Guest guest Posted February 12, 2003 Report Share Posted February 12, 2003 Hi, In India there is a festival called Ganesh Chaturthi which celebrates Ganesha-the elephant God. This is a very big festival with maybe over 500,000 people joining in the celeberations in Mumbai city itself. You can imgaine the numbers on a national basis. The god Ganesh has a figure of huge pot belly man with the head of a elephant and it rides a mouse. With ridiculous figure like that, sceptics, philosophers and analysts have sneered at this Hindu ritual of worhsipping Ganesha who is invoked before the start of any journey, any work, any assignment, any job or anything which is basically new. The ordinary story goes that Parvati (consort of Shiva) and epitomizing Shakti-Energy wished to have a bath and having no children around to guard her privacy, "made" Ganesha from her body. Ganesha was asked to stand guard and to ensure nobody disturb his mother's bath. Comes along Shiv looking for a bit of conjugal bliss and even he is barred. Ganesha had never seen Shiva before and further his mother's words was like a law of Nature, conjugal bliss or no conjugal bliss. Shiva on being barred, flows into one of his celeberated angers( actually dont blame him give his objective) and sends his army to defeat Ganesha who offcourse vanquishes them with no problem. Comes Shiva himself and gets engaged in a battle which lasts several days (Parvati seems to have been having one of "those" baths) Finally Ganesha is killed. While Shiv in exhaustion is looking for a wife welcoming the conquering Hero, arrives a furious Parvati. Hell hath no fury akin a women whose handiwork has been despoiled and that too by her husband. And even Shiva knows, that even he with all his infinite powers is no match to a furious lady. Hastily he asks his followers to get the head of the first living being that they come across. They come across an elephant, Shiv promptly replaces and hence the elephant head of Ganesha. Looking at this blotched up effort of a male being asked to do anything around the house, Parvati declines to accept. To pacify her (and that started the whole lineage of husbands trying to pacify wives) Shiva announces that Ganesha will be his foremost child and that Humanity will invoke his name before the name of any other. What is the symbology of the figure of Ganesha pointing to? Whether a story is authentic or not, did it take place or not is not important. What is important is to see the zymology of a story. All religions have such stories symbolizing a greater Truth than the immediate presentation. What was that with this elephant God? Specially as when the area where Shiva and Parvati danced their Cosmic dance was all ways in the Himalayan mountains where no elephant is ever found. Elephants are all ways found in the plains. Why not an Himalyan bear or a mountain goat which was more likely to be found in that region? Why an elephant? Specially when Ganesha is thought to be the fountain of wisdom. If you see an elephant you will notice the disproportionately larger ears than the mouth. The story teller of the story of Ganesha ( who appeared to be a Master) is hinting that the path to wisdom lies more in Listening than in talking. Secondly an elephant has very small eyes, like someone who scrutinises things around him. A wise man also examines a situation, a person and goes beyond the immediate apperances to ascertain what "drives" the situation. The real stake and addresses the real stake. Only fools go to war trying to solve appearances. The pot belly of Ganesha signifies that he is able to digest all that is happening around him, good or bad, praise or criticism. And yet Ganesha remains light enough to ride a small mouse. All that he digests, he does not constipate himself because he does not hold on to them. Indeed a wise man. Why a mouse? Again notice the nature of a mouse. It all ways darts here and there, picking up fickle fantasises like morsels of food. All ways seeing in everything the danger to himself. What does this hint at except to the mind. The same restlessness, the same darting here and there, the same attempts to protect itself by donning various "masks". Ganesha sitting on mouse is a symbology of the wise man being in charge of his mind and not the other way around. He has achieved Stithpragya, a centre of equinamity, of self centerdness, of calmness, of perpetual satisfaction. Such were the hints being given by the Master story teller. And what is left today? Whose's idol of Ganesha is bigger, better, more beautiful? Whose "Pooja" is louder, correct etc Whose procession of followers is more? Who will drown the idol of Ganesha first? Procession of Ganesha is my fundamental right, but you taking a tezia, or carrying the cross, cannot be allowed. Ganesha dances on the Hindu mind, the Muslim mind, the Christian mind, the Buddhist mind, the wiccan mind. This entire phenomenality is the dance of Ganesha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2003 Report Share Posted February 13, 2003 Too beautiful! This post, which coincides with today's mail delivery of my purchase of a Ganesh picture. Lord Ganesh is all that as you describe, and more. AFAIC, he is the Lord of chance and mathematics; numbers, stats and probabilities, and the Catalyst for all auspicious occurences. Often, events which appear to be random coincidentals to the unlearned human eye, are but the gleeful behind-the-scene workings of this adorable God. How could anyone forget the Milk Incident of 1995? LOL AUM , Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > Hi, > > In India there is a festival called Ganesh Chaturthi which celebrates Ganesha-the elephant God. > > This is a very big festival with maybe over 500,000 people joining in the celeberations in Mumbai city itself. You can imgaine > the numbers on a national basis. > > The god Ganesh has a figure of huge pot belly man with the head of a elephant and it rides a mouse. > > With ridiculous figure like that, sceptics, philosophers and analysts have sneered at this Hindu ritual of worhsipping Ganesha who is invoked before the start of any journey, any work, any assignment, any job or anything which is basically new. > > The ordinary story goes that Parvati (consort of Shiva) and epitomizing Shakti-Energy wished to have a bath and having no children around to guard her privacy, "made" Ganesha from her body. > > Ganesha was asked to stand guard and to ensure nobody disturb his mother's bath. > Comes along Shiv looking for a bit of conjugal bliss and even he is barred. > > Ganesha had never seen Shiva before and further his mother's words was like a law of Nature, conjugal bliss or no conjugal bliss. > > Shiva on being barred, flows into one of his celeberated angers( actually dont blame him give his objective) and sends his army to defeat Ganesha who offcourse vanquishes them with no problem. > > Comes Shiva himself and gets engaged in a battle which lasts several days (Parvati seems to have been having one of "those" baths) > Finally Ganesha is killed. > > While Shiv in exhaustion is looking for a wife welcoming the conquering Hero, arrives a furious Parvati. > > Hell hath no fury akin a women whose handiwork has been despoiled and that too by her husband. > > And even Shiva knows, that even he with all his infinite powers is no match to a furious lady. > > Hastily he asks his followers to get the head of the first living being that they come across. > > They come across an elephant, Shiv promptly replaces and hence the elephant head of Ganesha. > > Looking at this blotched up effort of a male being asked to do anything around the house, Parvati declines to accept. > > To pacify her (and that started the whole lineage of husbands trying to pacify wives) Shiva announces that Ganesha will be > his foremost child and that Humanity will invoke his name before the name of any other. > > What is the symbology of the figure of Ganesha pointing to? > > Whether a story is authentic or not, did it take place or not is not important. > > What is important is to see the zymology of a story. > > All religions have such stories symbolizing a greater Truth than the immediate presentation. > > What was that with this elephant God? > > Specially as when the area where Shiva and Parvati danced their Cosmic dance was all ways in the Himalayan mountains where no elephant is ever found. > Elephants are all ways found in the plains. > > Why not an Himalyan bear or a mountain goat which was more likely to be found in that region? > > Why an elephant? > Specially when Ganesha is thought to be the fountain of wisdom. > > If you see an elephant you will notice the disproportionately larger ears than the mouth. > > The story teller of the story of Ganesha ( who appeared to be a Master) is hinting that the path to wisdom lies more in Listening than in talking. > Secondly an elephant has very small eyes, like someone who scrutinises things around him. > > A wise man also examines a situation, a person and goes beyond the immediate apperances to ascertain what "drives" the situation. > The real stake and addresses the real stake. > > Only fools go to war trying to solve appearances. > > The pot belly of Ganesha signifies that he is able to digest all that is happening around him, good or bad, praise or criticism. > > And yet Ganesha remains light enough to ride a small mouse. > > All that he digests, he does not constipate himself because he does not hold on to them. > > Indeed a wise man. > > Why a mouse? > > Again notice the nature of a mouse. It all ways darts here and there, picking up fickle fantasises like morsels of food. > All ways seeing in everything the danger to himself. > > What does this hint at except to the mind. > > The same restlessness, the same darting here and there, the same attempts to protect itself by donning various "masks". > > Ganesha sitting on mouse is a symbology of the wise man being in charge of his mind and not the other way around. > > He has achieved Stithpragya, a centre of equinamity, of self centerdness, of calmness, of perpetual satisfaction. > > Such were the hints being given by the Master story teller. > > And what is left today? > > Whose's idol of Ganesha is bigger, better, more beautiful? > Whose "Pooja" is louder, correct etc > Whose procession of followers is more? > Who will drown the idol of Ganesha first? > > Procession of Ganesha is my fundamental right, but you taking a tezia, or carrying the cross, cannot be allowed. > > Ganesha dances on the Hindu mind, the Muslim mind, the Christian mind, the Buddhist mind, the wiccan mind. > > This entire phenomenality is the dance of Ganesha. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2003 Report Share Posted February 13, 2003 How could anyone forget the Milk Incident of 1995? LOL Indeed it was an unforgetable phenomenon. I wonder will such happen again. I know of a shivite friend who keep on saying that he is waiting for a sign but not sure what, then when Ganesha decided to drink milk, he exclaimed : this is the sign ! He proposed to his long time girlfriend and they got married. LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2003 Report Share Posted February 13, 2003 Namaste Sandeep! Thank you for that wonderful analogy- that was simply beautiful. Most of the time, my dull mind has a tough time understanding your posts, LOL (this was probably the only one which i could grasp) and i sense that you are writing about the experience of the formless Brahman; i for one am a dualist at heart, the formless usually comes only after one has darshan of the deity; i used the term usually because there are some notable counter-examples to the above. May i also venture to say that Ganesa is a real being with a form as usually depicted; i have not been fortunate to have His darshan yet but we have the testimony of enumerous saints over the centuries who have met Him; his symbology follows his iconography and not the other way around; so we say that he has an elephant head and perhaps that could be associated with the virtues of an elephant and NOT that he has the virtues of an elephant, so he has an elephant head. at the turn of the century Hinduism was much maligned by pseudo-armchair vedantists who could talk big about maya and brahman, without any practical realisation; who were particularly apologetic about the multiplicity of gods that we have and so reduced everything to symbologies. So it is readily apparent that we two have very different viewpoints but hey, isnt that makes the world such a wonderful place to live; if everybody else was a dualist, then I would opt for pure monism to keep the balance ,LOL. Here is an article written by a modern master(Subramuniya Swami) on theism and monism from his book Living with Siva--- Aum Namasivaya yogaman ______________ Every monist, in deep or superficial conversation, will occasionally admit that the Ganga is a sacred river and Mount Kailasa is a sacred mountain. In admitting that, he is also somewhat of a theist at the time. Hindus believe that the Ganga and Kailasa are the ultimate temples. Most monists want to have their ashes put in the Ganga when they die. Every Agamic priest will tell us that Mount Kailasa is at the top of the head and at the top of the world. He will explain this is where God is, in and above the sahasrara chakra. This knowledge is right within the puja liturgy he chants. Therefore, when we find a monist who hides the fact that he is somewhat of a theist, we must question if his monistic outlook is sustained only by his intellectual abilities, clichŽs and cogent arguments. Yes, following monism without theism makes it rather difficult to reconcile all life's experiences. But there are very few true monists. Many monists will not pass by a temple without a silent pause, even though they will argue that no one is home there. For the rare, nonreligious monist who goes deeply into monism and truly experiences it, theism comes up from within as a reward. This happened to Swami Vivekananda, who denied the reality of the Gods and Goddesses all his life, then changed his belief when he had a vision of the Goddess, Shakti, in the last days of his life. To truly understand theism and monism, each should be taught separately, by the same teacher. The student is never given permission to make a choice between them. When each has been understood and there are no more questions, the teacher will blend them together in the mind of the devotee by requiring the practice of external and internalized worship. The theistic discipline is the external worship, and the monistic is the internal worship. We are on the safe path of yoga when we are able to internalize the external worship. Otherwise, without this ability, devotees often just perform intellectual, mental gymnastics which result in no attainment whatsoever. Their nature begins to harden rather than soften. Their philosophical discussions become more rigid and unyielding. By blending monism into theism and theism into monism, the nature of devotees becomes soft and loving, as the spiritual unfoldment begins. They become wise and helpful to others as the maturing of their spirit progresses. Such persons have compassion for another's point of view, and all of the fine qualities of the soul come forward to be enjoyed and seen by others. Monistic theism is a very detailed map of consciousness which has broadness and philosophically accepts all states of consciousness. The monistic theist does not turn away from the external world. He knows that Siva's perfection lies everywhere within it. He attempts to expand his consciousness into the perfection within all three worlds. He attempts to experience the harmony of all of nature. He attempts to be one with Siva's perfect universe, to live with Siva. The monistic theist is the perfect Hindu in all respects. Most Vedantins are able to totally describe the country, or area of consciousness, in which they are residing. But because they do not practice much yoga, they are not all-pervasive enough in consciousness to understand the other countries on the planet, or other areas of the mind. For this reason their maps of the mind are relatively incomplete. Some draw lines into squares and shut out what they don't understand. Monistic theists draw lines into circles and take in the entire universe, including everything within everything. , Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > Hi, > > In India there is a festival called Ganesh Chaturthi which celebrates Ganesha-the elephant God. > ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2003 Report Share Posted February 13, 2003 Hiya yogaman, - <childofdevi <> Thursday, February 13, 2003 09:35 PM Re: The symbology of Ganesha >Namaste Sandeep! Nomoshkaaar. >Thank you for that wonderful analogy- that was simply beautiful. You are welcome. >Most of the time, my dull mind has a tough time understanding your >posts, LOL LOL Just let them float away as dry leaves in the wind. > (this was probably the only one which i could grasp) and i >sense that you are writing about the experience of the formless >Brahman; i for one am a dualist at heart, the formless usually comes >only after one has darshan of the deity; i used the term usually >because there are some notable counter-examples to the above. The concept of formless, depends on the concept of form. Both are concepts of the mind. When both concepts are no more, .......neither duality, neither non-duality, ........then......... >May i also venture to say that Ganesa is a real being with a form as >usually depicted; i have not been fortunate to have His darshan yet >but we have the testimony of enumerous saints over the centuries who >have met Him; :-) Look at what the symbol points to, not at the symbol. The moon, not at the finger pointing to the moon. Yes, people have been so intoxicated with the finger that darshans of the finger have also resulted. Ramana, was once asked, "The 33 crores (1 crore is 10 million) Devis and Devtas, Shiva, Krishna, Shakti, Durga, Kali, are they real?" Replied Ramana, "They are as real as you are". > his symbology follows his iconography and not the other >way around; so we say that he has an elephant head and perhaps that >could be associated with the virtues of an elephant and NOT that he >has the virtues of an elephant, so he has an elephant head. at the >turn of the century Hinduism was much maligned by pseudo-armchair >vedantists who could talk big about maya and brahman, without any >practical realisation; who were particularly apologetic about the >multiplicity of gods that we have and so reduced everything to >symbologies. Fine. Whatever you say. Just suggest for your consideration, that this entire phenomenality is a symbol. Why do I say this? A symbol has no independent existential reality to it. Without a cognizer of a symbol, no symbol exists by itself. In the state of deep sleep, every night, when even dreaming ceases, there is no "you" in such state. And no "your world". That world, that is made up by your relationships,(both loved ones and unloved ones) your understandings, your spiritual realizations, your religious icons , your successes, your failures, your achievements, your faliures ............that entire world is no more, ...........in that state of deep sleep. Ever night. Every night, .......the "you" ceases ......and with that cessation,....... "your world" ......ceases. And is again re-born with the birth of the "you" along with the 33 crores Gods and Godesses. By all means exult in your Bhakti. Let Bhakti soar to hieghts. And let there be an apperception of Truth. >So it is readily apparent that we two have very different viewpoints Not at all. I am suggesting that all viewpoints depend on the existence of a "viewer". And thus all viewpoints finally are of no import. >but hey, isnt that makes the world such a wonderful place to live; >if everybody else was a dualist, then I would opt for pure monism to >keep the balance ,LOL. Both monism and dualism, are viewpoints. And finally of no import. >Here is an article written by a modern master(Subramuniya Swami) on >theism and monism from his book Living with Siva--- Thank you for this. If there is an interest, we can walk with what Subramuniyam is saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2003 Report Share Posted February 13, 2003 > Ramana, was once asked, "The 33 crores (1 crore is 10 million) Devis and > Devtas, Shiva, Krishna, Shakti, Durga, Kali, are they real?" > > Replied Ramana, "They are as real as you are". > Namaskaram Sandeep, i think that what ramana was trying to say was that all the gods and I are both very real; if listen to any of his songs to Arunachala Siva, nowhere does he suggest that Siva is imagination; furthermore Ramana himself carried a sriyantra in his loin all throughout his stay at arunachala; now if it were purely a symbol, why would this great Master carry it at all. I think what Ramana was trying to say was that perhaps there is a greater reality than what meets the eye, but that does not make what i see around me any less real. Taking the life of Ramana as an example, after he first had the near- death experience, he wanted to renounce life, he did not intellectually rationalize, OKAY, there is only one witness, so there is no difference between renouncing and not renouncing, there is no difference between here and Arunachala.... and so on; on the contrary, he bolted right away to Arunachala. Nirvikalpa samadhi is not the end of the journey. it is the beginning of evolution on inner planes of existance(there is a good description of this in one of Swami Sivananda's books, I cant recall the name though) but end of story on mother earth; now the gods/deities all belong to much higher planes, and the aspirant is to get their blessings by invoking them through bhakti, tantra or whatever. this does not make them symbols for something. now someone could stop the vritties of the chitta by pure intellectual effort and without the aid of the deities, but this too does not deny their existance; it is so much easier to take their help, if i want to go from india to america, i could probably walk/swim all the way but why bother to do that when you fly all the way. you also mentioned the swapna, jagrat, turiya analogy. this is a classic example that is often berated to all vedantic students. IMO is a greatly simplified model of what actually goes on in sleep; turiya by far is the greater reality becuase consciousness is on a higher plane than the earth plane but again this does not make the earth plane a pure illusion; aum namasivaya yogaman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2003 Report Share Posted February 13, 2003 When the background of this forum is a *murky grey* (like this week), members should be *outlawed* from writing about the dreaming, deep sleep and turiya states.... ... ... , not to mention the use of excessive stops... ... ... This combination can really send other readers into deep sleep trances. LOL nb: I do admire the sadhana which is a blend of monism and theism. AUM , "Sandeep Chatterjee" > > The concept of formless, depends on the concept of form. > > Both are concepts of the mind. > > When both concepts are no more, .......neither duality, neither non- duality, > .......then......... > > Fine. > Whatever you say. > > Just suggest for your consideration, that this entire phenomenality is a > symbol. > > Why do I say this? > > A symbol has no independent existential reality to it. > > Without a cognizer of a symbol, no symbol exists by itself. > > In the state of deep sleep, every night, when even dreaming ceases, there is > no "you" in such state. > And no "your world". > > That world, that is made up by your relationships,(both loved ones and > unloved ones) your understandings, your spiritual realizations, your > religious icons , your successes, your failures, your achievements, your > faliures ............that entire world is no more, ...........in that state > of deep sleep. > > Ever night. > > Every night, .......the "you" ceases ......and with that cessation,....... > "your world" ......ceases. > > And is again re-born with the birth of the "you" along with the 33 crores > Gods and Godesses. > > > By all means exult in your Bhakti. > > Let Bhakti soar to hieghts. > > And let there be an apperception of Truth. > > > > >So it is readily apparent that we two have very different viewpoints > > Not at all. > > I am suggesting that all viewpoints depend on the existence of a "viewer". > > And thus all viewpoints finally are of no import. > > > > >but hey, isnt that makes the world such a wonderful place to live; > >if everybody else was a dualist, then I would opt for pure monism to > >keep the balance ,LOL. > > > Both monism and dualism, are viewpoints. > > And finally of no import. > > > >Here is an article written by a modern master(Subramuniya Swami) on > >theism and monism from his book Living with Siva--- > > Thank you for this. > > If there is an interest, we can walk with what Subramuniyam is saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2003 Report Share Posted February 13, 2003 Hi Yogaman, - <childofdevi <> Friday, February 14, 2003 12:41 AM Re: The symbology of Ganesha > > > Ramana, was once asked, "The 33 crores (1 crore is 10 million) > Devis and > > Devtas, Shiva, Krishna, Shakti, Durga, Kali, are they real?" > > > > Replied Ramana, "They are as real as you are". > > > > Namaskaram Sandeep, > > i think that what ramana was trying to say was that all the gods and > I are both very real; if listen to any of his songs to Arunachala > Siva, nowhere does he suggest that Siva is imagination; furthermore > Ramana himself carried a sriyantra in his loin all throughout his > stay at arunachala; now if it were purely a symbol, why would this > great Master carry it at all. I think what Ramana was trying to say > was that perhaps there is a greater reality than what meets the eye, > but that does not make what i see around me any less real. Why did Ramana carry a sriyantra, when this entire phenomenality is a sriyantra? Why did Ramana cry copious tears on hearing the heart-rendering tales of anguish of a true seeker, when there is no "other" for a body-mind complex, in which apperception has struck? Why did Ramana, even prescribe the method of 'Who am I", when there was an apperception, that there being none to 'do" a method, there is no method? Some time back, over cyber space, this prattling occurred, titled 'Whining". The mountains, rivers, earth, grasses, trees and forests, are always emanating a subtle, precious light, day and night, always emanating a subtle, precious sound, demonstrating and expounding to all people the unsurpassed ultimate truth. It is just because you miss it right where you are, or avoid it even as you face it, that you are unable to attain actual use of it. This is why spiritualism and religion came into being, with its many expedients and explanations, with temporary and true, immediate and gradual, half and full, partial and complete teachings. These are all simply means of stopping children from whining. Monk protests: "But Master, yesterday you said that Mind is Buddha and prescribed a method." Ma Tsu: "That was like offering yellow leaves to a child and telling him it is gold---just to stop his crying." Monk: "And what about when the child has stopped crying?" Ma Tsu: "Then I say, Not Mind, Not Buddha, Not things, No methods, None to follow a method." Let's look at what Ramana himself apperceived and prattled... How can the mind which has itself created the world accept it as unreal? That is the significance of the comparison made between the world of the waking state and the dream world. Both are creations of the mind and, so long as the mind is engrossed in either, it finds itself unable to deny their reality. It cannot deny the reality of the dream world while it is dreaming and it cannot deny the reality of the waking world while it is awake. Apperception may happen to the Self which is the sub- stratum of all experiences, and then it is so clear that the world of which there is an awareness now, is just as unreal as the world lived in the dream. > Taking the life of Ramana as an example, after he first had the near- > death experience, he wanted to renounce life, he did not > intellectually rationalize, OKAY, there is only one witness, so there > is no difference between renouncing and not renouncing, there is no > difference between here and Arunachala.... and so on; on the > contrary, he bolted right away to Arunachala. Sure. Apperception of unicty (to use a conceptual term as any), does not necessarily mean the cessation of functioning. "Master, what is the change in you after enlightenment", asked the disciple "Nothing", replied the Master. "When moved by hunger, eating happens, When run out of wood for the fire, gathering logs of wood, happens. When moved by tiredness, sleeping happens" When moved, re-location to Arunachala happens. Irrespective of whether Truth is apperceived or not, so long the body-mind complex, the psycho-somatic apparatus, is 'alive", functioning will continue through it, as per the inate conditioning-in-the-moment. Moment to moment to moment. So what's the difference between a "sage" and a clown? In the sage, there is the functioning AND there is a witnessing of the functioning, .......simultaneously. Just like you witness the "going-on's in your neighbour's house with no involvement, the sage functions and witnesses the functioning through "himself" or "herself" with no involvement. The immanance and the transcendence Simultaneously That was what was being pointed in the statement 'The Yogi, whether asleep, or awake, never sleeps." In the clown, there is a stake, there is an involvement with the functioning, there is an objective to be achieved through the functioning, there is a belief that "I am doing the functioning, I am engaged in spiritual pursuits, I am praying for benediction, I am working towards God, salvation, whatever" > > Nirvikalpa samadhi is not the end of the journey. it is the beginning > of evolution on inner planes of existance When I am the pursued playing all the roles of all the pursuers, ........is there any journey taking place, .....is there any change taking place, ...........is there any "becoming" taking place, ..............is there any evolution taking place? Or is there just my Lila, ...............where the actor, director, audience, the curtain raiser, the story plot, the enacted drama, ........ ...........are all... I Even Science, (Quantum physics, specifically), has now arrived at this "no-happening" conclusion. If you are scientifically inclined, I could point you to some interesting posts. (there is a good description > of this in one of Swami Sivananda's books, I cant recall the name > though) but end of story on mother earth; now the gods/deities all > belong to much higher planes, and the aspirant is to get their > blessings by invoking them through bhakti, tantra or whatever. this > does not make them symbols for something. > > now someone could stop the vritties of the chitta by pure > intellectual effort and without the aid of the deities, but this too > does not deny their existance; it is so much easier to take their > help, if i want to go from india to america, i could probably > walk/swim all the way but why bother to do that when you fly all the > way. Agreed. A very apt example. In the days of jets which fly at Mach 1/2 levels, why use an Indian bullock cart? So long for you, "India" and "America", are two separated geographical locations, .........so long they are for you two distinct entities, ...............to be bridged through some means, ........through some methodology, .......through some aviation technology, through some paths, some Bhakti, some Tantra, some meditation, some invoking of divine guidance and assistance, .........so long the sense of separation exists, all these fun and games are true for you. ....... and you must playfully explore all options. But see the truth. Where does India end and where does America start? What is the existential reality of this sense of separation, which drives your need to bridge the gap of separation? The "wave" in the Ocean, thinks it is separate from the rest of the "waves" AND separate from something called the "Ocean" And thus seeks to search for this thingy called Ocean. It sees many "waves" on the same pursuit, .........it sees some "advanced waves", ..........it also some times comes across some "waves" who say they have found the "Ocean" and run a school where they teach you "wavy" jumping up and down, and give you a guarantee that even you will get the Ocean, if just surrender at my Lotusy wavy feet.<LOL> And thus the "wave" oscillates between the heights of the crest and the depths of the crash. Between happiness and misery, between joy and sorrow. The serenity of the Ocean remains undisturbed .........AS the frenzied "wave" on the shore-line ........AND as the deep sea. Simultaneously. Just keep aside everything and look at the game-rule. Is it not, that in order for you have all these fun and games , is not the sense of separation, paramount? One drives the other. That is all I am suggesting. By all means, play whatever game you like to, exult in it, go with the total gusto and passion that you can summon. As "wave", you have no volition to do OR not to do. > > you also mentioned the swapna, jagrat, turiya analogy. this is a > classic example that is often berated to all vedantic students. IMO > is a greatly simplified model of what actually goes on in sleep; > turiya by far is the greater reality becuase consciousness is on a > higher plane than the earth plane but again this does not make the > earth plane a pure illusion; Phenomenality is an objective expression of that pure subjectivity. Just like the "wave' is an objective expression of the Ocean. Take a "wave" in your hand and all you will have in the cup of your palm, is the Ocean. Phenomenon and Noumenon are not Two. Consciousness and the earth plane are not two. Notionally, it is Consciousness in repose and Consciousness in movement. The two Consciousness are not two. Just some two cents for your consideration. If they don't sit well, hit the del key.:-) Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo-Phat 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.