Guest guest Posted February 18, 1999 Report Share Posted February 18, 1999 >sadananda <sada > >Viswanathji - Namaste. > >There is a saying that the path of the bird or the path of the river is >difficult to follow. Each person starts some where in their evolutionary............. >ones obstacles - titiiksha and mumukshutvam. The rest Lord himself takes >care of. > >Hari Om! >Sadananda > Dear Sadananda, I am not sure that I made myself clear earlier. I understand that at a superficial level, each may have charted his own path, but at a more basic level each has to overcome the same fundamental problems that confronts every human being. In fact, there is nobody who does not have an "answer" or a "solution path" to problems in life. For the masses we know what they are. For the so called mature minded it is either social work, or analysing the sastras, or pursuing some religious practice etc. Such deeds though good in some sense are also what the Beings universally have warned about per the same scriptures we so love to analyse. While the common man would readily admit that he is attached to materialism, family etc, the so called religious man is usually not even aware of his attachements to his beliefs and traditions which he voluntarily augments to his vasanas. So this raises the question whether the latter is really more mature than the former as we generally think or whether he is actually more deluded. Further, the bigger struggle is to free himself from this situation, forewarned by many. Advaita Bodha Deepika: ....absolutely by no other means; neither the vedas nor the sastras, nor austerities, nor karma, nor vows,nor gifts, nor recital of scriptures of mystic formulae (mantras), nor worship nor anything else can undo samsar. Only stillness of mind can accomplish the end and nothing else. How can the mind be made still? Only by Sankhya. Sankhya is the process of enquiry coupled with knowledge. The realised sages declare that the mind has its root in non enquiry and perishes by an informed enquiry. Christ: "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you.' (Matthew 7:21) "This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me ; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts." "You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition." (Mark 7:7) Ramana says that reading religious works (sastras), taking pilgrimages etc is itself a vasana. Krishnamurti felt that religious books were useless, including his. Then, on the other side of the coin, we also have cases where people went directly from a worldly life to realisation. Patinathar in south india was a shrewd businessman before realisation. So when I read about the struggles recorded by the Buddhas of the world, I am curious to know whether they struggled through problems as well as through traditional remedies (Buddha, Krishnamurti) or whether they cut through directly to enquiry (Ramana) without getting mired in traditional solutions like I often find myself. And ultimately what propelled Them away from these common traditional remedies, discarding every single vasana to Self realization? This is simply a question I have been asking myself and may not have any relevance to others. Nor am I looking for more intellectual explanations. At this stage in my life, I am veering around to agree with Krishnamurti that my interest is simply not serious or intense enough however much I would like to think otherwise. .....Why do you feel you must meditate? Do you mean by meditation, concentration? If you are really interested, then you do not struggle, force yourself to concentrate. Only when you are not interested do you have to force yourself brutally and violently. But in forcing yourself, you destroy your mind, and then your mind is no longer free, nor is your emotion. Both are crippled. I say there is a joy,a peace, in meditation without effort, and that can come only when your mind is free from all choice, when your mind is no longer creating a division in action. BTW, the biography on JK by Lutyens is not his personal account. Nor does it capture his struggles. It seems my reply has also inadvertently touched on the subject matter of some of the postings today from other members. Regards, ---Viswanath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 1999 Report Share Posted February 19, 1999 >"y viswanath" <yviswanath Viswanathaji - Thank you for your detailed mail. you have raised lot of interesting questions and comments and requiring deeper thinking. At the out set I appreciate your analysis. I am not sure there is any particular answer to many of these you have raised other than one has to discover oneself. I am sure others can join in and provide what they think is the answer. From my point, things are clear to me what is the role of sadhana and what is the nature of the truth. > While the common man would readily admit that he is attached to >materialism, family etc., the so called religious man is usually not even >aware of his attachements to his beliefs and traditions which he >voluntarily augments to his vasanas. So this raises the question whether >the latter is really more mature than the former as we generally think >or whether he is actually more deluded. Further, the bigger struggle is >to free himself from this situation, forewarned by many. >From my point it is futile to discuss "some so called religious man" - The fundamental question I am sure you appreciate is what does that mean to me and where do I fit in the scheme of things. I cannot judge others - their actions or motives. Does this particular shadhana or study help me or not. This is the fundamental question, I keep myself in perspective. In contrast to what JK puts forth, vedanta does recognize that shaastra and religion practices etc. can lead to shaastra vaasana etc. but these are the vaasanaas that clenches the other vaasanas. It is like adding detergent to clean a dirty plate. In washing, one should get rid of the detergent too leaving a clean plate behind. If one gets detached to ones beliefs and dogmas then indeed that is not true vedanta - I agree this is very subtle and one has to be very vigilant. We have seen this happening but that is not the fault of the shaastra or religions practices. It is lack of correct understanding of the scriptures and lack of proper guidance. Shankara while discussing the role of vedanta also worns this. In Atma bodha he says: aJNaana kalusham jeevam JNaanaabhyaasadvi nirmalam| kRitvaa JNaanam swamyam nasyet jalam kaTaka renu vat|| By the constant practice of knowledge ( inquiry of the nature of the reality using scripture as pramaaNa) , the jeeva soaked with impurities is cleansed. Having done its job of cleaning, the knowledge is also gets lost just as kaTaka Nut powder added to cleanse the dirty water. ( In those days, they used to add kaTaka nut powder which coagulates the colloidal substances and becomes heavy and sinks to the bottom leaving pure water - much like modern cleaning process). Warning about the study of the scriptures and eloquent discussions etc. he says in VivEkachuuDaamaNi aviJNaate pare tatve shaastraadhiitiistu nishpalaa| viJNaatepi pare tatve shaastraadhiitiistu nishphalaa| The study of the scriptures is useless when one has not realized - essentially when one does not use it go beyond. The study of the scriptures is also useless once one has realized. True one can get attached to any thing. That is where sharp discriminative intellect, viveka is essential to keep one always vigilant. It is razor sharp path - Hence the warning by Yama in Katha. - uttishaTa jaagrata, prapyavaraan nibodhata, kshurasya dhaara niratyayaa durgam pathanaat, kavayo vadanti| - Arise and awake, approach the best among the teachers, since it is a razor path and difficult indeed - says the wise. That is the reason Krishna emphasizes the yoga shaastra - for the purification of the mind. >Advaita Bodha Deepika: > >...absolutely by no other means; neither the vedas nor the sastras, nor >austerities, nor karma, nor vows,nor gifts, nor recital of scriptures of >mystic formulae (mantras), nor worship nor anything else can undo >samsar. Only stillness of mind can accomplish the end and nothing else. You are absolutely right - and JK's statement that 'truth is a pathless land" rings eternally. The problem is how do I have that stillness of the mind. The whole sadhana is essentially meant for just that so that one has a stillness of the mind which can "accomplish the end and nothing else' as you quoted. From my own experience, I was first exposed to JK and it was extremely frustrating experience for me, until I understood the problem. For the mind to get detached from attachment, it first need to get to attached to some thing higher that does give me agitations - Pure love that Lord stands for - What Krishna coins as "sanyaasa yoga" - "detachment-attachment - technique. It is easy for the mind to sit back and inquire when it is freely available. Personally I am not a religions person - Bhaki in terms of prayers etc. never appealed to me since I saw only the beggary in that- until I understood what is true Bhakti means. It is more an intellectual appreciation of the beauty of the Universe - from atomic scale to cosmic scale - I cannot but bow down with humility at the grandeur of the universe and the designer of the order. My mind goes numb admiring the greatness of that creator. What is required is indeed stillness of the mind. How one arrives at is the question and Vedanta provides a rational path. >How can the mind be made still? > >Only by Sankhya. Sankhya is the process of enquiry coupled with >knowledge. The realised sages declare that the mind has its root in non >enquiry and perishes by an informed enquiry. You have indeed asked the fundamental question. Sankhya is only one answer. All yogaas are meant to achieve exactly that. Karma yoga, bhakti yoga including JNaana yoga which you call Sankhya. What is more appropriate depends on the individual inclinations. Ultimately it is the inquiry within to discover the truth - Others are preparatory for that. > >Ramana says that reading religious works (sastras), taking pilgrimages >etc. is itself a vasana. Krishnamurti felt that religious books were >useless, including his. Then, on the other side of the coin, we also >have cases where people went directly from a worldly life to >realisation. Patinathar in south india was a shrewd businessman before >realisation. Bhagavaan Ramana is very careful in his answers - In the upadesha saara he provides the steps involved. isswaraarpitam neschayaakritam chittasodhakam mukti saadhakam| Essentially of karma yoga - all activities offered to the iiswara - leads to the mind pure which is needed for liberation. kaaya vagmanaaH kaaryamuttamam puujanam japaa chitanam kramaat| uttamastavaa ucchamandataaH chittajam japaa dhyaanamuttam| One should perform - puuja - japa and cintanam, chanting the name of the Lord - kaaya involving body, vak - involving speech, manaH - involving mind. As the mind becomes purer, he advises slowly meditation - dhyaanam -. Chintanam kraamaat - in the order . jagata iishadhiiHi yukta sevanam ashTamuurti bRik deva puujanam| One should serve the world, jagat as iisha dhiiH - with the idea in mind that it is the Lord itself in the form of the world. - service should be appropriate - yukta sevanam depending one on ones resources and capabilities. The reason I am quoting all this is, Bhagavaan Ramana himself a JNaani, is extremely careful in guiding others in terms of what is appropriate sadhana, although himself went directly into the state of meditation. This all depends on the purity of the mind one has. Ultimately he stresses the inquiry - of who am I? mananasantu kim? What is this mind - etc. since the very inquiry will make the mind (notional mind) disappears. >So when I read about the struggles recorded by the Buddhas of the world, >I am curious to know whether they struggled through problems as well as >through traditional remedies (Buddha, Krishnamurti) or whether they cut >through directly to enquiry (Ramana) without getting mired in >traditional solutions like I often find myself. And ultimately what >propelled Them away from these common traditional remedies, discarding >every single vasana to Self realization? This is simply a question I >have been asking myself and may not have any relevance to others. Nor am >I looking for more intellectual explanations. At this stage in my life, >I am veering around to agree with Krishnamurti that my interest is >simply not serious or intense enough however much I would like to think >otherwise. I think as I answered in my last mail there are no single pattern for struggles. The stuggles of Bhagavaan Ramana was different from that of JK. It all depends on ones own samskaara. >....Why do you feel you must meditate? Do you mean by meditation, >concentration? If you are really interested, then you do not struggle, >force yourself to concentrate. Only when you are not interested do you >have to force yourself brutally and violently. But in forcing yourself, >you destroy your mind, and then your mind is no longer free, nor is your >emotion. Both are crippled. I say there >is a joy,a peace, in meditation without effort, and that can come only >when your mind is free from all choice, when your mind is no longer >creating a division in action. Meditation is not concentration - it is intense inquiry of the nature of the truth. Concentration is a struggle. Meditation should not be. When one is extremely interested to find out the truth, then it is natural - the mind gets absorbed in what one is doing including the inquiry. Who am I - who am I is not a japa to be repeated like a parrot. It is to inquire within discarding who I am not, neti neti, and looking for an answer intensely within. Meditation is not an action. It is noun rather than verb. Contemplation is an action. One finds oneself in meditation. But to be in mediation, one has to contemplate - this is where puuja, japa, mantra are helpful tools. They are tools to be discarded unceremoniously when the mind can easily plunges in. May be others can throw more light on these. Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 1999 Report Share Posted February 19, 1999 Greetings Vishwanathji: Sadanandaji and ProfVKji have given detailed explanations to many of your questions. I agree with Sada that the questions that you have raised are complex and the answers are not trivial. Thanks for asking those profound questions and let me summarize my view points below: The Hindu scriptures (the Upanishads) also declare that TRUTH is independent of religion, dogma and belief. But the scriptures expect the Truth seekers to approach the TRUTH starting with some basic belief. Science also starts any enquiry with some assumptions (hypothesis or belief) and collects empirical data to either support or reject those assumptions. The Vedantic approach is similar to any scientific investigation it does not deviate from normal intellectual practice of investigation. There is no unique way to search the TRUTH and several feasible approaches are always available. The path of religion is based on fath and reason for religious faith is stated beautifully by St. Augustine: "Faith is to believe what we don't see and the reward is to see what we believe!" With the help of his famous quotation - "Truth is a Pathless Land" J. Krishnamurthy argues forcefully that the seeker of the TRUTH should refrain from blindly accepting any religion, dogma, or belief. JK's argument and the statement "Truth is a Pathless Land" is just a warning to everyone who attempts to jump into quick conclusions without an enquiry! Faith is an integral and inevitable part of life. Every claim that we make in our life is based on our personal experience and belief. The person who believes in GOD assumes the existence of God. Those who dispute the existence of God strongly believe God is a hoax! The difference between "blind faith" and "faith" needs additional explanation. The student who wants to learn physics can approach a teacher and it is important for the student to have faith in the ability of the teacher. This faith does not preclude the student to ask questions get clarifications for any doubts. Without blind faith, the student can access all other available resources such as the library, friends, Internet to verify the teacher's assertions. The Truth Seeking student uses the teacher like a vehicle to reach the pathless land physics knowledge. It should be reminded, that the student is the DRIVER who controls the vehicle! When the destination is reached, the vehicle is abandoned! In a similar way, the TRUTH seeker uses the Scriptures as the vehicle to reach the pathless land and the seeker is the driver and all the responsibilities of finding the TRUTH rests with the seeker. When the seeker reaches the destination, the vehicle (the Scriptures and the religion) becomes irrelevant and gets abandoned. Faith and intuition vary by individuals and hence there will be always disagreements. Such disagreements do no prove that a religion or dogma is wrong! It only confirms the famous quotation in the Upanishads: "The more we know, we realize that more we don't know!" Ram Chandran Burke, VA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 1999 Report Share Posted February 22, 1999 Dear Sadananda, Thank you for your reply. I think there is no basic disagreement, but just that most of the things I mentioned are things that I am grappling with and which I may have to resolve myself. I have long lost interest in discussing things at an abstract intellectual level, and instead prefer to focus on what I really feel. > >sadananda <sada > > >answer. From my point, things are clear to me what is the role of sadhana >and what is the nature of the truth. I am happy that things are clear to you for it is certainly not for me regarding the nature of truth. > >The study of the scriptures is useless when one has not realized - >essentially when one does not use it go beyond. The study of the >scriptures is also useless once one has realized. > >True one can get attached to any thing. That is where sharp discriminative >intellect, viveka is essential to keep one always vigilant. Yes, this is what I find happened to me and for many others. When I now reflect on it, getting attached is inevitable. The common man (like me)starts off with a fundamental habit or tendency to get attached to things of the world due to operation of his desires. Then he comes across the scriptures or is told to do a particular practice or japa by someone. No doubt, there is temporary peace or relief or intellectual clarity at a superficial level. But the forces of desire don't stop and the attachement is now turned to the tradition or the practice or the religion itself. In extreme form it explodes outward as bigotry and war. We can say that he must know better, have viveka, or be free of desires etc. But then, such a person is already realized and certainly no ordinary man that I am. As an example in this context, Ramakrishna said that Hatha Yoga was no longer going to be a suitable path for realization in the modern age. He explained that it had become unsuitable because in the modern world people would actually use it to better their physical body and thereby get more attached to the body rather than use it for realization. >you quoted. From my own experience, I was first exposed to JK and it was >extremely frustrating experience for me, until I understood the problem. >For the mind to get detached from attachment, it first need to get to >attached to some thing higher that does give me agitations - Pure love that >Lord stands for - What Krishna coins as "sanyaasa yoga" - >"detachment-attachment - technique. Yes, it is also frustrating to me even after decades of all this. And I am only now realizing that the detactment-attachment technique does not quite work as mentioned earlier. It seems more of a transfer of attachment from one object to another. And in another sense, it was worse since it took me more time to realize it. The delusion is deeper. It is easier to realize that you are attached to a bicycle than to an explanation of Brahman. >What is required is indeed stillness of the mind. How one arrives at is >the question and Vedanta provides a rational path. I have not found it through Vedanta or any of the other teachings either. In fact, I would say that I have got very little out of all my efforts. No doubt, certain pointers like 'don't be self centred', 'don't lie', 'love other life forms', 'do japa', 'meditate, 'enquire' etc. Essentially the cultivation of 'saatvic' qualities. But most of this I also got from parents, grandparents, teachers etc. So I realize this is not so substantial after all. Yet, most scriptures also talk (slightly) about having to discard all traditions, practices, philosophies etc for Self realization. But this area is a bit fuzzy and only mentioned in more general terms. No particular sadhana is prescribed for this step. Very few seem to have done it, and fewer records are available describing what propelled them to the ultimate goal. It was in this context, I replied to you initially. >Bhagavaan Ramana is very careful in his answers - In the upadesha Yes, you are correct. His answers were never the same. He answered to the level of each questioner. But even to the person for whom he prescribed reading sastras, japa, enquiry etc he is emphatic that finally everything has to be given up. >I think as I answered in my last mail there are no single pattern for >struggles. The stuggles of Bhagavaan Ramana was different from that of JK. >It all depends on ones own samskaara. Yes, at the particular level there may not be similarity. But at a deeper level they all went through suffering and struggles. This is also something that Ramana mentions, though his own personal struggle is not available, if he ever went through it. > >>....Why do you feel you must meditate? Do you mean by meditation, >>concentration? If you are really interested, then you do not struggle, >>force yourself to concentrate. Only when you are not interested do you >>have to force yourself brutally and violently. But in forcing yourself, >>you destroy your mind, and then your mind is no longer free, nor is your >>emotion. Both are crippled. I say there >>is a joy,a peace, in meditation without effort, and that can come only >>when your mind is free from all choice, when your mind is no longer >>creating a division in action. > >Meditation is not concentration - it is intense inquiry of the nature of >the truth. Concentration is a struggle. Meditation should not be. When >one is extremely interested to find out the truth, I am glad that you don't have to concentrate. For me, when I meditate I require intense concentration and need to force myself. There are many thoughts, each trying to control the others. And after a while it becomes torturous. This struggle showed me that I was indeed not fully interested as JK points out. Anyway, none of this may have any relevance to others as I mentioned earlier. Regards, ---Viswanath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 1999 Report Share Posted February 23, 1999 Dear Ram Chandran, Thanks for taking the time to reply. I did not expect the questions I am asking myself to be of interest to many. I have only responded to those portions where we may be differing. >Ram Chandran <chandran > >The Hindu scriptures (the Upanishads) also declare that TRUTH is >independent of religion, dogma and belief. But the scriptures expect >the Truth seekers to approach the TRUTH starting with some basic >belief. I am not so sure unless you are referring strictly to certain Upanishads. Ashtavakra instructs Janaka to peel off all his beliefs one by one, instead of accepting a set of beliefs to approach Truth. Ramana only poses the question 'Who am I?, which requires no set of beliefs. No doubt, to those who are not suited to this, he offers alternatives. I am not sure of what beliefs Krishnamurti, Nagarjuna, or the Buddha wanted people to accept as starting points in their search. >belief. The person who believes in GOD assumes the existence of God. >Those who dispute the existence of God strongly believe God is a hoax! I don't see any fundamental difference between the two. One believes there is God, another believes there is no God. So both are believers. Neither wants to enquire into the truth of the matter. >In a similar way, the TRUTH seeker uses the Scriptures as the vehicle to >reach the pathless land and the seeker is the driver and all the >responsibilities of finding the TRUTH rests with the seeker. When the >seeker reaches the destination, the vehicle (the Scriptures and the >religion) becomes irrelevant and gets abandoned. Not having reached anywhere, I can only respond to this intelectually. And I could be wrong. From what I have read and from the passages of Advaita, Bible and so one I posted earlier, it seems to me that so long as one is in any personal vehicle, it is simply not possible to reach the destination of Truth. They seem to demand getting off this vehicle of vasanas/habits before embarking to the final destination. But there is no method to do it. It was in this context, I wrote earlier about the experiences of the Buddha etc. Again, this is not to say that the scriptures, tradition etc are totally useless. Incidentally, the "truth is a pathless land" quote is often misunderstood. There are several instances when Krishnamurti points to a definite progression to Truth/Creation.... But that is a different subject. Besides I think most of us here understand it. Regards, ---Viswanath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 1999 Report Share Posted February 23, 1999 Hari om Shri. Vishwanath: Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Your thorough knowledge on the subject area and your writing style are quite refreshing. Even while expressing your disagreements you have shown courtesy and consideration and the list appreciates your efforts. Recently, you have expressed your interest in sharing your knowledge on JK's works with the list members. we are looking forward to your contemplative postings on JK. Hari Om! Ram chandran List Moderator >"y viswanath" <yviswanath > >Dear Ram Chandran, > >Thanks for taking the time to reply. I did not expect the questions > I am asking myself to be of interest to many. I have only responded > to those portions where we may be differing. ........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 1999 Report Share Posted February 24, 1999 >"Ram Chandran" <chandranram > >Hari om Shri. Vishwanath: > > >expressing your disagreements you have shown courtesy and consideration >and the list appreciates your efforts. Dear Shri Ram Chandran, I think that the quality of this list is good and the posts are courteous overall. Besides, what is the good of all religious quotations and practices if we don't even have common courtesy and consideration for people? > >Recently, you have expressed your interest in sharing your knowledge on >JK's works with the list members. > You are refering to an earlier post where I mentioned reading about his struggles. I will post excerpts from his personal account. Regards, ---Viswanath 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.