Guest guest Posted June 8, 2000 Report Share Posted June 8, 2000 Pattee Gregory <pattee9 08 June 2000 07:52 > > Greetings All, Hari, personally think that realization > of self does not necessarily negate interest in the > mundane. In one regard, interest in the mundane > becomes more important in the other regard it > diminishes "wanting" worldly "stuff". And, if an > Enlightened Being takes on human (or other) form, > surely he/she would not have "fear" of anything ! > Smiling - Pattee > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2000 Report Share Posted June 8, 2000 --- jody <jodyr wrote: > Ramakrishna was full of needs he expressed > regularly. > [...] ....don't > expect the realized > soul to behave in a certain way > [...] hariH OM! i agree with the central thrust of your point; and it's an important one, with further quite valuable implications... let me digress a minute here... what i'm about to say will doubtless raise some eyebrows, yet i have compelling evidence based on personal experience to support it. (for those interested, some of my background [inspiring me to make such claims] is divulged on my website, and may shed light on the origins of what may be regarded as my sometimes making outrageous and provocative statements that seem to violate popular ideas held. http://digital.net/~egodust/fmpagebio1.html after sitarist ravi shankar heard jimi hendrix at monerey pop festival, he proceeded to play [at least like i never heard him before]. and there was good reason for this... listen to hendrix's VOODOO CHILE and feel the soaring unbridled cry of siva's love and thunder in the Heart of thy soul! OM. concealed ordinarily, the right attitude will allow it. hendrix was in my view an avatar of siva, yet had human attributes too...as well as did ramakrishna, ramana, christ, osho, and many others.. insofar as the total range of the impact of life on the individual, the advent of so-called Self-realization does not change anything intrinsically within the individual, except for the fact that each of the experiences had in life no longer reach what appears to have been formerly an ultimate condition of being affected by such experiences. the implication here is that one is directly and primally connected to satchidananda and everything else that happens is the maya superimposition on That. and one then no longer can be tricked into an isolated condition or situation dependant on circumstances in Life. the substratum Self is *never* lost, hence. and therefore the so-called frailties you're referring to, do not reach deep. such were formerly products of vasanas, which no longer exist. and this is the fulcrum differential. however, this doesn't mean that the entire range of human emotions isn't had; rather they no longer affect one in any separative or isolated way. the interesting thing about it is that prior to moksha, they didn't either; however, one was not *aware* that they didn't. the shift is really a minor one, and not at all some vast and exotic transformation. OM shaanthi ________________ in the Re: Pedestals post: > Perfection exists only as the Self. In the relative world even > the Avatars take on its imperfections. A close study of the lives > of the saints, one that ventures past the hagiographies, finds that > even they were full of the imperfections we qualify as humanity. the idea of perfection is based on a relativstic polarity; which is not really inherent in the nature of brahman. rather, brahman is a mysterious blend of perfectiom/imperfection, both and neither. there are critical misconceptions about moksha and the nature of What Is. if we're open enough to investigate deep the paradigm of Existence [from its primal Unmanifest to relative Manifest] we would see its *timeless* archetypal condition. if the Manifest Life and its attending range of pathos were something to be rid of like some hopeless disease, how and why did it come into being at all? this alone should tell us there's something to it that we're failing to recognize. the rig veda, as i often mentioned, describes the in- beween (pralaya or night of brahma) state that *somehow* experienced a frustration and *desired* to see and know Itself...thus Its reflected projection in lila. this, i contend, is an eternal archetype. if not, then brahman had to have been in an unrealized state to *desire* such! fact is, this whole process is inscrutable and beyond relative analysis. however, to conclude that the jiva's release [via moksha] implies a permanent divorce from the effects in/of relative Life, is ostrich logic! the Real overview is being ignored. Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2000 Report Share Posted June 8, 2000 advaitin , "Dave Sirjue" <dsirjue@m...> wrote: [snip] > Q: Is this realization an all-or-nothing affair? > > A: Not usually. It's often a series of glimpses of One Taste > -- glimpses of the fact that you are one with absolutely all > manifestation, in its good and bad aspects, in all its frost and fever, > its wonder and its pain. You are the Universe, literally. > But you tend to understand this ultimate fact in increasing glimpses of > the infinity that you are, and you realize exactly why you started this > wonderful, horrible Game of Life. But it is absolutely not a cruel > Game, not ultimately, because you, and you alone, instigated this > Drama, this Lila. I would add that while we may enjoy this "series of glimpses of One Taste," there comes a point where that essential attachment to one's sense of individual being, referred to by Ramakrishna as the 'idea of me', is obliterated forever. This is what I would call realization. Upon the event occurring, the jiva retains a sense of himself as an individual, just as he/she always has. As Frankji pointed out, "Self-realization does not change anything intrinsically within the individual. . ." However, the difference is thus, when the realized individual ponders the nature of his/her own being, they come to the direct and experiential understanding--a non-intellectual understanding --that they are Brahman. They're still person "a" to you and me. However, to themselves they are only the Self, even while they continue to function as person "a" in the context of their social life. --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2000 Report Share Posted June 8, 2000 On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, jody wrote: > advaitin , anurag@s... wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, jody wrote: > > > > > advaitin , <anurag@s...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Jody do you think a person who plays a role of beggar to its best > > > in a > > > > play will really be a beggar. > > > > > > Not necessarily. What does this have to do with our discussion? > > > Ramakrishna didn't play the role of being human. He *was* human. > > > That's the point I'm trying to make. > > > > you must be knowing the words by Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa which say > > that this world is like a stage. Its in reference to that. We don't know > > that this is a game but poeple like Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa are very > > much aware of this play. Thats where the difference lies. They are playing > > the role of human being. Its not necessary that they be in human form. > > They can take any form to do which needs to be done. > > That's a stretch. The only form humanity has been affected by > is humanity. We have not seen any other form that has had any > impact except the human form. For this we will have to look in to Das Avtaars. > > Ramakrishna was not aware of the play from the standpoint of > his being human. Ramakrishna agonized over the fact > that there were rumors being told about him. He did so to > his householder devotees, and this was recorded by M in the > Gospel. If he was "much aware of this play," he would have no > reason to agonize as he would have precognition of the outcome. Suppose in a role in a play there comes a part where the person has to grieve and say that one is in pain. Do u think the person who is playing the role is really agonizing about it. And what is important is people like Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa agonizes over what kind of issues. Who will benefit fom such agony. Can it be that he is agonizing for the pain of others. > > To contend that the avatars always have intellectual > information about the nature of the play is pure speculation. > While a saint or avatar may display a siddhi every now and > again, because they take human form they are at times just > as in the dark as the rest of us. > To say that they did not is also a mere speculation. The situations in which they went in to darkness were they simple situations and did one go in to that darkness for oneself or for others. > [snip] > > > Very True! so lets see can we be worng. > > I am fully aware that I could be wrong. However, it has yet to > be demonstrated in the context of this discussion. Then lets try to give an equal probability to my words being true and false. > > [snip] > > > Dog undertands a dog better, Sheep understands a sheep better, lion > > understand a lion better, human being understands human being better, > > only a saint can understand a saint better. > > I agree. Hence my disagreement with our human understanding of the > saints lives. > > > When the spark of divinity within a individual lights up its then that > > wisdom pops out. i refer you to "Raja Yoga" by Swami Vivekanada which i > > guess you must have read. > > I agree with this statement. That means human beings show that due to divinity present in them. And when they display that wisdom. Its the divinity that unveils and hence its the divine due to which that happens and not due to human being or someone which is "weak". > > > > > Why do you call yourself as mere human. > > > > > > It's a rhetorical device meant to contrast the perceived difference > > > between the devotees and their spiritual heroes. The point is the > > > Ramakrishna, Ramana, Vivekananda, et al. are held up on a very > > > high pedestal as much more than just human. I contend that even > > > while they were paragons of spirituality and realization, they > > > were simultaneously *quite* human, as human and you and I, and > > > sometimes just as susceptible to the foibles of being human. > > > > > > > Hope here we are not trying to justify and cover up our shortcomings by > > looking at something in them which appears to us as shortcomings. Even if > > one feels that they failed at something then we have a chance of being > > greater than them by not doing the faults which they did and at the same > > time possessing all the good they had. > > No covering here. My faults are available to all who observe or > ask me (at least the ones I'm aware of.) > None but yourself alone knows who you are or what lies within you. So you yourself have to be the judge of your acts and mentality, > The point is, putting the saints on pedestals puts the goal out > of reach. We are all realized right now. Some are blessed to > be aware of it, but the statement holds for all. > Only when they stand at pedestal we can know that they are pure but at the same time it is known what are they made up. Hence the divinity present in them too can be had by us. This way goal doesn't go away from us but comes closer to us. True ! statement holds for all with an exception that some are born musicians but others have to learn it. > I went and saw Ammachi last night. At one point during the > program one of her swamis is praying for us. "Amma, I am a lost > child with no hope at all. I am completely dependent on you for > I am incapable of doing anything for myself." Do you see the > problem with this? If we are all realized right now, how are > we going to realize this if we're "incapable"? It takes the power > away from us as the Self, and gives it all to a figure who really > isn't making the decisions in her own organization! > This prayer destroys the ego which is the main hurdle in progressing on the path of spirituality. We are not realized but we have the pontential of getting realized. There is a great chance that the thought that i am capable along with the vasanas present in me can create ego in me and also it can hinder one from going ahead on the spiritual path for one now knows that one is capable and one can do it anytime. So why do i waste my time over it. Also by praying to her that i am incapable concious shifts from the subject of worry to devotion and love which in turn builds and empowers one to deal with situation. As said by Swami Vivekananda in Raja Yoga that when we pray its the power within us that awakens and helps us. But for this to happen it was necessary that ego be destroyed and one surrender in love. This energy will whenever there is concentration of pious thoughts in one and the ego goes down. Other thought is wherever we stand now is on the basis of the teachings from the enlightened ones or nature. So we have in sense or other always depended on others to progress on the path of spirituality. > > Can senses be trusted. Intellect derived from senses too will be faulty. > > Outside intellect will always lead us to believe in the mirage of a > > desert. Only intellect which shines from within can be taken as truth > > something which has been approved by our Atmaa and heart. > > I agree. Then from where are you getting the input on which you will think. What are the thoughts you are using to think over this. Are these thoughts coming from Atmaa and heart or are they coming from whatever you learnt from society. > > > As said by Pujya Gurudev if we can understand what a Guru does then we > > oursleves have become a Guru. Then we no longer remain shishyaas. But such > > is not the case. With our limited intellects and vision we can't make out > > why does a Guru do such an such act or why has he asked us to do this > > work. We can never understand what Guru does and why do he do that. > > That sounds like guru propaganda to me. I got a barrage of that > last night too. Try to look at it with a different view. When Shri Krishna says to Arjuna that "Ahama Brahma Asmi" and preaches Bhagvad Gitaa to Ajuna is he trying to establish his superiority on Arjuna or is that he is trying to uncover the covered eyes of Arjuna. There is one story in regard to Buddha. Once a disciple asked Buddha some question ( I have forgotten what was the question he out forth). Buddha after hearing the question says a lamp was lighting and of looking around with the help of this light you were all the time concentrated on the darkness that was present under the lamp. > > Jody in the words of Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa this is the difference > > between a Human Being and Enlightened one. > > > > "Bondage is of the mind, and freedom is also of the mind. A man is free if > > he constantly thinks" 'I am a free soul. How can i be bound, whether I > > live in the world or in the forest ? I am a child of God, the King of > > Kings. Who can bind me?" > > You've just made my point beautifully. > And what is your point for what is being said here is about ever free? > > "Do all your duties, but keep your mind on God. Live with all - with wife > > and children, father and mother - and serve them. Treat them as if they > > were very dear to you, but you know in your heart of hearts that they do > > not belong to you." > Here people can view Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa in two ways. One is that Ramakrishna lives his wordly life just like every other human being and the other that he is living his wordly life according to what he preaches. I guess one who preaches in such a simple and original words do have a vision of what one is talking about. And if one has such a vision then one satnds apart from the class of people who think that Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa lives a wordly life just like them love, Anurag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2000 Report Share Posted June 8, 2000 advaitin , <anurag@s...> wrote: [snip] > Suppose in a role in a play there comes a part where the person has to > grieve and say that one is in pain. Do u think the person who is playing > the role is really agonizing about it. No, but the metaphor doesn't necessarily hold. That is, Ramakrishna is playing a role in the lila just as we are. When we agonize over something, we experience emotional pain. The same was true for Ramakrishna I believe. > And what is important is people like Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa > agonizes over what kind of issues. Who will benefit fom such agony. Can it > be that he is agonizing for the pain of others. I would agree that his agonizing is for the benefit of the devotees. However, that doesn't preclude his own experience of emotional pain. > > To contend that the avatars always have intellectual > > information about the nature of the play is pure speculation. > > While a saint or avatar may display a siddhi every now and > > again, because they take human form they are at times just > > as in the dark as the rest of us. > > To say that they did not is also a mere speculation. The situations in > which they went in to darkness were they simple situations and did one go > in to that darkness for oneself or for others. Who can say? However, if we apply Occam's razor, to say that the saints in bodies have very human experiences--meaning they don't always foresee everything--is the simplist and therefore more adequate explanation. > > [snip] > > > > > Very True! so lets see can we be worng. > > > > I am fully aware that I could be wrong. However, it has yet to > > be demonstrated in the context of this discussion. > > > Then lets try to give an equal probability to my words being true > and false. You are welcome to do so. However, your words don't jibe with my personal experience, which unfortunately I cannot trot out on to these pages. So, I will continue to maintain my position until I see the light in yours and/or others words, or until my own experience tells me otherwise. [snip] > Only when they stand at pedestal we can know that they are pure but at the > same time it is known what are they made up. Hence the divinity present in > them too can be had by us. This way goal doesn't go away from us but comes > closer to us. "Kali's Child" demonstrates that Ramakrishna's purity was other than what the Ramakrishna Math projects. That is, while I will maintain he was an Incarnation, he was also human and given to some human behaviors that would be difficult to call "pure". [snip] > > I went and saw Ammachi last night. At one point during the > > program one of her swamis is praying for us. "Amma, I am a lost > > child with no hope at all. I am completely dependent on you for > > I am incapable of doing anything for myself." Do you see the > > problem with this? If we are all realized right now, how are > > we going to realize this if we're "incapable"? It takes the power > > away from us as the Self, and gives it all to a figure who really > > isn't making the decisions in her own organization! > > This prayer destroys the ego which is the main hurdle in progressing on > the path of spirituality. We are not realized but we have the > pontential of getting realized. There is a great chance that the thought > that i am capable along with the vasanas present in me can create ego in > me and also it can hinder one from going ahead on the spiritual path for > one now knows that one is capable and one can do it anytime. So why do i > waste my time over it. I maintain that the prayer is a bold attempt at cult-like manipulation for the purposes of getting people "hooked" on Ammachi. Again, this isn't to disparage Amma, but it does illustrate the very human social dimensions of her organization. > Also by praying to her that i am incapable concious shifts from the > subject of worry to devotion and love which in turn builds and empowers > one to deal with situation. I pray to Ma Kali directly. There is no need whatsoever to place a cute Indian lady between Ma and I. However, her swamis appear to have their own agenda. [snip] > Then from where are you getting the input on which you will think. What > are the thoughts you are using to think over this. Are these thoughts > coming from Atmaa and heart or are they coming from whatever you learnt > from society. Well, I'm quite confident that I'm getting this from direct and experiential revelation, but I don't expect anyone else to take my word for it. Those that can recognize this will, all others may think I'm full of myself. So be it. It's the way of the world. [snip] > > > Jody in the words of Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa this is the difference > > > between a Human Being and Enlightened one. > > > > > > "Bondage is of the mind, and freedom is also of the mind. A man is free if > > > he constantly thinks" 'I am a free soul. How can i be bound, whether I > > > live in the world or in the forest ? I am a child of God, the King of > > > Kings. Who can bind me?" > > > > You've just made my point beautifully. > > And what is your point for what is being said here is about ever free? That we are all realized, and to think "I'm nothing without Amma, I can't do anything without her" is a mistake. If I decide that I am the free soul unbound, and have some confidence (tempered with humility) in that fact, I'm much further along than giving everything to Amma and her swamis. [snip] > love, > Anurag Take care. --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2000 Report Share Posted June 8, 2000 After all the discussions on jIvan-mukta I wish to recollect from nArAyaNIyaM, a great work of advaita-bhakti, from a renowned devotee, Bhattatiri: (from the translation by Swami Tapasyananda) Of what good are mere words about the condition of a jIvan-mukta? It is something far off for a person of impure mind. Other than bhakti there is no easy way of attaining to purity of mind (needed for attaining to that state). O Vishnu! May thou therefore deign to bestow on me intense devotion characterised by absolute surrender of all deeds to Thee. With the purity of mind gained thereby and the instruction of the Guru, I shall soon attain to true enlightenment and union with Thee. ----- Verse No.6 of the 94th decad. The original verse goes as follows: jIvan-muktatvam-evamvidham-iti vacasA kiM phalaM dUra-dUre tan-nAmASuddha-buddher na ca laghu manasaH SodhanaM bhaktito'nyat / tan-me vishNo kRshIshTAs-tvayi kRta-sakala-prArpaNaM bhakti- bhAraM yena syAM mankshu kimcid-guru-vacana-milat tvat-prabhodhas- tvadAtmA // praNAms to all advaitins. profvk profvk My two books, one on Science and Spirituality and the other on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought, Vision and Practice, can both be accessed at the address: http://www.geocities.com/profvk/ Talk to your friends online with Messenger. http://im. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2000 Report Share Posted June 8, 2000 On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, jody wrote: > advaitin , <anurag@s...> wrote: > > [snip] > > > Suppose in a role in a play there comes a part where the person has > to > > grieve and say that one is in pain. Do u think the person who is > playing > > the role is really agonizing about it. > > No, but the metaphor doesn't necessarily hold. That is, Ramakrishna > is playing a role in the lila just as we are. When we agonize over > something, we experience emotional pain. The same was true for > Ramakrishna I believe. > Here is one quote " Unattachment also does not mean that becomes feelingless to the sorrows and pains of others. This is not spiritualism. Spiritualism means experiencing the omnipresence of the soul. Then no one can be a stranger, and if someone is in pain, one too feels the pain. This is actual spiritualism." Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa feeling pain elates him rather degrading his pain to that of the human beings. Can u recall the Boatman incident ? > > And what is important is people like Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa > > agonizes over what kind of issues. Who will benefit fom such agony. > Can it > > be that he is agonizing for the pain of others. > > I would agree that his agonizing is for the benefit of the devotees. > However, that doesn't preclude his own experience of emotional pain. Such pain which for the good of others itself takes one beyond normal humans rather then degrading him to the level of normal human beings. Also if i remember correctly Guru Totapuri himself has to learn from Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa how to rise above pain. > > > > To contend that the avatars always have intellectual > > > information about the nature of the play is pure speculation. > > > While a saint or avatar may display a siddhi every now and > > > again, because they take human form they are at times just > > > as in the dark as the rest of us. > > > > To say that they did not is also a mere speculation. The situations > in > > which they went in to darkness were they simple situations and did > one go > > in to that darkness for oneself or for others. > > Who can say? However, if we apply Occam's razor, to say that the > saints in bodies have very human experiences--meaning they don't > always foresee everything--is the simplist and therefore more > adequate explanation. True! thats why to create a false picture on our mind and harden a distorted impression on our mind. Instead seek for more knowledge. to know what can be there. Life will be more simpler is we take that they can forsee. For world will become complex with another lost soul. But will become more simpler and stable with an evolved soul. Taking in to account the stability of universe he should be able to forsee. > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > Very True! so lets see can we be worng. > > > > > > I am fully aware that I could be wrong. However, it has yet to > > > be demonstrated in the context of this discussion. > > > > > > Then lets try to give an equal probability to my words being true > > and false. > > You are welcome to do so. However, your words don't jibe with my > personal experience, which unfortunately I cannot trot out on to > these pages. So, I will continue to maintain my position until > I see the light in yours and/or others words, or until my own > experience tells me otherwise. Yup! after all its your life in relative sense. > > [snip] > > > Only when they stand at pedestal we can know that they are pure but > at the > > same time it is known what are they made up. Hence the divinity > present in > > them too can be had by us. This way goal doesn't go away from us > but comes > > closer to us. > > "Kali's Child" demonstrates that Ramakrishna's purity was other than > what the Ramakrishna Math projects. That is, while I will maintain > he was an Incarnation, he was also human and given to some human > behaviors that would be difficult to call "pure". > When i myself following the spiritual disciplnes can get closer to true love then i can in no way measure the purity in someone as giant as Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa. > > I maintain that the prayer is a bold attempt at cult-like manipulation > for the purposes of getting people "hooked" on Ammachi. Again, this > isn't to disparage Amma, but it does illustrate the very human social > dimensions of her organization. Prayer is not smething which one learns. Its something that comes from within. > > > Also by praying to her that i am incapable concious shifts from the > > subject of worry to devotion and love which in turn builds and > empowers > > one to deal with situation. > > I pray to Ma Kali directly. There is no need whatsoever to place a > cute Indian lady between Ma and I. However, her swamis appear to > have their own agenda. Its up to you worship or not. And if yes then its up to you to worship Brahma in more subtle form or in more grosser form. ( I don't who revered Ammachi is ) > > [snip] > > > Then from where are you getting the input on which you will think. > What > > are the thoughts you are using to think over this. Are these > thoughts > > coming from Atmaa and heart or are they coming from whatever you > learnt > > from society. > > Well, I'm quite confident that I'm getting this from direct and > experiential revelation, but I don't expect anyone else to take > my word for it. Those that can recognize this will, all others > may think I'm full of myself. So be it. It's the way of the > world. Yup! trust your heart and soul. > > [snip] > > > > > Jody in the words of Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa this is the > difference > > > > between a Human Being and Enlightened one. > > > > > > > > "Bondage is of the mind, and freedom is also of the mind. A man > is free if > > > > he constantly thinks" 'I am a free soul. How can i be bound, > whether I > > > > live in the world or in the forest ? I am a child of God, the > King of > > > > Kings. Who can bind me?" > > > > > > You've just made my point beautifully. > > > > And what is your point for what is being said here is about ever > free? > > That we are all realized, and to think "I'm nothing without Amma, I > can't do anything without her" is a mistake. If I decide that I am > the free soul unbound, and have some confidence (tempered with > humility) in that fact, I'm much further along than giving everything > to Amma and her swamis. > If we are all realized then what is that we are doing. Trying to become unrealized. This body alone stands no where. To make sense it has to depend on the rest. Let alone Amma we depend on food, clothing, shoes, slippers, soap etc. in our daily life. Can we do away with that and live in society. love, Anurag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2000 Report Share Posted June 9, 2000 '.. in the name of truth you destroy it. Your very desire to formulate truth denies it, because it cannot be contained in words.... Q: When do I know I have discovered the Truth? M: When the idea 'this is true, that is true' does not arise. ..... Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj' Something to ponder & let go ....... Col 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.