Guest guest Posted January 15, 2001 Report Share Posted January 15, 2001 Swaminarayan T [tvswaminarayan] ---------------- Dear Gangaji and Jaiji, With all my heart, I wish to appeal to both of you to drop further discussion on this 'exchanges' of yours.That is , for the sake of the unity of the list members. Gangaji, Enlightened souls do not PROFESS. Jaiji, Enlightened souls do not RETORT. __________ But Enlightened souls do have a good laugh now and then! :-). Hi everyone. I have been catching up on the mail and really enjoying the dialogue. The topic of Samadhi is certainly dear to all aspirants. It has been discussed many times on the list. As many of you know, (but it is worth repeating again) the Sage of Arunachala, Sri Ramana Maharshi has made some clear points on the matter in his conversations. Perhaps Sunderji has already mentioned it. Love Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 advaitin , Swaminarayan T <tvswaminarayan> wrote: [snip] > Dear Gangaji and Jaiji, > > With all my heart, I wish to appeal to both of you to > drop further discussion on this 'exchanges' of > yours.That is , for the sake of the unity of the list > members. > > Gangaji, Enlightened souls do not PROFESS. You are correct that Enlightened souls to not profess. However, these souls are associated with minds, and these minds are quite capable of professing. There is no law that says realized people can't talk about it. If this was the case the Upanishads would have never been written. > Jaiji, Enlightened souls do not RETORT. Once again, quite correct yet completely wrong. > With warm respects and regards, > > Hari Om!, > > Swaminarayan. Let me ask you a question. Why *don't* realized people profess? --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2001 Report Share Posted January 18, 2001 --- jody <jodyrrr wrote: > > Swaminarayan. > > Let me ask you a question. Why *don't* realized > people > profess? > > --jody. ---------------------- Realized people 'don't' profess because there is no 'need' to do so! You are absolutely right when you say that minds are quite capable of professing.It is only when enlightened souls associate themselves(needlessly) with 'mind' that they profess.The same holds good for the other enlightened ones that retort. Actully, Jody,the body/mind complex that constitutes the ego, has to live out its assigned time in this jagat and during this period also, as always,the enlightened soul,Brahman,just remains, as Saxi Chaitanya, kevala Dhrk,a mere WITNESS thereof. Hari Om! Swaminarayan Get email at your own domain with Mail. http://personal.mail./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2001 Report Share Posted January 18, 2001 advaitin , Swaminarayan T <tvswaminarayan> wrote: > --- jody <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > > > Swaminarayan. > > > > Let me ask you a question. Why *don't* realized > > people > > profess? > > > > --jody. > ---------------------- > > Realized people 'don't' profess because there is no > 'need' to do so! The Self has no needs, but the mind associated with the realized person might. Such a mind might have compassion for all those who spend hours and hours filling their heads with intellectual interpretations of the shastras. While such activity might make one sound erudite, it brings one no closer to realization than a nightly visit to the brothel. > You are absolutely right when you say that minds are > quite capable of professing.It is only when > enlightened souls associate themselves(needlessly) > with 'mind' that they profess.The same holds good for > the other enlightened ones that retort. The realized person must maintain a minimum of association with the mind if such a person is to function. As I said previously, if realized people hadn't confessed their understanding, there would be no shastras, and we would have no idea that such beings as Shankara, Ramana Maharshi, Ramakrishna and Vivekananda had ever even existed. > Actully, Jody,the body/mind complex that constitutes > the ego, has to live out its assigned time in this > jagat and during this period also, as always,the > enlightened soul,Brahman,just remains, as Saxi > Chaitanya, kevala Dhrk,a mere WITNESS thereof. > > Hari Om! > > Swaminarayan Correct. However, at times that witness is housed in a mind that comes to the direct and experiential understanding that the "person" associated with it doesn't exist, so that only this witness remains. This person can be said to be realized. When such a person is so blessed, they are ever free from karma and desire, but, as you've pointed out above, the karma and desire left over unwinds over the rest of that person's embodiment. For some of the realized souls, the unwinding of this karma takes the form of teaching others, and to do so requires that they profess their experiential understanding as a way to qualify themselves. Just because you feel it is gauche for them to do so doesn't disqualify them from the credentials they already have. --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2001 Report Share Posted January 18, 2001 Those That Profess there have been those that did profess...one was Christ.who said directly I and the Father are One if you have seen me then you have seen the Father that sent me..... He was very hard on the pharisees or those religious leaders of the day... saying that they were sepulchars of dead bones... for his statement of professing he was crucified..... another that professed is Kabir... and if you read his writings he spared no one...he spoke Truth in no uncertain terms..... Now let this be stated once and for all and then it ends.... within the communication of duality we use the term I to denote the one speaking.... In reality there is no longer any personality that is perceived - it died the moment of realization... So when that statement is made it is not coming from mind.... it is not coming from ego for there is no ego sense that remains... Neither can it be stated that only Self remains.... For Self is a term that would seem to denote personality... of which there is no cognition.... Simply what remains is the emptiness of Being... One that says "I am enlightened" and is speaking that the ego form is truth is deluded.... But being that there are no adequate words as all words come from the standpoint and concept of duality there is no language that is correct.... On this line there are those that wish to split hairs so to speak on each word used... No words can reveal Truth... they can only point the way to... But truth is realized within alone.... No debate can give the experience of the ego death.... For Truth you must lay down the life entirely.... then you no longer remain... others see the form speaking but you are NOT.... it is perceived (in realization) only as coming from silence into manifestation as words... It is not from intellect as you or self (ego) no longer is.... Why does advaita which means not two.... why do they not just say One... because within One there is division and Brahman is ever undivided...The One takes you to I Am That I Am...for I Am to exist there still remains subject and object... the witness sees and stands apart... it would be closer to say the O represents Brahman for it within itself (and do not split hairs about the term itself) has no substance, nor separation, nor sense of mind or thought... it is empty in nature... yet it is absolute pristine awareness...Undiluted Conciousness without any conditionings..... Ever Pure... Beyond birth or death....there is no witness that remains... all has merged - nothing remains except That Which Is.... Essense.... in that moment when ego death comes Essense Alone Is.... then the I AM returns as witness as long as there remains physical form.... but this I AM is not the I AM of ego identification... it is the I AM of only witness... but there is never the deception that ego is... words come from the silence into manifestation... How the Guru speaks... All "knowledge" all wisdom proceeds from the Silence of Source... you are only a mouthpiece and instrument... it comes not from intellect.. it comes and goes like the waves on a lake and then once again subsides into the vast ocean of Bliss.... This is the speaking of the Guru... Never assume that personality is speaking although the mouth moves it comes directly from Pure Consciousness Alone... as a personality i do not know what will proceed from the mouth... this is why it is ever interesting to the Guru... when the students ask the answer proceeds forth... and the Self is not moved it is ever still... but the form is seen to speak and answers are given.... it is a never ending mystery... i am conscious only of the Bliss the One and beyond the One... once again do not split hairs when the statement is made as a personality... you are only witness.... but there is once again not the ever abiding sense of personality....that person died only the emptiness of Being remains... Witness remains.... Love and Blessings Shanti,Shanti,Shanti, Om..... now let this debate and nonsense end.... go into the silence that is all.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2001 Report Share Posted January 19, 2001 Ganga Karmokar wrote: > > Those That Profess > > there have been those that did profess...one was Christ.who said > directly I and the Father are One if you have seen me then you have > seen the Father that sent me..... He was very hard on the pharisees > or those religious leaders of the day... hariH OM! gangaji- yes the statement "i and my father are one" can be interpreted as professing...it really isn't, in my view. although i'd say that christ *did* seem to profess to the religious leaders, who had fallen from the spirit [of Being] to the letter of the law. "i and my father are one" is essentially "I AM THAT I AM," being the same implication as TAT TVAM ASI ("That Thou Art"), the essential message "atman = brahman," the very basis of advaita vedanta. it's also interesting how jesus' two lone commandments, address brahman and its projection into the [*appearance of the pluralisic* manifestation of] the atman: 1) brahman: "love God [That I AM] with all thy mind and heart." 2) atman: "love [That I AM dwelling in] thy neighbor as [the selfsame I AM dwelling in] thyself." ....which is, as we know, also the meaning of 'namaste.' beautiful. airtight. perfect.. how it all fits! if i may say, your post is quite excellent. i would only disagree that anyone has to 'stop any debate that seems to be nonsense.' in fact, i would go so far as to say nothing is *ever* nonsense on *any* level--not in word, thought or deed, from the heinous to the magnanimous!--but *vital* to what must be the ineffable Script of Life unfolding Itself in spacetime. namaste, frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2001 Report Share Posted January 19, 2001 Ganga Karmokar wrote: Enjoyed what you wrote - only for the last statement if I may add, > >Love and Blessings Shanti,Shanti,Shanti, Om..... now let this >debate and nonsense end.... go into the silence that is all.... like Frankji - I do understand the spirit of the statement but I do not see the need either to end anything. Debates and the so-called non-sense and the sense are within the silence too - there is no need to go somewhere much less to silence, since in the process of going there is an effort or conflict in the mind where one think one is and where one thinks one has to go. dvaitia is included in a-dvaita. In addition to the points you made, the reason that the emphasis is on adviata instead of monoism is we experience dvaita and to non-that or to see the truth of one in the dvaita, advaita is emphasized as the very substratum in all the dvaita. Must say what you wrote is beautiful and silencing truth. 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 January 19, 2001 Report Share Posted January 19, 2001 advaitin , "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote: > - there is no need > to go somewhere much less to silence, since in the process of going > there is an effort or conflict in the mind where one think one is and > where one thinks one has to go. dvaitia is included in a-dvaita. In > addition to the points you made, the reason that the emphasis is on > adviata instead of monoism is we experience dvaita and to non-that or > to see the truth of one in the dvaita, advaita is emphasized as the > very substratum in all the dvaita. > > Must say what you wrote is beautiful and silencing truth. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > Namaste - Yes if you come to That Which Is and know the emptiness of maya then the realm of seeming duality receeds into the emptiness that it is... It is ever non-dual in nature beyond the illusive forms.... And within the struggle you are defeated... You must relax into acceptance... only when all has been utterly surrendered do you come to ego death where only Essnse Is.... ever pure and untouched by mayas seeming events... Only when all is surrendered even the desire for liberation and truth... when All is surrendered and you simply remain the Silence Is.... and ego shatters and illusions shatter... and the Emptiness of Being remains... Pure Conscious Awareness... Sat*Chit*Anand... Om Shanti-Shanti-Shanti- Om... > -- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2001 Report Share Posted January 19, 2001 advaitin , f maiello <egodust@d...> wrote: > He was very hard on the pharisees > > or those religious leaders of the day... > > > hariH OM! gangaji- > > yes the statement "i and my father are one" can be interpreted > as professing...it really isn't, in my view. although i'd say > that christ *did* seem to profess to the religious leaders, who > had fallen from the spirit [of Being] to the letter of the law. > > "i and my father are one" is essentially "I AM THAT I AM," > being the same implication as TAT TVAM ASI ("That Thou Art"), > the essential message "atman = brahman," the very basis of > advaita vedanta. it's also interesting how jesus' two lone > commandments, address brahman and its projection into the > [*appearance of the pluralisic* manifestation of] the atman: > 1) brahman: "love God [That I AM] with all thy mind and heart." > 2) atman: "love [That I AM dwelling in] thy neighbor as [the > selfsame I AM dwelling in] thyself." > ...which is, as we know, also the meaning of 'namaste.' > > beautiful. airtight. perfect.. how it all fits! > > if i may say, your post is quite excellent. i would only > disagree that anyone has to 'stop any debate that seems to be > nonsense.' in fact, i would go so far as to say nothing is > *ever* nonsense on *any* level--not in word, thought or deed, > from the heinous to the magnanimous!--but *vital* to what must > be the ineffable Script of Life unfolding Itself in spacetime. > > namaste, > frank namaste - yes Christ spoke only pure truth... so simply, yet in 2,000 years his message still has not been understood by the church... if he were here today he would speak the same message and the church leaders would once again conspire against him.... He was not as personality but simply the spirit of Truth was manifest.... He was a perfect example of Advaita within the western culture... truth is One beyond all the outward dogmas isn't it.... What was meant by the end of debating was that when a postition is held and the debating is ongoing neither side learning nor acquiesing what is accomplished? But nature plays out in the ever on-going panorama of the dream of maya in all its forms illusions... Sat*Chit*Anand -Shanti-Shanti-Shanti- Om... 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.