Guest guest Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 Dear Sanghees, s k i p a d I am reading a wonderful article by Stanley Sobottka, http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/ , which has appeared here before, I think. Stanley is influenced by Balsekar and Maharshi and paints an absolute worldview without free will, causality, or responsibility. He warns against teachers who tell us what we "should" and "should not" do as this only strengthens a sense of separate self. He admits that such a view is at odds with current systems of moral codes and legal responsibity but does not expand on how his worldview might form a basis for societies (i.e., if everyone were awake there would be no problem, no individual, no other, but everyone begins at square zero). So my questions, I think, are: 1) What does Sri Ramana have to say about ethics and moral codes of conduct. Why are they important and where do they fit in the overall scheme of how to live one's life? I see in one of Mazie's posts: "The best way for one to serve the world is to win the egoless state. If you are anxious to help the world, but think that you cannot do so by attaining the egoless state, then surrender to God all the world's problems, along with your own." ~Sri Ramana Maharshi Is this it? Would Mahatma Gandhi agree? 2) Buddhism's Noble Truths and paramita details include extensive guidelines for moral and ethical behavior (with plenty of should's and should not's). Is Buddhism's approach to this tension (i.e., the absolute absence of a doer versus the relative demands of ethics and morals) mostly the same or different from Advaita? Mahayana teaches that helping others (at least relatively) should be one's primary motivation; the egoless state may or may not result in this life... Hope this makes sense. I seem to have trouble formulating the question(s). namaste, david. P.S. Mazie and B, your LA story was wonderful. I love the way you weave thoughts together. Someday I will go collect your posts and put them in a book or something. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2003 Report Share Posted June 19, 2003 "David King" wrote: > Dear Sanghees, [...] > 1) What does Sri Ramana have to say about ethics and moral codes of conduct. > Why are they important and where do they fit in the overall scheme of how to > live one's life? I see in one of Mazie's posts: > > "The best way for one to serve the world is to win the egoless state. If > you are anxious to help the world, but think that you cannot do so by > attaining the egoless state, then surrender to God all the world's problems, > along with your own." ~Sri Ramana Maharshi > > Is this it? Would Mahatma Gandhi agree? > > 2) Buddhism's Noble Truths and paramita details include extensive guidelines > for moral and ethical behavior (with plenty of should's and should not's). > Is Buddhism's approach to this tension (i.e., the absolute absence of a doer > versus the relative demands of ethics and morals) mostly the same or > different from Advaita? Mahayana teaches that helping others (at least > relatively) should be one's primary motivation; the egoless state may or may > not result in this life... dear david, for the first question most people here are more qualified than i so i'll let them talk (although your quoting sri ramana says it all). for the second question i'm even less qualified but i'll speak anyway; buddhism is a beautifully organized religion with many voices to fit seekers of all walks of life and if you are "advanced" enough you'll see that most what buddha said and his successors sums up in sri ramana's message; buddha is extremely keen and sharp too. let's take an example: "how do you deal with this mood?" "where do you speak from?" "do you speak from a personal place or for people?" that is "once you uttered the question does it feel better or do you expect to feel better from the answer?" that is "is your question deeply felt enough to be in itself an answer?" "or do you have to change question to find rest in your quest?" "or will an external cause give you rest?" i give you an example (step by step): "what is my relation to buddha?" "what do i seek in buddha?" "is there a resting place in buddha?" "is peace natural to me or to be worked on?" "does this question emerge from my buddha nature?" "or what is this place it comes from?" "is this place restless?" "the questioning place, does it feel like a knot?" "what is this splendid place where no questions arise?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2003 Report Share Posted June 19, 2003 If one were to read very closely, advaita, Ramana and even other traditions, there is a clear 'moral/ethical' base-ground, from which free self-enquiry takes place 'jnana-yoga' sadly, many of the hippies who travelled to India, missed this aspect, diving for the 'liberation' they perceived in Indian teachings, including Ramana Maharishi well at the end of the day, one uses 'teachings' according to ones needs ...gold can be made into a spitoon km Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2003 Report Share Posted June 19, 2003 Eric wrote: "the questioning place, does it feel like a knot?" David: You're very good at this, Eric. I think we could put you up there in the chair with Gangaji. Yes, if I dive in there is a source of tension: 1) I want to be free; 2) I want the world to be free. (Of course, then "free" might lose its meaning... I don't know if the great sages are the place to look for (2) although we can be guided by them. Ramana suggests (2) depends on (1), Buddha suggests (1) depends on (2). Yaddayadda. Another button -- more like a dull buzzer nowadays -- is authors who blithely spout absolutes -- you can't really tell if they know or are just repeating the words -- I think it needs to be in context. A few months ago, I was encouraging a poor fellow here to dip his foot in lava and tell us how illusory that felt. Buddhists seem a little more cautious than Advaitins in this regard. For example, "All of the phenomenal world is created in the same way. It is created from the pure mind itself, influenced by the poisons. From the Buddha's enlightened point of view, the relative is nothingness and the absolute is the only reality. However, from our point of view, the relative is significant because it is why we exist, so it is important that we do not deny the relative by thinking, 'This is just an illusion.' If we were to follow that thought to its logical conclusion, we might think we could stop eating or drinking and remain unaffected, but we would soon die. For our ego, the relative material world is our reality and we must not deny it." ~Lama Lodu Rinpoche, "The Quintessence of the Animate and Inanimate." Vocabulary usage has also been helpful in this mentation to nowhere. When Buddhists say "truly real" or "substantial" they (like Ramana) refer to "something" that does not change, is not caused, does not begin and end. This pretty much excludes phenomenality. And "mind" means "what experiences" or just "experience" rather than intellect or a brain. dave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2003 Report Share Posted June 20, 2003 , "kalyaanmitra" <kalyaanmitra> wrote: > If one were to read very closely, advaita, Ramana and even other > traditions, there is a clear 'moral/ethical' base-ground, from which > free self-enquiry takes place 'jnana-yoga' I've heard of the (old-fashioned) Hindu caste system but am increasingly unsure whether morals/ethics have much to do with nondual teachings. Self-enquiry leads to a radical loss of base-ground, the egoless state, no-body home. Morals and ethics are rules or guidelines for our inter-subjective relationship to others, but others don't exist in the egoless state. So that gets at the stuff of my question, thanks for helping me clarify. I just found this interesting link where similar questions arise: http://www.enlightenment.com/b_archives/000302.html namaste, david. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2003 Report Share Posted June 21, 2003 , "David King" <david.king@p...> wrote: > , "kalyaanmitra" <kalyaanmitra> > wrote: > > If one were to read very closely, advaita, Ramana and even other > > traditions, there is a clear 'moral/ethical' base-ground, from which > > free self-enquiry takes place 'jnana-yoga' > > I've heard of the (old-fashioned) Hindu caste system but am increasingly > unsure whether morals/ethics have much to do with nondual teachings. > Self-enquiry leads to a radical loss of base-ground, the egoless state, > no-body home. Morals and ethics are rules or guidelines for our > inter-subjective relationship to others, but others don't exist in the > egoless state.So that gets at the stuff of my question, thanks for helping me clarify. > > I just found this interesting link where similar questions arise: > > http://www.enlightenment.com/b_archives/000302.htm> namaste, david. morals/ethics as constructed by society have a plus and a minus for the 'evolving'[soul?personality?] they are a safeguard which then becomes a prison and trap the original idea behind the caste system as 'psychological types' is discussed by Sri Aurobindo, as is the tension between individual/mass consciousness in the spiritual quests the direct experience of 'non-duality' for one who has samadhi and the 'understanding' or thinking one has the experience are two different things so for example [i am be incorrect in my reference] a figure such as Shanakara could drink wine but also eat garbage. Anyway, life is always providing opportunities to test whether one is experiencing rather than talking about/thinking about 'non-duality' Alan Watts has also an interesting point in saying that 'liberation' from duality is not necessarily non-moral/non-ethical social reform was not on the agenda for many of the eastern paths of liberation, as the big question was the liberation of the individual mind - how this was to be achieved did however ground itself on universal dharmic principles, as opposed to social conventions i am just thinking aloud, perhaps not relevant at all to your post so please do forgive km km Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2003 Report Share Posted June 21, 2003 "kalyaanmitra" <kalyaanmitra> wrote: > morals/ethics as constructed by society have a plus and a minus > for the 'evolving'[soul?personality?] they are a safeguard > which > then becomes a prison and trap > the original idea behind the caste system as 'psychological types' is > discussed by Sri Aurobindo, as is the tension between individual/mass > consciousness in the spiritual quests > > the direct experience of 'non-duality' for one who has samadhi and > the 'understanding' or thinking one has the experience are two > different things > > so for example [i am be incorrect in my reference] a figure such as > Shanakara could drink wine but also eat garbage. > > > Anyway, life is always providing opportunities to test whether one is > experiencing rather than talking about/thinking about 'non-duality' > > > Alan Watts has also an interesting point in saying that 'liberation' > from duality is not necessarily non-moral/non-ethical > > > social reform was not on the agenda for many of the eastern paths of > liberation, as the big question was the liberation of the individual > mind - how this was to be achieved did however ground itself on > universal dharmic principles, as opposed to social conventions > > > i am just thinking aloud, perhaps not relevant at all to your post > > so please do forgive > > km > km dear mitra, in america i heard the expression "road rage", and in your "brittas empire" i heard "pram rage" a person with a kid in a stroler dangerously rushing through the crowds (where you one of them? i was :-)) so ethics is not about giving as many precepts as possible to encompass all that can go wrong but in pointing to our rages. to me india is sending as many wrong signals as france, the uks or america, where the collectivity is a mad titanic rushing in the dark to nowhere; i'd rather try one of the "small republics" of northern europe (denmark etc.) where almost everybody has responsibilities in the community and can make a difference; as for advaita and work on oneself and self enquiry... today i'll tell no one about it, it's my private business, nana naaaa na! :-) eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2003 Report Share Posted June 21, 2003 a delicate balance.... in fact, unfounded concerns... my understanding is that a high degree of maturity is required, paradoxically, a child-like surrender .... while it is true that instant moksha/bliss/satori/samadhi is possible, if one sees life as a continuity, those remarakable souls have been through fire before [not as punishment but an alchemy] anyway, punishment/trial/evolution/alchemy are 'human words' grasping at That which is intuitively felt.... transformation through ethics/morality/religion/humanism [wisdom/compassion] then transcendence [ no longer bound ] [many foolishly believe they have achieved the latter but Mother world soon puts them right!!!!] Of course, they can claim martyrdom. km Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 , "eric paroissien" <peaceisit@a...> wrote: > "kalyaanmitra" <kalyaanmitra> wrote: Namaste IMO, As Shakespeare said, 'nothing is either wrong or right, it is thinking that makes it so'. I take the word thinking as the most important one in this paraphrase. Thinking is the mind and the root of the problem. On another level rules and morals are for the purpose of guiding the mind on to the path of concentration, from concentration comes the ability to control thought and meditation on the spiritual path. There comes a point when they are unnecessary and can be all included in the one word Ahimsa.........ONS....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 << There comes a point when [rules and morals] are unnecessary ... >> "do unto others whatever you want?" nice rule. ons, dave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 What do you expect.Whats the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 , "David King" <david.king@p...> wrote: > << There comes a point when [rules and morals] are unnecessary ... >> > > "do unto others whatever you want?" > > nice rule. > > ons, > dave. Namaste Dave, Ahimsa There comes a point when they are unnecessary and can be all included in the one word Ahimsa.........ONS....Tony. 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.