Bhakti can be the final impediment.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Bliss is the final impediment to realisation. So in this way Bhakti

can be and attachment. An attachment so powerful to the 'Love

Energy', that there is a great impediment to Moksha.

In my own experience I notice energies moving and if I allowed

myself I could enjoy them. However I am trying to ignore them as

just steps passing on the way. For Moksha in its final state is

beyond energy love or anything at

all...........Nirguna.......ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dearest Tony,

Bliss, wisdom, visions, siddhis, experiences, whatever, any idea that

an impediment is here, is in place, is the makings of a mind confined

to limitations of what is, as it is. Perhaps a misinterpretation of

bliss, of what bliss actually IS, may be the only imagined attachment

and imagined hindrance to This.

You use the term "beyond" this or that... and I would ask you this: Is

anything or anyone "beyond" what Is? Perhaps your interpretation of

your own experience of what Love is or anything at all is, has given

you this imagined limitation. Love, uncolored by our own

interpretations and imaginations, IS simply what it is -- This.

Moksha has no hindrances or limitations but that which we imagine to

be a limitation or a hindrance. Fixation on the absolute and what we

believe it is or should be, what it is not or cannot be, now there's

some really fine mash of imaginative limitationary libation to drink

away our bliss drunkeness on!

 

~ Grace at The Lost Coast

 

Love You, Dearest Tony,

Mazie

[Guest guest]

Tony,

 

What is Bliss? Bliss is deep peace or ananda, translated from

Sanskrit as "no sorrow." Bliss, or "no sorrow," IS realization.

Bliss in this definiton is not an impediment to realization, it is

the end result.

In western society, the definition of bliss is different. Bliss in

western terms usually means 'that which makes one happy or

satisfied.' This is a temporary happiness compared to the uncaused,

permanent happiness of Being.

 

Samadhi Ma

 

 

, "saktidasa" <saktidasa>

wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> Bliss is the final impediment to realisation. So in this way

Bhakti

> can be and attachment. An attachment so powerful to the 'Love

> Energy', that there is a great impediment to Moksha.

> In my own experience I notice energies moving and if I allowed

> myself I could enjoy them. However I am trying to ignore them as

> just steps passing on the way. For Moksha in its final state is

> beyond energy love or anything at

> all...........Nirguna.......ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

, "Samadhi Ma" <samaadhi@h...>

wrote:

>

>

> Tony,

>

> What is Bliss? Bliss is deep peace or ananda, translated from

> Sanskrit as "no sorrow." Bliss, or "no sorrow," IS realization.

> Bliss in this definiton is not an impediment to realization, it

is

> the end result.

> In western society, the definition of bliss is different. Bliss

in

> western terms usually means 'that which makes one happy or

> satisfied.' This is a temporary happiness compared to the

uncaused,

> permanent happiness of Being.

>

> Samadhi Ma

Namaste SM,

 

Yes I understand Ananada, as in Sat-Cit-Ananda, which refers to the

Self or Sakti/Saguna Brahman. Ramana says that this description of

Brahman, is a Brahman with attributes/natural features..'Be as you

are'.p 98.. Ramana didn't go much beyond talking of the Self as

Saguna, knowing full well that on achieving Moksha one would realise

Nirguna also. Otherwise people wouldn't have the mental capacity to

appreciate what he was saying.

 

Let us remember that 'God' isn't talking as a Mukta for it is the

Mukta's purified Vijnanamayakosa that talks, albeit reflecting the

Truth. Otherwise it wouldn't be universal would it?

Once one achieves bodiless moksha there is no happiness, bliss, love-

energy or anthing else but Nir Guna.

 

I am speaking relatively of course for to my mind the only truth is

Ajatavada, which I got from Ramana's teachings, 'Be as you are'.

p181, although a certain Atmananda writes on this

subject...ONS....Tony.........

[Guest guest]

, "Samadhi Ma" <samaadhi@h...> wrote:

> Tony,

>

> What is Bliss? Bliss is deep peace or ananda, translated from

> Sanskrit as "no sorrow." Bliss, or "no sorrow," IS realization.

> Bliss in this definiton is not an impediment to realization, it is

> the end result.

> In western society, the definition of bliss is different. Bliss in

> western terms usually means 'that which makes one happy or

> satisfied.' This is a temporary happiness compared to the uncaused,

> permanent happiness of Being.

>

> Samadhi Ma

 

Yes Tony,

Harsha, Mazie and Samadhi Ma who responded to your observations about

Bliss and Bhakti, have some good suggestions.

If it is hard to accept, does it at least make some sense? Don't worry

about attachment to Love or Bliss. I found that eventually the

workings of Love and Bliss (even eventually the seemingly pseudo forms

of it) make ANY attachment dissolve... burn away even. It may feel

scary at first (that 'darned' surrender thing!) as so much sadness and

deception seems to surround or even envelope Love and Bliss. But as

follows from what Samadhi Ma writes, IF sorrow is still there,

'ananda' WILL dissolve it.

 

There r e a l l y is no risk in too much love (or even bliss), it is

just too bad that some unfortunate past experiences around the issue

of love may have scared many of us to 'seemingly forever' doubt the

efficacy of it and fully surrender to it...

 

You say: "For Moksha in its final state is beyond energy love or

anything at all... Nirguna." True enough, but the initial mechanics

and dynamics of Moksha, which can (amongst other approaches) use

Bhakti or Bliss as tools, dissolve that what is in the way of or

postponing what you call "the final state" of Moksha.

It all depends on one's personal actual karma which approaches are

more suitable and effective. There is no 'one answer' to anybody's

plight... Ramana knew that, that's why he also provided other teaching

considerations within and around "Inquiry"... providing that one would

never deviate from "Inquiry."

Better not to deny the tools of this fantastic Moksha to do their

work... Bypassing, ignoring or avoidance of their workings does not

make anything - especially not illusion - disappear.

 

Love you, Wim

PS. As an aside - as related to bliss - instead of "Count your

blessings!" it'd be more effective better to say, "Count ON your

blessings!"

>

>

> , "saktidasa" <saktidasa>

> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > Bliss is the final impediment to realisation. So in this way

> Bhakti

> > can be and attachment. An attachment so powerful to the 'Love

> > Energy', that there is a great impediment to Moksha.

> > In my own experience I notice energies moving and if I allowed

> > myself I could enjoy them. However I am trying to ignore them as

> > just steps passing on the way. For Moksha in its final state is

> > beyond energy love or anything at

> > all...........Nirguna.......ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

, "saktidasa" <saktidasa>

wrote:

 

 

I am speaking relatively of course for to my mind the only truth is

Ajatavada, which I got from Ramana's teachings, 'Be as you are'.

p181, although a certain Atmananda writes on this

subject...ONS....Tony.........

 

 

Dearest Tony, Hello again,

 

Could you share this with me in a way that is clearly understood --

in other words, explain this to me if you are so inclined, in your

own words, how this truth, this 'only truth to your mind,' is known

or shown to so, to you. If we were sitting talking together, (and I

would so enjoy doing just that - sitting with you face to face,) and

I did not know any of these terms, like Ajatavada, what would you say

to explain to me what you're actually wanting to express?

 

 

Love to You, DearOne,

 

Mazie

>

> , "Samadhi Ma" <samaadhi@h...>

> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Tony,

> >

> > What is Bliss? Bliss is deep peace or ananda, translated from

> > Sanskrit as "no sorrow." Bliss, or "no sorrow," IS realization.

> > Bliss in this definiton is not an impediment to realization, it

> is

> > the end result.

> > In western society, the definition of bliss is different. Bliss

> in

> > western terms usually means 'that which makes one happy or

> > satisfied.' This is a temporary happiness compared to the

> uncaused,

> > permanent happiness of Being.

> >

> > Samadhi Ma

> Namaste SM,

>

> Yes I understand Ananada, as in Sat-Cit-Ananda, which refers to the

> Self or Sakti/Saguna Brahman. Ramana says that this description of

> Brahman, is a Brahman with attributes/natural features..'Be as you

> are'.p 98.. Ramana didn't go much beyond talking of the Self as

> Saguna, knowing full well that on achieving Moksha one would

realise

> Nirguna also. Otherwise people wouldn't have the mental capacity to

> appreciate what he was saying.

>

> Let us remember that 'God' isn't talking as a Mukta for it is the

> Mukta's purified Vijnanamayakosa that talks, albeit reflecting the

> Truth. Otherwise it wouldn't be universal would it?

> Once one achieves bodiless moksha there is no happiness, bliss,

love-

> energy or anthing else but Nir Guna.

>

> I am speaking relatively of course for to my mind the only truth is

> Ajatavada, which I got from Ramana's teachings, 'Be as you are'.

> p181, although a certain Atmananda writes on this

> subject...ONS....Tony.........

[Guest guest]

, "mazie_l" <sraddha54@h...>

wrote:

>

> , "saktidasa"

<saktidasa>

> wrote:

>

>

> I am speaking relatively of course for to my mind the only truth is

> Ajatavada, which I got from Ramana's teachings, 'Be as you are'.

> p181, although a certain Atmananda writes on this

> subject...ONS....Tony.........

>

>

> Dearest Tony, Hello again,

>

> Could you share this with me in a way that is clearly understood --

> in other words, explain this to me if you are so inclined, in your

> own words, how this truth, this 'only truth to your mind,' is

known

> or shown to so, to you. If we were sitting talking together, (and

I

> would so enjoy doing just that - sitting with you face to face,)

and

> I did not know any of these terms, like Ajatavada, what would you

say

> to explain to me what you're actually wanting to express?

>

>

> Love to You, DearOne,

>

> Mazie

 

Namaste Mazie,

 

One who has crossed over the mire,

crushed the thorn of sensuality,

reached the ending of delusion,

is a monk undisturbed by bliss & pain.

 

Udana III, 2

 

Having quoted that Buddhist Text let me try and explain how I see

the 'Truth', or rather my truth.

 

It would be easier for me to explain a Jnani or Mukta, and as a

result explain the rest. Speaking in illusion, or the Appearance.

 

1. A Mukta is someone who has achieved two things; A. The feeling of

a separate ego has disappeared. B. The Mukta has purified the

vijnanamayakosa so it reflects the Truth. However this is qualified

to some extent by the fact that the Mukta still has to serve out the

prarabda karma. The engine is off but the wheel still needs to

exhaust its residual energy in a few turns. This means his/her

actions may be programmed karma or perhaps as an example. For

whether the body was realised or not the karma would still operate,

to this extent a Mukta is the full human being.

 

So to that extent 'God' never incarnates on the planet as we are

all 'God', but don't have a purified vijnanamayakosa or dead ego. It

is useful to some to worship a human 'God' as it helps in

concentration, which is the only reason for any sadhana, Bhakti or

otherwise. A lion would no doubt worship a lion form.

Most people understand love as they can feel the energy move and

therefore can identify with it, so they are Bhaktas. However in

Bhakti there is also a fear of lonliness, a separation from the

beloved 'God'. To some extent the human mind needs to love more than

be loved in the first instance, for that is instant and nobody

believes there isn't any reciprocation. So Bhakti is an easier path

for many.

 

So you and I are just the same as Ramana except for A and B, above.

Whilst the Mukta is still in the body they see all illusion as an

appearance upon the Self. This Self is the Sakti or Saguna Brahman,

which people can identify with. However on dropping the body at the

end of prarabda karma, the Mukti realises Nirguna,completely. No

energy exists or is projected. Nothing ever happened at all, not

even the appearance. This is the Ajativada..............ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

> , "saktidasa"

<saktidasa>

> wrote:

>

>

> I am speaking relatively of course for to my mind the only truth is

> Ajatavada, which I got from Ramana's teachings, 'Be as you are'.

> p181, although a certain Atmananda writes on this

> subject...ONS....Tony.........

>

>

> Dearest Tony, Hello again,

>

> Could you share this with me in a way that is clearly understood --

> in other words, explain this to me if you are so inclined, in your

> own words, how this truth, this 'only truth to your mind,' is

known

> or shown to so, to you. If we were sitting talking together, (and

I

> would so enjoy doing just that - sitting with you face to face,)

and

> I did not know any of these terms, like Ajatavada, what would you

say

> to explain to me what you're actually wanting to express?

>

>

> Love to You, DearOne,

>

> Mazie

 

Namaste Mazie,

 

One who has crossed over the mire,

crushed the thorn of sensuality,

reached the ending of delusion,

is a monk undisturbed by bliss & pain.

 

Udana III, 2

 

Having quoted that Buddhist Text let me try and explain how I see

the 'Truth', or rather my truth.

 

It would be easier for me to explain a Jnani or Mukta, and as a

result explain the rest. Speaking in illusion, or the Appearance.

 

1. A Mukta is someone who has achieved two things; A. The feeling of

a separate ego has disappeared. B. The Mukta has purified the

vijnanamayakosa so it reflects the Truth. However this is qualified

to some extent by the fact that the Mukta still has to serve out the

prarabda karma. The engine is off but the wheel still needs to

exhaust its residual energy in a few turns. This means his/her

actions may be programmed karma or perhaps as an example. For

whether the body was realised or not the karma would still operate,

to this extent a Mukta is the full human being.

 

So to that extent 'God' never incarnates on the planet as we are

all 'God', but don't have a purified vijnanamayakosa or dead ego. It

is useful to some to worship a human 'God' as it helps in

concentration, which is the only reason for any sadhana, Bhakti or

otherwise. A lion would no doubt worship a lion form.

Most people understand love as they can feel the energy move and

therefore can identify with it, so they are Bhaktas. However in

Bhakti there is also a fear of lonliness, a separation from the

beloved 'God'. To some extent the human mind needs to love more than

be loved in the first instance, for that is instant and nobody

believes there isn't any reciprocation. So Bhakti is an easier path

for many.

 

So you and I are just the same as Ramana except for A and B, above.

Whilst the Mukta is still in the body they see all illusion as an

appearance upon the Self. This Self is the Sakti or Saguna Brahman,

which people can identify with. However on dropping the body at the

end of prarabda karma, the Mukti realises Nirguna,completely. No

energy exists or is projected. Nothing ever happened at all, not

even the appearance. This is the Ajativada..............ONS...Tony.

 

 

Hello Tony, Good Morning, my Dear Friend,

 

This is so very appreciated, this explanation. It's clarified very

well for me, just what you were wanting to be saying. Yes, DearHeart,

this really did fill in the gaps of my undertanding just exactly what

you meant.

 

This same thing that is expressed by you, through you, well, such as

you have done so well here in telling me what you meant, is jib and

sail, in tandem, whatever the hell that means, and I agree with your

analysis, Tonysan.

 

As you might remember, having known me for so many years here and

elsewhere, my bhava-bunny ways were well-fed by the head that fell in

love, that was just dug into the idea of my own entrenched belief

system of God and Love and what it is, yaddo yaddo yaddo, (not yadda,

yadda, 'cause I'd rather go to Yaddo... "yeah, right!") but yes,

Tony, this is where I've landed up - laughingly, happily agreeing

with you in the main ideas expressed. Dan Berkow was a great helpmate

for me in relieving myself of the burden of beliefs and buying into a

bliss, a psuedo-bliss not conducive to truth, the bottom-line of what

it is, as it is.

 

As it is right now, the plowing of karmic fields with intent, with an

intention of somehow being relieved of the fear of 'future'

unleashings, released its grip, let go of its so suffocating grip

on/of the mind inclined to "need," and to be needed, just as you

mention above calling it love, to need something to love and to

deify, to Unionate with something, some One, we call it God, to never

be alone, and to end the sense of separation, of a separate existence

apart from This, well, hmmm, it, this, has become just this, what it

is as this existence -- Mazie, me, this appearance of being ... here

now, being here, this moment, this everyday of unflaying, unstraying,

(where would I go?) un-unning in the sun shine of truth, as I know

it, this "I" moving/unmoving as I am simply working, playing, and

living and being and seeing what presents, watching what rises, and

not trying to end it or change it or re-arrange it... in other words,

Dearest Tonysan, non-resistance to what is as it is and non-

opposition to whatever is, as it is.

 

Sure, I still react and idnetify and cry and love too much and too

little, and yes, I still skittle sometimes in the frying pan of my

mind, inclined to wallow a bit in the misery hits that wish to

compliment my ego's patterning attempts to repeat what it feels fits

its agenda for survival. You know, the old wanting (that dickens of a

picker and chooser!) to have enlightenment (as if it's something to

shop for and haggle over, teehee) with the ego still ver well intact.

It still smacks me now and again, by whatever, by mySelf, some call

it the Friend, God, Love, This, Bliss, well it shifts energy clubs

imagined or not, upside the head of my dread or fear of pain or loss

or regret at actions acted out upon my friends. But Tony, Dear Tony,

how much now is known as baloney and known as phoney and known as my

Ultimate Homie, too -- Self-Realization, the Silence which speaks but

cannot say what it is or knows.... but it somehow knows without

needing to show it or go toe to toe with those who do not go along

with this version of vision and verity. I am often told of my

temerity at talking the way I do about "God." I might have been

burned at the stake if it were another moment's motioning

flowing 'whoa babyment' incarnateness.

 

I imagine that Nagarjuna gets your juices flowing with what he speaks

of knowing and not knowing, about bhakti and jnana. Here's a sampling

you're probably already familiar with from Nagarjuna --

 

 

Summary of Major Ideas of Nagarjuna -- by Dan Lusthaus

 

"All things, ideas, events, etc., are 'empty,' meaning they don't

cause or define themselves, but arise and cease due to conditions.

 

Under close scrutiny even the most rationally constructed positions

and systems-- including Buddhism-- are demonstrably incoherent and

irrational.

 

The four alternatives-- X is, X is not, X both is and isn't, X

neither is nor isn't-- underwrite all theories, propositions,

beliefs, etc.; given any X, all four alternatives can be demonstrated

to be invalid and inadequate.

 

No entity arises from itself, from another, from both itself and

another, or from neither itself nor another.

 

All thinking presupposes the categories 'identity' and 'difference,'

but these categories are incoherent and have no referent.

 

Language does not refer to things, but is self-referential.

 

There are two levels of discourse, the conventional and the ultimate;

one learns the latter through the former, and realizes Nirvana on the

basis of the latter.

 

Our deepest emotional and existential problems stem from clinging to

cognitive positions and presuppositions (d.r.s.ti).

 

The deep-seated, driving propensity to create the illusion of

conceptual order through self-justifying rationalizations (prapa~nca)

can be overcome and eliminated."

 

 

Thank you, Tony, for elaborating and explaining for me what you were

meaning to say, or what I had failed to understand previously.

 

 

Loving You, Yes,

 

Mazie