a Russian called Ouspensky who > later worked with Gurdieff also for some time. The book was written > in 1912 or around that time and he was already talking of the fourth > dimension. > > I have reproduced below the conclusions from this book. > - - > . 333 > > CONCLUSION > In conclusion I wish to speak of those wonderful words, full of > profound mystery from the Apocalypse and the apostle Paul's Epistle > to the Ephesians, which are placed as the epigraph of this book. > > The Apocalyptic angel swears that THERE SHALL BE TIME NO LONGER. > > We know not what the author of the Apocalypse wanted to convey, but > we do know those STATES OF SPIRIT when time disappears. We know that > in this very thing, in the change of the time-sense, the beginning of > the fourth form of consciousness is expressed, the beginning of the > transition to COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS. > > In this and in phrases similar to it, the profound philosophical > content of the evangelical teaching sometimes flashes forth. And the > understanding of the fact that the MYSTERY OF TIME is the first > mystery to be revealed is the first step toward the development of > cosmic consciousness along the intellectual path. > > But what did the Apocalyptic sentence mean? Did it mean precisely > what we are now able to construe in it--or was it simply a bit of > verbal art, a rhetorical figure of speech, the accidental harping of > a string which has continued to sound up to our own time, through > centuries and millenniums, with such a wonderfully powerful, true and > beautiful tone of thought? We know not now, nor shall we ever, but > the words are full of splendor, and we may accept them as a symbol of > remote and inaccessible truth. > > The apostle Paul's words are even more strange, even more startling > by reason of their mathematical exactness. (A friend showed me these > words in A. Dobroluboff's From the Book Invisible, who saw in them a > direct reference to " the fourth measure of space. " ) > > Truly, what does this mean? > > . . . . That ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to > comprehend with all saints what is the BREADTH and LENGTH and DEPTH > and HEIGHT. > > p. 334 > > First of all, what does the comprehension of breadth and length and > depth and height mean? What is it but the comprehension of space? And > we now know that the comprehension of the mysteries of space is the > beginning of the higher comprehension. > > The apostle says that " being rooted and grounded in love, with all > saints " they may comprehend what space is. > > Here arises the question: why must love give comprehension? That love > leads to sanctity--this is easily understood. Love in the sense that > the apostle Paul understands it (Chapter XIII of the First Epistle to > the Corinthians) is the highest of all emotions, the synthesis, the > blending of all highest emotions. Incontestably, this leads to > sanctity. Sanctity: that is the state of the spirit liberated from > the duality of man, from his eternal disharmony of soul and body. In > the language of the apostle Paul sanctity meant even a little less > than in our contemporary language. He called all members of his > church saints; sanctity meant to him righteousness, morality, > religiosity. We say that all this is merely the path to sanctity. > Sanctity is something more--something attained. But it is after all > immaterial how we shall understand his words--in his meaning or in > ours--sanctity is a superhuman quality. In the region of morality it > corresponds to genius in the region of mind. Love is the path to > sainthood. > > But with sanctity the apostle Paul unites KNOWLEDGE. Saints > comprehend what is the breadth and length and depth and height; and > he says that all--through love--may comprehend this with them. But > may comprehend what, exactly? COMPREHEND SPACE. Because " breadth and > length and depth and height " translated into our language of shorter > definitions actually means space. > > This last is the most strange. > > How could the apostle Paul possibly KNOW that sanctity gives a new > understanding of space? We know that it must give it, but FROM WHAT > could he know that? > > None of his contemporaries ever united sanctity with the idea of the > comprehension of space; and in general there was no discussion at all > about " space " at that time, at least among the Greeks and Romans. > Only now, after Kant, and after we have had access to the treasures > of thought of the Orient, do we understand that the transition into a > new phase of consciousness is impossible without the expansion of the > space-sense. > > p. 335 > > But we wonder if this is what the apostle Paul wanted to say--that > strange man: Roman official, persecutor of the first Christianity who > became its preacher, philosopher, mystic; the man who " saw God, " the > bold reformer and moralist of his time, who fought for " the spirit " > against " the letter " and was of course not responsible for the fact > that he himself was understood by others not in " the spirit, " but > in " the letter. " Is it this that he wanted to say? We do not know. > > But let us look at these words of the Apocalypse and the Epistles > from the standpoint of our usual " positivistic thinking, " which > sometimes condescendingly agrees to admit the " metaphorical meaning " > of mysticism. What shall we see? > > WE SHALL SEE NOTHING! > > The flash of mystery, which appeared just for an instant, will > immediately disappear. The words will be without any content, nothing > in them will attract our wearied attention, which will merely glide > over them as it glides over everything. We will indifferently turn > the page and indifferently close the book. > > An interesting metaphor, yes: But nothing else! > > And we fail to observe that we rob ourselves, deprive life of all > beauty, all mystery, all content; and wonder afterwards why > everything is so uninteresting and detestable to us, why we do not > desire to live, and why we do not understand anything around us; we > wonder why brute force wins, or deceit and falsification, though to > these things we have nothing to oppose. > > THE METHOD IS NO GOOD. > > In its time " positivism " appeared as something refreshing, sober, > healthful and progressive, which explored new avenues of thought. > > After the sentimental speculations of naive dualism " positivism " was > indeed a great step forward. Positivism became a symbol of the > progress of thought. > > But we see now that it inevitably leads to materialism. And in this > form it arrests thought. From revolutionary, persecuted, anarchistic, > free-thinking, positivism became the basis of official science. It is > decked-out in full dress. It is given medals. There are academies and > universities dedicated to its service. It is recognized; it teaches; > it tyrannizes over thought. > > But having attained to well-being and prosperity, positivism > immediately opposed obstacles to the forward march of thought. > > p. 336 > > A Chinese wall of " positivistic " sciences and methods is built up > around free investigation. Everything rising above this wall is > condemned as unscientific. > > And seen in this way positivism, which before was a symbol of > progress, now appears as conservative, reactionary. > > The existing order is already established in the world of thought, > and to fight against it is declared to be a crime. > > With astonishing rapidity those principles which only yesterday > expressed the highest radicalism in the region of thought have become > the basis of opportunism in the region of ideas and serve as blind > alleys, stopping the progress of thought. In our eyes this occurred > with the idea of evolution, on which it is now possible to build up > anything, and with the help of which it is possible to tear down > anything. > > But thought, which is free, cannot be bound by any limits. > > The true motion which lies at the foundation of everything, is the > motion of thought. True energy is the energy of consciousness. And > truth itself is motion, and can never lead to arrestment, to the > cessation of search. > > ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS FALSE. > > Therefore the true and real progress of thought is only in the > broadest striving toward knowledge, that does not recognize the > possibility of arrestment in any found forms of knowledge at all. The > meaning of life is in eternal search. And only in that search can we > find something truly new. > > - - > Did u like the taste of this curry? However, what i am still finding > hard to digest is " ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS > FALSE " ... " truth itself is motion " , i thought that truth is > stationary...and our search should be to reach that zero stationary > stage. thougths of course are motion and they have to be > arrested....what say u? Of course, this is just a play of imagination > where one has no idea of what is truth. i am just parroting the words > of others in a cut and paste reality... > > But just look at the insight of this man!!! He was a genius! > > > , " Sreenadh " > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > Dear RK ji, > > Let us divide this thread into two. Let one grow through the > > discussion of " Dridhadi " 3 divisions, and the other about > insights. > > Insight comes from approaching the question under scrutiny in a > new > > light. From were this light come? It comes from consciousness. The > > Sanskrit word is " Prenja " . There is a sloka in Chanakya Neeti- > > " Pranje sastram swayam bhati > > Vistaram Vastu saktita " > > Meaning, In the consciousness the essence of the subject (the > > question under scrutiny) appears by itself. The elaboration is the > > only thing that depends on the ability (accumulated surrounding > > knowledge etc) of the person. > > We should encounter questions with the light of our unique > > consciousness - and questions themselves give us new answers. We > > collect the surrounding knowledge and use our own abilities (such as > > vocabulary, ability describe, humor, knowledge of > > incidents/stories/quotes etc) to elaborate and present the same > before > > the audience. Then it is heralded as an insight. > > In essence it comes from the consciousness (where there is > nothing!) > > - It is just light, you may say! But still in its presents, > > everything appears clear, and with a different beauty!! > > It is not the subject but the consciousness of the person who looks > > into it is important! (Really, that is an insight!) Then even most > > irrelevant of the subjects can give us so much knowledge that no > > others can! > > => The essence is " Prenja " – which does not contain any knowledge, > but > > the base of all knowledge! It is the essential, and the knowledge, > as > > Osho points out at times, 'know-all-edge' is at the `edge', it is > just > > `peripheral'. Let us go after the essential. > > Love, > > Sreenadh > > > > , rk dash > > <arkaydash@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Sree > > > Good to have you back. > > > So you want to excite me. My excited desire on this forum will > be > > to test my fundamentals in light of the views and insights of fellow > > members (Dr K, Shree Madhu, Sreenivas, to name a few). Put also > them > > (all members) on notice if you want to excite me. > > > > > > RK > > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > > Rk ji, > > > It happenes due to life circumstances. But still you were all > > > here, right?! So I think revival is always possible, and is so > > > easy. > > > > > > Now to Astrology:- > > > ******************************************* > > > " Dridhadi karma treyakalameeswara kalasworoopa pradadati dehinam " > > > ******************************************* > > > In Dasadhyayi there is a sloka- > > > " Dridhadi karma treyakalameeswara kalasworoopa pradadati dehinam " > > > Meaning, The effect of space-time continuem on living beings can > be > > > of 3 type - > > > 1) Dridha = Which can not be modified > > > 2) Dridhadridha = Which can be modified if we know about it (We > > > have a choice) > > > 3) Adridha = Which may or may not happen (Jut a simple > possibility) > > > > > > This is one of the concepts that is very fundamental to Ancient > > > Indian Astrology. Instead of me speaking elaborately on the > subject, > > > I quote the words of Osho, when he spoke about the same- > > > Note:- I have just inserted some headings in between the words of > > > Osho for better understanding and co-relating of the same with > the > > > above sloka. > > > ******************************************************** > > > ============ > > > The 3 Parts > > > ============ > > > " Astrology can be divided into three parts. The first part is > > > the core, > > > the essence; it is the essentials, and cannot be changed. It is > the > > > part which is most difficult to understand. The second part is the > > > middle layer, in which one can make whatever changes one wants. > It is > > > the semi-essential portion in which you can make changes if you > know > > > how, but without knowing, no changes are possible at all. The > third > > > part is the outermost layer which is nonessential, but about > which we > > > are all very curious. > > > The first is the essence, in which no changes can be made. When > it is > > > known, the only way is to cooperate with it. Religions have > devised > > > astrology in order to know and decipher this essential destiny. > The > > > semi-essential part of astrology is such that if we know about it > we > > > can change our lives -- otherwise not. > > > If we do not know, then whatsoever was going to happen will > happen. > > > If > > > there is knowledge, there are alternatives to choose between. > There > > > is > > > a possibility of transformation if the right choice is made. The > > > third, nonessential part is just the periphery, the outer surface. > > > There is nothing essential in it; everything is circumstantial. > > > But we go to consult astrologers only for the nonessential things. > > > Someone goes and asks an astrologer when he will get employment -- > > > there is no relationship between your employment and the moon and > > > stars. Someone asks whether he will marry or not.... There can be > a > > > society without marriage. Someone asks whether he will remain > poor or > > > become rich.... There can be a socialist or communist society > where > > > there will be no rich and no poor people. So these are > nonessential > > > questions.... > > > An eighty years old man was walking along when his foot slipped on > > > some orange peel thrown onto the road. Now, is it possible to > inquire > > > of an astrologer and know from the moon and stars on which road > and > > > on > > > which orange peel the foot will slip? Such queries are foolish, > but > > > you are curious to know in advance whether your foot will land on > an > > > orange skin and slip if you go out on the road today. This is > > > nonessential. This has nothing to do with your being or your soul. > > > These events happen on the periphery, and astrology has nothing > to do > > > with them. But because the astrologers were busy talking only > about > > > such things, the great establishment of astrology collapsed. This > was > > > the only reason. > > > No intelligent person will be prepared to believe that when he was > > > born it was written by destiny that on a particular day on Marine > > > Drive his foot would land on some orange peel and he would > fall.... > > > Neither the falling down nor the orange peel have any > relationship to > > > the stars. Astrology has lost respect because it became connected > > > with > > > such things. At one time or the other we all have wanted to know > such > > > things from astrologers -- but these things are nonessential. But > > > there are certain semi-essential matters such as the birth or > death > > > of > > > a person: if you can know everything about these, you can take > > > precautionary measures. If you do not know anything, you can't do > > > anything. > > > If our knowledge about the diagnosis of disease is increased, we > will > > > be able to increase the life-span of human beings. We have been > doing > > > it. If our research to make deadlier atom bombs succeeds, we will > be > > > able to kill hundreds of thousands of people at a time -- we have > > > done > > > it. This semi-essential world presents a possibility for our being > > > able to do certain things, if we know in advance what is going to > > > happen. If we do not know, nothing can be done. By our knowing in > > > advance, alternatives can be sorted out and selected. > > > Beyond this, the world of the essential exists -- you cannot do > > > anything about it. However, our curiosity is to know only about > > > nonessential things. Seldom does someone reach out to know the > > > semi-essential. Our curiosity or desire never extends to knowing > that > > > which is essential and unavoidable, that which cannot be changed > even > > > if known. > > > ================ > > > Dridha = Essential > > > ================ > > > The astrology I am talking about concerns the essential, the > > > fundamental. At best your curiosity as far as the semi- essential. > You > > > want to know how long you will live or whether or not you will > > > suddenly die. But you are not curious to know what you will do if > you > > > live -- how you will live. You do want to know how you will die > when > > > the time comes or what you will be doing at that time. Your > curiosity > > > extends to events, not to the soul. > > > ------------------------------- > > > The projections of the future also determine the present moments. > > > This > > > present moment could not be if there were no future moments. Only > > > with > > > the support of future moments can the present moment occur. Our > hands > > > are resting on the shoulders of the future, our feet are on the > > > shoulders of our past. It is very obvious that if that which is > below > > > me -- on which I am standing and which I can see -- slips away, I > > > will > > > fall. But if the shoulders of the future -- on which my > outstretched > > > hands are resting -- slip away then I will also fall. > > > When a person finds himself connected with this inner unity of > past > > > and future he will be able to understand astrology. Then astrology > > > becomes a religion, then astrology becomes spiritual. > > > ======================= > > > Dridhadridha = Semi-Essential > > > ======================= > > > I will tell you a very interesting story so that you may > > > understand.... Mohammed had a disciple named Ali. Ali once asked > > > Mohammed's opinion about whether a man is independent and free to > do > > > what he wants, or whether he is bound by his destiny in > everything he > > > does. Ali asked, " Can one do as one wants or not? " -- and man has > > > been asking this question for a long, long time. " If a man is not > > > able > > > to do as he desires, " Ali said, " then it is useless and foolish to > > > preach to him not to steal, not to tell lies, not to be > dishonest. Or > > > is it destiny that one man should always be there to preach to > others > > > not to steal or not to do this or that, knowing full well that it > is > > > also destiny for a dishonest man to remain dishonest, for a thief > to > > > remain a thief, for a murderer to remain a murderer? All this > appears > > > absurd. If everything is predestined, all education is useless -- > all > > > prophets, all saints and all teachers are useless. " > > > People have asked such questions to Mahavira and to Buddha also. > If > > > what is going to happen is predestined, why should Mahavira or > Buddha > > > take so much trouble to explain what is right and what is wrong? > So, > > > Ali asked Mohammed what he thought about this controversial > matter. > > > If > > > such a question was asked to Mahavira or Buddha, they would have > > > given > > > a very complicated and deep reply, but Mohammed gave a reply > which > > > Ali > > > could understand. Many of Mohammed's replies were direct and > > > straightforward. Ordinarily, answers given by people who are > > > uneducated or less educated, or who are simple villagers, are > direct > > > and frank. People like Kabir, Nanak, Mohammed and Jesus were > simple > > > in > > > that way. Answers by people like Buddha, Mahavira and Krishna were > > > complex -- Buddha and Mahavira were the cream of a rich and highly > > > developed civilization. The words of Jesus were direct, like a > blow > > > on > > > the head. Kabir has actually sung: " Kabir is standing in the open > > > market with a hammer in his hand to hit you! " If anyone came near > him > > > he would, so to speak, break open his head to remove all the > rubbish > > > that was lying inside. > > > Mohammed did not give any metaphysical reply. He asked Ali to > lift > > > one > > > leg and stand on it. Ali had asked a question about whether a man > is > > > free to do what he wants. Why should Ali stand on one leg? > Mohammed > > > said, " First lift one leg. " > > > Poor Ali lifted his left leg and stood there on one leg. > > > Mohammed then asked him, " Now lift the right leg also. " > > > Ali was puzzled and asked how it was possible. Then Mohammed > > > said, " If > > > you had wanted to, you could have lifted the right leg first, but > now > > > you cannot.... A man is always free to lift the first leg -- it > can > > > be > > > whichever he wants -- but no sooner has the first been lifted > when > > > the > > > other becomes bound to the earth. " > > > With regard to the nonessential part of life, we are always free > to > > > lift the first leg. But once that is done it becomes a bondage > for > > > the > > > essential part. We take steps that are nonessential, become > > > entangled, > > > and then we are not able to do the essential. So Mohammed said to > Ali > > > that he had all the freedom to lift the right or the left leg > first. > > > But once he exercised that freedom and lifted one left leg, he was > > > incapable of lifting the other leg. So freedom is there within > > > certain > > > limits, but beyond those limits there is bondage. > > > ================== > > > Adirdha = Non-Essential > > > ================== > > > Aall ordinary astrologers are asked about nonessentials. An > ordinary > > > astrologer is > > > asked questions like: " Shall we win the elections or not? " How > are > > > the > > > elections connected with the moon and the stars? The ordinary > > > astrologer who replies, " Everything is predetermined, and no > changes, > > > not even as much as one inch, can be made, " is making a false > > > statement. > > > On the other hand there is the rationalist. He says that nothing > is > > > connected inevitably: whatsoever happens is coincidental, > > > circumstantial and a matter of chance. There is no law, > everything is > > > anarchic. He is also making a false statement. > > > > > > ================== > > > Back to the 3 Divisions > > > =================== > > > There is a law: A rationalist is never found so full of joy and > bliss > > > as a buddha. > > > The rationalist denies God, soul and religion with the help of > logic, > > > but he can never attain the joy of Mahavira. It is definite that > > > Mahavira must have done something that earned him his joy, Buddha > > > must > > > have done something that liberated him, and Krishna must also have > > > done something which made it possible for him to give out such > > > distinctly unique magical notes through his flute. > > > The real thing is the third, which is the quintessence of > everything, > > > which belongs to the innermost and which is absolutely > predetermined. > > > The more one moves toward one's center, the nearer one comes to > the > > > essential, predetermined part. As we move towards the periphery, > we > > > move towards coincidence. The more we talk about external > happenings, > > > the more there is coincidence. When we talk about inner phenomena, > > > things begin to appear scientific, as if based on a certain law, > and > > > they become more and more decisive. > > > Between these two conditions -- the essential and the peripheral - > - > > > there is ample room for changes through the exercise of choice. > Here, > > > a person of knowledge makes the correct choice, while a person > who is > > > without knowledge, who is in the darkness of ignorance, drifts to > his > > > destiny. In darkness, circumstance catches hold of him. > > > So there are three areas of life. In one area, that which is the > > > essential core, everything is predetermined. Knowing this is > knowing > > > the essence of astrology. In another area, that which is > peripheral, > > > everything is uncertain. To know this is to know the everyday > > > unpredictable world. There is another area which is in the > middle. By > > > knowing this, a person can save himself from trying to do the > > > impossible, and can do what is possible. > > > > > > ******************************************************** > > > OK. That were the words of the Osho. Now do you want to look into > > > the above sloka? And want to know what else, it say? In which way > > > you are interested in astrology – In essential? Semi- essential? > Non- > > > essential? > > > Hope to have many replays on the same. > > > Love, > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > , rk dash > > > <arkaydash@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Interested? No, nobody is. Only you are. And what is your > > > explanation for the French leave? > > > > RK > > > > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > Why this group becomes inactive when I am not here. Is it that > no > > > > body is interested in astrology? Is it that you don't like this > > > group? > > > > With such good members with knowledge, this shouldn't happen to > > > this > > > > group. And will not happen I know. Come back and let us > restart! > > > > Love, > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 dear shreenadh, of course, to do anything forcibly goes against the nature of existence..... " Arresting " thoughts does have a forcible connotation...and that is not what is advisable. But in some of the Upanishads and I believe in the VEdas too, there is a lot written on sacrifice and how it should be performed. There is is also talk of penance in our ancient texts. From penance comes " Tejas " . But penance is stopping the natural flow of existence...it is just the opposite of the natural flow of existence. It is standing like a rock against the dance of existence. Penance and sacrifice both involve a certain effort against the natural flow. What are your views on this? What u wrote appealed to me intuitively.But there are contradictions. Once again doing a cut and paste, this is from OSho's biography: --- " I am reminded of one of my professors. He is a very beautiful man: Professor S.S.Roy. Now he is retired as head of the department of philosophy from Allahabad University. The first day I joined his class, he was explaining the concept of The Absolute. He was an authority on Bradley and Shankara. Both believe in The Absolute—that is their name for God. I asked him one thing which made me very intimate to him, and he opened his whole heart to me, in every possible way. I just asked, " Is your 'absolute' perfect? Has it come to a full stop or is it still growing? If it is still growing, then it is not absolute, it is imperfect—only then can it grow. If something more is possible, some more branches, some more flowers—then it is alive. If it is complete, entirely complete—that's the meaning of the word absolute: now there is no possibility for growth—then it is dead. " So I asked him, " Be clear, because 'absolute' represents to Bradley and Shankara, God; that is their philosophical name for God. Is your God alive or dead? You have to answer me this question. " He was really an honest man. He said, " Please give me time to think. " He had a doctorate on Bradley from Oxford, another doctorate on Shankara from Benares, and he was thought to be the greatest authority on these two philosophers because he had tried to prove that Bradley, from the West, and Shankara, from the East, have come to the same conclusion. He said, " Please give me time to think. " I said, " Your whole life you have been writing about Bradley and Shankara and 'the absolute'—I have read your books, I have read your unpublished thesis. And you have been teaching here your whole life— has nobody ever asked you such a simple question? " He said, " Nobody ever asked me; not only that, even I have never thought about it—that, certainly, if something is perfect then it has to be dead. Anything alive has to be imperfect. This idea has never occurred to me. So please give me time. " God—perfect, absolute, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent; these are the words used for God by all the religions—is dead, cannot be alive, cannot breathe. No, I reject such a god, because with such a dead god, this whole universe will be dead. Godliness is a totally different dimension. Then the greenness in the tree, then the flowering of the rose, then the bird in flight—all are part of it. Then God is not separate from the universe. Then he is the very soul of the universe. Then the universe is vibrating, pulsating, breathing…godliness. " -------------------------------- But after the concsiousness of this vibrating, pulsating, breathing universe, isn't ther a zero state where nothing exists? Of course, u can just brush this aside as a totally hypothetical question but some NAASA research in pure physics which is again totally beyond my realm of understanding, also talks of such a " dead " / zero state/ void which some ancient texts also hinted at. As u must know by now, i find it fun to indulge in fancy...so u need not give a serious reply to questions based on half baked knowledge (coming back to what is cooking in the kitchen....i have just put some things in the oven) Love, vinita , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: > > Dear Vinita ji, > Thanks for good mail. Yes, I remember reading the words of Osho > which mentions the 'Russian (mathematician?) called Ouspensky who > later worked with Gurdieff also for some time' and still later > become one of the opponents of Gurdieff's ideas. But that is not > relevant here. Let us look into the words that catches our attention- > " ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS > FALSE " ... > True! Any thing that 'arrests' (forcefully stops) the motion of > thought is 'false' (illusion created by mind, and does not reflect > the revealing of true consciousness). One shouldn't try to 'arrest' > the motion of thought, but instead it should stop naturally! Osho > used to say, if we tries to 'suppress' sex, it will take its revenge > in full force. Same with 'arresting' thought - it is certain to take > its revenge by making us mad! It is 'suppressing'/'arresting' that > needs to be avoided. But this does not prevent us from understanding > (if not by experience, at least intellectually) that, consciousness > is a thoughtless state, and that the enlightened is beyond sex (he > is not suppressing it, nor controlled by it). > " truth itself is motion " > True! How can it be otherwise when the one without change is only > change itself?! 'Change' IS 'Motion'. You says " i thought that truth > is stationary...and our search should be to reach that zero > stationary " How can it be? Anything that is stationary, is dead, not > dynamic, not creative, and can not produce anything new. Life is > dynamic, Universe is dynamic, consciousness is dynamic, God is > dynamic - Ever evolving! Kali is dancing on Siva! Nataraja is > dancing! EVERYTHING is dynamic! > Consciousness in meditative mode is not stationary, but it is > dynamic, full of life, vital and resonance with and is one with > truth. It can not be the other way round! Ouspensky was right - we > know it only because what he says reflects in our being. > Love, > Sreenadh > > , " vinita kumar " > <shankar_mamta@> wrote: > > > > Dear Shreenadh, > > > > Once again nice smells are emanating from your kitchen, so i came > to > > taste the fish curry. > > > > i like the taste of non-Dridhadi insights so would lap up whatever > u > > present on the table including folk tales which i simply adore. > > > > i too am involved with some cooking and thought i will share with > u > > all on the same table. This is something that Osho referred to as > a > > book he wanted to underline each line of while reading it. Is > called > > the Tertium Organum and is written by a Russian called Ouspensky > who > > later worked with Gurdieff also for some time. The book was > written > > in 1912 or around that time and he was already talking of the > fourth > > dimension. > > > > I have reproduced below the conclusions from this book. > > - > - > > . 333 > > > > CONCLUSION > > In conclusion I wish to speak of those wonderful words, full of > > profound mystery from the Apocalypse and the apostle Paul's > Epistle > > to the Ephesians, which are placed as the epigraph of this book. > > > > The Apocalyptic angel swears that THERE SHALL BE TIME NO LONGER. > > > > We know not what the author of the Apocalypse wanted to convey, > but > > we do know those STATES OF SPIRIT when time disappears. We know > that > > in this very thing, in the change of the time-sense, the beginning > of > > the fourth form of consciousness is expressed, the beginning of > the > > transition to COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS. > > > > In this and in phrases similar to it, the profound philosophical > > content of the evangelical teaching sometimes flashes forth. And > the > > understanding of the fact that the MYSTERY OF TIME is the first > > mystery to be revealed is the first step toward the development of > > cosmic consciousness along the intellectual path. > > > > But what did the Apocalyptic sentence mean? Did it mean precisely > > what we are now able to construe in it--or was it simply a bit of > > verbal art, a rhetorical figure of speech, the accidental harping > of > > a string which has continued to sound up to our own time, through > > centuries and millenniums, with such a wonderfully powerful, true > and > > beautiful tone of thought? We know not now, nor shall we ever, but > > the words are full of splendor, and we may accept them as a symbol > of > > remote and inaccessible truth. > > > > The apostle Paul's words are even more strange, even more > startling > > by reason of their mathematical exactness. (A friend showed me > these > > words in A. Dobroluboff's From the Book Invisible, who saw in them > a > > direct reference to " the fourth measure of space. " ) > > > > Truly, what does this mean? > > > > . . . . That ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to > > comprehend with all saints what is the BREADTH and LENGTH and > DEPTH > > and HEIGHT. > > > > p. 334 > > > > First of all, what does the comprehension of breadth and length > and > > depth and height mean? What is it but the comprehension of space? > And > > we now know that the comprehension of the mysteries of space is > the > > beginning of the higher comprehension. > > > > The apostle says that " being rooted and grounded in love, with all > > saints " they may comprehend what space is. > > > > Here arises the question: why must love give comprehension? That > love > > leads to sanctity--this is easily understood. Love in the sense > that > > the apostle Paul understands it (Chapter XIII of the First Epistle > to > > the Corinthians) is the highest of all emotions, the synthesis, > the > > blending of all highest emotions. Incontestably, this leads to > > sanctity. Sanctity: that is the state of the spirit liberated from > > the duality of man, from his eternal disharmony of soul and body. > In > > the language of the apostle Paul sanctity meant even a little less > > than in our contemporary language. He called all members of his > > church saints; sanctity meant to him righteousness, morality, > > religiosity. We say that all this is merely the path to sanctity. > > Sanctity is something more--something attained. But it is after > all > > immaterial how we shall understand his words--in his meaning or in > > ours--sanctity is a superhuman quality. In the region of morality > it > > corresponds to genius in the region of mind. Love is the path to > > sainthood. > > > > But with sanctity the apostle Paul unites KNOWLEDGE. Saints > > comprehend what is the breadth and length and depth and height; > and > > he says that all--through love--may comprehend this with them. But > > may comprehend what, exactly? COMPREHEND SPACE. Because " breadth > and > > length and depth and height " translated into our language of > shorter > > definitions actually means space. > > > > This last is the most strange. > > > > How could the apostle Paul possibly KNOW that sanctity gives a new > > understanding of space? We know that it must give it, but FROM > WHAT > > could he know that? > > > > None of his contemporaries ever united sanctity with the idea of > the > > comprehension of space; and in general there was no discussion at > all > > about " space " at that time, at least among the Greeks and Romans. > > Only now, after Kant, and after we have had access to the > treasures > > of thought of the Orient, do we understand that the transition > into a > > new phase of consciousness is impossible without the expansion of > the > > space-sense. > > > > p. 335 > > > > But we wonder if this is what the apostle Paul wanted to say-- that > > strange man: Roman official, persecutor of the first Christianity > who > > became its preacher, philosopher, mystic; the man who " saw God, " > the > > bold reformer and moralist of his time, who fought for " the > spirit " > > against " the letter " and was of course not responsible for the > fact > > that he himself was understood by others not in " the spirit, " but > > in " the letter. " Is it this that he wanted to say? We do not know. > > > > But let us look at these words of the Apocalypse and the Epistles > > from the standpoint of our usual " positivistic thinking, " which > > sometimes condescendingly agrees to admit the " metaphorical > meaning " > > of mysticism. What shall we see? > > > > WE SHALL SEE NOTHING! > > > > The flash of mystery, which appeared just for an instant, will > > immediately disappear. The words will be without any content, > nothing > > in them will attract our wearied attention, which will merely > glide > > over them as it glides over everything. We will indifferently turn > > the page and indifferently close the book. > > > > An interesting metaphor, yes: But nothing else! > > > > And we fail to observe that we rob ourselves, deprive life of all > > beauty, all mystery, all content; and wonder afterwards why > > everything is so uninteresting and detestable to us, why we do not > > desire to live, and why we do not understand anything around us; > we > > wonder why brute force wins, or deceit and falsification, though > to > > these things we have nothing to oppose. > > > > THE METHOD IS NO GOOD. > > > > In its time " positivism " appeared as something refreshing, sober, > > healthful and progressive, which explored new avenues of thought. > > > > After the sentimental speculations of naive dualism " positivism " > was > > indeed a great step forward. Positivism became a symbol of the > > progress of thought. > > > > But we see now that it inevitably leads to materialism. And in > this > > form it arrests thought. From revolutionary, persecuted, > anarchistic, > > free-thinking, positivism became the basis of official science. It > is > > decked-out in full dress. It is given medals. There are academies > and > > universities dedicated to its service. It is recognized; it > teaches; > > it tyrannizes over thought. > > > > But having attained to well-being and prosperity, positivism > > immediately opposed obstacles to the forward march of thought. > > > > p. 336 > > > > A Chinese wall of " positivistic " sciences and methods is built up > > around free investigation. Everything rising above this wall is > > condemned as unscientific. > > > > And seen in this way positivism, which before was a symbol of > > progress, now appears as conservative, reactionary. > > > > The existing order is already established in the world of thought, > > and to fight against it is declared to be a crime. > > > > With astonishing rapidity those principles which only yesterday > > expressed the highest radicalism in the region of thought have > become > > the basis of opportunism in the region of ideas and serve as blind > > alleys, stopping the progress of thought. In our eyes this > occurred > > with the idea of evolution, on which it is now possible to build > up > > anything, and with the help of which it is possible to tear down > > anything. > > > > But thought, which is free, cannot be bound by any limits. > > > > The true motion which lies at the foundation of everything, is the > > motion of thought. True energy is the energy of consciousness. And > > truth itself is motion, and can never lead to arrestment, to the > > cessation of search. > > > > ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS FALSE. > > > > Therefore the true and real progress of thought is only in the > > broadest striving toward knowledge, that does not recognize the > > possibility of arrestment in any found forms of knowledge at all. > The > > meaning of life is in eternal search. And only in that search can > we > > find something truly new. > > > > - > - > > Did u like the taste of this curry? However, what i am still > finding > > hard to digest is " ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS > > FALSE " ... " truth itself is motion " , i thought that truth is > > stationary...and our search should be to reach that zero > stationary > > stage. thougths of course are motion and they have to be > > arrested....what say u? Of course, this is just a play of > imagination > > where one has no idea of what is truth. i am just parroting the > words > > of others in a cut and paste reality... > > > > But just look at the insight of this man!!! He was a genius! > > > > > > , " Sreenadh " > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear RK ji, > > > Let us divide this thread into two. Let one grow through the > > > discussion of " Dridhadi " 3 divisions, and the other about > > insights. > > > Insight comes from approaching the question under scrutiny in > a > > new > > > light. From were this light come? It comes from consciousness. > The > > > Sanskrit word is " Prenja " . There is a sloka in Chanakya Neeti- > > > " Pranje sastram swayam bhati > > > Vistaram Vastu saktita " > > > Meaning, In the consciousness the essence of the subject (the > > > question under scrutiny) appears by itself. The elaboration is > the > > > only thing that depends on the ability (accumulated surrounding > > > knowledge etc) of the person. > > > We should encounter questions with the light of our unique > > > consciousness - and questions themselves give us new answers. We > > > collect the surrounding knowledge and use our own abilities > (such as > > > vocabulary, ability describe, humor, knowledge of > > > incidents/stories/quotes etc) to elaborate and present the same > > before > > > the audience. Then it is heralded as an insight. > > > In essence it comes from the consciousness (where there is > > nothing!) > > > - It is just light, you may say! But still in its presents, > > > everything appears clear, and with a different beauty!! > > > It is not the subject but the consciousness of the person who > looks > > > into it is important! (Really, that is an insight!) Then even > most > > > irrelevant of the subjects can give us so much knowledge that no > > > others can! > > > => The essence is " Prenja " – which does not contain any > knowledge, > > but > > > the base of all knowledge! It is the essential, and the > knowledge, > > as > > > Osho points out at times, 'know-all-edge' is at the `edge', it > is > > just > > > `peripheral'. Let us go after the essential. > > > Love, > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > , rk dash > > > <arkaydash@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Sree > > > > Good to have you back. > > > > So you want to excite me. My excited desire on this forum > will > > be > > > to test my fundamentals in light of the views and insights of > fellow > > > members (Dr K, Shree Madhu, Sreenivas, to name a few). Put also > > them > > > (all members) on notice if you want to excite me. > > > > > > > > RK > > > > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > Rk ji, > > > > It happenes due to life circumstances. But still you were > all > > > > here, right?! So I think revival is always possible, and is > so > > > > easy. > > > > > > > > Now to Astrology:- > > > > ******************************************* > > > > " Dridhadi karma treyakalameeswara kalasworoopa pradadati > dehinam " > > > > ******************************************* > > > > In Dasadhyayi there is a sloka- > > > > " Dridhadi karma treyakalameeswara kalasworoopa pradadati > dehinam " > > > > Meaning, The effect of space-time continuem on living beings > can > > be > > > > of 3 type - > > > > 1) Dridha = Which can not be modified > > > > 2) Dridhadridha = Which can be modified if we know about it > (We > > > > have a choice) > > > > 3) Adridha = Which may or may not happen (Jut a simple > > possibility) > > > > > > > > This is one of the concepts that is very fundamental to > Ancient > > > > Indian Astrology. Instead of me speaking elaborately on the > > subject, > > > > I quote the words of Osho, when he spoke about the same- > > > > Note:- I have just inserted some headings in between the words > of > > > > Osho for better understanding and co-relating of the same with > > the > > > > above sloka. > > > > ******************************************************** > > > > ============ > > > > The 3 Parts > > > > ============ > > > > " Astrology can be divided into three parts. The first part is > > > > the core, > > > > the essence; it is the essentials, and cannot be changed. It > is > > the > > > > part which is most difficult to understand. The second part is > the > > > > middle layer, in which one can make whatever changes one > wants. > > It is > > > > the semi-essential portion in which you can make changes if > you > > know > > > > how, but without knowing, no changes are possible at all. The > > third > > > > part is the outermost layer which is nonessential, but about > > which we > > > > are all very curious. > > > > The first is the essence, in which no changes can be made. > When > > it is > > > > known, the only way is to cooperate with it. Religions have > > devised > > > > astrology in order to know and decipher this essential > destiny. > > The > > > > semi-essential part of astrology is such that if we know about > it > > we > > > > can change our lives -- otherwise not. > > > > If we do not know, then whatsoever was going to happen will > > happen. > > > > If > > > > there is knowledge, there are alternatives to choose between. > > There > > > > is > > > > a possibility of transformation if the right choice is made. > The > > > > third, nonessential part is just the periphery, the outer > surface. > > > > There is nothing essential in it; everything is circumstantial. > > > > But we go to consult astrologers only for the nonessential > things. > > > > Someone goes and asks an astrologer when he will get > employment -- > > > > there is no relationship between your employment and the moon > and > > > > stars. Someone asks whether he will marry or not.... There can > be > > a > > > > society without marriage. Someone asks whether he will remain > > poor or > > > > become rich.... There can be a socialist or communist society > > where > > > > there will be no rich and no poor people. So these are > > nonessential > > > > questions.... > > > > An eighty years old man was walking along when his foot > slipped on > > > > some orange peel thrown onto the road. Now, is it possible to > > inquire > > > > of an astrologer and know from the moon and stars on which > road > > and > > > > on > > > > which orange peel the foot will slip? Such queries are > foolish, > > but > > > > you are curious to know in advance whether your foot will land > on > > an > > > > orange skin and slip if you go out on the road today. This is > > > > nonessential. This has nothing to do with your being or your > soul. > > > > These events happen on the periphery, and astrology has > nothing > > to do > > > > with them. But because the astrologers were busy talking only > > about > > > > such things, the great establishment of astrology collapsed. > This > > was > > > > the only reason. > > > > No intelligent person will be prepared to believe that when he > was > > > > born it was written by destiny that on a particular day on > Marine > > > > Drive his foot would land on some orange peel and he would > > fall.... > > > > Neither the falling down nor the orange peel have any > > relationship to > > > > the stars. Astrology has lost respect because it became > connected > > > > with > > > > such things. At one time or the other we all have wanted to > know > > such > > > > things from astrologers -- but these things are nonessential. > But > > > > there are certain semi-essential matters such as the birth or > > death > > > > of > > > > a person: if you can know everything about these, you can take > > > > precautionary measures. If you do not know anything, you can't > do > > > > anything. > > > > If our knowledge about the diagnosis of disease is increased, > we > > will > > > > be able to increase the life-span of human beings. We have > been > > doing > > > > it. If our research to make deadlier atom bombs succeeds, we > will > > be > > > > able to kill hundreds of thousands of people at a time -- we > have > > > > done > > > > it. This semi-essential world presents a possibility for our > being > > > > able to do certain things, if we know in advance what is going > to > > > > happen. If we do not know, nothing can be done. By our knowing > in > > > > advance, alternatives can be sorted out and selected. > > > > Beyond this, the world of the essential exists -- you cannot do > > > > anything about it. However, our curiosity is to know only about > > > > nonessential things. Seldom does someone reach out to know the > > > > semi-essential. Our curiosity or desire never extends to > knowing > > that > > > > which is essential and unavoidable, that which cannot be > changed > > even > > > > if known. > > > > ================ > > > > Dridha = Essential > > > > ================ > > > > The astrology I am talking about concerns the essential, the > > > > fundamental. At best your curiosity as far as the semi- > essential. > > You > > > > want to know how long you will live or whether or not you will > > > > suddenly die. But you are not curious to know what you will do > if > > you > > > > live -- how you will live. You do want to know how you will > die > > when > > > > the time comes or what you will be doing at that time. Your > > curiosity > > > > extends to events, not to the soul. > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > The projections of the future also determine the present > moments. > > > > This > > > > present moment could not be if there were no future moments. > Only > > > > with > > > > the support of future moments can the present moment occur. > Our > > hands > > > > are resting on the shoulders of the future, our feet are on the > > > > shoulders of our past. It is very obvious that if that which > is > > below > > > > me -- on which I am standing and which I can see -- slips > away, I > > > > will > > > > fall. But if the shoulders of the future -- on which my > > outstretched > > > > hands are resting -- slip away then I will also fall. > > > > When a person finds himself connected with this inner unity of > > past > > > > and future he will be able to understand astrology. Then > astrology > > > > becomes a religion, then astrology becomes spiritual. > > > > ======================= > > > > Dridhadridha = Semi-Essential > > > > ======================= > > > > I will tell you a very interesting story so that you may > > > > understand.... Mohammed had a disciple named Ali. Ali once > asked > > > > Mohammed's opinion about whether a man is independent and free > to > > do > > > > what he wants, or whether he is bound by his destiny in > > everything he > > > > does. Ali asked, " Can one do as one wants or not? " -- and man > has > > > > been asking this question for a long, long time. " If a man is > not > > > > able > > > > to do as he desires, " Ali said, " then it is useless and > foolish to > > > > preach to him not to steal, not to tell lies, not to be > > dishonest. Or > > > > is it destiny that one man should always be there to preach to > > others > > > > not to steal or not to do this or that, knowing full well that > it > > is > > > > also destiny for a dishonest man to remain dishonest, for a > thief > > to > > > > remain a thief, for a murderer to remain a murderer? All this > > appears > > > > absurd. If everything is predestined, all education is > useless -- > > all > > > > prophets, all saints and all teachers are useless. " > > > > People have asked such questions to Mahavira and to Buddha > also. > > If > > > > what is going to happen is predestined, why should Mahavira or > > Buddha > > > > take so much trouble to explain what is right and what is > wrong? > > So, > > > > Ali asked Mohammed what he thought about this controversial > > matter. > > > > If > > > > such a question was asked to Mahavira or Buddha, they would > have > > > > given > > > > a very complicated and deep reply, but Mohammed gave a reply > > which > > > > Ali > > > > could understand. Many of Mohammed's replies were direct and > > > > straightforward. Ordinarily, answers given by people who are > > > > uneducated or less educated, or who are simple villagers, are > > direct > > > > and frank. People like Kabir, Nanak, Mohammed and Jesus were > > simple > > > > in > > > > that way. Answers by people like Buddha, Mahavira and Krishna > were > > > > complex -- Buddha and Mahavira were the cream of a rich and > highly > > > > developed civilization. The words of Jesus were direct, like a > > blow > > > > on > > > > the head. Kabir has actually sung: " Kabir is standing in the > open > > > > market with a hammer in his hand to hit you! " If anyone came > near > > him > > > > he would, so to speak, break open his head to remove all the > > rubbish > > > > that was lying inside. > > > > Mohammed did not give any metaphysical reply. He asked Ali to > > lift > > > > one > > > > leg and stand on it. Ali had asked a question about whether a > man > > is > > > > free to do what he wants. Why should Ali stand on one leg? > > Mohammed > > > > said, " First lift one leg. " > > > > Poor Ali lifted his left leg and stood there on one leg. > > > > Mohammed then asked him, " Now lift the right leg also. " > > > > Ali was puzzled and asked how it was possible. Then Mohammed > > > > said, " If > > > > you had wanted to, you could have lifted the right leg first, > but > > now > > > > you cannot.... A man is always free to lift the first leg -- > it > > can > > > > be > > > > whichever he wants -- but no sooner has the first been lifted > > when > > > > the > > > > other becomes bound to the earth. " > > > > With regard to the nonessential part of life, we are always > free > > to > > > > lift the first leg. But once that is done it becomes a bondage > > for > > > > the > > > > essential part. We take steps that are nonessential, become > > > > entangled, > > > > and then we are not able to do the essential. So Mohammed said > to > > Ali > > > > that he had all the freedom to lift the right or the left leg > > first. > > > > But once he exercised that freedom and lifted one left leg, he > was > > > > incapable of lifting the other leg. So freedom is there within > > > > certain > > > > limits, but beyond those limits there is bondage. > > > > ================== > > > > Adirdha = Non-Essential > > > > ================== > > > > Aall ordinary astrologers are asked about nonessentials. An > > ordinary > > > > astrologer is > > > > asked questions like: " Shall we win the elections or not? " How > > are > > > > the > > > > elections connected with the moon and the stars? The ordinary > > > > astrologer who replies, " Everything is predetermined, and no > > changes, > > > > not even as much as one inch, can be made, " is making a false > > > > statement. > > > > On the other hand there is the rationalist. He says that > nothing > > is > > > > connected inevitably: whatsoever happens is coincidental, > > > > circumstantial and a matter of chance. There is no law, > > everything is > > > > anarchic. He is also making a false statement. > > > > > > > > ================== > > > > Back to the 3 Divisions > > > > =================== > > > > There is a law: A rationalist is never found so full of joy > and > > bliss > > > > as a buddha. > > > > The rationalist denies God, soul and religion with the help of > > logic, > > > > but he can never attain the joy of Mahavira. It is definite > that > > > > Mahavira must have done something that earned him his joy, > Buddha > > > > must > > > > have done something that liberated him, and Krishna must also > have > > > > done something which made it possible for him to give out such > > > > distinctly unique magical notes through his flute. > > > > The real thing is the third, which is the quintessence of > > everything, > > > > which belongs to the innermost and which is absolutely > > predetermined. > > > > The more one moves toward one's center, the nearer one comes > to > > the > > > > essential, predetermined part. As we move towards the > periphery, > > we > > > > move towards coincidence. The more we talk about external > > happenings, > > > > the more there is coincidence. When we talk about inner > phenomena, > > > > things begin to appear scientific, as if based on a certain > law, > > and > > > > they become more and more decisive. > > > > Between these two conditions -- the essential and the > peripheral - > > - > > > > there is ample room for changes through the exercise of > choice. > > Here, > > > > a person of knowledge makes the correct choice, while a person > > who is > > > > without knowledge, who is in the darkness of ignorance, drifts > to > > his > > > > destiny. In darkness, circumstance catches hold of him. > > > > So there are three areas of life. In one area, that which is > the > > > > essential core, everything is predetermined. Knowing this is > > knowing > > > > the essence of astrology. In another area, that which is > > peripheral, > > > > everything is uncertain. To know this is to know the everyday > > > > unpredictable world. There is another area which is in the > > middle. By > > > > knowing this, a person can save himself from trying to do the > > > > impossible, and can do what is possible. > > > > > > > > ******************************************************** > > > > OK. That were the words of the Osho. Now do you want to look > into > > > > the above sloka? And want to know what else, it say? In which > way > > > > you are interested in astrology – In essential? Semi- > essential? > > Non- > > > > essential? > > > > Hope to have many replays on the same. > > > > Love, > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > , rk dash > > > > <arkaydash@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Interested? No, nobody is. Only you are. And what is your > > > > explanation for the French leave? > > > > > RK > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > Why this group becomes inactive when I am not here. Is it > that > > no > > > > > body is interested in astrology? Is it that you don't like > this > > > > group? > > > > > With such good members with knowledge, this shouldn't happen > to > > > > this > > > > > group. And will not happen I know. Come back and let us > > restart! > > > > > Love, > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - > Answers > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2007 Report Share Posted March 25, 2007 Dear Vinita ji, You said- ==> But in some of the Upanishads and I believe in the Vedas too, there is a lot written on sacrifice and how it should be performed. There is also talk of penance in our ancient texts. From penance comes " Tejas " . But penance is stopping the natural flow of existence...it is just the opposite of the natural flow of existence. It is standing like a rock against the dance of existence. Penance and sacrifice both involve a certain effort against the natural flow. What are your views on this? <== You are absolutely Right - many ancient texts mention them - Sacrifice and Penance. Before starting to analyze such a question, one thing should be understood. Humans live on earth from ancient times, many cultures evolved, flourished, and dead and the dynamic flow of changing cultures, moralities, rituals continues. The spiritual thrive after meditation and enlightenment as well. Notice the 2 categories. 1) Quest for Enlightenment 2) Rituals and Moralities (extend this list) Of these Rituals and Moralities depend on the environment, circumstances, living style, social norms etc of the selected culture. But the quest for enlightenment is universal. In every religion many people became enlightened - some of them were articulate enough to express their experience and thus we got the masters like Krishna and Buddha. Remember the sloka I quoted in one of the previous posts - " Pranje sastram swayam bhati, vistaram vastu saktita " (In consciousness the truth enlightens itself, elaboration depends on the capabilities of the individual to articulate the same). This articulation capabilities includes collected knowledge and rituals of the generation and culture in which they live. There fore the teachings of any enlightened person can contain 2 parts - 1) The universal truth about human enlightenment/spiritual quest/human mind/emotions/thoughts etc. These are valid for all generations, all time. 2) Knowledge he accumulated and used as a tool to convey the above and to extend his articulation capabilities. This heavily depends on the Knowledge of the culture, living style of the culture, social norms observed etc. This is not universal and could contain errors - even though the clarity of vision possessed by the enlightened persons usually tries keep most of such errors outside the boundary. But still they invariably creep in to the system and words - Either through them or through the followers. Even great masters were troubled by them. => Sacrifice -> Proper for that period. Since it increases, attitude towards total submission to divinity, has got a positive side as well and can be adopted, but not in its original form. => Penance -> Another tool. Even Buddha was mislead by this tool in the beginning, and later discarded it. Useful to an extend since it helps in purifying the body, by giving rest to the digestive system for some time. Limited use of this helps in keeping the body healthy, but its use in spiritual quest and path is questionable. Both these simple tools (any many other) are usually part of the Environment/Circumstance/Society specific knowledge used by masters or their disciples to extend their articulation capabilities. This is way I see it. The problem is, the ultimate guru 'Siva' is within and we don't listen to him, his teachings are better than scriptures. Let us listen to the words of Jesus (another enlightened master)- " Seek not the law in your scriptures, for the law is life, whereas the scripture is dead. I tell you truly, Moses received not his laws from God in writing, but through the living word. The law is living word of living God to living prophets for living men. In everything that is life is the law written. You find it in the grass, in the tree, in the river, in the mountain, in the birds of heaven, in the fishes of the sea; but seek it chiefly in yourselves. For I tell you truly, all living things are nearer to God than the scripture which is without life. God so made life and all living things that they might by the everlasting word teach the laws of the true God to man. God wrote not the laws in the pages of books, but in your heart and in your spirit. They are in your breath, your blood, your bone; in your flesh, your bowels, your eyes, your ears, and in every little part of your body. They are present in the air, in the water, in the earth, in the plants, in the e sunbeams, in the depths and in the heights. They all speak to you that you may understand the tongue and the will of the living God. (GOSPEL OF PEACE) " In the absence of true living masters who collect tools from the current knowledge and culture to extend their articulation capabilities - but reflects the eternal ancient truth of enlightenment - is necessary to give life to the ancient scriptures. They will know what to discard and what not. (Look at Buddha, he discarded 'Penance') In the absence of such gurus scripts could become dead and misleading. Remember, there is NOTHING wrong with the scripts - it could not have been otherwise. The same could happen to scripts related to Buddha, Jesus, Jiddu, Osho or any one. Hope I am clear. Now let us go the next point you are pointing to - ==> But after the consciousness of this vibrating, pulsating, breathing universe, isn't there a zero state where nothing exists? Of course, u can just brush this aside as a totally hypothetical question but some NAASA research in pure physics which is again totally beyond my realm of understanding, also talks of such a " dead " / zero state/ void which some ancient texts also hinted at. <== Depending upon the subject the language differs. The science is hinting at- * Today science is hinting at a possibility for the existence of a state of space-time continuum (where the normal notion of time and physical laws have no meaning) within brain. From 'Yoga vasishta' period onwards (or from even before that) the ancient masters had hinted at it many times. But whether to call it, a static zero state, or a dynamic vibrant state is something of a personal choice. Even if someone calls pure consciousness 'Light', 'Darkness', 'Nothingness', 'Static', 'Vibrant ' they all mean the same - Because it is that where all the dualities become absent and words can not describe. So words are sure to err or present dualities in presenting it. ==> As u must know by now, i find it fun to indulge in fancy...so u need not give a serious reply to questions based on half baked knowledge (coming back to what is cooking in the kitchen....i have just put some things in the oven) <== Everything is a play So don't worry, I am not serious at all - but only expressing my self. Know-all-edge is always half backed, whether it is yours or mine does not make any difference. ) So don't worry. Let us taste and exchange our half backed food. Love, Sreeandh , " vinita kumar " <shankar_mamta wrote: > > > dear shreenadh, > > of course, to do anything forcibly goes against the nature of > existence..... " Arresting " thoughts does have a forcible > connotation...and that is not what is advisable. > > But in some of the Upanishads and I believe in the VEdas too, there > is a lot written on sacrifice and how it should be performed. There > is is also talk of penance in our ancient texts. From penance > comes " Tejas " . But penance is stopping the natural flow of > existence...it is just the opposite of the natural flow of existence. > It is standing like a rock against the dance of existence. Penance > and sacrifice both involve a certain effort against the natural flow. > > What are your views on this? > > What u wrote appealed to me intuitively.But there are contradictions. > Once again doing a cut and paste, this is from OSho's biography: > - -- > " I am reminded of one of my professors. He is a very beautiful man: > Professor S.S.Roy. Now he is retired as head of the department of > philosophy from Allahabad University. The first day I joined his > class, he was explaining the concept of The Absolute. He was an > authority on Bradley and Shankara. Both believe in The Absolute— that > is their name for God. > I asked him one thing which made me very intimate to him, and he > opened his whole heart to me, in every possible way. I just > asked, " Is your 'absolute' perfect? Has it come to a full stop or is > it still growing? If it is still growing, then it is not absolute, it > is imperfect—only then can it grow. If something more is possible, > some more branches, some more flowers—then it is alive. If it is > complete, entirely complete—that's the meaning of the word absolute: > now there is no possibility for growth—then it is dead. " So I asked > him, " Be clear, because 'absolute' represents to Bradley and > Shankara, God; that is their philosophical name for God. Is your God > alive or dead? You have to answer me this question. " > He was really an honest man. He said, " Please give me time to think. " > He had a doctorate on Bradley from Oxford, another doctorate on > Shankara from Benares, and he was thought to be the greatest > authority on these two philosophers because he had tried to prove > that Bradley, from the West, and Shankara, from the East, have come > to the same conclusion. He said, " Please give me time to think. " > I said, " Your whole life you have been writing about Bradley and > Shankara and 'the absolute'—I have read your books, I have read your > unpublished thesis. And you have been teaching here your whole life— > has nobody ever asked you such a simple question? " > He said, " Nobody ever asked me; not only that, even I have never > thought about it—that, certainly, if something is perfect then it has > to be dead. Anything alive has to be imperfect. This idea has never > occurred to me. So please give me time. " > > > God—perfect, absolute, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent; these are > the words used for God by all the religions—is dead, cannot be alive, > cannot breathe. No, I reject such a god, because with such a dead > god, this whole universe will be dead. > Godliness is a totally different dimension. > Then the greenness in the tree, then the flowering of the rose, then > the bird in flight—all are part of it. Then God is not separate from > the universe. Then he is the very soul of the universe. Then the > universe is vibrating, pulsating, breathing…godliness. " > > -------------------------------- > > But after the concsiousness of this vibrating, pulsating, breathing > universe, isn't ther a zero state where nothing exists? > > Of course, u can just brush this aside as a totally hypothetical > question but some NAASA research in pure physics which is again > totally beyond my realm of understanding, also talks of such > a " dead " / zero state/ void which some ancient texts also hinted at. > > As u must know by now, i find it fun to indulge in fancy...so u need > not give a serious reply to questions based on half baked knowledge > (coming back to what is cooking in the kitchen....i have just put > some things in the oven) > > Love, > > vinita > > , " Sreenadh " > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > Dear Vinita ji, > > Thanks for good mail. Yes, I remember reading the words of Osho > > which mentions the 'Russian (mathematician?) called Ouspensky who > > later worked with Gurdieff also for some time' and still later > > become one of the opponents of Gurdieff's ideas. But that is not > > relevant here. Let us look into the words that catches our > attention- > > " ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS > > FALSE " ... > > True! Any thing that 'arrests' (forcefully stops) the motion of > > thought is 'false' (illusion created by mind, and does not reflect > > the revealing of true consciousness). One shouldn't try to 'arrest' > > the motion of thought, but instead it should stop naturally! Osho > > used to say, if we tries to 'suppress' sex, it will take its > revenge > > in full force. Same with 'arresting' thought - it is certain to > take > > its revenge by making us mad! It is 'suppressing'/'arresting' that > > needs to be avoided. But this does not prevent us from > understanding > > (if not by experience, at least intellectually) that, consciousness > > is a thoughtless state, and that the enlightened is beyond sex (he > > is not suppressing it, nor controlled by it). > > " truth itself is motion " > > True! How can it be otherwise when the one without change is only > > change itself?! 'Change' IS 'Motion'. You says " i thought that > truth > > is stationary...and our search should be to reach that zero > > stationary " How can it be? Anything that is stationary, is dead, > not > > dynamic, not creative, and can not produce anything new. Life is > > dynamic, Universe is dynamic, consciousness is dynamic, God is > > dynamic - Ever evolving! Kali is dancing on Siva! Nataraja is > > dancing! EVERYTHING is dynamic! > > Consciousness in meditative mode is not stationary, but it is > > dynamic, full of life, vital and resonance with and is one with > > truth. It can not be the other way round! Ouspensky was right - we > > know it only because what he says reflects in our being. > > Love, > > Sreenadh > > > > , " vinita kumar " > > <shankar_mamta@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Shreenadh, > > > > > > Once again nice smells are emanating from your kitchen, so i came > > to > > > taste the fish curry. > > > > > > i like the taste of non-Dridhadi insights so would lap up > whatever > > u > > > present on the table including folk tales which i simply adore. > > > > > > i too am involved with some cooking and thought i will share with > > u > > > all on the same table. This is something that Osho referred to as > > a > > > book he wanted to underline each line of while reading it. Is > > called > > > the Tertium Organum and is written by a Russian called Ouspensky > > who > > > later worked with Gurdieff also for some time. The book was > > written > > > in 1912 or around that time and he was already talking of the > > fourth > > > dimension. > > > > > > I have reproduced below the conclusions from this book. > > > ------------------------------ --- > - > > - > > > . 333 > > > > > > CONCLUSION > > > In conclusion I wish to speak of those wonderful words, full of > > > profound mystery from the Apocalypse and the apostle Paul's > > Epistle > > > to the Ephesians, which are placed as the epigraph of this book. > > > > > > The Apocalyptic angel swears that THERE SHALL BE TIME NO LONGER. > > > > > > We know not what the author of the Apocalypse wanted to convey, > > but > > > we do know those STATES OF SPIRIT when time disappears. We know > > that > > > in this very thing, in the change of the time-sense, the > beginning > > of > > > the fourth form of consciousness is expressed, the beginning of > > the > > > transition to COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS. > > > > > > In this and in phrases similar to it, the profound philosophical > > > content of the evangelical teaching sometimes flashes forth. And > > the > > > understanding of the fact that the MYSTERY OF TIME is the first > > > mystery to be revealed is the first step toward the development > of > > > cosmic consciousness along the intellectual path. > > > > > > But what did the Apocalyptic sentence mean? Did it mean precisely > > > what we are now able to construe in it--or was it simply a bit of > > > verbal art, a rhetorical figure of speech, the accidental harping > > of > > > a string which has continued to sound up to our own time, through > > > centuries and millenniums, with such a wonderfully powerful, true > > and > > > beautiful tone of thought? We know not now, nor shall we ever, > but > > > the words are full of splendor, and we may accept them as a > symbol > > of > > > remote and inaccessible truth. > > > > > > The apostle Paul's words are even more strange, even more > > startling > > > by reason of their mathematical exactness. (A friend showed me > > these > > > words in A. Dobroluboff's From the Book Invisible, who saw in > them > > a > > > direct reference to " the fourth measure of space. " ) > > > > > > Truly, what does this mean? > > > > > > . . . . That ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able > to > > > comprehend with all saints what is the BREADTH and LENGTH and > > DEPTH > > > and HEIGHT. > > > > > > p. 334 > > > > > > First of all, what does the comprehension of breadth and length > > and > > > depth and height mean? What is it but the comprehension of space? > > And > > > we now know that the comprehension of the mysteries of space is > > the > > > beginning of the higher comprehension. > > > > > > The apostle says that " being rooted and grounded in love, with > all > > > saints " they may comprehend what space is. > > > > > > Here arises the question: why must love give comprehension? That > > love > > > leads to sanctity--this is easily understood. Love in the sense > > that > > > the apostle Paul understands it (Chapter XIII of the First > Epistle > > to > > > the Corinthians) is the highest of all emotions, the synthesis, > > the > > > blending of all highest emotions. Incontestably, this leads to > > > sanctity. Sanctity: that is the state of the spirit liberated > from > > > the duality of man, from his eternal disharmony of soul and body. > > In > > > the language of the apostle Paul sanctity meant even a little > less > > > than in our contemporary language. He called all members of his > > > church saints; sanctity meant to him righteousness, morality, > > > religiosity. We say that all this is merely the path to sanctity. > > > Sanctity is something more--something attained. But it is after > > all > > > immaterial how we shall understand his words--in his meaning or > in > > > ours--sanctity is a superhuman quality. In the region of morality > > it > > > corresponds to genius in the region of mind. Love is the path to > > > sainthood. > > > > > > But with sanctity the apostle Paul unites KNOWLEDGE. Saints > > > comprehend what is the breadth and length and depth and height; > > and > > > he says that all--through love--may comprehend this with them. > But > > > may comprehend what, exactly? COMPREHEND SPACE. Because " breadth > > and > > > length and depth and height " translated into our language of > > shorter > > > definitions actually means space. > > > > > > This last is the most strange. > > > > > > How could the apostle Paul possibly KNOW that sanctity gives a > new > > > understanding of space? We know that it must give it, but FROM > > WHAT > > > could he know that? > > > > > > None of his contemporaries ever united sanctity with the idea of > > the > > > comprehension of space; and in general there was no discussion at > > all > > > about " space " at that time, at least among the Greeks and Romans. > > > Only now, after Kant, and after we have had access to the > > treasures > > > of thought of the Orient, do we understand that the transition > > into a > > > new phase of consciousness is impossible without the expansion of > > the > > > space-sense. > > > > > > p. 335 > > > > > > But we wonder if this is what the apostle Paul wanted to say-- > that > > > strange man: Roman official, persecutor of the first Christianity > > who > > > became its preacher, philosopher, mystic; the man who " saw God, " > > the > > > bold reformer and moralist of his time, who fought for " the > > spirit " > > > against " the letter " and was of course not responsible for the > > fact > > > that he himself was understood by others not in " the spirit, " but > > > in " the letter. " Is it this that he wanted to say? We do not know. > > > > > > But let us look at these words of the Apocalypse and the Epistles > > > from the standpoint of our usual " positivistic thinking, " which > > > sometimes condescendingly agrees to admit the " metaphorical > > meaning " > > > of mysticism. What shall we see? > > > > > > WE SHALL SEE NOTHING! > > > > > > The flash of mystery, which appeared just for an instant, will > > > immediately disappear. The words will be without any content, > > nothing > > > in them will attract our wearied attention, which will merely > > glide > > > over them as it glides over everything. We will indifferently > turn > > > the page and indifferently close the book. > > > > > > An interesting metaphor, yes: But nothing else! > > > > > > And we fail to observe that we rob ourselves, deprive life of all > > > beauty, all mystery, all content; and wonder afterwards why > > > everything is so uninteresting and detestable to us, why we do > not > > > desire to live, and why we do not understand anything around us; > > we > > > wonder why brute force wins, or deceit and falsification, though > > to > > > these things we have nothing to oppose. > > > > > > THE METHOD IS NO GOOD. > > > > > > In its time " positivism " appeared as something refreshing, sober, > > > healthful and progressive, which explored new avenues of thought. > > > > > > After the sentimental speculations of naive dualism " positivism " > > was > > > indeed a great step forward. Positivism became a symbol of the > > > progress of thought. > > > > > > But we see now that it inevitably leads to materialism. And in > > this > > > form it arrests thought. From revolutionary, persecuted, > > anarchistic, > > > free-thinking, positivism became the basis of official science. > It > > is > > > decked-out in full dress. It is given medals. There are academies > > and > > > universities dedicated to its service. It is recognized; it > > teaches; > > > it tyrannizes over thought. > > > > > > But having attained to well-being and prosperity, positivism > > > immediately opposed obstacles to the forward march of thought. > > > > > > p. 336 > > > > > > A Chinese wall of " positivistic " sciences and methods is built up > > > around free investigation. Everything rising above this wall is > > > condemned as unscientific. > > > > > > And seen in this way positivism, which before was a symbol of > > > progress, now appears as conservative, reactionary. > > > > > > The existing order is already established in the world of > thought, > > > and to fight against it is declared to be a crime. > > > > > > With astonishing rapidity those principles which only yesterday > > > expressed the highest radicalism in the region of thought have > > become > > > the basis of opportunism in the region of ideas and serve as > blind > > > alleys, stopping the progress of thought. In our eyes this > > occurred > > > with the idea of evolution, on which it is now possible to build > > up > > > anything, and with the help of which it is possible to tear down > > > anything. > > > > > > But thought, which is free, cannot be bound by any limits. > > > > > > The true motion which lies at the foundation of everything, is > the > > > motion of thought. True energy is the energy of consciousness. > And > > > truth itself is motion, and can never lead to arrestment, to the > > > cessation of search. > > > > > > ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS FALSE. > > > > > > Therefore the true and real progress of thought is only in the > > > broadest striving toward knowledge, that does not recognize the > > > possibility of arrestment in any found forms of knowledge at all. > > The > > > meaning of life is in eternal search. And only in that search can > > we > > > find something truly new. > > > > > > ------------------------------ --- > - > > - > > > Did u like the taste of this curry? However, what i am still > > finding > > > hard to digest is " ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS > > > FALSE " ... " truth itself is motion " , i thought that truth is > > > stationary...and our search should be to reach that zero > > stationary > > > stage. thougths of course are motion and they have to be > > > arrested....what say u? Of course, this is just a play of > > imagination > > > where one has no idea of what is truth. i am just parroting the > > words > > > of others in a cut and paste reality... > > > > > > But just look at the insight of this man!!! He was a genius! > > > > > > > > > , " Sreenadh " > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear RK ji, > > > > Let us divide this thread into two. Let one grow through the > > > > discussion of " Dridhadi " 3 divisions, and the other about > > > insights. > > > > Insight comes from approaching the question under scrutiny in > > a > > > new > > > > light. From were this light come? It comes from consciousness. > > The > > > > Sanskrit word is " Prenja " . There is a sloka in Chanakya Neeti- > > > > " Pranje sastram swayam bhati > > > > Vistaram Vastu saktita " > > > > Meaning, In the consciousness the essence of the subject (the > > > > question under scrutiny) appears by itself. The elaboration is > > the > > > > only thing that depends on the ability (accumulated surrounding > > > > knowledge etc) of the person. > > > > We should encounter questions with the light of our unique > > > > consciousness - and questions themselves give us new answers. We > > > > collect the surrounding knowledge and use our own abilities > > (such as > > > > vocabulary, ability describe, humor, knowledge of > > > > incidents/stories/quotes etc) to elaborate and present the same > > > before > > > > the audience. Then it is heralded as an insight. > > > > In essence it comes from the consciousness (where there is > > > nothing!) > > > > - It is just light, you may say! But still in its presents, > > > > everything appears clear, and with a different beauty!! > > > > It is not the subject but the consciousness of the person who > > looks > > > > into it is important! (Really, that is an insight!) Then even > > most > > > > irrelevant of the subjects can give us so much knowledge that no > > > > others can! > > > > => The essence is " Prenja " – which does not contain any > > knowledge, > > > but > > > > the base of all knowledge! It is the essential, and the > > knowledge, > > > as > > > > Osho points out at times, 'know-all-edge' is at the `edge', it > > is > > > just > > > > `peripheral'. Let us go after the essential. > > > > Love, > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > , rk dash > > > > <arkaydash@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sree > > > > > Good to have you back. > > > > > So you want to excite me. My excited desire on this forum > > will > > > be > > > > to test my fundamentals in light of the views and insights of > > fellow > > > > members (Dr K, Shree Madhu, Sreenivas, to name a few). Put > also > > > them > > > > (all members) on notice if you want to excite me. > > > > > > > > > > RK > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > Rk ji, > > > > > It happenes due to life circumstances. But still you were > > all > > > > > here, right?! So I think revival is always possible, and > is > > so > > > > > easy. > > > > > > > > > > Now to Astrology:- > > > > > ******************************************* > > > > > " Dridhadi karma treyakalameeswara kalasworoopa pradadati > > dehinam " > > > > > ******************************************* > > > > > In Dasadhyayi there is a sloka- > > > > > " Dridhadi karma treyakalameeswara kalasworoopa pradadati > > dehinam " > > > > > Meaning, The effect of space-time continuem on living beings > > can > > > be > > > > > of 3 type - > > > > > 1) Dridha = Which can not be modified > > > > > 2) Dridhadridha = Which can be modified if we know about it > > (We > > > > > have a choice) > > > > > 3) Adridha = Which may or may not happen (Jut a simple > > > possibility) > > > > > > > > > > This is one of the concepts that is very fundamental to > > Ancient > > > > > Indian Astrology. Instead of me speaking elaborately on the > > > subject, > > > > > I quote the words of Osho, when he spoke about the same- > > > > > Note:- I have just inserted some headings in between the > words > > of > > > > > Osho for better understanding and co-relating of the same > with > > > the > > > > > above sloka. > > > > > ******************************************************** > > > > > ============ > > > > > The 3 Parts > > > > > ============ > > > > > " Astrology can be divided into three parts. The first part > is > > > > > the core, > > > > > the essence; it is the essentials, and cannot be changed. It > > is > > > the > > > > > part which is most difficult to understand. The second part > is > > the > > > > > middle layer, in which one can make whatever changes one > > wants. > > > It is > > > > > the semi-essential portion in which you can make changes if > > you > > > know > > > > > how, but without knowing, no changes are possible at all. The > > > third > > > > > part is the outermost layer which is nonessential, but about > > > which we > > > > > are all very curious. > > > > > The first is the essence, in which no changes can be made. > > When > > > it is > > > > > known, the only way is to cooperate with it. Religions have > > > devised > > > > > astrology in order to know and decipher this essential > > destiny. > > > The > > > > > semi-essential part of astrology is such that if we know > about > > it > > > we > > > > > can change our lives -- otherwise not. > > > > > If we do not know, then whatsoever was going to happen will > > > happen. > > > > > If > > > > > there is knowledge, there are alternatives to choose between. > > > There > > > > > is > > > > > a possibility of transformation if the right choice is made. > > The > > > > > third, nonessential part is just the periphery, the outer > > surface. > > > > > There is nothing essential in it; everything is > circumstantial. > > > > > But we go to consult astrologers only for the nonessential > > things. > > > > > Someone goes and asks an astrologer when he will get > > employment -- > > > > > there is no relationship between your employment and the moon > > and > > > > > stars. Someone asks whether he will marry or not.... There > can > > be > > > a > > > > > society without marriage. Someone asks whether he will remain > > > poor or > > > > > become rich.... There can be a socialist or communist society > > > where > > > > > there will be no rich and no poor people. So these are > > > nonessential > > > > > questions.... > > > > > An eighty years old man was walking along when his foot > > slipped on > > > > > some orange peel thrown onto the road. Now, is it possible to > > > inquire > > > > > of an astrologer and know from the moon and stars on which > > road > > > and > > > > > on > > > > > which orange peel the foot will slip? Such queries are > > foolish, > > > but > > > > > you are curious to know in advance whether your foot will > land > > on > > > an > > > > > orange skin and slip if you go out on the road today. This is > > > > > nonessential. This has nothing to do with your being or your > > soul. > > > > > These events happen on the periphery, and astrology has > > nothing > > > to do > > > > > with them. But because the astrologers were busy talking only > > > about > > > > > such things, the great establishment of astrology collapsed. > > This > > > was > > > > > the only reason. > > > > > No intelligent person will be prepared to believe that when > he > > was > > > > > born it was written by destiny that on a particular day on > > Marine > > > > > Drive his foot would land on some orange peel and he would > > > fall.... > > > > > Neither the falling down nor the orange peel have any > > > relationship to > > > > > the stars. Astrology has lost respect because it became > > connected > > > > > with > > > > > such things. At one time or the other we all have wanted to > > know > > > such > > > > > things from astrologers -- but these things are nonessential. > > But > > > > > there are certain semi-essential matters such as the birth or > > > death > > > > > of > > > > > a person: if you can know everything about these, you can take > > > > > precautionary measures. If you do not know anything, you > can't > > do > > > > > anything. > > > > > If our knowledge about the diagnosis of disease is increased, > > we > > > will > > > > > be able to increase the life-span of human beings. We have > > been > > > doing > > > > > it. If our research to make deadlier atom bombs succeeds, we > > will > > > be > > > > > able to kill hundreds of thousands of people at a time -- we > > have > > > > > done > > > > > it. This semi-essential world presents a possibility for our > > being > > > > > able to do certain things, if we know in advance what is > going > > to > > > > > happen. If we do not know, nothing can be done. By our > knowing > > in > > > > > advance, alternatives can be sorted out and selected. > > > > > Beyond this, the world of the essential exists -- you cannot > do > > > > > anything about it. However, our curiosity is to know only > about > > > > > nonessential things. Seldom does someone reach out to know the > > > > > semi-essential. Our curiosity or desire never extends to > > knowing > > > that > > > > > which is essential and unavoidable, that which cannot be > > changed > > > even > > > > > if known. > > > > > ================ > > > > > Dridha = Essential > > > > > ================ > > > > > The astrology I am talking about concerns the essential, the > > > > > fundamental. At best your curiosity as far as the semi- > > essential. > > > You > > > > > want to know how long you will live or whether or not you will > > > > > suddenly die. But you are not curious to know what you will > do > > if > > > you > > > > > live -- how you will live. You do want to know how you will > > die > > > when > > > > > the time comes or what you will be doing at that time. Your > > > curiosity > > > > > extends to events, not to the soul. > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > > The projections of the future also determine the present > > moments. > > > > > This > > > > > present moment could not be if there were no future moments. > > Only > > > > > with > > > > > the support of future moments can the present moment occur. > > Our > > > hands > > > > > are resting on the shoulders of the future, our feet are on > the > > > > > shoulders of our past. It is very obvious that if that which > > is > > > below > > > > > me -- on which I am standing and which I can see -- slips > > away, I > > > > > will > > > > > fall. But if the shoulders of the future -- on which my > > > outstretched > > > > > hands are resting -- slip away then I will also fall. > > > > > When a person finds himself connected with this inner unity > of > > > past > > > > > and future he will be able to understand astrology. Then > > astrology > > > > > becomes a religion, then astrology becomes spiritual. > > > > > ======================= > > > > > Dridhadridha = Semi-Essential > > > > > ======================= > > > > > I will tell you a very interesting story so that you may > > > > > understand.... Mohammed had a disciple named Ali. Ali once > > asked > > > > > Mohammed's opinion about whether a man is independent and > free > > to > > > do > > > > > what he wants, or whether he is bound by his destiny in > > > everything he > > > > > does. Ali asked, " Can one do as one wants or not? " -- and man > > has > > > > > been asking this question for a long, long time. " If a man is > > not > > > > > able > > > > > to do as he desires, " Ali said, " then it is useless and > > foolish to > > > > > preach to him not to steal, not to tell lies, not to be > > > dishonest. Or > > > > > is it destiny that one man should always be there to preach > to > > > others > > > > > not to steal or not to do this or that, knowing full well > that > > it > > > is > > > > > also destiny for a dishonest man to remain dishonest, for a > > thief > > > to > > > > > remain a thief, for a murderer to remain a murderer? All this > > > appears > > > > > absurd. If everything is predestined, all education is > > useless -- > > > all > > > > > prophets, all saints and all teachers are useless. " > > > > > People have asked such questions to Mahavira and to Buddha > > also. > > > If > > > > > what is going to happen is predestined, why should Mahavira > or > > > Buddha > > > > > take so much trouble to explain what is right and what is > > wrong? > > > So, > > > > > Ali asked Mohammed what he thought about this controversial > > > matter. > > > > > If > > > > > such a question was asked to Mahavira or Buddha, they would > > have > > > > > given > > > > > a very complicated and deep reply, but Mohammed gave a reply > > > which > > > > > Ali > > > > > could understand. Many of Mohammed's replies were direct and > > > > > straightforward. Ordinarily, answers given by people who are > > > > > uneducated or less educated, or who are simple villagers, are > > > direct > > > > > and frank. People like Kabir, Nanak, Mohammed and Jesus were > > > simple > > > > > in > > > > > that way. Answers by people like Buddha, Mahavira and Krishna > > were > > > > > complex -- Buddha and Mahavira were the cream of a rich and > > highly > > > > > developed civilization. The words of Jesus were direct, like > a > > > blow > > > > > on > > > > > the head. Kabir has actually sung: " Kabir is standing in the > > open > > > > > market with a hammer in his hand to hit you! " If anyone came > > near > > > him > > > > > he would, so to speak, break open his head to remove all the > > > rubbish > > > > > that was lying inside. > > > > > Mohammed did not give any metaphysical reply. He asked Ali to > > > lift > > > > > one > > > > > leg and stand on it. Ali had asked a question about whether a > > man > > > is > > > > > free to do what he wants. Why should Ali stand on one leg? > > > Mohammed > > > > > said, " First lift one leg. " > > > > > Poor Ali lifted his left leg and stood there on one leg. > > > > > Mohammed then asked him, " Now lift the right leg also. " > > > > > Ali was puzzled and asked how it was possible. Then Mohammed > > > > > said, " If > > > > > you had wanted to, you could have lifted the right leg first, > > but > > > now > > > > > you cannot.... A man is always free to lift the first leg - - > > it > > > can > > > > > be > > > > > whichever he wants -- but no sooner has the first been lifted > > > when > > > > > the > > > > > other becomes bound to the earth. " > > > > > With regard to the nonessential part of life, we are always > > free > > > to > > > > > lift the first leg. But once that is done it becomes a > bondage > > > for > > > > > the > > > > > essential part. We take steps that are nonessential, become > > > > > entangled, > > > > > and then we are not able to do the essential. So Mohammed > said > > to > > > Ali > > > > > that he had all the freedom to lift the right or the left leg > > > first. > > > > > But once he exercised that freedom and lifted one left leg, > he > > was > > > > > incapable of lifting the other leg. So freedom is there > within > > > > > certain > > > > > limits, but beyond those limits there is bondage. > > > > > ================== > > > > > Adirdha = Non-Essential > > > > > ================== > > > > > Aall ordinary astrologers are asked about nonessentials. An > > > ordinary > > > > > astrologer is > > > > > asked questions like: " Shall we win the elections or not? " > How > > > are > > > > > the > > > > > elections connected with the moon and the stars? The ordinary > > > > > astrologer who replies, " Everything is predetermined, and no > > > changes, > > > > > not even as much as one inch, can be made, " is making a false > > > > > statement. > > > > > On the other hand there is the rationalist. He says that > > nothing > > > is > > > > > connected inevitably: whatsoever happens is coincidental, > > > > > circumstantial and a matter of chance. There is no law, > > > everything is > > > > > anarchic. He is also making a false statement. > > > > > > > > > > ================== > > > > > Back to the 3 Divisions > > > > > =================== > > > > > There is a law: A rationalist is never found so full of joy > > and > > > bliss > > > > > as a buddha. > > > > > The rationalist denies God, soul and religion with the help > of > > > logic, > > > > > but he can never attain the joy of Mahavira. It is definite > > that > > > > > Mahavira must have done something that earned him his joy, > > Buddha > > > > > must > > > > > have done something that liberated him, and Krishna must also > > have > > > > > done something which made it possible for him to give out such > > > > > distinctly unique magical notes through his flute. > > > > > The real thing is the third, which is the quintessence of > > > everything, > > > > > which belongs to the innermost and which is absolutely > > > predetermined. > > > > > The more one moves toward one's center, the nearer one comes > > to > > > the > > > > > essential, predetermined part. As we move towards the > > periphery, > > > we > > > > > move towards coincidence. The more we talk about external > > > happenings, > > > > > the more there is coincidence. When we talk about inner > > phenomena, > > > > > things begin to appear scientific, as if based on a certain > > law, > > > and > > > > > they become more and more decisive. > > > > > Between these two conditions -- the essential and the > > peripheral - > > > - > > > > > there is ample room for changes through the exercise of > > choice. > > > Here, > > > > > a person of knowledge makes the correct choice, while a > person > > > who is > > > > > without knowledge, who is in the darkness of ignorance, > drifts > > to > > > his > > > > > destiny. In darkness, circumstance catches hold of him. > > > > > So there are three areas of life. In one area, that which is > > the > > > > > essential core, everything is predetermined. Knowing this is > > > knowing > > > > > the essence of astrology. In another area, that which is > > > peripheral, > > > > > everything is uncertain. To know this is to know the everyday > > > > > unpredictable world. There is another area which is in the > > > middle. By > > > > > knowing this, a person can save himself from trying to do the > > > > > impossible, and can do what is possible. > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************** > > > > > OK. That were the words of the Osho. Now do you want to look > > into > > > > > the above sloka? And want to know what else, it say? In which > > way > > > > > you are interested in astrology – In essential? Semi- > > essential? > > > Non- > > > > > essential? > > > > > Hope to have many replays on the same. > > > > > Love, > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > , rk dash > > > > > <arkaydash@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Interested? No, nobody is. Only you are. And what is your > > > > > explanation for the French leave? > > > > > > RK > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Why this group becomes inactive when I am not here. Is it > > that > > > no > > > > > > body is interested in astrology? Is it that you don't like > > this > > > > > group? > > > > > > With such good members with knowledge, this shouldn't > happen > > to > > > > > this > > > > > > group. And will not happen I know. Come back and let us > > > restart! > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - > > Answers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2007 Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 Dear Vinita ji, I think adding one or two lines more about sacrifice will be useful. Sidha and Koula Tantra says- " Yoope badhwa pasoon hatwa ya kuryardrata kardamam Tenachel prapyate sworga, naraka kena jayate " Menaing, if those who kill the cows after binding them to the pillars near to the Fire worship place without pity, will go to Heaven, then who is that will go to Hell? " Notice the sarcasm in the words of the saint. Heaven and Hell are symbolic words, so forget them. But the point is animal sacrifice is not proper to the current society and culture. [in divine all the dualities merge and so there is nothing (which in absolute meaning) good or bad, sin or virtue, Hell or heaven - dualities perish. But still, the actions should be as per the consciousness. Killing an animal with life, just to fulfill your ritual is what is not advisable. That hurts] See these words of Jesus as well- " For if man is saved, there will not be any sacrifices [...] and animals will not be offered to the powers. Indeed, the animals were the ones to whom they sacrificed. " Therefore know that animal sacrifices are already denounced by many enlightened individuals. As far as penance is concerned, I have already quoted Buddha, you can look into the words of Osho about the same as well. => Remember, these are tools/techniques collected from the present culture of their period by our ancient masters or their disciples, for the purpose of improving articulation capabilities while trying to express the spiritual revelation they experienced to them. Rather than due to the enlightened masters, such things come to existence through their disciples. Note:- By the way most of the enlightened masters are neither against killing, sin nor are trying to accumulate punya, making a deposit in heaven, bribing god etc – they are not at all interested in such things, if you are using the social ethics and terminology. Their ethics comes from within and not outside, and would be apt for that moment. They are simply living here and now, accepting the nature as is - with all its dualities. So there is no question of sin or virtue, but simply accepting the nature(dharma). Love, Sreenadh , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: > > Dear Vinita ji, > You said- > ==> > But in some of the Upanishads and I believe in the Vedas too, there > is a lot written on sacrifice and how it should be performed. There > is also talk of penance in our ancient texts. From penance > comes " Tejas " . But penance is stopping the natural flow of > existence...it is just the opposite of the natural flow of > existence. It is standing like a rock against the dance of > existence. Penance and sacrifice both involve a certain effort > against the natural flow. What are your views on this? > <== > You are absolutely Right - many ancient texts mention them - > Sacrifice and Penance. Before starting to analyze such a question, > one thing should be understood. Humans live on earth from ancient > times, many cultures evolved, flourished, and dead and the dynamic > flow of changing cultures, moralities, rituals continues. The > spiritual thrive after meditation and enlightenment as well. Notice > the 2 categories. 1) Quest for Enlightenment 2) Rituals and > Moralities (extend this list) > > Of these Rituals and Moralities depend on the environment, > circumstances, living style, social norms etc of the selected > culture. But the quest for enlightenment is universal. In every > religion many people became enlightened - some of them were > articulate enough to express their experience and thus we got the > masters like Krishna and Buddha. Remember the sloka I quoted in one > of the previous posts - " Pranje sastram swayam bhati, vistaram vastu > saktita " (In consciousness the truth enlightens itself, elaboration > depends on the capabilities of the individual to articulate the > same). This articulation capabilities includes collected knowledge > and rituals of the generation and culture in which they live. There > fore the teachings of any enlightened person can contain 2 parts - > 1) The universal truth about human enlightenment/spiritual > quest/human mind/emotions/thoughts etc. These are valid for all > generations, all time. > 2) Knowledge he accumulated and used as a tool to convey the above > and to extend his articulation capabilities. This heavily depends on > the Knowledge of the culture, living style of the culture, social > norms observed etc. This is not universal and could contain errors - > even though the clarity of vision possessed by the enlightened > persons usually tries keep most of such errors outside the boundary. > But still they invariably creep in to the system and words - Either > through them or through the followers. Even great masters were > troubled by them. > => Sacrifice -> Proper for that period. Since it increases, > attitude towards total submission to divinity, has got a positive > side as well and can be adopted, but not in its original form. > => Penance -> Another tool. Even Buddha was mislead by this tool in > the beginning, and later discarded it. Useful to an extend since it > helps in purifying the body, by giving rest to the digestive system > for some time. Limited use of this helps in keeping the body > healthy, but its use in spiritual quest and path is questionable. > Both these simple tools (any many other) are usually part of the > Environment/Circumstance/Society specific knowledge used by masters > or their disciples to extend their articulation capabilities. > This is way I see it. The problem is, the ultimate guru 'Siva' is > within and we don't listen to him, his teachings are better than > scriptures. Let us listen to the words of Jesus (another enlightened > master)- > " Seek not the law in your scriptures, for the law is life, whereas > the scripture is dead. I tell you truly, Moses received not his laws > from God in writing, but through the living word. The law is living > word of living God to living prophets for living men. In everything > that is life is the law written. You find it in the grass, in the > tree, in the river, in the mountain, in the birds of heaven, in the > fishes of the sea; but seek it chiefly in yourselves. For I tell you > truly, all living things are nearer to God than the scripture which > is without life. God so made life and all living things that they > might by the everlasting word teach the laws of the true God to man. > God wrote not the laws in the pages of books, but in your heart and > in your spirit. They are in your breath, your blood, your bone; in > your flesh, your bowels, your eyes, your ears, and in every little > part of your body. They are present in the air, in the water, in the > earth, in the plants, in the e sunbeams, in the depths and in the > heights. They all speak to you that you may understand the tongue > and the will of the living God. (GOSPEL OF PEACE) " > In the absence of true living masters who collect tools from the > current knowledge and culture to extend their articulation > capabilities - but reflects the eternal ancient truth of > enlightenment - is necessary to give life to the ancient scriptures. > They will know what to discard and what not. (Look at Buddha, he > discarded 'Penance') In the absence of such gurus scripts could > become dead and misleading. Remember, there is NOTHING wrong with > the scripts - it could not have been otherwise. The same could > happen to scripts related to Buddha, Jesus, Jiddu, Osho or any one. > Hope I am clear. > > Now let us go the next point you are pointing to - > > ==> > But after the consciousness of this vibrating, pulsating, breathing > universe, isn't there a zero state where nothing exists? > Of course, u can just brush this aside as a totally hypothetical > question but some NAASA research in pure physics which is again > totally beyond my realm of understanding, also talks of such > a " dead " / zero state/ void which some ancient texts also hinted at. > <== > > Depending upon the subject the language differs. The science is > hinting at- > * Today science is hinting at a possibility for the existence of a > state of space-time continuum (where the normal notion of time and > physical laws have no meaning) within brain. From 'Yoga vasishta' > period onwards (or from even before that) the ancient masters had > hinted at it many times. But whether to call it, a static zero > state, or a dynamic vibrant state is something of a personal choice. > Even if someone calls pure > consciousness 'Light', 'Darkness', 'Nothingness', 'Static', 'Vibrant > ' they all mean the same - Because it is that where all the > dualities become absent and words can not describe. So words are > sure to err or present dualities in presenting it. > > ==> > As u must know by now, i find it fun to indulge in fancy...so u need > not give a serious reply to questions based on half baked knowledge > (coming back to what is cooking in the kitchen....i have just put > some things in the oven) > <== > Everything is a play So don't worry, I am not serious at all - > but only expressing my self. Know-all-edge is always half backed, > whether it is yours or mine does not make any difference. ) So > don't worry. Let us taste and exchange our half backed food. > Love, > Sreeandh > > , " vinita kumar " > <shankar_mamta@> wrote: > > > > > > dear shreenadh, > > > > of course, to do anything forcibly goes against the nature of > > existence..... " Arresting " thoughts does have a forcible > > connotation...and that is not what is advisable. > > > > But in some of the Upanishads and I believe in the VEdas too, > there > > is a lot written on sacrifice and how it should be performed. > There > > is is also talk of penance in our ancient texts. From penance > > comes " Tejas " . But penance is stopping the natural flow of > > existence...it is just the opposite of the natural flow of > existence. > > It is standing like a rock against the dance of existence. > Penance > > and sacrifice both involve a certain effort against the natural > flow. > > > > What are your views on this? > > > > What u wrote appealed to me intuitively.But there are > contradictions. > > Once again doing a cut and paste, this is from OSho's biography: > > - > -- > > " I am reminded of one of my professors. He is a very beautiful > man: > > Professor S.S.Roy. Now he is retired as head of the department of > > philosophy from Allahabad University. The first day I joined his > > class, he was explaining the concept of The Absolute. He was an > > authority on Bradley and Shankara. Both believe in The Absolute— > that > > is their name for God. > > I asked him one thing which made me very intimate to him, and he > > opened his whole heart to me, in every possible way. I just > > asked, " Is your 'absolute' perfect? Has it come to a full stop or > is > > it still growing? If it is still growing, then it is not absolute, > it > > is imperfect—only then can it grow. If something more is possible, > > some more branches, some more flowers—then it is alive. If it is > > complete, entirely complete—that's the meaning of the word > absolute: > > now there is no possibility for growth—then it is dead. " So I > asked > > him, " Be clear, because 'absolute' represents to Bradley and > > Shankara, God; that is their philosophical name for God. Is your > God > > alive or dead? You have to answer me this question. " > > He was really an honest man. He said, " Please give me time to > think. " > > He had a doctorate on Bradley from Oxford, another doctorate on > > Shankara from Benares, and he was thought to be the greatest > > authority on these two philosophers because he had tried to prove > > that Bradley, from the West, and Shankara, from the East, have > come > > to the same conclusion. He said, " Please give me time to think. " > > I said, " Your whole life you have been writing about Bradley and > > Shankara and 'the absolute'—I have read your books, I have read > your > > unpublished thesis. And you have been teaching here your whole > life— > > has nobody ever asked you such a simple question? " > > He said, " Nobody ever asked me; not only that, even I have never > > thought about it—that, certainly, if something is perfect then it > has > > to be dead. Anything alive has to be imperfect. This idea has > never > > occurred to me. So please give me time. " > > > > > > God—perfect, absolute, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent; these > are > > the words used for God by all the religions—is dead, cannot be > alive, > > cannot breathe. No, I reject such a god, because with such a dead > > god, this whole universe will be dead. > > Godliness is a totally different dimension. > > Then the greenness in the tree, then the flowering of the rose, > then > > the bird in flight—all are part of it. Then God is not separate > from > > the universe. Then he is the very soul of the universe. Then the > > universe is vibrating, pulsating, breathing…godliness. " > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > But after the concsiousness of this vibrating, pulsating, > breathing > > universe, isn't ther a zero state where nothing exists? > > > > Of course, u can just brush this aside as a totally hypothetical > > question but some NAASA research in pure physics which is again > > totally beyond my realm of understanding, also talks of such > > a " dead " / zero state/ void which some ancient texts also hinted at. > > > > As u must know by now, i find it fun to indulge in fancy...so u > need > > not give a serious reply to questions based on half baked > knowledge > > (coming back to what is cooking in the kitchen....i have just put > > some things in the oven) > > > > Love, > > > > vinita > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Sreenadh " > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Vinita ji, > > > Thanks for good mail. Yes, I remember reading the words of > Osho > > > which mentions the 'Russian (mathematician?) called Ouspensky > who > > > later worked with Gurdieff also for some time' and still later > > > become one of the opponents of Gurdieff's ideas. But that is not > > > relevant here. Let us look into the words that catches our > > attention- > > > " ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS > > > FALSE " ... > > > True! Any thing that 'arrests' (forcefully stops) the motion of > > > thought is 'false' (illusion created by mind, and does not > reflect > > > the revealing of true consciousness). One shouldn't try > to 'arrest' > > > the motion of thought, but instead it should stop naturally! > Osho > > > used to say, if we tries to 'suppress' sex, it will take its > > revenge > > > in full force. Same with 'arresting' thought - it is certain to > > take > > > its revenge by making us mad! It is 'suppressing'/'arresting' > that > > > needs to be avoided. But this does not prevent us from > > understanding > > > (if not by experience, at least intellectually) that, > consciousness > > > is a thoughtless state, and that the enlightened is beyond sex > (he > > > is not suppressing it, nor controlled by it). > > > " truth itself is motion " > > > True! How can it be otherwise when the one without change is > only > > > change itself?! 'Change' IS 'Motion'. You says " i thought that > > truth > > > is stationary...and our search should be to reach that zero > > > stationary " How can it be? Anything that is stationary, is dead, > > not > > > dynamic, not creative, and can not produce anything new. Life is > > > dynamic, Universe is dynamic, consciousness is dynamic, God is > > > dynamic - Ever evolving! Kali is dancing on Siva! Nataraja is > > > dancing! EVERYTHING is dynamic! > > > Consciousness in meditative mode is not stationary, but it is > > > dynamic, full of life, vital and resonance with and is one with > > > truth. It can not be the other way round! Ouspensky was right - > we > > > know it only because what he says reflects in our being. > > > Love, > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > , " vinita kumar " > > > <shankar_mamta@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Shreenadh, > > > > > > > > Once again nice smells are emanating from your kitchen, so i > came > > > to > > > > taste the fish curry. > > > > > > > > i like the taste of non-Dridhadi insights so would lap up > > whatever > > > u > > > > present on the table including folk tales which i simply adore. > > > > > > > > i too am involved with some cooking and thought i will share > with > > > u > > > > all on the same table. This is something that Osho referred to > as > > > a > > > > book he wanted to underline each line of while reading it. Is > > > called > > > > the Tertium Organum and is written by a Russian called > Ouspensky > > > who > > > > later worked with Gurdieff also for some time. The book was > > > written > > > > in 1912 or around that time and he was already talking of the > > > fourth > > > > dimension. > > > > > > > > I have reproduced below the conclusions from this book. > > > > ------------------------------ > --- > > - > > > - > > > > . 333 > > > > > > > > CONCLUSION > > > > In conclusion I wish to speak of those wonderful words, full > of > > > > profound mystery from the Apocalypse and the apostle Paul's > > > Epistle > > > > to the Ephesians, which are placed as the epigraph of this > book. > > > > > > > > The Apocalyptic angel swears that THERE SHALL BE TIME NO > LONGER. > > > > > > > > We know not what the author of the Apocalypse wanted to > convey, > > > but > > > > we do know those STATES OF SPIRIT when time disappears. We > know > > > that > > > > in this very thing, in the change of the time-sense, the > > beginning > > > of > > > > the fourth form of consciousness is expressed, the beginning > of > > > the > > > > transition to COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS. > > > > > > > > In this and in phrases similar to it, the profound > philosophical > > > > content of the evangelical teaching sometimes flashes forth. > And > > > the > > > > understanding of the fact that the MYSTERY OF TIME is the > first > > > > mystery to be revealed is the first step toward the > development > > of > > > > cosmic consciousness along the intellectual path. > > > > > > > > But what did the Apocalyptic sentence mean? Did it mean > precisely > > > > what we are now able to construe in it--or was it simply a bit > of > > > > verbal art, a rhetorical figure of speech, the accidental > harping > > > of > > > > a string which has continued to sound up to our own time, > through > > > > centuries and millenniums, with such a wonderfully powerful, > true > > > and > > > > beautiful tone of thought? We know not now, nor shall we ever, > > but > > > > the words are full of splendor, and we may accept them as a > > symbol > > > of > > > > remote and inaccessible truth. > > > > > > > > The apostle Paul's words are even more strange, even more > > > startling > > > > by reason of their mathematical exactness. (A friend showed me > > > these > > > > words in A. Dobroluboff's From the Book Invisible, who saw in > > them > > > a > > > > direct reference to " the fourth measure of space. " ) > > > > > > > > Truly, what does this mean? > > > > > > > > . . . . That ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be > able > > to > > > > comprehend with all saints what is the BREADTH and LENGTH and > > > DEPTH > > > > and HEIGHT. > > > > > > > > p. 334 > > > > > > > > First of all, what does the comprehension of breadth and > length > > > and > > > > depth and height mean? What is it but the comprehension of > space? > > > And > > > > we now know that the comprehension of the mysteries of space > is > > > the > > > > beginning of the higher comprehension. > > > > > > > > The apostle says that " being rooted and grounded in love, with > > all > > > > saints " they may comprehend what space is. > > > > > > > > Here arises the question: why must love give comprehension? > That > > > love > > > > leads to sanctity--this is easily understood. Love in the > sense > > > that > > > > the apostle Paul understands it (Chapter XIII of the First > > Epistle > > > to > > > > the Corinthians) is the highest of all emotions, the > synthesis, > > > the > > > > blending of all highest emotions. Incontestably, this leads to > > > > sanctity. Sanctity: that is the state of the spirit liberated > > from > > > > the duality of man, from his eternal disharmony of soul and > body. > > > In > > > > the language of the apostle Paul sanctity meant even a little > > less > > > > than in our contemporary language. He called all members of > his > > > > church saints; sanctity meant to him righteousness, morality, > > > > religiosity. We say that all this is merely the path to > sanctity. > > > > Sanctity is something more--something attained. But it is > after > > > all > > > > immaterial how we shall understand his words--in his meaning > or > > in > > > > ours--sanctity is a superhuman quality. In the region of > morality > > > it > > > > corresponds to genius in the region of mind. Love is the path > to > > > > sainthood. > > > > > > > > But with sanctity the apostle Paul unites KNOWLEDGE. Saints > > > > comprehend what is the breadth and length and depth and > height; > > > and > > > > he says that all--through love--may comprehend this with them. > > But > > > > may comprehend what, exactly? COMPREHEND SPACE. > Because " breadth > > > and > > > > length and depth and height " translated into our language of > > > shorter > > > > definitions actually means space. > > > > > > > > This last is the most strange. > > > > > > > > How could the apostle Paul possibly KNOW that sanctity gives a > > new > > > > understanding of space? We know that it must give it, but FROM > > > WHAT > > > > could he know that? > > > > > > > > None of his contemporaries ever united sanctity with the idea > of > > > the > > > > comprehension of space; and in general there was no discussion > at > > > all > > > > about " space " at that time, at least among the Greeks and > Romans. > > > > Only now, after Kant, and after we have had access to the > > > treasures > > > > of thought of the Orient, do we understand that the transition > > > into a > > > > new phase of consciousness is impossible without the expansion > of > > > the > > > > space-sense. > > > > > > > > p. 335 > > > > > > > > But we wonder if this is what the apostle Paul wanted to say-- > > that > > > > strange man: Roman official, persecutor of the first > Christianity > > > who > > > > became its preacher, philosopher, mystic; the man who " saw > God, " > > > the > > > > bold reformer and moralist of his time, who fought for " the > > > spirit " > > > > against " the letter " and was of course not responsible for the > > > fact > > > > that he himself was understood by others not in " the spirit, " > but > > > > in " the letter. " Is it this that he wanted to say? We do not > know. > > > > > > > > But let us look at these words of the Apocalypse and the > Epistles > > > > from the standpoint of our usual " positivistic thinking, " > which > > > > sometimes condescendingly agrees to admit the " metaphorical > > > meaning " > > > > of mysticism. What shall we see? > > > > > > > > WE SHALL SEE NOTHING! > > > > > > > > The flash of mystery, which appeared just for an instant, will > > > > immediately disappear. The words will be without any content, > > > nothing > > > > in them will attract our wearied attention, which will merely > > > glide > > > > over them as it glides over everything. We will indifferently > > turn > > > > the page and indifferently close the book. > > > > > > > > An interesting metaphor, yes: But nothing else! > > > > > > > > And we fail to observe that we rob ourselves, deprive life of > all > > > > beauty, all mystery, all content; and wonder afterwards why > > > > everything is so uninteresting and detestable to us, why we do > > not > > > > desire to live, and why we do not understand anything around > us; > > > we > > > > wonder why brute force wins, or deceit and falsification, > though > > > to > > > > these things we have nothing to oppose. > > > > > > > > THE METHOD IS NO GOOD. > > > > > > > > In its time " positivism " appeared as something refreshing, > sober, > > > > healthful and progressive, which explored new avenues of > thought. > > > > > > > > After the sentimental speculations of naive > dualism " positivism " > > > was > > > > indeed a great step forward. Positivism became a symbol of the > > > > progress of thought. > > > > > > > > But we see now that it inevitably leads to materialism. And in > > > this > > > > form it arrests thought. From revolutionary, persecuted, > > > anarchistic, > > > > free-thinking, positivism became the basis of official > science. > > It > > > is > > > > decked-out in full dress. It is given medals. There are > academies > > > and > > > > universities dedicated to its service. It is recognized; it > > > teaches; > > > > it tyrannizes over thought. > > > > > > > > But having attained to well-being and prosperity, positivism > > > > immediately opposed obstacles to the forward march of thought. > > > > > > > > p. 336 > > > > > > > > A Chinese wall of " positivistic " sciences and methods is built > up > > > > around free investigation. Everything rising above this wall > is > > > > condemned as unscientific. > > > > > > > > And seen in this way positivism, which before was a symbol of > > > > progress, now appears as conservative, reactionary. > > > > > > > > The existing order is already established in the world of > > thought, > > > > and to fight against it is declared to be a crime. > > > > > > > > With astonishing rapidity those principles which only > yesterday > > > > expressed the highest radicalism in the region of thought have > > > become > > > > the basis of opportunism in the region of ideas and serve as > > blind > > > > alleys, stopping the progress of thought. In our eyes this > > > occurred > > > > with the idea of evolution, on which it is now possible to > build > > > up > > > > anything, and with the help of which it is possible to tear > down > > > > anything. > > > > > > > > But thought, which is free, cannot be bound by any limits. > > > > > > > > The true motion which lies at the foundation of everything, is > > the > > > > motion of thought. True energy is the energy of consciousness. > > And > > > > truth itself is motion, and can never lead to arrestment, to > the > > > > cessation of search. > > > > > > > > ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS FALSE. > > > > > > > > Therefore the true and real progress of thought is only in the > > > > broadest striving toward knowledge, that does not recognize > the > > > > possibility of arrestment in any found forms of knowledge at > all. > > > The > > > > meaning of life is in eternal search. And only in that search > can > > > we > > > > find something truly new. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > --- > > - > > > - > > > > Did u like the taste of this curry? However, what i am still > > > finding > > > > hard to digest is " ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS > > > > FALSE " ... " truth itself is motion " , i thought that truth is > > > > stationary...and our search should be to reach that zero > > > stationary > > > > stage. thougths of course are motion and they have to be > > > > arrested....what say u? Of course, this is just a play of > > > imagination > > > > where one has no idea of what is truth. i am just parroting > the > > > words > > > > of others in a cut and paste reality... > > > > > > > > But just look at the insight of this man!!! He was a genius! > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Sreenadh " > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear RK ji, > > > > > Let us divide this thread into two. Let one grow through > the > > > > > discussion of " Dridhadi " 3 divisions, and the other about > > > > insights. > > > > > Insight comes from approaching the question under scrutiny > in > > > a > > > > new > > > > > light. From were this light come? It comes from > consciousness. > > > The > > > > > Sanskrit word is " Prenja " . There is a sloka in Chanakya > Neeti- > > > > > " Pranje sastram swayam bhati > > > > > Vistaram Vastu saktita " > > > > > Meaning, In the consciousness the essence of the subject > (the > > > > > question under scrutiny) appears by itself. The elaboration > is > > > the > > > > > only thing that depends on the ability (accumulated > surrounding > > > > > knowledge etc) of the person. > > > > > We should encounter questions with the light of our unique > > > > > consciousness - and questions themselves give us new > answers. We > > > > > collect the surrounding knowledge and use our own abilities > > > (such as > > > > > vocabulary, ability describe, humor, knowledge of > > > > > incidents/stories/quotes etc) to elaborate and present the > same > > > > before > > > > > the audience. Then it is heralded as an insight. > > > > > In essence it comes from the consciousness (where there is > > > > nothing!) > > > > > - It is just light, you may say! But still in its presents, > > > > > everything appears clear, and with a different beauty!! > > > > > It is not the subject but the consciousness of the person > who > > > looks > > > > > into it is important! (Really, that is an insight!) Then > even > > > most > > > > > irrelevant of the subjects can give us so much knowledge > that no > > > > > others can! > > > > > => The essence is " Prenja " – which does not contain any > > > knowledge, > > > > but > > > > > the base of all knowledge! It is the essential, and the > > > knowledge, > > > > as > > > > > Osho points out at times, 'know-all-edge' is at the `edge', > it > > > is > > > > just > > > > > `peripheral'. Let us go after the essential. > > > > > Love, > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > , rk dash > > > > > <arkaydash@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sree > > > > > > Good to have you back. > > > > > > So you want to excite me. My excited desire on this > forum > > > will > > > > be > > > > > to test my fundamentals in light of the views and insights > of > > > fellow > > > > > members (Dr K, Shree Madhu, Sreenivas, to name a few). Put > > also > > > > them > > > > > (all members) on notice if you want to excite me. > > > > > > > > > > > > RK > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > Rk ji, > > > > > > It happenes due to life circumstances. But still you > were > > > all > > > > > > here, right?! So I think revival is always possible, > and > > is > > > so > > > > > > easy. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to Astrology:- > > > > > > ******************************************* > > > > > > " Dridhadi karma treyakalameeswara kalasworoopa pradadati > > > dehinam " > > > > > > ******************************************* > > > > > > In Dasadhyayi there is a sloka- > > > > > > " Dridhadi karma treyakalameeswara kalasworoopa pradadati > > > dehinam " > > > > > > Meaning, The effect of space-time continuem on living > beings > > > can > > > > be > > > > > > of 3 type - > > > > > > 1) Dridha = Which can not be modified > > > > > > 2) Dridhadridha = Which can be modified if we know about > it > > > (We > > > > > > have a choice) > > > > > > 3) Adridha = Which may or may not happen (Jut a simple > > > > possibility) > > > > > > > > > > > > This is one of the concepts that is very fundamental to > > > Ancient > > > > > > Indian Astrology. Instead of me speaking elaborately on > the > > > > subject, > > > > > > I quote the words of Osho, when he spoke about the same- > > > > > > Note:- I have just inserted some headings in between the > > words > > > of > > > > > > Osho for better understanding and co-relating of the same > > with > > > > the > > > > > > above sloka. > > > > > > ******************************************************** > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > The 3 Parts > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > " Astrology can be divided into three parts. The first > part > > is > > > > > > the core, > > > > > > the essence; it is the essentials, and cannot be changed. > It > > > is > > > > the > > > > > > part which is most difficult to understand. The second > part > > is > > > the > > > > > > middle layer, in which one can make whatever changes one > > > wants. > > > > It is > > > > > > the semi-essential portion in which you can make changes > if > > > you > > > > know > > > > > > how, but without knowing, no changes are possible at all. > The > > > > third > > > > > > part is the outermost layer which is nonessential, but > about > > > > which we > > > > > > are all very curious. > > > > > > The first is the essence, in which no changes can be made. > > > When > > > > it is > > > > > > known, the only way is to cooperate with it. Religions > have > > > > devised > > > > > > astrology in order to know and decipher this essential > > > destiny. > > > > The > > > > > > semi-essential part of astrology is such that if we know > > about > > > it > > > > we > > > > > > can change our lives -- otherwise not. > > > > > > If we do not know, then whatsoever was going to happen > will > > > > happen. > > > > > > If > > > > > > there is knowledge, there are alternatives to choose > between. > > > > There > > > > > > is > > > > > > a possibility of transformation if the right choice is > made. > > > The > > > > > > third, nonessential part is just the periphery, the outer > > > surface. > > > > > > There is nothing essential in it; everything is > > circumstantial. > > > > > > But we go to consult astrologers only for the nonessential > > > things. > > > > > > Someone goes and asks an astrologer when he will get > > > employment -- > > > > > > there is no relationship between your employment and the > moon > > > and > > > > > > stars. Someone asks whether he will marry or not.... There > > can > > > be > > > > a > > > > > > society without marriage. Someone asks whether he will > remain > > > > poor or > > > > > > become rich.... There can be a socialist or communist > society > > > > where > > > > > > there will be no rich and no poor people. So these are > > > > nonessential > > > > > > questions.... > > > > > > An eighty years old man was walking along when his foot > > > slipped on > > > > > > some orange peel thrown onto the road. Now, is it possible > to > > > > inquire > > > > > > of an astrologer and know from the moon and stars on which > > > road > > > > and > > > > > > on > > > > > > which orange peel the foot will slip? Such queries are > > > foolish, > > > > but > > > > > > you are curious to know in advance whether your foot will > > land > > > on > > > > an > > > > > > orange skin and slip if you go out on the road today. This > is > > > > > > nonessential. This has nothing to do with your being or > your > > > soul. > > > > > > These events happen on the periphery, and astrology has > > > nothing > > > > to do > > > > > > with them. But because the astrologers were busy talking > only > > > > about > > > > > > such things, the great establishment of astrology > collapsed. > > > This > > > > was > > > > > > the only reason. > > > > > > No intelligent person will be prepared to believe that > when > > he > > > was > > > > > > born it was written by destiny that on a particular day on > > > Marine > > > > > > Drive his foot would land on some orange peel and he would > > > > fall.... > > > > > > Neither the falling down nor the orange peel have any > > > > relationship to > > > > > > the stars. Astrology has lost respect because it became > > > connected > > > > > > with > > > > > > such things. At one time or the other we all have wanted > to > > > know > > > > such > > > > > > things from astrologers -- but these things are > nonessential. > > > But > > > > > > there are certain semi-essential matters such as the birth > or > > > > death > > > > > > of > > > > > > a person: if you can know everything about these, you can > take > > > > > > precautionary measures. If you do not know anything, you > > can't > > > do > > > > > > anything. > > > > > > If our knowledge about the diagnosis of disease is > increased, > > > we > > > > will > > > > > > be able to increase the life-span of human beings. We have > > > been > > > > doing > > > > > > it. If our research to make deadlier atom bombs succeeds, > we > > > will > > > > be > > > > > > able to kill hundreds of thousands of people at a time -- > we > > > have > > > > > > done > > > > > > it. This semi-essential world presents a possibility for > our > > > being > > > > > > able to do certain things, if we know in advance what is > > going > > > to > > > > > > happen. If we do not know, nothing can be done. By our > > knowing > > > in > > > > > > advance, alternatives can be sorted out and selected. > > > > > > Beyond this, the world of the essential exists -- you > cannot > > do > > > > > > anything about it. However, our curiosity is to know only > > about > > > > > > nonessential things. Seldom does someone reach out to know > the > > > > > > semi-essential. Our curiosity or desire never extends to > > > knowing > > > > that > > > > > > which is essential and unavoidable, that which cannot be > > > changed > > > > even > > > > > > if known. > > > > > > ================ > > > > > > Dridha = Essential > > > > > > ================ > > > > > > The astrology I am talking about concerns the essential, > the > > > > > > fundamental. At best your curiosity as far as the semi- > > > essential. > > > > You > > > > > > want to know how long you will live or whether or not you > will > > > > > > suddenly die. But you are not curious to know what you > will > > do > > > if > > > > you > > > > > > live -- how you will live. You do want to know how you > will > > > die > > > > when > > > > > > the time comes or what you will be doing at that time. > Your > > > > curiosity > > > > > > extends to events, not to the soul. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > > > The projections of the future also determine the present > > > moments. > > > > > > This > > > > > > present moment could not be if there were no future > moments. > > > Only > > > > > > with > > > > > > the support of future moments can the present moment > occur. > > > Our > > > > hands > > > > > > are resting on the shoulders of the future, our feet are > on > > the > > > > > > shoulders of our past. It is very obvious that if that > which > > > is > > > > below > > > > > > me -- on which I am standing and which I can see -- slips > > > away, I > > > > > > will > > > > > > fall. But if the shoulders of the future -- on which my > > > > outstretched > > > > > > hands are resting -- slip away then I will also fall. > > > > > > When a person finds himself connected with this inner > unity > > of > > > > past > > > > > > and future he will be able to understand astrology. Then > > > astrology > > > > > > becomes a religion, then astrology becomes spiritual. > > > > > > ======================= > > > > > > Dridhadridha = Semi-Essential > > > > > > ======================= > > > > > > I will tell you a very interesting story so that you may > > > > > > understand.... Mohammed had a disciple named Ali. Ali once > > > asked > > > > > > Mohammed's opinion about whether a man is independent and > > free > > > to > > > > do > > > > > > what he wants, or whether he is bound by his destiny in > > > > everything he > > > > > > does. Ali asked, " Can one do as one wants or not? " -- and > man > > > has > > > > > > been asking this question for a long, long time. " If a man > is > > > not > > > > > > able > > > > > > to do as he desires, " Ali said, " then it is useless and > > > foolish to > > > > > > preach to him not to steal, not to tell lies, not to be > > > > dishonest. Or > > > > > > is it destiny that one man should always be there to > preach > > to > > > > others > > > > > > not to steal or not to do this or that, knowing full well > > that > > > it > > > > is > > > > > > also destiny for a dishonest man to remain dishonest, for > a > > > thief > > > > to > > > > > > remain a thief, for a murderer to remain a murderer? All > this > > > > appears > > > > > > absurd. If everything is predestined, all education is > > > useless -- > > > > all > > > > > > prophets, all saints and all teachers are useless. " > > > > > > People have asked such questions to Mahavira and to Buddha > > > also. > > > > If > > > > > > what is going to happen is predestined, why should > Mahavira > > or > > > > Buddha > > > > > > take so much trouble to explain what is right and what is > > > wrong? > > > > So, > > > > > > Ali asked Mohammed what he thought about this > controversial > > > > matter. > > > > > > If > > > > > > such a question was asked to Mahavira or Buddha, they > would > > > have > > > > > > given > > > > > > a very complicated and deep reply, but Mohammed gave a > reply > > > > which > > > > > > Ali > > > > > > could understand. Many of Mohammed's replies were direct > and > > > > > > straightforward. Ordinarily, answers given by people who > are > > > > > > uneducated or less educated, or who are simple villagers, > are > > > > direct > > > > > > and frank. People like Kabir, Nanak, Mohammed and Jesus > were > > > > simple > > > > > > in > > > > > > that way. Answers by people like Buddha, Mahavira and > Krishna > > > were > > > > > > complex -- Buddha and Mahavira were the cream of a rich > and > > > highly > > > > > > developed civilization. The words of Jesus were direct, > like > > a > > > > blow > > > > > > on > > > > > > the head. Kabir has actually sung: " Kabir is standing in > the > > > open > > > > > > market with a hammer in his hand to hit you! " If anyone > came > > > near > > > > him > > > > > > he would, so to speak, break open his head to remove all > the > > > > rubbish > > > > > > that was lying inside. > > > > > > Mohammed did not give any metaphysical reply. He asked Ali > to > > > > lift > > > > > > one > > > > > > leg and stand on it. Ali had asked a question about > whether a > > > man > > > > is > > > > > > free to do what he wants. Why should Ali stand on one leg? > > > > Mohammed > > > > > > said, " First lift one leg. " > > > > > > Poor Ali lifted his left leg and stood there on one leg. > > > > > > Mohammed then asked him, " Now lift the right leg also. " > > > > > > Ali was puzzled and asked how it was possible. Then > Mohammed > > > > > > said, " If > > > > > > you had wanted to, you could have lifted the right leg > first, > > > but > > > > now > > > > > > you cannot.... A man is always free to lift the first leg - > - > > > it > > > > can > > > > > > be > > > > > > whichever he wants -- but no sooner has the first been > lifted > > > > when > > > > > > the > > > > > > other becomes bound to the earth. " > > > > > > With regard to the nonessential part of life, we are > always > > > free > > > > to > > > > > > lift the first leg. But once that is done it becomes a > > bondage > > > > for > > > > > > the > > > > > > essential part. We take steps that are nonessential, > become > > > > > > entangled, > > > > > > and then we are not able to do the essential. So Mohammed > > said > > > to > > > > Ali > > > > > > that he had all the freedom to lift the right or the left > leg > > > > first. > > > > > > But once he exercised that freedom and lifted one left > leg, > > he > > > was > > > > > > incapable of lifting the other leg. So freedom is there > > within > > > > > > certain > > > > > > limits, but beyond those limits there is bondage. > > > > > > ================== > > > > > > Adirdha = Non-Essential > > > > > > ================== > > > > > > Aall ordinary astrologers are asked about nonessentials. > An > > > > ordinary > > > > > > astrologer is > > > > > > asked questions like: " Shall we win the elections or not? " > > How > > > > are > > > > > > the > > > > > > elections connected with the moon and the stars? The > ordinary > > > > > > astrologer who replies, " Everything is predetermined, and > no > > > > changes, > > > > > > not even as much as one inch, can be made, " is making a > false > > > > > > statement. > > > > > > On the other hand there is the rationalist. He says that > > > nothing > > > > is > > > > > > connected inevitably: whatsoever happens is coincidental, > > > > > > circumstantial and a matter of chance. There is no law, > > > > everything is > > > > > > anarchic. He is also making a false statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > ================== > > > > > > Back to the 3 Divisions > > > > > > =================== > > > > > > There is a law: A rationalist is never found so full of > joy > > > and > > > > bliss > > > > > > as a buddha. > > > > > > The rationalist denies God, soul and religion with the > help > > of > > > > logic, > > > > > > but he can never attain the joy of Mahavira. It is > definite > > > that > > > > > > Mahavira must have done something that earned him his joy, > > > Buddha > > > > > > must > > > > > > have done something that liberated him, and Krishna must > also > > > have > > > > > > done something which made it possible for him to give out > such > > > > > > distinctly unique magical notes through his flute. > > > > > > The real thing is the third, which is the quintessence of > > > > everything, > > > > > > which belongs to the innermost and which is absolutely > > > > predetermined. > > > > > > The more one moves toward one's center, the nearer one > comes > > > to > > > > the > > > > > > essential, predetermined part. As we move towards the > > > periphery, > > > > we > > > > > > move towards coincidence. The more we talk about external > > > > happenings, > > > > > > the more there is coincidence. When we talk about inner > > > phenomena, > > > > > > things begin to appear scientific, as if based on a > certain > > > law, > > > > and > > > > > > they become more and more decisive. > > > > > > Between these two conditions -- the essential and the > > > peripheral - > > > > - > > > > > > there is ample room for changes through the exercise of > > > choice. > > > > Here, > > > > > > a person of knowledge makes the correct choice, while a > > person > > > > who is > > > > > > without knowledge, who is in the darkness of ignorance, > > drifts > > > to > > > > his > > > > > > destiny. In darkness, circumstance catches hold of him. > > > > > > So there are three areas of life. In one area, that which > is > > > the > > > > > > essential core, everything is predetermined. Knowing this > is > > > > knowing > > > > > > the essence of astrology. In another area, that which is > > > > peripheral, > > > > > > everything is uncertain. To know this is to know the > everyday > > > > > > unpredictable world. There is another area which is in the > > > > middle. By > > > > > > knowing this, a person can save himself from trying to do > the > > > > > > impossible, and can do what is possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************** > > > > > > OK. That were the words of the Osho. Now do you want to > look > > > into > > > > > > the above sloka? And want to know what else, it say? In > which > > > way > > > > > > you are interested in astrology – In essential? Semi- > > > essential? > > > > Non- > > > > > > essential? > > > > > > Hope to have many replays on the same. > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > , rk dash > > > > > > <arkaydash@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interested? No, nobody is. Only you are. And what is > your > > > > > > explanation for the French leave? > > > > > > > RK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > Why this group becomes inactive when I am not here. Is > it > > > that > > > > no > > > > > > > body is interested in astrology? Is it that you don't > like > > > this > > > > > > group? > > > > > > > With such good members with knowledge, this shouldn't > > happen > > > to > > > > > > this > > > > > > > group. And will not happen I know. Come back and let us > > > > restart! > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - > > > Answers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Dear Sreenadh, When i talked about sacrifice in the upanishads i did not mean sacrifice of a cow or a goat the way in the way it is generally thought of. While trying to read the Brihad Aranyaka i got the impression that the Ashwa Medha has so many layers of meaning. A sacrifice could also mean the journey from the gross to the subtle. The idea is to reduce the grossness by putting it thru fire so that it can be transformed into the akash element? In the same way i thought it is with any sadhana (penance may be a rigourous form of sadhana). An effort is involved...it could be sacrifice of time initially but could go to the extreme of sacrificing the physical. Buddha may have decried it at some point of time, but he went thru the process himself. So some self purification could have already taken place. i understand it is not an end in itself. but it could be a tool / an instrument which can be used for some time till it has fulfilled its purpose. in modern times we do not do penance. but sadhana is considered an essential part of spiritual practices. And sadhana is always an effort. It donsnt come naturally. One has to become a rock against the flow....so that u can ultimately become the flow?....(another oxymoron?)...i dont know.... Love, Vinita , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: > > Dear Vinita ji, > I think adding one or two lines more about sacrifice will be useful. > Sidha and Koula Tantra says- > " Yoope badhwa pasoon hatwa ya kuryardrata kardamam > Tenachel prapyate sworga, naraka kena jayate " > Menaing, if those who kill the cows after binding them to the pillars > near to the Fire worship place without pity, will go to Heaven, then > who is that will go to Hell? " > Notice the sarcasm in the words of the saint. Heaven and Hell are > symbolic words, so forget them. But the point is animal sacrifice is > not proper to the current society and culture. [in divine all the > dualities merge and so there is nothing (which in absolute meaning) > good or bad, sin or virtue, Hell or heaven - dualities perish. But > still, the actions should be as per the consciousness. Killing an > animal with life, just to fulfill your ritual is what is not > advisable. That hurts] > See these words of Jesus as well- > " For if man is saved, there will not be any sacrifices [...] and > animals will not be offered to the powers. Indeed, the animals were > the ones to whom they sacrificed. " > Therefore know that animal sacrifices are already denounced by many > enlightened individuals. As far as penance is concerned, I have > already quoted Buddha, you can look into the words of Osho about the > same as well. > => Remember, these are tools/techniques collected from the present > culture of their period by our ancient masters or their disciples, for > the purpose of improving articulation capabilities while trying to > express the spiritual revelation they experienced to them. Rather than > due to the enlightened masters, such things come to existence through > their disciples. > Note:- By the way most of the enlightened masters are neither against > killing, sin nor are trying to accumulate punya, making a deposit in > heaven, bribing god etc – they are not at all interested in such > things, if you are using the social ethics and terminology. Their > ethics comes from within and not outside, and would be apt for that > moment. They are simply living here and now, accepting the nature as > is - with all its dualities. So there is no question of sin or virtue, > but simply accepting the nature(dharma). > Love, > Sreenadh > > , " Sreenadh " > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > Dear Vinita ji, > > You said- > > ==> > > But in some of the Upanishads and I believe in the Vedas too, there > > is a lot written on sacrifice and how it should be performed. There > > is also talk of penance in our ancient texts. From penance > > comes " Tejas " . But penance is stopping the natural flow of > > existence...it is just the opposite of the natural flow of > > existence. It is standing like a rock against the dance of > > existence. Penance and sacrifice both involve a certain effort > > against the natural flow. What are your views on this? > > <== > > You are absolutely Right - many ancient texts mention them - > > Sacrifice and Penance. Before starting to analyze such a question, > > one thing should be understood. Humans live on earth from ancient > > times, many cultures evolved, flourished, and dead and the dynamic > > flow of changing cultures, moralities, rituals continues. The > > spiritual thrive after meditation and enlightenment as well. Notice > > the 2 categories. 1) Quest for Enlightenment 2) Rituals and > > Moralities (extend this list) > > > > Of these Rituals and Moralities depend on the environment, > > circumstances, living style, social norms etc of the selected > > culture. But the quest for enlightenment is universal. In every > > religion many people became enlightened - some of them were > > articulate enough to express their experience and thus we got the > > masters like Krishna and Buddha. Remember the sloka I quoted in one > > of the previous posts - " Pranje sastram swayam bhati, vistaram vastu > > saktita " (In consciousness the truth enlightens itself, elaboration > > depends on the capabilities of the individual to articulate the > > same). This articulation capabilities includes collected knowledge > > and rituals of the generation and culture in which they live. There > > fore the teachings of any enlightened person can contain 2 parts - > > 1) The universal truth about human enlightenment/spiritual > > quest/human mind/emotions/thoughts etc. These are valid for all > > generations, all time. > > 2) Knowledge he accumulated and used as a tool to convey the above > > and to extend his articulation capabilities. This heavily depends on > > the Knowledge of the culture, living style of the culture, social > > norms observed etc. This is not universal and could contain errors - > > even though the clarity of vision possessed by the enlightened > > persons usually tries keep most of such errors outside the boundary. > > But still they invariably creep in to the system and words - Either > > through them or through the followers. Even great masters were > > troubled by them. > > => Sacrifice -> Proper for that period. Since it increases, > > attitude towards total submission to divinity, has got a positive > > side as well and can be adopted, but not in its original form. > > => Penance -> Another tool. Even Buddha was mislead by this tool in > > the beginning, and later discarded it. Useful to an extend since it > > helps in purifying the body, by giving rest to the digestive system > > for some time. Limited use of this helps in keeping the body > > healthy, but its use in spiritual quest and path is questionable. > > Both these simple tools (any many other) are usually part of the > > Environment/Circumstance/Society specific knowledge used by masters > > or their disciples to extend their articulation capabilities. > > This is way I see it. The problem is, the ultimate guru 'Siva' is > > within and we don't listen to him, his teachings are better than > > scriptures. Let us listen to the words of Jesus (another enlightened > > master)- > > " Seek not the law in your scriptures, for the law is life, whereas > > the scripture is dead. I tell you truly, Moses received not his laws > > from God in writing, but through the living word. The law is living > > word of living God to living prophets for living men. In everything > > that is life is the law written. You find it in the grass, in the > > tree, in the river, in the mountain, in the birds of heaven, in the > > fishes of the sea; but seek it chiefly in yourselves. For I tell you > > truly, all living things are nearer to God than the scripture which > > is without life. God so made life and all living things that they > > might by the everlasting word teach the laws of the true God to man. > > God wrote not the laws in the pages of books, but in your heart and > > in your spirit. They are in your breath, your blood, your bone; in > > your flesh, your bowels, your eyes, your ears, and in every little > > part of your body. They are present in the air, in the water, in the > > earth, in the plants, in the e sunbeams, in the depths and in the > > heights. They all speak to you that you may understand the tongue > > and the will of the living God. (GOSPEL OF PEACE) " > > In the absence of true living masters who collect tools from the > > current knowledge and culture to extend their articulation > > capabilities - but reflects the eternal ancient truth of > > enlightenment - is necessary to give life to the ancient scriptures. > > They will know what to discard and what not. (Look at Buddha, he > > discarded 'Penance') In the absence of such gurus scripts could > > become dead and misleading. Remember, there is NOTHING wrong with > > the scripts - it could not have been otherwise. The same could > > happen to scripts related to Buddha, Jesus, Jiddu, Osho or any one. > > Hope I am clear. > > > > Now let us go the next point you are pointing to - > > > > ==> > > But after the consciousness of this vibrating, pulsating, breathing > > universe, isn't there a zero state where nothing exists? > > Of course, u can just brush this aside as a totally hypothetical > > question but some NAASA research in pure physics which is again > > totally beyond my realm of understanding, also talks of such > > a " dead " / zero state/ void which some ancient texts also hinted at. > > <== > > > > Depending upon the subject the language differs. The science is > > hinting at- > > * Today science is hinting at a possibility for the existence of a > > state of space-time continuum (where the normal notion of time and > > physical laws have no meaning) within brain. From 'Yoga vasishta' > > period onwards (or from even before that) the ancient masters had > > hinted at it many times. But whether to call it, a static zero > > state, or a dynamic vibrant state is something of a personal choice. > > Even if someone calls pure > > consciousness 'Light', 'Darkness', 'Nothingness', 'Static', 'Vibrant > > ' they all mean the same - Because it is that where all the > > dualities become absent and words can not describe. So words are > > sure to err or present dualities in presenting it. > > > > ==> > > As u must know by now, i find it fun to indulge in fancy...so u need > > not give a serious reply to questions based on half baked knowledge > > (coming back to what is cooking in the kitchen....i have just put > > some things in the oven) > > <== > > Everything is a play So don't worry, I am not serious at all - > > but only expressing my self. Know-all-edge is always half backed, > > whether it is yours or mine does not make any difference. ) So > > don't worry. Let us taste and exchange our half backed food. > > Love, > > Sreeandh > > > > , " vinita kumar " > > <shankar_mamta@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > dear shreenadh, > > > > > > of course, to do anything forcibly goes against the nature of > > > existence..... " Arresting " thoughts does have a forcible > > > connotation...and that is not what is advisable. > > > > > > But in some of the Upanishads and I believe in the VEdas too, > > there > > > is a lot written on sacrifice and how it should be performed. > > There > > > is is also talk of penance in our ancient texts. From penance > > > comes " Tejas " . But penance is stopping the natural flow of > > > existence...it is just the opposite of the natural flow of > > existence. > > > It is standing like a rock against the dance of existence. > > Penance > > > and sacrifice both involve a certain effort against the natural > > flow. > > > > > > What are your views on this? > > > > > > What u wrote appealed to me intuitively.But there are > > contradictions. > > > Once again doing a cut and paste, this is from OSho's biography: > > > ------------------------------- --- > > -- > > > " I am reminded of one of my professors. He is a very beautiful > > man: > > > Professor S.S.Roy. Now he is retired as head of the department of > > > philosophy from Allahabad University. The first day I joined his > > > class, he was explaining the concept of The Absolute. He was an > > > authority on Bradley and Shankara. Both believe in The Absolute— > > that > > > is their name for God. > > > I asked him one thing which made me very intimate to him, and he > > > opened his whole heart to me, in every possible way. I just > > > asked, " Is your 'absolute' perfect? Has it come to a full stop or > > is > > > it still growing? If it is still growing, then it is not absolute, > > it > > > is imperfect—only then can it grow. If something more is possible, > > > some more branches, some more flowers—then it is alive. If it is > > > complete, entirely complete—that's the meaning of the word > > absolute: > > > now there is no possibility for growth—then it is dead. " So I > > asked > > > him, " Be clear, because 'absolute' represents to Bradley and > > > Shankara, God; that is their philosophical name for God. Is your > > God > > > alive or dead? You have to answer me this question. " > > > He was really an honest man. He said, " Please give me time to > > think. " > > > He had a doctorate on Bradley from Oxford, another doctorate on > > > Shankara from Benares, and he was thought to be the greatest > > > authority on these two philosophers because he had tried to prove > > > that Bradley, from the West, and Shankara, from the East, have > > come > > > to the same conclusion. He said, " Please give me time to think. " > > > I said, " Your whole life you have been writing about Bradley and > > > Shankara and 'the absolute'—I have read your books, I have read > > your > > > unpublished thesis. And you have been teaching here your whole > > life— > > > has nobody ever asked you such a simple question? " > > > He said, " Nobody ever asked me; not only that, even I have never > > > thought about it—that, certainly, if something is perfect then it > > has > > > to be dead. Anything alive has to be imperfect. This idea has > > never > > > occurred to me. So please give me time. " > > > > > > > > > God—perfect, absolute, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent; these > > are > > > the words used for God by all the religions—is dead, cannot be > > alive, > > > cannot breathe. No, I reject such a god, because with such a dead > > > god, this whole universe will be dead. > > > Godliness is a totally different dimension. > > > Then the greenness in the tree, then the flowering of the rose, > > then > > > the bird in flight—all are part of it. Then God is not separate > > from > > > the universe. Then he is the very soul of the universe. Then the > > > universe is vibrating, pulsating, breathing…godliness. " > > > > > > ------------------------------- - > > > > > > But after the concsiousness of this vibrating, pulsating, > > breathing > > > universe, isn't ther a zero state where nothing exists? > > > > > > Of course, u can just brush this aside as a totally hypothetical > > > question but some NAASA research in pure physics which is again > > > totally beyond my realm of understanding, also talks of such > > > a " dead " / zero state/ void which some ancient texts also hinted at. > > > > > > As u must know by now, i find it fun to indulge in fancy...so u > > need > > > not give a serious reply to questions based on half baked > > knowledge > > > (coming back to what is cooking in the kitchen....i have just put > > > some things in the oven) > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > vinita > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Sreenadh " > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Vinita ji, > > > > Thanks for good mail. Yes, I remember reading the words of > > Osho > > > > which mentions the 'Russian (mathematician?) called Ouspensky > > who > > > > later worked with Gurdieff also for some time' and still later > > > > become one of the opponents of Gurdieff's ideas. But that is not > > > > relevant here. Let us look into the words that catches our > > > attention- > > > > " ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS > > > > FALSE " ... > > > > True! Any thing that 'arrests' (forcefully stops) the motion of > > > > thought is 'false' (illusion created by mind, and does not > > reflect > > > > the revealing of true consciousness). One shouldn't try > > to 'arrest' > > > > the motion of thought, but instead it should stop naturally! > > Osho > > > > used to say, if we tries to 'suppress' sex, it will take its > > > revenge > > > > in full force. Same with 'arresting' thought - it is certain to > > > take > > > > its revenge by making us mad! It is 'suppressing'/'arresting' > > that > > > > needs to be avoided. But this does not prevent us from > > > understanding > > > > (if not by experience, at least intellectually) that, > > consciousness > > > > is a thoughtless state, and that the enlightened is beyond sex > > (he > > > > is not suppressing it, nor controlled by it). > > > > " truth itself is motion " > > > > True! How can it be otherwise when the one without change is > > only > > > > change itself?! 'Change' IS 'Motion'. You says " i thought that > > > truth > > > > is stationary...and our search should be to reach that zero > > > > stationary " How can it be? Anything that is stationary, is dead, > > > not > > > > dynamic, not creative, and can not produce anything new. Life is > > > > dynamic, Universe is dynamic, consciousness is dynamic, God is > > > > dynamic - Ever evolving! Kali is dancing on Siva! Nataraja is > > > > dancing! EVERYTHING is dynamic! > > > > Consciousness in meditative mode is not stationary, but it is > > > > dynamic, full of life, vital and resonance with and is one with > > > > truth. It can not be the other way round! Ouspensky was right - > > we > > > > know it only because what he says reflects in our being. > > > > Love, > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > , " vinita kumar " > > > > <shankar_mamta@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > Once again nice smells are emanating from your kitchen, so i > > came > > > > to > > > > > taste the fish curry. > > > > > > > > > > i like the taste of non-Dridhadi insights so would lap up > > > whatever > > > > u > > > > > present on the table including folk tales which i simply adore. > > > > > > > > > > i too am involved with some cooking and thought i will share > > with > > > > u > > > > > all on the same table. This is something that Osho referred to > > as > > > > a > > > > > book he wanted to underline each line of while reading it. Is > > > > called > > > > > the Tertium Organum and is written by a Russian called > > Ouspensky > > > > who > > > > > later worked with Gurdieff also for some time. The book was > > > > written > > > > > in 1912 or around that time and he was already talking of the > > > > fourth > > > > > dimension. > > > > > > > > > > I have reproduced below the conclusions from this book. > > > > > --------------------------- --- > > --- > > > - > > > > - > > > > > . 333 > > > > > > > > > > CONCLUSION > > > > > In conclusion I wish to speak of those wonderful words, full > > of > > > > > profound mystery from the Apocalypse and the apostle Paul's > > > > Epistle > > > > > to the Ephesians, which are placed as the epigraph of this > > book. > > > > > > > > > > The Apocalyptic angel swears that THERE SHALL BE TIME NO > > LONGER. > > > > > > > > > > We know not what the author of the Apocalypse wanted to > > convey, > > > > but > > > > > we do know those STATES OF SPIRIT when time disappears. We > > know > > > > that > > > > > in this very thing, in the change of the time-sense, the > > > beginning > > > > of > > > > > the fourth form of consciousness is expressed, the beginning > > of > > > > the > > > > > transition to COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS. > > > > > > > > > > In this and in phrases similar to it, the profound > > philosophical > > > > > content of the evangelical teaching sometimes flashes forth. > > And > > > > the > > > > > understanding of the fact that the MYSTERY OF TIME is the > > first > > > > > mystery to be revealed is the first step toward the > > development > > > of > > > > > cosmic consciousness along the intellectual path. > > > > > > > > > > But what did the Apocalyptic sentence mean? Did it mean > > precisely > > > > > what we are now able to construe in it--or was it simply a bit > > of > > > > > verbal art, a rhetorical figure of speech, the accidental > > harping > > > > of > > > > > a string which has continued to sound up to our own time, > > through > > > > > centuries and millenniums, with such a wonderfully powerful, > > true > > > > and > > > > > beautiful tone of thought? We know not now, nor shall we ever, > > > but > > > > > the words are full of splendor, and we may accept them as a > > > symbol > > > > of > > > > > remote and inaccessible truth. > > > > > > > > > > The apostle Paul's words are even more strange, even more > > > > startling > > > > > by reason of their mathematical exactness. (A friend showed me > > > > these > > > > > words in A. Dobroluboff's From the Book Invisible, who saw in > > > them > > > > a > > > > > direct reference to " the fourth measure of space. " ) > > > > > > > > > > Truly, what does this mean? > > > > > > > > > > . . . . That ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be > > able > > > to > > > > > comprehend with all saints what is the BREADTH and LENGTH and > > > > DEPTH > > > > > and HEIGHT. > > > > > > > > > > p. 334 > > > > > > > > > > First of all, what does the comprehension of breadth and > > length > > > > and > > > > > depth and height mean? What is it but the comprehension of > > space? > > > > And > > > > > we now know that the comprehension of the mysteries of space > > is > > > > the > > > > > beginning of the higher comprehension. > > > > > > > > > > The apostle says that " being rooted and grounded in love, with > > > all > > > > > saints " they may comprehend what space is. > > > > > > > > > > Here arises the question: why must love give comprehension? > > That > > > > love > > > > > leads to sanctity--this is easily understood. Love in the > > sense > > > > that > > > > > the apostle Paul understands it (Chapter XIII of the First > > > Epistle > > > > to > > > > > the Corinthians) is the highest of all emotions, the > > synthesis, > > > > the > > > > > blending of all highest emotions. Incontestably, this leads to > > > > > sanctity. Sanctity: that is the state of the spirit liberated > > > from > > > > > the duality of man, from his eternal disharmony of soul and > > body. > > > > In > > > > > the language of the apostle Paul sanctity meant even a little > > > less > > > > > than in our contemporary language. He called all members of > > his > > > > > church saints; sanctity meant to him righteousness, morality, > > > > > religiosity. We say that all this is merely the path to > > sanctity. > > > > > Sanctity is something more--something attained. But it is > > after > > > > all > > > > > immaterial how we shall understand his words--in his meaning > > or > > > in > > > > > ours--sanctity is a superhuman quality. In the region of > > morality > > > > it > > > > > corresponds to genius in the region of mind. Love is the path > > to > > > > > sainthood. > > > > > > > > > > But with sanctity the apostle Paul unites KNOWLEDGE. Saints > > > > > comprehend what is the breadth and length and depth and > > height; > > > > and > > > > > he says that all--through love--may comprehend this with them. > > > But > > > > > may comprehend what, exactly? COMPREHEND SPACE. > > Because " breadth > > > > and > > > > > length and depth and height " translated into our language of > > > > shorter > > > > > definitions actually means space. > > > > > > > > > > This last is the most strange. > > > > > > > > > > How could the apostle Paul possibly KNOW that sanctity gives a > > > new > > > > > understanding of space? We know that it must give it, but FROM > > > > WHAT > > > > > could he know that? > > > > > > > > > > None of his contemporaries ever united sanctity with the idea > > of > > > > the > > > > > comprehension of space; and in general there was no discussion > > at > > > > all > > > > > about " space " at that time, at least among the Greeks and > > Romans. > > > > > Only now, after Kant, and after we have had access to the > > > > treasures > > > > > of thought of the Orient, do we understand that the transition > > > > into a > > > > > new phase of consciousness is impossible without the expansion > > of > > > > the > > > > > space-sense. > > > > > > > > > > p. 335 > > > > > > > > > > But we wonder if this is what the apostle Paul wanted to say-- > > > that > > > > > strange man: Roman official, persecutor of the first > > Christianity > > > > who > > > > > became its preacher, philosopher, mystic; the man who " saw > > God, " > > > > the > > > > > bold reformer and moralist of his time, who fought for " the > > > > spirit " > > > > > against " the letter " and was of course not responsible for the > > > > fact > > > > > that he himself was understood by others not in " the spirit, " > > but > > > > > in " the letter. " Is it this that he wanted to say? We do not > > know. > > > > > > > > > > But let us look at these words of the Apocalypse and the > > Epistles > > > > > from the standpoint of our usual " positivistic thinking, " > > which > > > > > sometimes condescendingly agrees to admit the " metaphorical > > > > meaning " > > > > > of mysticism. What shall we see? > > > > > > > > > > WE SHALL SEE NOTHING! > > > > > > > > > > The flash of mystery, which appeared just for an instant, will > > > > > immediately disappear. The words will be without any content, > > > > nothing > > > > > in them will attract our wearied attention, which will merely > > > > glide > > > > > over them as it glides over everything. We will indifferently > > > turn > > > > > the page and indifferently close the book. > > > > > > > > > > An interesting metaphor, yes: But nothing else! > > > > > > > > > > And we fail to observe that we rob ourselves, deprive life of > > all > > > > > beauty, all mystery, all content; and wonder afterwards why > > > > > everything is so uninteresting and detestable to us, why we do > > > not > > > > > desire to live, and why we do not understand anything around > > us; > > > > we > > > > > wonder why brute force wins, or deceit and falsification, > > though > > > > to > > > > > these things we have nothing to oppose. > > > > > > > > > > THE METHOD IS NO GOOD. > > > > > > > > > > In its time " positivism " appeared as something refreshing, > > sober, > > > > > healthful and progressive, which explored new avenues of > > thought. > > > > > > > > > > After the sentimental speculations of naive > > dualism " positivism " > > > > was > > > > > indeed a great step forward. Positivism became a symbol of the > > > > > progress of thought. > > > > > > > > > > But we see now that it inevitably leads to materialism. And in > > > > this > > > > > form it arrests thought. From revolutionary, persecuted, > > > > anarchistic, > > > > > free-thinking, positivism became the basis of official > > science. > > > It > > > > is > > > > > decked-out in full dress. It is given medals. There are > > academies > > > > and > > > > > universities dedicated to its service. It is recognized; it > > > > teaches; > > > > > it tyrannizes over thought. > > > > > > > > > > But having attained to well-being and prosperity, positivism > > > > > immediately opposed obstacles to the forward march of thought. > > > > > > > > > > p. 336 > > > > > > > > > > A Chinese wall of " positivistic " sciences and methods is built > > up > > > > > around free investigation. Everything rising above this wall > > is > > > > > condemned as unscientific. > > > > > > > > > > And seen in this way positivism, which before was a symbol of > > > > > progress, now appears as conservative, reactionary. > > > > > > > > > > The existing order is already established in the world of > > > thought, > > > > > and to fight against it is declared to be a crime. > > > > > > > > > > With astonishing rapidity those principles which only > > yesterday > > > > > expressed the highest radicalism in the region of thought have > > > > become > > > > > the basis of opportunism in the region of ideas and serve as > > > blind > > > > > alleys, stopping the progress of thought. In our eyes this > > > > occurred > > > > > with the idea of evolution, on which it is now possible to > > build > > > > up > > > > > anything, and with the help of which it is possible to tear > > down > > > > > anything. > > > > > > > > > > But thought, which is free, cannot be bound by any limits. > > > > > > > > > > The true motion which lies at the foundation of everything, is > > > the > > > > > motion of thought. True energy is the energy of consciousness. > > > And > > > > > truth itself is motion, and can never lead to arrestment, to > > the > > > > > cessation of search. > > > > > > > > > > ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS FALSE. > > > > > > > > > > Therefore the true and real progress of thought is only in the > > > > > broadest striving toward knowledge, that does not recognize > > the > > > > > possibility of arrestment in any found forms of knowledge at > > all. > > > > The > > > > > meaning of life is in eternal search. And only in that search > > can > > > > we > > > > > find something truly new. > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------- --- > > --- > > > - > > > > - > > > > > Did u like the taste of this curry? However, what i am still > > > > finding > > > > > hard to digest is " ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT-- IS > > > > > FALSE " ... " truth itself is motion " , i thought that truth is > > > > > stationary...and our search should be to reach that zero > > > > stationary > > > > > stage. thougths of course are motion and they have to be > > > > > arrested....what say u? Of course, this is just a play of > > > > imagination > > > > > where one has no idea of what is truth. i am just parroting > > the > > > > words > > > > > of others in a cut and paste reality... > > > > > > > > > > But just look at the insight of this man!!! He was a genius! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Sreenadh " > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear RK ji, > > > > > > Let us divide this thread into two. Let one grow through > > the > > > > > > discussion of " Dridhadi " 3 divisions, and the other about > > > > > insights. > > > > > > Insight comes from approaching the question under scrutiny > > in > > > > a > > > > > new > > > > > > light. From were this light come? It comes from > > consciousness. > > > > The > > > > > > Sanskrit word is " Prenja " . There is a sloka in Chanakya > > Neeti- > > > > > > " Pranje sastram swayam bhati > > > > > > Vistaram Vastu saktita " > > > > > > Meaning, In the consciousness the essence of the subject > > (the > > > > > > question under scrutiny) appears by itself. The elaboration > > is > > > > the > > > > > > only thing that depends on the ability (accumulated > > surrounding > > > > > > knowledge etc) of the person. > > > > > > We should encounter questions with the light of our unique > > > > > > consciousness - and questions themselves give us new > > answers. We > > > > > > collect the surrounding knowledge and use our own abilities > > > > (such as > > > > > > vocabulary, ability describe, humor, knowledge of > > > > > > incidents/stories/quotes etc) to elaborate and present the > > same > > > > > before > > > > > > the audience. Then it is heralded as an insight. > > > > > > In essence it comes from the consciousness (where there is > > > > > nothing!) > > > > > > - It is just light, you may say! But still in its presents, > > > > > > everything appears clear, and with a different beauty!! > > > > > > It is not the subject but the consciousness of the person > > who > > > > looks > > > > > > into it is important! (Really, that is an insight!) Then > > even > > > > most > > > > > > irrelevant of the subjects can give us so much knowledge > > that no > > > > > > others can! > > > > > > => The essence is " Prenja " – which does not contain any > > > > knowledge, > > > > > but > > > > > > the base of all knowledge! It is the essential, and the > > > > knowledge, > > > > > as > > > > > > Osho points out at times, 'know-all-edge' is at the `edge', > > it > > > > is > > > > > just > > > > > > `peripheral'. Let us go after the essential. > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > , rk dash > > > > > > <arkaydash@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sree > > > > > > > Good to have you back. > > > > > > > So you want to excite me. My excited desire on this > > forum > > > > will > > > > > be > > > > > > to test my fundamentals in light of the views and insights > > of > > > > fellow > > > > > > members (Dr K, Shree Madhu, Sreenivas, to name a few). Put > > > also > > > > > them > > > > > > (all members) on notice if you want to excite me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > Rk ji, > > > > > > > It happenes due to life circumstances. But still you > > were > > > > all > > > > > > > here, right?! So I think revival is always possible, > > and > > > is > > > > so > > > > > > > easy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to Astrology:- > > > > > > > ******************************************* > > > > > > > " Dridhadi karma treyakalameeswara kalasworoopa pradadati > > > > dehinam " > > > > > > > ******************************************* > > > > > > > In Dasadhyayi there is a sloka- > > > > > > > " Dridhadi karma treyakalameeswara kalasworoopa pradadati > > > > dehinam " > > > > > > > Meaning, The effect of space-time continuem on living > > beings > > > > can > > > > > be > > > > > > > of 3 type - > > > > > > > 1) Dridha = Which can not be modified > > > > > > > 2) Dridhadridha = Which can be modified if we know about > > it > > > > (We > > > > > > > have a choice) > > > > > > > 3) Adridha = Which may or may not happen (Jut a simple > > > > > possibility) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is one of the concepts that is very fundamental to > > > > Ancient > > > > > > > Indian Astrology. Instead of me speaking elaborately on > > the > > > > > subject, > > > > > > > I quote the words of Osho, when he spoke about the same- > > > > > > > Note:- I have just inserted some headings in between the > > > words > > > > of > > > > > > > Osho for better understanding and co-relating of the same > > > with > > > > > the > > > > > > > above sloka. > > > > > > > ******************************************************** > > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > > The 3 Parts > > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > > " Astrology can be divided into three parts. The first > > part > > > is > > > > > > > the core, > > > > > > > the essence; it is the essentials, and cannot be changed. > > It > > > > is > > > > > the > > > > > > > part which is most difficult to understand. The second > > part > > > is > > > > the > > > > > > > middle layer, in which one can make whatever changes one > > > > wants. > > > > > It is > > > > > > > the semi-essential portion in which you can make changes > > if > > > > you > > > > > know > > > > > > > how, but without knowing, no changes are possible at all. > > The > > > > > third > > > > > > > part is the outermost layer which is nonessential, but > > about > > > > > which we > > > > > > > are all very curious. > > > > > > > The first is the essence, in which no changes can be made. > > > > When > > > > > it is > > > > > > > known, the only way is to cooperate with it. Religions > > have > > > > > devised > > > > > > > astrology in order to know and decipher this essential > > > > destiny. > > > > > The > > > > > > > semi-essential part of astrology is such that if we know > > > about > > > > it > > > > > we > > > > > > > can change our lives -- otherwise not. > > > > > > > If we do not know, then whatsoever was going to happen > > will > > > > > happen. > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > there is knowledge, there are alternatives to choose > > between. > > > > > There > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > a possibility of transformation if the right choice is > > made. > > > > The > > > > > > > third, nonessential part is just the periphery, the outer > > > > surface. > > > > > > > There is nothing essential in it; everything is > > > circumstantial. > > > > > > > But we go to consult astrologers only for the nonessential > > > > things. > > > > > > > Someone goes and asks an astrologer when he will get > > > > employment -- > > > > > > > there is no relationship between your employment and the > > moon > > > > and > > > > > > > stars. Someone asks whether he will marry or not.... There > > > can > > > > be > > > > > a > > > > > > > society without marriage. Someone asks whether he will > > remain > > > > > poor or > > > > > > > become rich.... There can be a socialist or communist > > society > > > > > where > > > > > > > there will be no rich and no poor people. So these are > > > > > nonessential > > > > > > > questions.... > > > > > > > An eighty years old man was walking along when his foot > > > > slipped on > > > > > > > some orange peel thrown onto the road. Now, is it possible > > to > > > > > inquire > > > > > > > of an astrologer and know from the moon and stars on which > > > > road > > > > > and > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > which orange peel the foot will slip? Such queries are > > > > foolish, > > > > > but > > > > > > > you are curious to know in advance whether your foot will > > > land > > > > on > > > > > an > > > > > > > orange skin and slip if you go out on the road today. This > > is > > > > > > > nonessential. This has nothing to do with your being or > > your > > > > soul. > > > > > > > These events happen on the periphery, and astrology has > > > > nothing > > > > > to do > > > > > > > with them. But because the astrologers were busy talking > > only > > > > > about > > > > > > > such things, the great establishment of astrology > > collapsed. > > > > This > > > > > was > > > > > > > the only reason. > > > > > > > No intelligent person will be prepared to believe that > > when > > > he > > > > was > > > > > > > born it was written by destiny that on a particular day on > > > > Marine > > > > > > > Drive his foot would land on some orange peel and he would > > > > > fall.... > > > > > > > Neither the falling down nor the orange peel have any > > > > > relationship to > > > > > > > the stars. Astrology has lost respect because it became > > > > connected > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > such things. At one time or the other we all have wanted > > to > > > > know > > > > > such > > > > > > > things from astrologers -- but these things are > > nonessential. > > > > But > > > > > > > there are certain semi-essential matters such as the birth > > or > > > > > death > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > a person: if you can know everything about these, you can > > take > > > > > > > precautionary measures. If you do not know anything, you > > > can't > > > > do > > > > > > > anything. > > > > > > > If our knowledge about the diagnosis of disease is > > increased, > > > > we > > > > > will > > > > > > > be able to increase the life-span of human beings. We have > > > > been > > > > > doing > > > > > > > it. If our research to make deadlier atom bombs succeeds, > > we > > > > will > > > > > be > > > > > > > able to kill hundreds of thousands of people at a time - - > > we > > > > have > > > > > > > done > > > > > > > it. This semi-essential world presents a possibility for > > our > > > > being > > > > > > > able to do certain things, if we know in advance what is > > > going > > > > to > > > > > > > happen. If we do not know, nothing can be done. By our > > > knowing > > > > in > > > > > > > advance, alternatives can be sorted out and selected. > > > > > > > Beyond this, the world of the essential exists -- you > > cannot > > > do > > > > > > > anything about it. However, our curiosity is to know only > > > about > > > > > > > nonessential things. Seldom does someone reach out to know > > the > > > > > > > semi-essential. Our curiosity or desire never extends to > > > > knowing > > > > > that > > > > > > > which is essential and unavoidable, that which cannot be > > > > changed > > > > > even > > > > > > > if known. > > > > > > > ================ > > > > > > > Dridha = Essential > > > > > > > ================ > > > > > > > The astrology I am talking about concerns the essential, > > the > > > > > > > fundamental. At best your curiosity as far as the semi- > > > > essential. > > > > > You > > > > > > > want to know how long you will live or whether or not you > > will > > > > > > > suddenly die. But you are not curious to know what you > > will > > > do > > > > if > > > > > you > > > > > > > live -- how you will live. You do want to know how you > > will > > > > die > > > > > when > > > > > > > the time comes or what you will be doing at that time. > > Your > > > > > curiosity > > > > > > > extends to events, not to the soul. > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > > > > The projections of the future also determine the present > > > > moments. > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > present moment could not be if there were no future > > moments. > > > > Only > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > the support of future moments can the present moment > > occur. > > > > Our > > > > > hands > > > > > > > are resting on the shoulders of the future, our feet are > > on > > > the > > > > > > > shoulders of our past. It is very obvious that if that > > which > > > > is > > > > > below > > > > > > > me -- on which I am standing and which I can see -- slips > > > > away, I > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > fall. But if the shoulders of the future -- on which my > > > > > outstretched > > > > > > > hands are resting -- slip away then I will also fall. > > > > > > > When a person finds himself connected with this inner > > unity > > > of > > > > > past > > > > > > > and future he will be able to understand astrology. Then > > > > astrology > > > > > > > becomes a religion, then astrology becomes spiritual. > > > > > > > ======================= > > > > > > > Dridhadridha = Semi-Essential > > > > > > > ======================= > > > > > > > I will tell you a very interesting story so that you may > > > > > > > understand.... Mohammed had a disciple named Ali. Ali once > > > > asked > > > > > > > Mohammed's opinion about whether a man is independent and > > > free > > > > to > > > > > do > > > > > > > what he wants, or whether he is bound by his destiny in > > > > > everything he > > > > > > > does. Ali asked, " Can one do as one wants or not? " -- and > > man > > > > has > > > > > > > been asking this question for a long, long time. " If a man > > is > > > > not > > > > > > > able > > > > > > > to do as he desires, " Ali said, " then it is useless and > > > > foolish to > > > > > > > preach to him not to steal, not to tell lies, not to be > > > > > dishonest. Or > > > > > > > is it destiny that one man should always be there to > > preach > > > to > > > > > others > > > > > > > not to steal or not to do this or that, knowing full well > > > that > > > > it > > > > > is > > > > > > > also destiny for a dishonest man to remain dishonest, for > > a > > > > thief > > > > > to > > > > > > > remain a thief, for a murderer to remain a murderer? All > > this > > > > > appears > > > > > > > absurd. If everything is predestined, all education is > > > > useless -- > > > > > all > > > > > > > prophets, all saints and all teachers are useless. " > > > > > > > People have asked such questions to Mahavira and to Buddha > > > > also. > > > > > If > > > > > > > what is going to happen is predestined, why should > > Mahavira > > > or > > > > > Buddha > > > > > > > take so much trouble to explain what is right and what is > > > > wrong? > > > > > So, > > > > > > > Ali asked Mohammed what he thought about this > > controversial > > > > > matter. > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > such a question was asked to Mahavira or Buddha, they > > would > > > > have > > > > > > > given > > > > > > > a very complicated and deep reply, but Mohammed gave a > > reply > > > > > which > > > > > > > Ali > > > > > > > could understand. Many of Mohammed's replies were direct > > and > > > > > > > straightforward. Ordinarily, answers given by people who > > are > > > > > > > uneducated or less educated, or who are simple villagers, > > are > > > > > direct > > > > > > > and frank. People like Kabir, Nanak, Mohammed and Jesus > > were > > > > > simple > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > that way. Answers by people like Buddha, Mahavira and > > Krishna > > > > were > > > > > > > complex -- Buddha and Mahavira were the cream of a rich > > and > > > > highly > > > > > > > developed civilization. The words of Jesus were direct, > > like > > > a > > > > > blow > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > the head. Kabir has actually sung: " Kabir is standing in > > the > > > > open > > > > > > > market with a hammer in his hand to hit you! " If anyone > > came > > > > near > > > > > him > > > > > > > he would, so to speak, break open his head to remove all > > the > > > > > rubbish > > > > > > > that was lying inside. > > > > > > > Mohammed did not give any metaphysical reply. He asked Ali > > to > > > > > lift > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > leg and stand on it. Ali had asked a question about > > whether a > > > > man > > > > > is > > > > > > > free to do what he wants. Why should Ali stand on one leg? > > > > > Mohammed > > > > > > > said, " First lift one leg. " > > > > > > > Poor Ali lifted his left leg and stood there on one leg. > > > > > > > Mohammed then asked him, " Now lift the right leg also. " > > > > > > > Ali was puzzled and asked how it was possible. Then > > Mohammed > > > > > > > said, " If > > > > > > > you had wanted to, you could have lifted the right leg > > first, > > > > but > > > > > now > > > > > > > you cannot.... A man is always free to lift the first leg - > > - > > > > it > > > > > can > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > whichever he wants -- but no sooner has the first been > > lifted > > > > > when > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > other becomes bound to the earth. " > > > > > > > With regard to the nonessential part of life, we are > > always > > > > free > > > > > to > > > > > > > lift the first leg. But once that is done it becomes a > > > bondage > > > > > for > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > essential part. We take steps that are nonessential, > > become > > > > > > > entangled, > > > > > > > and then we are not able to do the essential. So Mohammed > > > said > > > > to > > > > > Ali > > > > > > > that he had all the freedom to lift the right or the left > > leg > > > > > first. > > > > > > > But once he exercised that freedom and lifted one left > > leg, > > > he > > > > was > > > > > > > incapable of lifting the other leg. So freedom is there > > > within > > > > > > > certain > > > > > > > limits, but beyond those limits there is bondage. > > > > > > > ================== > > > > > > > Adirdha = Non-Essential > > > > > > > ================== > > > > > > > Aall ordinary astrologers are asked about nonessentials. > > An > > > > > ordinary > > > > > > > astrologer is > > > > > > > asked questions like: " Shall we win the elections or not? " > > > How > > > > > are > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > elections connected with the moon and the stars? The > > ordinary > > > > > > > astrologer who replies, " Everything is predetermined, and > > no > > > > > changes, > > > > > > > not even as much as one inch, can be made, " is making a > > false > > > > > > > statement. > > > > > > > On the other hand there is the rationalist. He says that > > > > nothing > > > > > is > > > > > > > connected inevitably: whatsoever happens is coincidental, > > > > > > > circumstantial and a matter of chance. There is no law, > > > > > everything is > > > > > > > anarchic. He is also making a false statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ================== > > > > > > > Back to the 3 Divisions > > > > > > > =================== > > > > > > > There is a law: A rationalist is never found so full of > > joy > > > > and > > > > > bliss > > > > > > > as a buddha. > > > > > > > The rationalist denies God, soul and religion with the > > help > > > of > > > > > logic, > > > > > > > but he can never attain the joy of Mahavira. It is > > definite > > > > that > > > > > > > Mahavira must have done something that earned him his joy, > > > > Buddha > > > > > > > must > > > > > > > have done something that liberated him, and Krishna must > > also > > > > have > > > > > > > done something which made it possible for him to give out > > such > > > > > > > distinctly unique magical notes through his flute. > > > > > > > The real thing is the third, which is the quintessence of > > > > > everything, > > > > > > > which belongs to the innermost and which is absolutely > > > > > predetermined. > > > > > > > The more one moves toward one's center, the nearer one > > comes > > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > > > essential, predetermined part. As we move towards the > > > > periphery, > > > > > we > > > > > > > move towards coincidence. The more we talk about external > > > > > happenings, > > > > > > > the more there is coincidence. When we talk about inner > > > > phenomena, > > > > > > > things begin to appear scientific, as if based on a > > certain > > > > law, > > > > > and > > > > > > > they become more and more decisive. > > > > > > > Between these two conditions -- the essential and the > > > > peripheral - > > > > > - > > > > > > > there is ample room for changes through the exercise of > > > > choice. > > > > > Here, > > > > > > > a person of knowledge makes the correct choice, while a > > > person > > > > > who is > > > > > > > without knowledge, who is in the darkness of ignorance, > > > drifts > > > > to > > > > > his > > > > > > > destiny. In darkness, circumstance catches hold of him. > > > > > > > So there are three areas of life. In one area, that which > > is > > > > the > > > > > > > essential core, everything is predetermined. Knowing this > > is > > > > > knowing > > > > > > > the essence of astrology. In another area, that which is > > > > > peripheral, > > > > > > > everything is uncertain. To know this is to know the > > everyday > > > > > > > unpredictable world. There is another area which is in the > > > > > middle. By > > > > > > > knowing this, a person can save himself from trying to do > > the > > > > > > > impossible, and can do what is possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************** > > > > > > > OK. That were the words of the Osho. Now do you want to > > look > > > > into > > > > > > > the above sloka? And want to know what else, it say? In > > which > > > > way > > > > > > > you are interested in astrology – In essential? Semi- > > > > essential? > > > > > Non- > > > > > > > essential? > > > > > > > Hope to have many replays on the same. > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , rk dash > > > > > > > <arkaydash@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interested? No, nobody is. Only you are. And what is > > your > > > > > > > explanation for the French leave? > > > > > > > > RK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > Why this group becomes inactive when I am not here. Is > > it > > > > that > > > > > no > > > > > > > > body is interested in astrology? Is it that you don't > > like > > > > this > > > > > > > group? > > > > > > > > With such good members with knowledge, this shouldn't > > > happen > > > > to > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > group. And will not happen I know. Come back and let us > > > > > restart! > > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - > > > > Answers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Dear vinita ji, Yes, they are tools. " sadhana is always an effort. It donsn't come naturally " . It takes effort you are right - but the will to do the same comes naturally. Because nothing else helps in giving the sensitivity and consciousness that gives that happiness. " One has to become a rock against the flow....so that u can ultimately become the flow?.... " Doesn't that contradict? We are not becoming rock against the flow but instead is trying to improve our sensitivity so that we can sense the real flow (within and outside) and be one with it. There is no question of standing against the flow. Compared with the whole we are nothing...The whole is so big…and we are so small.. almost nothing… against what you are trying to stand?!!...What is the flow and what not? How you know? The tools are just to improve the sensitivity and nothing else, so that we may sense the real (within or outside). Love, Sreenadh , " vinita kumar " <shankar_mamta wrote: > > Dear Sreenadh, > > When i talked about sacrifice in the upanishads i did not mean > sacrifice of a cow or a goat the way in the way it is generally > thought of. > > While trying to read the Brihad Aranyaka i got the impression that > the Ashwa Medha has so many layers of meaning. > > A sacrifice could also mean the journey from the gross to the subtle. > The idea is to reduce the grossness by putting it thru fire so that > it can be transformed into the akash element? > > In the same way i thought it is with any sadhana (penance may be a > rigourous form of sadhana). An effort is involved...it could be > sacrifice of time initially but could go to the extreme of > sacrificing the physical. > > Buddha may have decried it at some point of time, but he went thru > the process himself. So some self purification could have already > taken place. > > i understand it is not an end in itself. but it could be a tool / an > instrument which can be used for some time till it has fulfilled its > purpose. > > in modern times we do not do penance. but sadhana is considered an > essential part of spiritual practices. And sadhana is always an > effort. It donsnt come naturally. One has to become a rock against > the flow....so that u can ultimately become the flow?....(another > oxymoron?)...i dont know.... > > Love, > > Vinita > > > > , " Sreenadh " > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > Dear Vinita ji, > > I think adding one or two lines more about sacrifice will be > useful. > > Sidha and Koula Tantra says- > > " Yoope badhwa pasoon hatwa ya kuryardrata kardamam > > Tenachel prapyate sworga, naraka kena jayate " > > Menaing, if those who kill the cows after binding them to the > pillars > > near to the Fire worship place without pity, will go to Heaven, > then > > who is that will go to Hell? " > > Notice the sarcasm in the words of the saint. Heaven and Hell are > > symbolic words, so forget them. But the point is animal sacrifice is > > not proper to the current society and culture. [in divine all the > > dualities merge and so there is nothing (which in absolute meaning) > > good or bad, sin or virtue, Hell or heaven - dualities perish. But > > still, the actions should be as per the consciousness. Killing an > > animal with life, just to fulfill your ritual is what is not > > advisable. That hurts] > > See these words of Jesus as well- > > " For if man is saved, there will not be any sacrifices [...] and > > animals will not be offered to the powers. Indeed, the animals were > > the ones to whom they sacrificed. " > > Therefore know that animal sacrifices are already denounced by many > > enlightened individuals. As far as penance is concerned, I have > > already quoted Buddha, you can look into the words of Osho about the > > same as well. > > => Remember, these are tools/techniques collected from the present > > culture of their period by our ancient masters or their disciples, > for > > the purpose of improving articulation capabilities while trying to > > express the spiritual revelation they experienced to them. Rather > than > > due to the enlightened masters, such things come to existence > through > > their disciples. > > Note:- By the way most of the enlightened masters are neither > against > > killing, sin nor are trying to accumulate punya, making a deposit in > > heaven, bribing god etc – they are not at all interested in such > > things, if you are using the social ethics and terminology. Their > > ethics comes from within and not outside, and would be apt for that > > moment. They are simply living here and now, accepting the nature as > > is - with all its dualities. So there is no question of sin or > virtue, > > but simply accepting the nature(dharma). > > Love, > > Sreenadh > > > > , " Sreenadh " > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Vinita ji, > > > You said- > > > ==> > > > But in some of the Upanishads and I believe in the Vedas too, > there > > > is a lot written on sacrifice and how it should be performed. > There > > > is also talk of penance in our ancient texts. From penance > > > comes " Tejas " . But penance is stopping the natural flow of > > > existence...it is just the opposite of the natural flow of > > > existence. It is standing like a rock against the dance of > > > existence. Penance and sacrifice both involve a certain effort > > > against the natural flow. What are your views on this? > > > <== > > > You are absolutely Right - many ancient texts mention them - > > > Sacrifice and Penance. Before starting to analyze such a > question, > > > one thing should be understood. Humans live on earth from ancient > > > times, many cultures evolved, flourished, and dead and the > dynamic > > > flow of changing cultures, moralities, rituals continues. The > > > spiritual thrive after meditation and enlightenment as well. > Notice > > > the 2 categories. 1) Quest for Enlightenment 2) Rituals and > > > Moralities (extend this list) > > > > > > Of these Rituals and Moralities depend on the environment, > > > circumstances, living style, social norms etc of the selected > > > culture. But the quest for enlightenment is universal. In every > > > religion many people became enlightened - some of them were > > > articulate enough to express their experience and thus we got the > > > masters like Krishna and Buddha. Remember the sloka I quoted in > one > > > of the previous posts - " Pranje sastram swayam bhati, vistaram > vastu > > > saktita " (In consciousness the truth enlightens itself, > elaboration > > > depends on the capabilities of the individual to articulate the > > > same). This articulation capabilities includes collected > knowledge > > > and rituals of the generation and culture in which they live. > There > > > fore the teachings of any enlightened person can contain 2 parts - > > > > 1) The universal truth about human enlightenment/spiritual > > > quest/human mind/emotions/thoughts etc. These are valid for all > > > generations, all time. > > > 2) Knowledge he accumulated and used as a tool to convey the > above > > > and to extend his articulation capabilities. This heavily depends > on > > > the Knowledge of the culture, living style of the culture, social > > > norms observed etc. This is not universal and could contain > errors - > > > even though the clarity of vision possessed by the enlightened > > > persons usually tries keep most of such errors outside the > boundary. > > > But still they invariably creep in to the system and words - > Either > > > through them or through the followers. Even great masters were > > > troubled by them. > > > => Sacrifice -> Proper for that period. Since it increases, > > > attitude towards total submission to divinity, has got a positive > > > side as well and can be adopted, but not in its original form. > > > => Penance -> Another tool. Even Buddha was mislead by this tool > in > > > the beginning, and later discarded it. Useful to an extend since > it > > > helps in purifying the body, by giving rest to the digestive > system > > > for some time. Limited use of this helps in keeping the body > > > healthy, but its use in spiritual quest and path is questionable. > > > Both these simple tools (any many other) are usually part of the > > > Environment/Circumstance/Society specific knowledge used by > masters > > > or their disciples to extend their articulation capabilities. > > > This is way I see it. The problem is, the ultimate guru 'Siva' > is > > > within and we don't listen to him, his teachings are better than > > > scriptures. Let us listen to the words of Jesus (another > enlightened > > > master)- > > > " Seek not the law in your scriptures, for the law is life, > whereas > > > the scripture is dead. I tell you truly, Moses received not his > laws > > > from God in writing, but through the living word. The law is > living > > > word of living God to living prophets for living men. In > everything > > > that is life is the law written. You find it in the grass, in the > > > tree, in the river, in the mountain, in the birds of heaven, in > the > > > fishes of the sea; but seek it chiefly in yourselves. For I tell > you > > > truly, all living things are nearer to God than the scripture > which > > > is without life. God so made life and all living things that they > > > might by the everlasting word teach the laws of the true God to > man. > > > God wrote not the laws in the pages of books, but in your heart > and > > > in your spirit. They are in your breath, your blood, your bone; > in > > > your flesh, your bowels, your eyes, your ears, and in every > little > > > part of your body. They are present in the air, in the water, in > the > > > earth, in the plants, in the e sunbeams, in the depths and in the > > > heights. They all speak to you that you may understand the tongue > > > and the will of the living God. (GOSPEL OF PEACE) " > > > In the absence of true living masters who collect tools from the > > > current knowledge and culture to extend their articulation > > > capabilities - but reflects the eternal ancient truth of > > > enlightenment - is necessary to give life to the ancient > scriptures. > > > They will know what to discard and what not. (Look at Buddha, he > > > discarded 'Penance') In the absence of such gurus scripts could > > > become dead and misleading. Remember, there is NOTHING wrong with > > > the scripts - it could not have been otherwise. The same could > > > happen to scripts related to Buddha, Jesus, Jiddu, Osho or any > one. > > > Hope I am clear. > > > > > > Now let us go the next point you are pointing to - > > > > > > ==> > > > But after the consciousness of this vibrating, pulsating, > breathing > > > universe, isn't there a zero state where nothing exists? > > > Of course, u can just brush this aside as a totally hypothetical > > > question but some NAASA research in pure physics which is again > > > totally beyond my realm of understanding, also talks of such > > > a " dead " / zero state/ void which some ancient texts also hinted > at. > > > <== > > > > > > Depending upon the subject the language differs. The science is > > > hinting at- > > > * Today science is hinting at a possibility for the existence of > a > > > state of space-time continuum (where the normal notion of time > and > > > physical laws have no meaning) within brain. From 'Yoga vasishta' > > > period onwards (or from even before that) the ancient masters had > > > hinted at it many times. But whether to call it, a static zero > > > state, or a dynamic vibrant state is something of a personal > choice. > > > Even if someone calls pure > > > > consciousness 'Light', 'Darkness', 'Nothingness', 'Static', 'Vibrant > > > ' they all mean the same - Because it is that where all the > > > dualities become absent and words can not describe. So words are > > > sure to err or present dualities in presenting it. > > > > > > ==> > > > As u must know by now, i find it fun to indulge in fancy...so u > need > > > not give a serious reply to questions based on half baked > knowledge > > > (coming back to what is cooking in the kitchen....i have just put > > > some things in the oven) > > > <== > > > Everything is a play So don't worry, I am not serious at > all - > > > but only expressing my self. Know-all-edge is always half > backed, > > > whether it is yours or mine does not make any difference. ) So > > > don't worry. Let us taste and exchange our half backed food. > > > Love, > > > Sreeandh > > > > > > , " vinita kumar " > > > <shankar_mamta@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > dear shreenadh, > > > > > > > > of course, to do anything forcibly goes against the nature of > > > > existence..... " Arresting " thoughts does have a forcible > > > > connotation...and that is not what is advisable. > > > > > > > > But in some of the Upanishads and I believe in the VEdas too, > > > there > > > > is a lot written on sacrifice and how it should be performed. > > > There > > > > is is also talk of penance in our ancient texts. From penance > > > > comes " Tejas " . But penance is stopping the natural flow of > > > > existence...it is just the opposite of the natural flow of > > > existence. > > > > It is standing like a rock against the dance of existence. > > > Penance > > > > and sacrifice both involve a certain effort against the natural > > > flow. > > > > > > > > What are your views on this? > > > > > > > > What u wrote appealed to me intuitively.But there are > > > contradictions. > > > > Once again doing a cut and paste, this is from OSho's biography: > > > > ---------------------------- --- > --- > > > -- > > > > " I am reminded of one of my professors. He is a very beautiful > > > man: > > > > Professor S.S.Roy. Now he is retired as head of the department > of > > > > philosophy from Allahabad University. The first day I joined > his > > > > class, he was explaining the concept of The Absolute. He was an > > > > authority on Bradley and Shankara. Both believe in The Absolute— > > > that > > > > is their name for God. > > > > I asked him one thing which made me very intimate to him, and > he > > > > opened his whole heart to me, in every possible way. I just > > > > asked, " Is your 'absolute' perfect? Has it come to a full stop > or > > > is > > > > it still growing? If it is still growing, then it is not > absolute, > > > it > > > > is imperfect—only then can it grow. If something more is > possible, > > > > some more branches, some more flowers—then it is alive. If it > is > > > > complete, entirely complete—that's the meaning of the word > > > absolute: > > > > now there is no possibility for growth—then it is dead. " So I > > > asked > > > > him, " Be clear, because 'absolute' represents to Bradley and > > > > Shankara, God; that is their philosophical name for God. Is > your > > > God > > > > alive or dead? You have to answer me this question. " > > > > He was really an honest man. He said, " Please give me time to > > > think. " > > > > He had a doctorate on Bradley from Oxford, another doctorate on > > > > Shankara from Benares, and he was thought to be the greatest > > > > authority on these two philosophers because he had tried to > prove > > > > that Bradley, from the West, and Shankara, from the East, have > > > come > > > > to the same conclusion. He said, " Please give me time to think. " > > > > I said, " Your whole life you have been writing about Bradley > and > > > > Shankara and 'the absolute'—I have read your books, I have read > > > your > > > > unpublished thesis. And you have been teaching here your whole > > > life— > > > > has nobody ever asked you such a simple question? " > > > > He said, " Nobody ever asked me; not only that, even I have > never > > > > thought about it—that, certainly, if something is perfect then > it > > > has > > > > to be dead. Anything alive has to be imperfect. This idea has > > > never > > > > occurred to me. So please give me time. " > > > > > > > > > > > > God—perfect, absolute, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent; > these > > > are > > > > the words used for God by all the religions—is dead, cannot be > > > alive, > > > > cannot breathe. No, I reject such a god, because with such a > dead > > > > god, this whole universe will be dead. > > > > Godliness is a totally different dimension. > > > > Then the greenness in the tree, then the flowering of the rose, > > > then > > > > the bird in flight—all are part of it. Then God is not separate > > > from > > > > the universe. Then he is the very soul of the universe. Then > the > > > > universe is vibrating, pulsating, breathing…godliness. " > > > > > > > > ---------------------------- --- > - > > > > > > > > But after the concsiousness of this vibrating, pulsating, > > > breathing > > > > universe, isn't ther a zero state where nothing exists? > > > > > > > > Of course, u can just brush this aside as a totally > hypothetical > > > > question but some NAASA research in pure physics which is again > > > > totally beyond my realm of understanding, also talks of such > > > > a " dead " / zero state/ void which some ancient texts also hinted > at. > > > > > > > > As u must know by now, i find it fun to indulge in fancy...so u > > > need > > > > not give a serious reply to questions based on half baked > > > knowledge > > > > (coming back to what is cooking in the kitchen....i have just > put > > > > some things in the oven) > > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > > > vinita > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Sreenadh " > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinita ji, > > > > > Thanks for good mail. Yes, I remember reading the words of > > > Osho > > > > > which mentions the 'Russian (mathematician?) called Ouspensky > > > who > > > > > later worked with Gurdieff also for some time' and still > later > > > > > become one of the opponents of Gurdieff's ideas. But that is > not > > > > > relevant here. Let us look into the words that catches our > > > > attention- > > > > > " ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS > > > > > FALSE " ... > > > > > True! Any thing that 'arrests' (forcefully stops) the motion > of > > > > > thought is 'false' (illusion created by mind, and does not > > > reflect > > > > > the revealing of true consciousness). One shouldn't try > > > to 'arrest' > > > > > the motion of thought, but instead it should stop naturally! > > > Osho > > > > > used to say, if we tries to 'suppress' sex, it will take its > > > > revenge > > > > > in full force. Same with 'arresting' thought - it is certain > to > > > > take > > > > > its revenge by making us mad! It is 'suppressing'/'arresting' > > > that > > > > > needs to be avoided. But this does not prevent us from > > > > understanding > > > > > (if not by experience, at least intellectually) that, > > > consciousness > > > > > is a thoughtless state, and that the enlightened is beyond > sex > > > (he > > > > > is not suppressing it, nor controlled by it). > > > > > " truth itself is motion " > > > > > True! How can it be otherwise when the one without change is > > > only > > > > > change itself?! 'Change' IS 'Motion'. You says " i thought > that > > > > truth > > > > > is stationary...and our search should be to reach that zero > > > > > stationary " How can it be? Anything that is stationary, is > dead, > > > > not > > > > > dynamic, not creative, and can not produce anything new. Life > is > > > > > dynamic, Universe is dynamic, consciousness is dynamic, God > is > > > > > dynamic - Ever evolving! Kali is dancing on Siva! Nataraja is > > > > > dancing! EVERYTHING is dynamic! > > > > > Consciousness in meditative mode is not stationary, but it > is > > > > > dynamic, full of life, vital and resonance with and is one > with > > > > > truth. It can not be the other way round! Ouspensky was > right - > > > we > > > > > know it only because what he says reflects in our being. > > > > > Love, > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > , " vinita > kumar " > > > > > <shankar_mamta@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > > > Once again nice smells are emanating from your kitchen, so > i > > > came > > > > > to > > > > > > taste the fish curry. > > > > > > > > > > > > i like the taste of non-Dridhadi insights so would lap up > > > > whatever > > > > > u > > > > > > present on the table including folk tales which i simply > adore. > > > > > > > > > > > > i too am involved with some cooking and thought i will > share > > > with > > > > > u > > > > > > all on the same table. This is something that Osho referred > to > > > as > > > > > a > > > > > > book he wanted to underline each line of while reading it. > Is > > > > > called > > > > > > the Tertium Organum and is written by a Russian called > > > Ouspensky > > > > > who > > > > > > later worked with Gurdieff also for some time. The book was > > > > > written > > > > > > in 1912 or around that time and he was already talking of > the > > > > > fourth > > > > > > dimension. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have reproduced below the conclusions from this book. > > > > > > ------------------------ --- > --- > > > --- > > > > - > > > > > - > > > > > > . 333 > > > > > > > > > > > > CONCLUSION > > > > > > In conclusion I wish to speak of those wonderful words, > full > > > of > > > > > > profound mystery from the Apocalypse and the apostle Paul's > > > > > Epistle > > > > > > to the Ephesians, which are placed as the epigraph of this > > > book. > > > > > > > > > > > > The Apocalyptic angel swears that THERE SHALL BE TIME NO > > > LONGER. > > > > > > > > > > > > We know not what the author of the Apocalypse wanted to > > > convey, > > > > > but > > > > > > we do know those STATES OF SPIRIT when time disappears. We > > > know > > > > > that > > > > > > in this very thing, in the change of the time-sense, the > > > > beginning > > > > > of > > > > > > the fourth form of consciousness is expressed, the > beginning > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > transition to COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS. > > > > > > > > > > > > In this and in phrases similar to it, the profound > > > philosophical > > > > > > content of the evangelical teaching sometimes flashes > forth. > > > And > > > > > the > > > > > > understanding of the fact that the MYSTERY OF TIME is the > > > first > > > > > > mystery to be revealed is the first step toward the > > > development > > > > of > > > > > > cosmic consciousness along the intellectual path. > > > > > > > > > > > > But what did the Apocalyptic sentence mean? Did it mean > > > precisely > > > > > > what we are now able to construe in it--or was it simply a > bit > > > of > > > > > > verbal art, a rhetorical figure of speech, the accidental > > > harping > > > > > of > > > > > > a string which has continued to sound up to our own time, > > > through > > > > > > centuries and millenniums, with such a wonderfully > powerful, > > > true > > > > > and > > > > > > beautiful tone of thought? We know not now, nor shall we > ever, > > > > but > > > > > > the words are full of splendor, and we may accept them as a > > > > symbol > > > > > of > > > > > > remote and inaccessible truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > The apostle Paul's words are even more strange, even more > > > > > startling > > > > > > by reason of their mathematical exactness. (A friend showed > me > > > > > these > > > > > > words in A. Dobroluboff's From the Book Invisible, who saw > in > > > > them > > > > > a > > > > > > direct reference to " the fourth measure of space. " ) > > > > > > > > > > > > Truly, what does this mean? > > > > > > > > > > > > . . . . That ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be > > > able > > > > to > > > > > > comprehend with all saints what is the BREADTH and LENGTH > and > > > > > DEPTH > > > > > > and HEIGHT. > > > > > > > > > > > > p. 334 > > > > > > > > > > > > First of all, what does the comprehension of breadth and > > > length > > > > > and > > > > > > depth and height mean? What is it but the comprehension of > > > space? > > > > > And > > > > > > we now know that the comprehension of the mysteries of > space > > > is > > > > > the > > > > > > beginning of the higher comprehension. > > > > > > > > > > > > The apostle says that " being rooted and grounded in love, > with > > > > all > > > > > > saints " they may comprehend what space is. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here arises the question: why must love give comprehension? > > > That > > > > > love > > > > > > leads to sanctity--this is easily understood. Love in the > > > sense > > > > > that > > > > > > the apostle Paul understands it (Chapter XIII of the First > > > > Epistle > > > > > to > > > > > > the Corinthians) is the highest of all emotions, the > > > synthesis, > > > > > the > > > > > > blending of all highest emotions. Incontestably, this leads > to > > > > > > sanctity. Sanctity: that is the state of the spirit > liberated > > > > from > > > > > > the duality of man, from his eternal disharmony of soul and > > > body. > > > > > In > > > > > > the language of the apostle Paul sanctity meant even a > little > > > > less > > > > > > than in our contemporary language. He called all members of > > > his > > > > > > church saints; sanctity meant to him righteousness, > morality, > > > > > > religiosity. We say that all this is merely the path to > > > sanctity. > > > > > > Sanctity is something more--something attained. But it is > > > after > > > > > all > > > > > > immaterial how we shall understand his words--in his > meaning > > > or > > > > in > > > > > > ours--sanctity is a superhuman quality. In the region of > > > morality > > > > > it > > > > > > corresponds to genius in the region of mind. Love is the > path > > > to > > > > > > sainthood. > > > > > > > > > > > > But with sanctity the apostle Paul unites KNOWLEDGE. Saints > > > > > > comprehend what is the breadth and length and depth and > > > height; > > > > > and > > > > > > he says that all--through love--may comprehend this with > them. > > > > But > > > > > > may comprehend what, exactly? COMPREHEND SPACE. > > > Because " breadth > > > > > and > > > > > > length and depth and height " translated into our language > of > > > > > shorter > > > > > > definitions actually means space. > > > > > > > > > > > > This last is the most strange. > > > > > > > > > > > > How could the apostle Paul possibly KNOW that sanctity > gives a > > > > new > > > > > > understanding of space? We know that it must give it, but > FROM > > > > > WHAT > > > > > > could he know that? > > > > > > > > > > > > None of his contemporaries ever united sanctity with the > idea > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > comprehension of space; and in general there was no > discussion > > > at > > > > > all > > > > > > about " space " at that time, at least among the Greeks and > > > Romans. > > > > > > Only now, after Kant, and after we have had access to the > > > > > treasures > > > > > > of thought of the Orient, do we understand that the > transition > > > > > into a > > > > > > new phase of consciousness is impossible without the > expansion > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > space-sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > p. 335 > > > > > > > > > > > > But we wonder if this is what the apostle Paul wanted to > say-- > > > > that > > > > > > strange man: Roman official, persecutor of the first > > > Christianity > > > > > who > > > > > > became its preacher, philosopher, mystic; the man who " saw > > > God, " > > > > > the > > > > > > bold reformer and moralist of his time, who fought for " the > > > > > spirit " > > > > > > against " the letter " and was of course not responsible for > the > > > > > fact > > > > > > that he himself was understood by others not in " the > spirit, " > > > but > > > > > > in " the letter. " Is it this that he wanted to say? We do > not > > > know. > > > > > > > > > > > > But let us look at these words of the Apocalypse and the > > > Epistles > > > > > > from the standpoint of our usual " positivistic thinking, " > > > which > > > > > > sometimes condescendingly agrees to admit the " metaphorical > > > > > meaning " > > > > > > of mysticism. What shall we see? > > > > > > > > > > > > WE SHALL SEE NOTHING! > > > > > > > > > > > > The flash of mystery, which appeared just for an instant, > will > > > > > > immediately disappear. The words will be without any > content, > > > > > nothing > > > > > > in them will attract our wearied attention, which will > merely > > > > > glide > > > > > > over them as it glides over everything. We will > indifferently > > > > turn > > > > > > the page and indifferently close the book. > > > > > > > > > > > > An interesting metaphor, yes: But nothing else! > > > > > > > > > > > > And we fail to observe that we rob ourselves, deprive life > of > > > all > > > > > > beauty, all mystery, all content; and wonder afterwards why > > > > > > everything is so uninteresting and detestable to us, why we > do > > > > not > > > > > > desire to live, and why we do not understand anything > around > > > us; > > > > > we > > > > > > wonder why brute force wins, or deceit and falsification, > > > though > > > > > to > > > > > > these things we have nothing to oppose. > > > > > > > > > > > > THE METHOD IS NO GOOD. > > > > > > > > > > > > In its time " positivism " appeared as something refreshing, > > > sober, > > > > > > healthful and progressive, which explored new avenues of > > > thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > After the sentimental speculations of naive > > > dualism " positivism " > > > > > was > > > > > > indeed a great step forward. Positivism became a symbol of > the > > > > > > progress of thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > But we see now that it inevitably leads to materialism. And > in > > > > > this > > > > > > form it arrests thought. From revolutionary, persecuted, > > > > > anarchistic, > > > > > > free-thinking, positivism became the basis of official > > > science. > > > > It > > > > > is > > > > > > decked-out in full dress. It is given medals. There are > > > academies > > > > > and > > > > > > universities dedicated to its service. It is recognized; it > > > > > teaches; > > > > > > it tyrannizes over thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > But having attained to well-being and prosperity, > positivism > > > > > > immediately opposed obstacles to the forward march of > thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > p. 336 > > > > > > > > > > > > A Chinese wall of " positivistic " sciences and methods is > built > > > up > > > > > > around free investigation. Everything rising above this > wall > > > is > > > > > > condemned as unscientific. > > > > > > > > > > > > And seen in this way positivism, which before was a symbol > of > > > > > > progress, now appears as conservative, reactionary. > > > > > > > > > > > > The existing order is already established in the world of > > > > thought, > > > > > > and to fight against it is declared to be a crime. > > > > > > > > > > > > With astonishing rapidity those principles which only > > > yesterday > > > > > > expressed the highest radicalism in the region of thought > have > > > > > become > > > > > > the basis of opportunism in the region of ideas and serve > as > > > > blind > > > > > > alleys, stopping the progress of thought. In our eyes this > > > > > occurred > > > > > > with the idea of evolution, on which it is now possible to > > > build > > > > > up > > > > > > anything, and with the help of which it is possible to tear > > > down > > > > > > anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > But thought, which is free, cannot be bound by any limits. > > > > > > > > > > > > The true motion which lies at the foundation of everything, > is > > > > the > > > > > > motion of thought. True energy is the energy of > consciousness. > > > > And > > > > > > truth itself is motion, and can never lead to arrestment, > to > > > the > > > > > > cessation of search. > > > > > > > > > > > > ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT--IS FALSE. > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore the true and real progress of thought is only in > the > > > > > > broadest striving toward knowledge, that does not recognize > > > the > > > > > > possibility of arrestment in any found forms of knowledge > at > > > all. > > > > > The > > > > > > meaning of life is in eternal search. And only in that > search > > > can > > > > > we > > > > > > find something truly new. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ --- > --- > > > --- > > > > - > > > > > - > > > > > > Did u like the taste of this curry? However, what i am > still > > > > > finding > > > > > > hard to digest is " ALL THAT ARRESTS THE MOTION OF THOUGHT-- > IS > > > > > > FALSE " ... " truth itself is motion " , i thought that truth is > > > > > > stationary...and our search should be to reach that zero > > > > > stationary > > > > > > stage. thougths of course are motion and they have to be > > > > > > arrested....what say u? Of course, this is just a play of > > > > > imagination > > > > > > where one has no idea of what is truth. i am just parroting > > > the > > > > > words > > > > > > of others in a cut and paste reality... > > > > > > > > > > > > But just look at the insight of this man!!! He was a genius! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , " Sreenadh " > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear RK ji, > > > > > > > Let us divide this thread into two. Let one grow > through > > > the > > > > > > > discussion of " Dridhadi " 3 divisions, and the other about > > > > > > insights. > > > > > > > Insight comes from approaching the question under > scrutiny > > > in > > > > > a > > > > > > new > > > > > > > light. From were this light come? It comes from > > > consciousness. > > > > > The > > > > > > > Sanskrit word is " Prenja " . There is a sloka in Chanakya > > > Neeti- > > > > > > > " Pranje sastram swayam bhati > > > > > > > Vistaram Vastu saktita " > > > > > > > Meaning, In the consciousness the essence of the subject > > > (the > > > > > > > question under scrutiny) appears by itself. The > elaboration > > > is > > > > > the > > > > > > > only thing that depends on the ability (accumulated > > > surrounding > > > > > > > knowledge etc) of the person. > > > > > > > We should encounter questions with the light of our > unique > > > > > > > consciousness - and questions themselves give us new > > > answers. We > > > > > > > collect the surrounding knowledge and use our own > abilities > > > > > (such as > > > > > > > vocabulary, ability describe, humor, knowledge of > > > > > > > incidents/stories/quotes etc) to elaborate and present > the > > > same > > > > > > before > > > > > > > the audience. Then it is heralded as an insight. > > > > > > > In essence it comes from the consciousness (where there > is > > > > > > nothing!) > > > > > > > - It is just light, you may say! But still in its > presents, > > > > > > > everything appears clear, and with a different beauty!! > > > > > > > It is not the subject but the consciousness of the > person > > > who > > > > > looks > > > > > > > into it is important! (Really, that is an insight!) Then > > > even > > > > > most > > > > > > > irrelevant of the subjects can give us so much knowledge > > > that no > > > > > > > others can! > > > > > > > => The essence is " Prenja " – which does not contain any > > > > > knowledge, > > > > > > but > > > > > > > the base of all knowledge! It is the essential, and the > > > > > knowledge, > > > > > > as > > > > > > > Osho points out at times, 'know-all-edge' is at the > `edge', > > > it > > > > > is > > > > > > just > > > > > > > `peripheral'. Let us go after the essential. > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , rk dash > > > > > > > <arkaydash@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sree > > > > > > > > Good to have you back. > > > > > > > > So you want to excite me. My excited desire on this > > > forum > > > > > will > > > > > > be > > > > > > > to test my fundamentals in light of the views and > insights > > > of > > > > > fellow > > > > > > > members (Dr K, Shree Madhu, Sreenivas, to name a few). > Put > > > > also > > > > > > them > > > > > > > (all members) on notice if you want to excite me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Rk ji, > > > > > > > > It happenes due to life circumstances. But still you > > > were > > > > > all > > > > > > > > here, right?! So I think revival is always possible, > > > and > > > > is > > > > > so > > > > > > > > easy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to Astrology:- > > > > > > > > ******************************************* > > > > > > > > " Dridhadi karma treyakalameeswara kalasworoopa > pradadati > > > > > dehinam " > > > > > > > > ******************************************* > > > > > > > > In Dasadhyayi there is a sloka- > > > > > > > > " Dridhadi karma treyakalameeswara kalasworoopa > pradadati > > > > > dehinam " > > > > > > > > Meaning, The effect of space-time continuem on living > > > beings > > > > > can > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > of 3 type - > > > > > > > > 1) Dridha = Which can not be modified > > > > > > > > 2) Dridhadridha = Which can be modified if we know > about > > > it > > > > > (We > > > > > > > > have a choice) > > > > > > > > 3) Adridha = Which may or may not happen (Jut a simple > > > > > > possibility) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is one of the concepts that is very fundamental to > > > > > Ancient > > > > > > > > Indian Astrology. Instead of me speaking elaborately on > > > the > > > > > > subject, > > > > > > > > I quote the words of Osho, when he spoke about the same- > > > > > > > > Note:- I have just inserted some headings in between > the > > > > words > > > > > of > > > > > > > > Osho for better understanding and co-relating of the > same > > > > with > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > above sloka. > > > > > > > > ******************************************************** > > > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > > > The 3 Parts > > > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > > > " Astrology can be divided into three parts. The first > > > part > > > > is > > > > > > > > the core, > > > > > > > > the essence; it is the essentials, and cannot be > changed. > > > It > > > > > is > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > part which is most difficult to understand. The second > > > part > > > > is > > > > > the > > > > > > > > middle layer, in which one can make whatever changes > one > > > > > wants. > > > > > > It is > > > > > > > > the semi-essential portion in which you can make > changes > > > if > > > > > you > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > how, but without knowing, no changes are possible at > all. > > > The > > > > > > third > > > > > > > > part is the outermost layer which is nonessential, but > > > about > > > > > > which we > > > > > > > > are all very curious. > > > > > > > > The first is the essence, in which no changes can be > made. > > > > > When > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > > known, the only way is to cooperate with it. Religions > > > have > > > > > > devised > > > > > > > > astrology in order to know and decipher this essential > > > > > destiny. > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > semi-essential part of astrology is such that if we > know > > > > about > > > > > it > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > can change our lives -- otherwise not. > > > > > > > > If we do not know, then whatsoever was going to happen > > > will > > > > > > happen. > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > there is knowledge, there are alternatives to choose > > > between. > > > > > > There > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > a possibility of transformation if the right choice is > > > made. > > > > > The > > > > > > > > third, nonessential part is just the periphery, the > outer > > > > > surface. > > > > > > > > There is nothing essential in it; everything is > > > > circumstantial. > > > > > > > > But we go to consult astrologers only for the > nonessential > > > > > things. > > > > > > > > Someone goes and asks an astrologer when he will get > > > > > employment -- > > > > > > > > there is no relationship between your employment and > the > > > moon > > > > > and > > > > > > > > stars. Someone asks whether he will marry or not.... > There > > > > can > > > > > be > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > society without marriage. Someone asks whether he will > > > remain > > > > > > poor or > > > > > > > > become rich.... There can be a socialist or communist > > > society > > > > > > where > > > > > > > > there will be no rich and no poor people. So these are > > > > > > nonessential > > > > > > > > questions.... > > > > > > > > An eighty years old man was walking along when his foot > > > > > slipped on > > > > > > > > some orange peel thrown onto the road. Now, is it > possible > > > to > > > > > > inquire > > > > > > > > of an astrologer and know from the moon and stars on > which > > > > > road > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > which orange peel the foot will slip? Such queries are > > > > > foolish, > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > you are curious to know in advance whether your foot > will > > > > land > > > > > on > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > orange skin and slip if you go out on the road today. > This > > > is > > > > > > > > nonessential. This has nothing to do with your being or > > > your > > > > > soul. > > > > > > > > These events happen on the periphery, and astrology has > > > > > nothing > > > > > > to do > > > > > > > > with them. But because the astrologers were busy > talking > > > only > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > such things, the great establishment of astrology > > > collapsed. > > > > > This > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > the only reason. > > > > > > > > No intelligent person will be prepared to believe that > > > when > > > > he > > > > > was > > > > > > > > born it was written by destiny that on a particular day > on > > > > > Marine > > > > > > > > Drive his foot would land on some orange peel and he > would > > > > > > fall.... > > > > > > > > Neither the falling down nor the orange peel have any > > > > > > relationship to > > > > > > > > the stars. Astrology has lost respect because it became > > > > > connected > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > such things. At one time or the other we all have > wanted > > > to > > > > > know > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > things from astrologers -- but these things are > > > nonessential. > > > > > But > > > > > > > > there are certain semi-essential matters such as the > birth > > > or > > > > > > death > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > a person: if you can know everything about these, you > can > > > take > > > > > > > > precautionary measures. If you do not know anything, > you > > > > can't > > > > > do > > > > > > > > anything. > > > > > > > > If our knowledge about the diagnosis of disease is > > > increased, > > > > > we > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > be able to increase the life-span of human beings. We > have > > > > > been > > > > > > doing > > > > > > > > it. If our research to make deadlier atom bombs > succeeds, > > > we > > > > > will > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > able to kill hundreds of thousands of people at a time - > - > > > we > > > > > have > > > > > > > > done > > > > > > > > it. This semi-essential world presents a possibility > for > > > our > > > > > being > > > > > > > > able to do certain things, if we know in advance what > is > > > > going > > > > > to > > > > > > > > happen. If we do not know, nothing can be done. By our > > > > knowing > > > > > in > > > > > > > > advance, alternatives can be sorted out and selected. > > > > > > > > Beyond this, the world of the essential exists -- you > > > cannot > > > > do > > > > > > > > anything about it. However, our curiosity is to know > only > > > > about > > > > > > > > nonessential things. Seldom does someone reach out to > know > > > the > > > > > > > > semi-essential. Our curiosity or desire never extends > to > > > > > knowing > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > which is essential and unavoidable, that which cannot > be > > > > > changed > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > if known. > > > > > > > > ================ > > > > > > > > Dridha = Essential > > > > > > > > ================ > > > > > > > > The astrology I am talking about concerns the > essential, > > > the > > > > > > > > fundamental. At best your curiosity as far as the semi- > > > > > essential. > > > > > > You > > > > > > > > want to know how long you will live or whether or not > you > > > will > > > > > > > > suddenly die. But you are not curious to know what you > > > will > > > > do > > > > > if > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > live -- how you will live. You do want to know how you > > > will > > > > > die > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > the time comes or what you will be doing at that time. > > > Your > > > > > > curiosity > > > > > > > > extends to events, not to the soul. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > > > > > The projections of the future also determine the > present > > > > > moments. > > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > present moment could not be if there were no future > > > moments. > > > > > Only > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > the support of future moments can the present moment > > > occur. > > > > > Our > > > > > > hands > > > > > > > > are resting on the shoulders of the future, our feet > are > > > on > > > > the > > > > > > > > shoulders of our past. It is very obvious that if that > > > which > > > > > is > > > > > > below > > > > > > > > me -- on which I am standing and which I can see -- > slips > > > > > away, I > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > fall. But if the shoulders of the future -- on which my > > > > > > outstretched > > > > > > > > hands are resting -- slip away then I will also fall. > > > > > > > > When a person finds himself connected with this inner > > > unity > > > > of > > > > > > past > > > > > > > > and future he will be able to understand astrology. > Then > > > > > astrology > > > > > > > > becomes a religion, then astrology becomes spiritual. > > > > > > > > ======================= > > > > > > > > Dridhadridha = Semi-Essential > > > > > > > > ======================= > > > > > > > > I will tell you a very interesting story so that you may > > > > > > > > understand.... Mohammed had a disciple named Ali. Ali > once > > > > > asked > > > > > > > > Mohammed's opinion about whether a man is independent > and > > > > free > > > > > to > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > what he wants, or whether he is bound by his destiny in > > > > > > everything he > > > > > > > > does. Ali asked, " Can one do as one wants or not? " -- > and > > > man > > > > > has > > > > > > > > been asking this question for a long, long time. " If a > man > > > is > > > > > not > > > > > > > > able > > > > > > > > to do as he desires, " Ali said, " then it is useless and > > > > > foolish to > > > > > > > > preach to him not to steal, not to tell lies, not to be > > > > > > dishonest. Or > > > > > > > > is it destiny that one man should always be there to > > > preach > > > > to > > > > > > others > > > > > > > > not to steal or not to do this or that, knowing full > well > > > > that > > > > > it > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > also destiny for a dishonest man to remain dishonest, > for > > > a > > > > > thief > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > remain a thief, for a murderer to remain a murderer? > All > > > this > > > > > > appears > > > > > > > > absurd. If everything is predestined, all education is > > > > > useless -- > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > prophets, all saints and all teachers are useless. " > > > > > > > > People have asked such questions to Mahavira and to > Buddha > > > > > also. > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > what is going to happen is predestined, why should > > > Mahavira > > > > or > > > > > > Buddha > > > > > > > > take so much trouble to explain what is right and what > is > > > > > wrong? > > > > > > So, > > > > > > > > Ali asked Mohammed what he thought about this > > > controversial > > > > > > matter. > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > such a question was asked to Mahavira or Buddha, they > > > would > > > > > have > > > > > > > > given > > > > > > > > a very complicated and deep reply, but Mohammed gave a > > > reply > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > could understand. Many of Mohammed's replies were > direct > > > and > > > > > > > > straightforward. Ordinarily, answers given by people > who > > > are > > > > > > > > uneducated or less educated, or who are simple > villagers, > > > are > > > > > > direct > > > > > > > > and frank. People like Kabir, Nanak, Mohammed and Jesus > > > were > > > > > > simple > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > that way. Answers by people like Buddha, Mahavira and > > > Krishna > > > > > were > > > > > > > > complex -- Buddha and Mahavira were the cream of a rich > > > and > > > > > highly > > > > > > > > developed civilization. The words of Jesus were direct, > > > like > > > > a > > > > > > blow > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > the head. Kabir has actually sung: " Kabir is standing > in > > > the > > > > > open > > > > > > > > market with a hammer in his hand to hit you! " If anyone > > > came > > > > > near > > > > > > him > > > > > > > > he would, so to speak, break open his head to remove > all > > > the > > > > > > rubbish > > > > > > > > that was lying inside. > > > > > > > > Mohammed did not give any metaphysical reply. He asked > Ali > > > to > > > > > > lift > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > leg and stand on it. Ali had asked a question about > > > whether a > > > > > man > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > free to do what he wants. Why should Ali stand on one > leg? > > > > > > Mohammed > > > > > > > > said, " First lift one leg. " > > > > > > > > Poor Ali lifted his left leg and stood there on one leg. > > > > > > > > Mohammed then asked him, " Now lift the right leg also. " > > > > > > > > Ali was puzzled and asked how it was possible. Then > > > Mohammed > > > > > > > > said, " If > > > > > > > > you had wanted to, you could have lifted the right leg > > > first, > > > > > but > > > > > > now > > > > > > > > you cannot.... A man is always free to lift the first > leg - > > > - > > > > > it > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > whichever he wants -- but no sooner has the first been > > > lifted > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > other becomes bound to the earth. " > > > > > > > > With regard to the nonessential part of life, we are > > > always > > > > > free > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > lift the first leg. But once that is done it becomes a > > > > bondage > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > essential part. We take steps that are nonessential, > > > become > > > > > > > > entangled, > > > > > > > > and then we are not able to do the essential. So > Mohammed > > > > said > > > > > to > > > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > that he had all the freedom to lift the right or the > left > > > leg > > > > > > first. > > > > > > > > But once he exercised that freedom and lifted one left > > > leg, > > > > he > > > > > was > > > > > > > > incapable of lifting the other leg. So freedom is there > > > > within > > > > > > > > certain > > > > > > > > limits, but beyond those limits there is bondage. > > > > > > > > ================== > > > > > > > > Adirdha = Non-Essential > > > > > > > > ================== > > > > > > > > Aall ordinary astrologers are asked about > nonessentials. > > > An > > > > > > ordinary > > > > > > > > astrologer is > > > > > > > > asked questions like: " Shall we win the elections or > not? " > > > > How > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > elections connected with the moon and the stars? The > > > ordinary > > > > > > > > astrologer who replies, " Everything is predetermined, > and > > > no > > > > > > changes, > > > > > > > > not even as much as one inch, can be made, " is making a > > > false > > > > > > > > statement. > > > > > > > > On the other hand there is the rationalist. He says > that > > > > > nothing > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > connected inevitably: whatsoever happens is > coincidental, > > > > > > > > circumstantial and a matter of chance. There is no law, > > > > > > everything is > > > > > > > > anarchic. He is also making a false statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ================== > > > > > > > > Back to the 3 Divisions > > > > > > > > =================== > > > > > > > > There is a law: A rationalist is never found so full of > > > joy > > > > > and > > > > > > bliss > > > > > > > > as a buddha. > > > > > > > > The rationalist denies God, soul and religion with the > > > help > > > > of > > > > > > logic, > > > > > > > > but he can never attain the joy of Mahavira. It is > > > definite > > > > > that > > > > > > > > Mahavira must have done something that earned him his > joy, > > > > > Buddha > > > > > > > > must > > > > > > > > have done something that liberated him, and Krishna > must > > > also > > > > > have > > > > > > > > done something which made it possible for him to give > out > > > such > > > > > > > > distinctly unique magical notes through his flute. > > > > > > > > The real thing is the third, which is the quintessence > of > > > > > > everything, > > > > > > > > which belongs to the innermost and which is absolutely > > > > > > predetermined. > > > > > > > > The more one moves toward one's center, the nearer one > > > comes > > > > > to > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > essential, predetermined part. As we move towards the > > > > > periphery, > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > move towards coincidence. The more we talk about > external > > > > > > happenings, > > > > > > > > the more there is coincidence. When we talk about inner > > > > > phenomena, > > > > > > > > things begin to appear scientific, as if based on a > > > certain > > > > > law, > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > they become more and more decisive. > > > > > > > > Between these two conditions -- the essential and the > > > > > peripheral - > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > there is ample room for changes through the exercise of > > > > > choice. > > > > > > Here, > > > > > > > > a person of knowledge makes the correct choice, while a > > > > person > > > > > > who is > > > > > > > > without knowledge, who is in the darkness of ignorance, > > > > drifts > > > > > to > > > > > > his > > > > > > > > destiny. In darkness, circumstance catches hold of him. > > > > > > > > So there are three areas of life. In one area, that > which > > > is > > > > > the > > > > > > > > essential core, everything is predetermined. Knowing > this > > > is > > > > > > knowing > > > > > > > > the essence of astrology. In another area, that which > is > > > > > > peripheral, > > > > > > > > everything is uncertain. To know this is to know the > > > everyday > > > > > > > > unpredictable world. There is another area which is in > the > > > > > > middle. By > > > > > > > > knowing this, a person can save himself from trying to > do > > > the > > > > > > > > impossible, and can do what is possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************** > > > > > > > > OK. That were the words of the Osho. Now do you want to > > > look > > > > > into > > > > > > > > the above sloka? And want to know what else, it say? In > > > which > > > > > way > > > > > > > > you are interested in astrology – In essential? Semi- > > > > > essential? > > > > > > Non- > > > > > > > > essential? > > > > > > > > Hope to have many replays on the same. > > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , rk > dash > > > > > > > > <arkaydash@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interested? No, nobody is. Only you are. And what is > > > your > > > > > > > > explanation for the French leave? > > > > > > > > > RK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > Why this group becomes inactive when I am not here. > Is > > > it > > > > > that > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > body is interested in astrology? Is it that you don't > > > like > > > > > this > > > > > > > > group? > > > > > > > > > With such good members with knowledge, this shouldn't > > > > happen > > > > > to > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > group. And will not happen I know. Come back and let > us > > > > > > restart! > > > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - > > > > > > Answers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.