Guest guest Posted March 22, 2001 Report Share Posted March 22, 2001 On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Sandeep Chatterjee wrote: > Hiya Gummuluru > > > Whether the term "moksha" has been used by the singing farmers ala Upanashidic Rishis or has been the later insertions to establish and perpetuate a "goal" of spirituality, thereby effectively establishing the power of control over the lesser mortals, the term moksha meaning liberation ,itself is an oxymoron. > > To seek Moksha, is to apriori assume that > A)there is an entity which can be "mokshed" (by whichever means) > B)That this entity is currently "unmokshed", bounded and thus seeks the liberation from the bondage. > > Both the apriori assumptions, in their very existence, perpetuate the bondage. > > Whereas "moksha" would denote the apperception that there is none to whom moksha itself is relevant. > > Even to say that the seeker is already free is a corruption. > > When Freedom and Liberation, both have no relevance, then....... > > > Mis conceptual dos centavos > > > Cheers > > Sandeep > namaste shri Sandeepji, and welcome to the List. It is customary on this List to send a short note introducing yourself to the List so that all the members are aware of the perspectives behind the post. I concede that recalling the background itself is to perpetuate bondage but in vyavahArika communications, it is unavoidable. Your comments are well-taken and are full of wisdom. You ask who is to be "mokshed". It is certainly *theoretically* correct to ask that question and certainly a neauveau trendy one too. My response to that would be: the jIvA, the deluded Atman that is to be freed from the shackles of bondage. This jIvA feels him/herself to be limited, although he/she is infinite. This jIvA signs the names as Gummuluru, or Sandeep or X although he/she is beyond the names and forms. Liberation is the treatment and cure for this delusion. We can say we are that unlimited SELF only when we do not put our names to our posts and when we are at a stage in our spiritual evolution when we do not claim this is my house, this is my family, this is my bank-account, this is my sannyAsi-ashrama name, etc. As long as we see ourselves as the limited self, we cannot really say that moksha has no meaning. We cannot claim both ways. Only if we can walk away (manasA, vAcA, kAyA) from the world without even feeling a pinch, and only if we are not dragged back into what we call worldly committments by people around, and only if we walk away the world does not feel it and we do not feel it, then only we can say that we do not need liberation. I changed the subject title of this post from the previous one (the word 'moksha' in upanishads) as the present one reflects the contents of this post and this discussion. Regards Gummuluru Murthy - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2001 Report Share Posted March 22, 2001 Namaste, What a pity that the Rishis and the saints, including many farmers, did not catch this brilliant insight, and instead labored mightily with 'tapas' that the bondage of ignorance of the unhappy be shattered so true happiness can bloom!!! Krishna did not preach the Gita to perpetuate control over Arjuna, or even lesser mortals!! Gita: 18:30 - pravR^itti.n cha nivR^itti.n cha kaarya-akaarye bhaya-abhaye . bandhaM moksha.n cha yaa vetti buddhiH saa paartha saattvikii .. That which knows the paths of work and renunciation, right and wrong action, fear and fearlessness, bondage and liberation, that intellect, O Partha, is Sattvika [pure]. I am loath to disagree with Frankji on the 'award of the month' in this instance! Regards, s. advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Sandeep Chatterjee wrote: > > > Hiya Gummuluru > > > > > > Whether the term "moksha" has been used by the singing farmers ala Upanashidic Rishis or has been the later insertions to establish and perpetuate a "goal" of spirituality, thereby effectively establishing the power of control over the lesser mortals, the term moksha meaning liberation ,itself is an oxymoron. > > > > To seek Moksha, is to apriori assume that > > A)there is an entity which can be "mokshed" (by whichever means) > > B)That this entity is currently "unmokshed", bounded and thus seeks the liberation from the bondage. > > > > Both the apriori assumptions, in their very existence, perpetuate the bondage. > > > > Whereas "moksha" would denote the apperception that there is none to whom moksha itself is relevant. > > > > Even to say that the seeker is already free is a corruption. > > > > When Freedom and Liberation, both have no relevance, then....... > > > > > > Mis conceptual dos centavos > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Sandeep > > > > > namaste shri Sandeepji, and welcome to the List. > > It is customary on this List to send a short note > introducing yourself to the List so that all the > members are aware of the perspectives behind the > post. I concede that recalling the background itself > is to perpetuate bondage but in vyavahArika communications, > it is unavoidable. > > Your comments are well-taken and are full of wisdom. > You ask who is to be "mokshed". It is certainly *theoretically* > correct to ask that question and certainly a neauveau trendy > one too. My response to that would be: the jIvA, the deluded > Atman that is to be freed from the shackles of bondage. > This jIvA feels him/herself to be limited, although he/she > is infinite. This jIvA signs the names as Gummuluru, or Sandeep > or X although he/she is beyond the names and forms. Liberation > is the treatment and cure for this delusion. > > We can say we are that unlimited SELF only when we do not > put our names to our posts and when we are at a stage in our > spiritual evolution when we do not claim this is my house, > this is my family, this is my bank-account, this is my > sannyAsi-ashrama name, etc. As long as we see ourselves > as the limited self, we cannot really say that moksha has > no meaning. We cannot claim both ways. > > Only if we can walk away (manasA, vAcA, kAyA) from the world > without even feeling a pinch, and only if we are not dragged > back into what we call worldly committments by people around, > and only if we walk away the world does not feel it and we do > not feel it, then only we can say that we do not need liberation. > > I changed the subject title of this post from the previous > one (the word 'moksha' in upanishads) as the present one > reflects the contents of this post and this discussion. > > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2001 Report Share Posted March 22, 2001 Hiya Gummuluru, <SNIP> namaste shri Sandeepji, and welcome to the List. It is customary on this List to send a short note introducing yourself to the List so that all the members are aware of the perspectives behind the post. San: A gentleman of leisure. ------------- I concede that recalling the background itself is to perpetuate bondage but in vyavahArika communications, it is unavoidable. San: If the background is not the message, then it's not worth a fig. -------------- Your comments are well-taken and are full of wisdom. You ask who is to be "mokshed". It is certainly *theoretically* correct to ask that question and certainly a neauveau trendy one too. My response to that would be: the jIvA, the deluded Atman that is to be freed from the shackles of bondage. San: Indeed, it would be so, if the individual Jiva, who assumes the burden of thr shackles of bondage, existed in the first place. What do we truly have. A body-mind complex, a biological computer, a psychosomatic apparatus, with a characteristic of sentience and with an innate conditioning, through which, Impersonal functioning keeps occurring, moment after moment after moment. This conditioning in turn is the basic DNA-gene structure inhertited, non-volitionally from your parents and which has been subsequently "impacted" by inputs from the environ, through parents, friends, society, education, value-systems, experiences, Gurus, Mahatamas, charismatic leaders etc etc, which have resulted in it being altered, amended, edited, changed, moment to moment to moment. Hence the term "operative conditioning of the moment". (You would have noticed similar events, your reactions are different at different times.) It is this "operative conditioning of the moment" which enables the functioning to take place in the moment, precisely in the manner and form, as it occurs in the moment. The neuro surgeon Dr Benjamin Libet's experiments validate this process. And thus for such functioning to take place, appropriate body-mind complex with appropriate conditionings are manifested. It is precisely such a process occurring through the billions and billions of "conditioned" body-mind complexes, which makes up the mosaic of Life as we know it. Coming back to the body-mind complex, it is essentially the product of a sperm and an ovum, which in turn is the essence of the food ingested and thus comes into the play the 5 basic elements, making up phenomenality. The body-mind complex, after it's allotted life-span will return back to the five basic elements. Where in all this, is the "Jiva" bounded and which needs liberation? Yes there is an illusory sense of personal volition, of doership (whatever be the doing, profane or profound) and this brings about a sense of separation. This sense of separation in turn brings a sense of insecurity, a sense of suffering. But all this an illusion. There is no "individual entity" in the first place either bound or liberated, for which the very question can have a relevance. But an illusion is needed, for the play, the leela to get enacted and hence this illusory sense of entitification appears to come into existence and the Maya seems so real that it seems the whole circus has come to town. But only "seems", not "IS". This jIvA feels him/herself to be limited, although he/she is infinite. This jIvA signs the names as Gummuluru, or Sandeep or X although he/she is beyond the names and forms. San: Indeed, Jiva, or Consciousness or Micky Mouse or whatever term you wish to use, seems to undergo an entitification moving from Oneness (again a conceptual term for the purpose of this dialogue) into multiplicity. Life needs the gestalt of duality to be cognized. This very dialogue as an infinitely small part of Life itself, needs an apparent "Sandeep" to be separate from an apparent "Gummuluru". And now a dialogue is possible, between these two separate entities. But really it is only Consciousness frolicking with itself through this very dialogue. Playing this particular game. Liberation is the treatment and cure for this delusion. San: There can be a treatment and a cure if there is a "disease" separate from "health". If I am the "diseased" , I am the disease, I am the cure and I am the "cured", then what treatment, what cure? A simple question will clarify. In Oneness, who is to liberate whom from what? What is not-Oneness, that can be termed "un-liberated", and hence apart from itself, so that Oneness, needs to move towards that? We can say we are that unlimited SELF only when we do not put our names to our posts and when we are at a stage in our spiritual evolution when we do not claim this is my house, this is my family, this is my bank-account, this is my sannyAsi-ashrama name, etc. San: Oh by all means do all of them. To function in society, you need not go nuts<s> Just smile internally at the role, the body-mind complex, the conceptual entity, has been allotted to play and is playing by taking on all these "masks" , whether they are profane ones or profound ones. This has been the problem with our Hindu interpreters. They moved into "doing" versus "non-doing" and the whole crap of what type of "doing" being suitable for what goals etc etc. Doing or non-doing (which is also a doing) per se is not the issue at all. What is important is the presence or absence of the sense of personal doer-ship that gets attached to the "doing" which anyway takes place, irrespectively, moment after moment after moment. It is the presence or absence of the sense of personal doer-ship which creates our Personal Hells and Personal Heavens. It would not be thus too difficult to apperceive then, that the absence of the sense of personal doer-ship cannot be brought about by the entity (which is nothing but the illusory sense of personal doership), but can only be non-volitional, acausal "occurrence". As long as we see ourselves as the limited self, we cannot really say that moksha has no meaning. We cannot claim both ways. San: Very true. Assume the bondage and liberation is indeed a cherished goal. What I am saying is that in the very act, to try to be free, is the perpetuation of the bondage. It's like trying to lift yourself by your boot-straps. Can it ever be done? You, the attempter, is the very weight that you are trying to lift. The effort is the weight. The goose was never in the bottle in the first place, so the question of wring it's neck and bringing it out of the bottle was never relevant. Only if we can walk away (manasA, vAcA, kAyA) from the world without even feeling a pinch, and only if we are not dragged back into what we call worldly commitments by people around, and only if we walk away the world does not feel it and we do not feel it, then only we can say that we do not need liberation. San: Where is the world not, to which you can walk to? In the "we do not need liberation", the "we" is very much present isn't it? Rather when there is no "entity" to which the entire question of bondage or liberation is no longer relevant, the entity is close to being in the "tiger's mouth". Remember, the dude who sang, some 3,000 years back "No answers received All questions dropped" All question dropped, because the "questioner" has dropped. And the "questioner" cannot drop itself, for in the very act of dropping (through whatever means is the latest "fad") is it's continued existence. Mis conceptual dos centavos. Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2001 Report Share Posted March 22, 2001 Hi Sunder, - sunderh advaitin Thursday, March 22, 2001 09:36 PM Re: release from bondage Namaste, What a pity that the Rishis and the saints, including many farmers, did not catch this brilliant insight, and instead labored mightily with 'tapas' that the bondage of ignorance of the unhappy be shattered so true happiness can bloom!!! San: My friend, see both the tapas as well as tap dancing, both as the Impersonal functionings through appropriate conditioned body-mind complexes. Not the other way around. And this very apperception to occur is also not within "Sunder's " volition. Krishna did not preach the Gita to perpetuate control over Arjuna, or even lesser mortals!! San: Do you know the meaning of the term Gita? It means a song. Krishna never preached the Gita. He had no clue of what we call today the Gita. He just sang for Arjun as a response to his question. And what was the essence of his song? "I have already killed those, against whom, you fear to raise your bow. You are only a "nimit" for what has already been achieved. Sunder, the whole Picture already IS. Never was it not. Even to state as this, is a corruption, for "Is" and "never" are relevant only against the construct of "time". And "time" is a conceptual construct. Gita: 18:30 - pravR^itti.n cha nivR^itti.n cha kaarya-akaarye bhaya-abhaye . bandhaM moksha.n cha yaa vetti buddhiH saa paartha saattvikii .. That which knows the paths of work and renunciation, right and wrong action, fear and fearlessness, bondage and liberation, that intellect, O Partha, is Sattvika [pure]. I am loath to disagree with Frankji on the 'award of the month' in this instance! San: Ooooooh, what a loss! <s> Just when I was preeening myself. LOL. Cheers Sandeep 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.