TRIPURA RAHASYA:OBLIGATORY SENSE TOWARDS ACTION CONDEMNED?

[Guest guest]

Max Dashu : this reminds me of what Sri Ramakrishna said about

camels who like the taste of thorn-bushes. when they eat them, their

mouths bleed,

and they stop for awhile, but after a while, they forget their pain

and go back to eating thorn bushes. Sound familiar? the only

difference is, we don't recognize our habitual acts as being like

eating thorns...

 

Thank you Max, yes the analogy sounds very familiar. Some questsions

running through my mind.

 

Will we ever be able to recognise this destructive habitual act?

 

"Oppressed by hunger in the forest,"

How does one reach to this state and can we ever overcome this

hunger?

 

I have been trying to understand this statement : As long as a man

is afraid of the nightmare, obligation, so long must he placate it,

or else he will not find peace. How can a man stung by that Viper,

obligation, ever be happy?

 

If Obligation is equal to moral duty, arent we not suppose to carry

it out accordingly? So what does it means when it says : OBLIGATORY

SENSE TOWARDS ACTION CONDEMNED.

 

What do you think?

[Guest guest]

I don't have a copy of Tripura Rahasya so am unsure of the context.

But it seems to me that many situational and cultural mandated

obligations do bind us in ways that interfere with sadhana.

 

With Ammachi again, the cultural duty was to obey her parents as they

repeatedly tried to arrange marriages for her. but to comply would

break her dharma, curtail her sadhana and interfere with the offering

she was to make to the world, so she defied them with great

determination.

 

or, the way we approach our obligations interferes: caring for aged

parents or children you have engendered, for example. i don't see

abandoning them as a spiritual act. finding a way to fulfil

responsibilities lovingly will then be part of the sadhana

necessarily.

 

but maybe the point being made is the fear of obligation is what is

really meant, the mental fixation that gets us all wrapped up and

contracted and reactive. That action has to always proceed from

devotion, as an offering, and not something done heavily, even

forced, out of obligation. this violates the spirit.

 

Sri Aurobindo, in speaking of living in and remembering and offering

oneself to the Divine, and carrying this out "throughout your life,

in all its details", said,

 

"But this should not be dones as a severe discipline or as a duty --

it must be a movement of love and joy."

 

M

>I have been trying to understand this statement : As long as a man

>is afraid of the nightmare, obligation, so long must he placate it,

>or else he will not find peace. How can a man stung by that Viper,

>obligation, ever be happy?

>

>If Obligation is equal to moral duty, arent we not suppose to carry

>it out accordingly? So what does it means when it says : OBLIGATORY

>SENSE TOWARDS ACTION CONDEMNED.

>

>What do you think?

 

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

Global Women's History

http://www.suppressedhistories.net

 

 

[Guest guest]

maxdashu wrote: [1] I don't have a copy of Tripura Rahasya so am unsure

of the context. But it seems to me that many situational and cultural mandated

obligations do bind us in ways that interfere withsadhana.With Ammachi again,

the cultural duty was to obey her parents as they repeatedly tried to arrange

marriages for her. but to comply would break her dharma, curtail her sadhana and

interfere with the offering she was to make to the world, so she defied them

with great determination.

 

Well, one unmarried woman more or less would not make as big a difference as a

married woman with children abandoning or neglecting them to serve God, so I

could understand Ammaji's staunch refusal to commit herself in such direction.

To submit to the lesser dharma of obedience to one's parents in the face of her

greater dharmic obligation to the whole of humanity would have been the greater

adharma in the long run. There is no shortage of married women or

children, but there is a tremendous shortage of genuine spiritual leaders,

particularly FEMALE ones!

 

 

[2]or, the way we approach our obligations interferes: caring for aged parents

or children you have engendered, for example. i don't see abandoning them as a

spiritual act. finding a way to fulfil responsibilities lovingly will then be

part of the sadhana necessarily.

 

 

Yes. The path of the householder is duty to the family, and this must

necessarily be part of one's sadhana. But if one has brothers and sisters, I

would imagine that the pressure of dharmic obligation to one's parents is

lessened somewhat, since there are others to fulfill it, if one truly feels a

call to the renunciate path early in one's life. But one may not suddenly dump

one's voluntarily assumed obligations like spouse and family and go off to the

jungle without incurring serious karma. Ammaji made her decision BEFORE becoming

committed to serious family obligations.

 

[3] but maybe the point being made is the fear of obligation is what is really

meant, the mental fixation that gets us all wrapped up and contracted and

reactive. That action has to always proceed from devotion, as an offering, and

not something done heavily, even forced, out of obligation. this violates the

spirit.

 

I think it may mean that one should be fully aware of the nature of the

consequences of one's actions, and obligations pertaining thereto, BEFORE they

are committed. If one caves in to parental pressure and commits to a marriage,

for instance, you may not then suddenly develop a backbone and "wiggle out" of

the commitments of marriage by suddenly declaring that God

has called you and you must now take a vow of sannyas! You must develop the

backbone BEFOREHAND, and say, "I will not marry until I am certain of my Path",

because this causes less grief overall than if one marries and

then reneges!

[Guest guest]

>I think it may mean that one should be fully aware of the nature of

>the consequences of one's actions, and obligations pertaining

>thereto, BEFORE they are committed.

 

Agreed on all counts.

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

Global Women's History

http://www.suppressedhistories.net