Guest guest Posted February 20, 2003 Report Share Posted February 20, 2003 Life is insecurity Love which cannot be separate to Life, is also insecurity. Only when one is ready to live in insecurity, only then one is alive, for insecurity is freedom. And no matter which path you walk, the path of inquiry, of mindfulness, or of the heart, freedom is the only door to That which Is. Seeking icons of securities, a Jesus, a Krishna, a Goddess, you create prisons. Prisons of illusions, of cocoons, which are very comforting till they last. But deep down one knows it is a cocoon, because why else do we keep changing cocoons in an attempt to find that one which will last permanently? Typically Love is accompanied by fear. Will he, won't she? And if one is into spiritual love, will I get a response, an acknowledgement? And so one chases some form of security to hide that fear. Security kills Love. Really if man were immortal, love would be impossible. Death is there and life is just like a dew drop on a trembling leaf. Any moment the breeze will come and the dew drop will fall and disappear. Life is just a wavering. Because of that wavering, because of that movement, death is possible, always there. And yet that possibility of death gives the intensity to Love. Love is possible only because there is death. In India there is a beautiful myth on this... They say in heaven where Indra rules, Indra is the king of heaven-there is no love. There are beautiful girls, more beautiful than any seen on the earth -real Apsaras and there are deities. They have sex, but there is no love because they are immortal. So it was recorded that Uruvasi, the chief of the heavenly girls asked permission of Indra to move to earth for a few days to love a man. "What nonsense! Who could match my stamina or size" snorted Indra. Replied Uruvasi "You are beautiful, but immortal. So there is no charm.Same thing, in and out, day in, day out. Really you are dead. No, I need a man." The deities are really dead because the is no death to make them alive. They will always be there. They cannot die, so how can they be alive. Against the background of death, life exists. Anyway Uruvasi got her way, as women usually do, except she had not counted on man's cunningness. Indra gave his permission but with a caveat. Uruvasi could go to earth, could love a mortal man, but she must tell her lover, never to ask anything about her. If he did, instantly she was to return back to heaven. Uruvasi not knowing Man either the Indra types or the earthly ones, agreed, came down to earth, fell in love with a man called Pururva and explained to Pururva 'Never ask anything about me, who I am.The moment you ask, I will leave you." But love, the ordinary type is ever curious, ever needing to posses. Not knowing who your lover is, it is impossible to possess, impossible to accept. Pururva could not sleep. Who was she, so beautiful, made of dream stuff, doesn't look earthly, some unknown dimensions. Bursting to ask, yet also afraid to lose her. So afraid to lose her, that Pururva used to sleep holding the hem of Uruvasi's sari (an Indian dress) in his hand. One day Pururva thought it's been a long time, she loves me so much, every second she shows her love for me, she will never leave me. And Pururva asked the question. And Uruvasi disappeared-only a fragment of her sari remained in Pururva's hand. And it is said that Puruva is still searching for Uruvasi. To define is to possess. To possess is to try and be secure. Try to be secure, you will only have the hem of the sari, not Love. Love has a meaning because love can be lost. Then it throbs, vibrates, pulsates with an intensity. There is no tomorrow for love. It is now. And that Love to be, needs the freedom from even the object of that love. The object of Love as an object, as an entity, as an idea, as a definition, as a confinement....... to be free from all this. How does one know whether one's Love is of those dimensions? When you are helpless to explain, to communicate what, where, how and why you are,.......... what you are. And helpless to even care whether the "other", whether the audience, whether the crowd gathered, understands you, applauds you, condemns you, when you are helpless, even to care for such inputs. Helpless to even care, whether an 'other", the crowd, even notices you. In real Love, you do not love an other. You ARE the other. Meera's love for Giridhar Gopal (Krishna) allowed her to laughingly take and drink the cup of poisoned milk, offered by her enemies because it was not somebody else offering her that poisoned milk but her Giridhar Gopal himself. How can she refuse? Mansood can laughing see his limbs cut out, one by one, eyes gouged out, because he could see that the hand holding the sword was none other than He. The path of the heart is simple and takes the courage of the lions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2003 Report Share Posted February 20, 2003 Very inspirational and thought provoking. Thanks so much. "The path of the heart is simple and takes the courage of the lions." - I concurr. It is the most difficult goal to achieve. Nevertheless, we mortals carry on with our quest for the same 'true love'. - Sri , Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > Life is insecurity > > Love which cannot be separate to Life, is also insecurity. > > Only when one is ready to live in insecurity, only then one is alive, for insecurity is freedom. > > And no matter which path you walk, the path of inquiry, of mindfulness, or of the heart, freedom is the only door to That which Is. > > Seeking icons of securities, a Jesus, a Krishna, a Goddess, you create prisons. > > Prisons of illusions, of cocoons, which are very comforting till they last. > > But deep down one knows it is a cocoon, because why else do we keep changing cocoons in an attempt to find that one which will last permanently? > > Typically Love is accompanied by fear. > > Will he, won't she? > > And if one is into spiritual love, will I get a response, an acknowledgement? > > And so one chases some form of security to hide that fear. > > Security kills Love. > > Really if man were immortal, love would be impossible. > > Death is there and life is just like a dew drop on a trembling leaf. > > Any moment the breeze will come and the dew drop will fall and disappear. > > Life is just a wavering. > > Because of that wavering, because of that movement, death is possible, always there. > > And yet that possibility of death gives the intensity to Love. > > Love is possible only because there is death. > > > > In India there is a beautiful myth on this... > > They say in heaven where Indra rules, Indra is the king of heaven-there is no love. > > There are beautiful girls, more beautiful than any seen on the earth -real Apsaras and there are deities. > > They have sex, but there is no love because they are immortal. > > So it was recorded that Uruvasi, the chief of the heavenly girls asked permission of Indra to move to earth for a few days to love a man. > > "What nonsense! > > Who could match my stamina or size" snorted Indra. > > Replied Uruvasi "You are beautiful, but immortal. So there is no charm.Same thing, in and out, day in, day out. Really you are dead. > No, I need a man." > > The deities are really dead because the is no death to make them alive. > > They will always be there. > They cannot die, so how can they be alive. > > Against the background of death, life exists. > > Anyway Uruvasi got her way, as women usually do, except she had not counted on man's cunningness. > > Indra gave his permission but with a caveat. > > Uruvasi could go to earth, could love a mortal man, but she must tell her lover, never to ask anything about her. > > If he did, instantly she was to return back to heaven. > > Uruvasi not knowing Man either the Indra types or the earthly ones, agreed, came down to earth, fell in love with a man called Pururva and explained to Pururva 'Never ask anything about me, who I am.The moment you ask, I will > leave you." > > But love, the ordinary type is ever curious, ever needing to posses. > > Not knowing who your lover is, it is impossible to possess, impossible to accept. > > Pururva could not sleep. > > Who was she, so beautiful, made of dream stuff, doesn't look earthly, some unknown dimensions. > > Bursting to ask, yet also afraid to lose her. > > So afraid to lose her, that Pururva used to sleep holding the hem of Uruvasi's sari (an Indian dress) in his hand. > > One day Pururva thought it's been a long time, she loves me so much, every second she shows her love for me, she will never leave me. > > And Pururva asked the question. > > And Uruvasi disappeared-only a fragment of her sari remained in Pururva's hand. > > And it is said that Puruva is still searching for Uruvasi. > > To define is to possess. > > To possess is to try and be secure. > > Try to be secure, you will only have the hem of the sari, not Love. > > Love has a meaning because love can be lost. > > Then it throbs, vibrates, pulsates with an intensity. > > There is no tomorrow for love. > > It is now. > > And that Love to be, needs the freedom from even the object of that love. > > The object of Love as an object, as an entity, as an idea, as a definition, > as a confinement....... to be free from all this. > > How does one know whether one's Love is of those dimensions? > > When you are helpless to explain, to communicate what, where, how and why you are,.......... what you are. > > And helpless to even care whether the "other", whether the audience, whether the crowd gathered, understands you, applauds you, condemns you, when you are helpless, even to care for such inputs. > > Helpless to even care, whether an 'other", the crowd, even notices you. > > In real Love, you do not love an other. > You ARE the other. > > Meera's love for Giridhar Gopal (Krishna) allowed her to laughingly take and drink the cup of poisoned milk, offered by her enemies because it was not somebody else offering her that poisoned milk but her Giridhar Gopal himself. > > How can she refuse? > > > Mansood can laughing see his limbs cut out, one by one, eyes gouged out, because he could see that the hand holding the sword was none other than He. > > > The path of the heart is simple and takes the courage of the lions. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2003 Report Share Posted February 20, 2003 OM Sandeep You said, "The path of the heart is simple and takes the courage of the lions." Indeed this is so. But while we are developing that courage and simplicity, it is okay to ask for help from Jesus, Krishna, Goddess, etc. They can be not just icons but rather vital supports aiding us in our undertaking of spiritualizing ourselves, realizing our Divinity. Jnana Yogis may not feel the need for such supports but most others do and both paths should be respected. In the end, one transcends all names and forms, even Jesus, Krishna and Goddess, to enter nirvikalpa or asamprajnata samadhi. OM Namah Sivaya Omprem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2003 Report Share Posted February 20, 2003 Hiya Prem, - <omprem <> Friday, February 21, 2003 01:17 AM Re: Path of the Heart > OM Sandeep > > You said, "The path of the heart is simple and takes the courage > of the lions." > > Indeed this is so. But while we are developing that courage and > simplicity, it is okay to ask for help from Jesus, Krishna, > Goddess, etc. They can be not just icons but rather vital > supports aiding us in our undertaking of spiritualizing ourselves, > realizing our Divinity. Jnana Yogis may not feel the need for such > supports but most others do and both paths should be > respected. In the end, one transcends all names and forms, > even Jesus, Krishna and Goddess, to enter nirvikalpa or > asamprajnata samadhi. Sure. Please let me re-clarify in case the impression received is to the contrary. First of all the medium of language is being used to try and point to that which cannot be pointed to. Secondly we are using a further distancing medium like cyber space, where really all that you receive on your PC screen, are black squiggly signs, from which a meaning is connoted. That meaning (whatever be the intention of the sender) is always a meaning attached by the recipient. That is why the need for clarity and that is why the stupendous confusion, on "prattlings" from past Masters and sages, who are no longer around to clarify what was meant in the moment, when the prattling occurred. Phenomenality is a mosaic of movements. Moment to moment. Infinite movements as nuances of the "actioning of Totality"......... Whether the movement is of a man pursuing to kill his neighbor, or a group of leaders plotting to fight for the sake of peace, .......or "spiritual pursuits", or an exploding super nova, or the sucking in of matter by a Black Hole in space or a lice laying eggs in one strand of your hair ...........there is only functioning. Call it the functioning of divinity, or Impersonal functioning or the function of God/Goddesses, it makes no difference. As conditioned psycho-somatic organisms, as conceptual biological computers, there are only manifest instruments of this functioning of divinity, manifested precisely, such that the particular functioning, occurs through that instrument, in that moment. Instruments through which the functioning of divinity occurs, moment to moment to moment. These instruments may labeled "Prem" (or whatever is your non-cyber name) or "Sandeep" or "Martha" or "George Dubya Bush" or "Sadaam Hussen" or "Osama Ben laden" or "Ramakrishna" or "Jesus" or "Lao Tzu", or "Hitler". The functioning through the instruments may be termed as "criminal" or "profound" Makes no difference. For there is nothing which is not divine. There is nothing happening which is not divine. Let's now come to spiritual pursuits, ...................whatever be the path, whatever be the particular process, whatever be the "ism" that you follow, adopt, believe in, swear by, are ready to lay your life down for it. Once again, that can only be the divinity functioning through a particular instrument as SO. All seeking, whether materially or spiritually, is really Impersonality, (which has identified itself as the particular "personality"), seeking back it's impersonality, in THAT particular body-mind complex, through that particular activity. All seeking, all forms of seeking, is the "pursued" playing all the roles of all the "pursuers", simultaneously. Now a particular type of seeking, a particular manner of seeking, totally depends on the "conditioning" of the body-mind organism which has suddenly, non-volitionally and acausally, turned into a "seeker". A seeker seeking his or her next bottle of rum is in no way inferior or superior to a seeker seeking Moksha. The alcoholic (so conditioned) sees her Moksha in the next bottle of Rum, the spiritual aspirant sees his Moksha in Brahman. Both functioning are nuances of the play of Totality, what has been termed as the "Lila". In the same vein, thus there is a conditioning which has been notionally termed as "Bhakti" There is another conditioning which has been notionally termed as "the path of Jnana" (Enquiry, Knowledge) The conditioning of Bhakti, is essentially based on the duality of a "Bhakta" (seeker, devotee) and an object of seeking, an icon of devotion. Whether that icon is a Shiva, Krishna, Shakti Goddess, a Wiccan Goddess, or Jesus's Dad, whatever, ............is once again a nuance of that same conditioning which produces that duality. Is it wrong? Nothing is wrong in phenomenality. Nothing is right either in phenomenality. Anything that happens in the moment, can only happen, if it is appropriate to happen, in that moment. Otherwise it does not. Thus the path of Bhakti is as appropriate, as any other path. Any activity, physical or mental, that a body-mind organism, (so conditioned), undertakes in the path of spiritual seeking, whether it is meditation, prayers, the singing/dancing "fana" of the Sufi, or the esoteric practises of Tantra, or the meditations of Tao, or the koans of Zen, ..................are all, .........once again, .......... nuances of that play, that Impersonality or Divinity is playing through such a conditioned manifest object, in that moment. Apperceiving this, do whatsoever you wish. Whatsoever, whether the pursuit is for material thingies or spiritual icons. For "you" cannot do, anything unless that "doing" is to be a nuance of the doing of Totality. That is why it is said Twmay vay Karta, twmay vay Bhokta (Thou art the doer, thou art the experiencer) However what is usually the case in all activities, whether in the path of Bhakti or Jnana, ........is the continued sense of self-entitification. The "me", having seen the transience of all material goals, their essential hollowness, now latches onto spiritual goals. It now believes in the "eternal" to get it out of misery. Consequently, the "me" believes it is "he" or "she" which is worshiping a Wiccan Goddess or Krishna or Shakti. And "it" further believes that through such a devotion/or whatever be the activity, it can achieve deliverance, salvation, Mukti (Total Liberation), Moksha, Enlightenment. Or on the path of Jnana, the "me" believes it is he/she who is meditating, and that such an enquiry will get it .....THIS. And along the path, ........in time, ............when all the terminologies have been mastered enough to be spouted, .........the "me-entity" believes it is he/she which has now become enlightened, realized, understood etc etc. LOL. Now even this play of the "me", is also a nuance of that play of Totality. But comes with consequences. The presence of the "me", whether as a "seeker-me" or as an "enlightened- me", is still the presence of the separation. the existence of the duality. And thus no matter how perfumed, .............no "me" has ever been enlightened, has realized anything of any import. No matter which particular song and dance it gets into. Which, as explained above, does not mean that songs and dances, do not occur in phenomenality. As the dude with the flute mentioned in passing to Arjun, 'out of thousands, maybe in one, I raise the question. Maybe out of thousands of such, in one does the disquietitude, I make it into a seeking. Out of thousand such seekers, maybe in one, I persist the seeking, give shakti to the Bhakti to go the full course. And maybe in one, among thousand Bhaktas, I apperceive." (Paraphrased:-) At the height of Bhakti, the expression is "not me, Only Thee". This is such an intoxicating state, that most remain in this intoxication. Maybe in that one, which Krishna mentions, the question arises .........if not me, Only Thee, ....... who is even uttering this "not me, only Thee" And thus the Bhakta, apperceives,......... in silence, the dissolution of the duality. At the height of Jnana, is the exclamation "Only I" Aham Brahamasmi ( I am Brahamn) My Father and I, are not two. Ana'l huq ( I am Allah) Maybe in one Jnani, among thousands, arises the apperception, ...... if only I, ..........to whom, am I making this affirmation? And the Jnani, also disappears into the same silence. The path of Bhakti and the path of Jnani, are not two. > OM Namah Sivaya Absolutely. The dude with the dumroo, rocks. Dooooooobeeeeee Dooobeeeee Dooooooooo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2003 Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 OM Sandeep As a former philosophy student, it is always good to meet a kindred soul. Philosophers can take a long time and a lot of words to flesh out their intuition. It seems to me that your long message agrees with mine. Whatever means you and everyone uses to move beyond names and forms is just fine. The path up the mountain is not more important than the view from the top. The Yoga Vasishta sums up the spiritual process in terms of the Seven Bhoomikas: 1. Subecha. Longing for the Truth The yogi or sadhaka rightly distinguishes between permanent and impermanent; cultivates dislike for worldly pleasures; acquires mastery over organs, physical and mental; and feels a deep yearning to be free from Samsara. 2. Vicharana. Right inquiry The yogi has pondered over what her/she has read and heard and has realized it in his/her life. 3. Tanumanasa. Attenuation or thinning out of mental activities. The mind abandons the many and remains fixed on the ONE. 4. Sattvapati. Attainment of Sattva The Yogi at this stage is called Brahmavid or Knower of Brahman. In the above 4 stages, the yogi is subject to Sanchita, Prabrabdha and Agami Karmas. He/she has been practicing Samprajnata Samadhi or contemplation in which consciousness of duality still exists. 5. Asamsakti. Unaffected by anything The yogi, now called Brahmavidvara perfoms necessary duties of own will. 6. Pararthabhavani. See Brahman everywhere External things do not appear to exist to the yogi, now called Brahmavidvariya, and f unctions are perfomed only at the prompting of others. Sanchit and Agami Karmas are now destroyed. Only a small amount of Prarabdha Karma remains. 7. Turiya. Perpetual Samadhi The yogi is known as Brahmavidvaristha and does not perform his duties either by his will or the promptings of others. The body drops off after approximately three days of entering this stage. OM Namah Sivaya Yours in Turiya Omprem 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.