Daily Words of the Buddha

[Guest guest]

> Daily Words of the Buddha

> November 11, 2002

>

>

> Overcome the angry by non-anger;

> overcome the wicked by goodness;

> overcome the miser by generosity;

> overcome the liar by truth.

>

> Dhammapada 223

 

Namaste All,IMO.

 

Today is Remembrance Day or Poppy Day. A day to

remember those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for

what they believed in.

(What their masters and politicians believed is

another matter).

It is enough that they died doing their Dharma.

 

Let us all remember them all. Ahimsa sometimes doesn't

mean non violence but resistance to violence and evil.

Trouble is finding evil........ONS....Tony.

 

=====

'What is Truth?' (Pilate to Jesus.)

(Jesus answered with silence).

http://djtruth7.tripod.com/theongoingsojournfromtruthtofreedom/id2.html

Online book draft and writings

http://www.geocities.com/aoclery

Another interesting Jewish view.

http://www.netureikarta.org/

 

 

 

U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos

http://launch./u2

[Guest guest]

--- Tony O'Clery <aoclery wrote:

Ahimsa sometimes doesn't

> mean non violence but resistance to violence and evil.

> Trouble is finding evil........ONS....Tony.

 

 

Well said Tony. Ahimsa is postive non-violence not lethergic

non-violence. It does not mean becoming a door-mat that everybody

can wolk - All Hindu Gods have disks or maces or bow & arrors,

trisuulaa-s - to make sure the unrighteousness or violence is

resistented with all power. It is not eye-for eye either. - it is

application of saama/ daana/ bheda/danDam - the stick is taken only

as a last rsort. Enforceemnt of goodness is a must - Compassionate

reinforcement of universal values. Ramayana exemplies this.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos

http://launch./u2

[Guest guest]

--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

> --- Tony O'Clery <aoclery wrote:

> Ahimsa sometimes doesn't

> > mean non violence but resistance to violence and

> evil.

> > Trouble is finding evil........ONS....Tony.

Indeed the trouble is finding evil.What is evil?Why is

it evil? who decides what is evil?Using what

criteria?Yesterday's "evil" may become todays's "good"

if it succeeds.At the bottom,so-called evil is a

threat to somebody's interest,be it one individual

against another,one religion against another,one

country against another,or one species(humans) against

another(virus).Does a true Jivanmukta transcend

separateness of every kind and go absolutely beyond

'good' and 'evil'?Are 'good' and 'evil' in the realm

of vyavahar(pragmatics) and so are Adnyaan and Maya

from kevaladvait?

 

 

 

 

 

 

U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos

http://launch./u2

[Guest guest]

advaitin, vasant godbole <vggodbole> wrote:

>

> --- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada>

> wrote:

> >

> > --- Tony O'Clery <aoclery> wrote:

> > Ahimsa sometimes doesn't

> > > mean non violence but resistance to violence and

> > evil.

> > > Trouble is finding evil........ONS....Tony.

> Indeed the trouble is finding evil.What is evil?Why is

> it evil? who decides what is evil?Using what

> criteria?Yesterday's "evil" may become todays's "good"

> if it succeeds.At the bottom,so-called evil is a

> threat to somebody's interest,be it one individual

> against another,one religion against another,one

> country against another,or one species(humans) against

> another(virus).Does a true Jivanmukta transcend

> separateness of every kind and go absolutely beyond

> 'good' and 'evil'?Are 'good' and 'evil' in the realm

> of vyavahar(pragmatics) and so are Adnyaan and Maya

> from kevaladvait?

 

Namaste,

>From a relative point only is there the concepts of good and evil. To

me evil is what diverts people from the path of sadhana and moksha.

However Sankara said it is real whilst one is in it.

 

In this illusion projected by Maya there are entities who are

determined to divert people from their real reason for incarnation,

and this for their own selfish reasons.

 

Ultimately there is only Nirguna Brahman even Saguna is

unreal....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

The sense of transcending is the real problem and it arises from

granting duality a status of reality. The world of good and evil,

Bushes and Saddams, Ramas and Ravanas, is truly unreal. By trying to

correct it with missionary zeal, we are only aggrandizing ignorance

and granting it the status of a parallel reality. An advaitin has no

time for such shadow-chasing. Being convinced he is the One without

a second, why should he labour with a sense of two and three and

attempt a reconciliation with them?

 

If a Bhagwan Ramana or another sage has "taught and talked" about our

real nature, such occurrences have validity only from the point of

view of the one immersed in duality – the seeker, the one who

is "trying" to transcend something. The one who "taught and talked"

really was ever silent or was really "SILENCE".

 

This applies to our thread on freewill, fate and vAsanas too. In my

personal opinion, there was no advaita in the discussion that has

taken place. Once an advaitin has the intellectual conviction or

vision that he is nothing other than CONSCIOUSNESS, then constant

vichAra on that conviction or vision will enable him to realize that:

 

VAsanAs (e.g.: addiction, habits, greed etc.) belong to his false

sense of identity with the body, mind, intellect and ego;

 

Free-will (kartum sakyam, akartum sakyam, anyathAva kartum sakyam –

can do, can avoid doing, can do differently) relates to his ego and

roles; and

 

Fate or destiny (adrishta – happenings that cannot be explained) is

CONSCIOUSNESS seeming to manifest through all the above.

 

He then does not have to undo his vAsanAs, and sense of free-will and

fate. They just drop off through constant vichAra on his true

identity.

 

Like Prof. VK quoted Sankara, he then does "contemplative living in

his natural state" (svasvarUpA-nusandhAnaM) having "realized the

unreality of the unreal" as directed at the conclusion of the

Bhagwath Geetha (sarvadharmAn parityAjya mAmekam saranam vraja).

What "happens" then is not his worry because there is the assurance

that "I (Consciousness) will take care of you".

 

Such a one doesn't commit the mistake of erecting a parallel reality

outside himself and fight with it untiringly like a Don Quixote. He

just becomes spontaneous in his actions.

 

To summarize, the advaitic vision and constant vichAra on it are most

important. The rest follows like the urvAruka fruit's getting itself

detached from the mother-plant on full ripening in the mahA-

mrityunjaya mantra.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________________________

 

advaitin, vasant godbole <vggodbole> wrote:

Does a true Jivanmukta transcend

> separateness of every kind and go absolutely beyond

> 'good' and 'evil'?Are 'good' and 'evil' in the realm

> of vyavahar(pragmatics) and so are Adnyaan and Maya

> from kevaladvait?

[Guest guest]

--- vasant godbole <vggodbole wrote:

> Indeed the trouble is finding evil.What is evil?Why is

> it evil? who decides what is evil?Using what

> criteria?Yesterday's "evil" may become todays's "good"

> if it succeeds.At the bottom,so-called evil is a

> threat to somebody's interest,be it one individual

> against another,one religion against another,one

> country against another,or one species(humans) against

> another(virus).Does a true Jivanmukta transcend

> separateness of every kind and go absolutely beyond

> 'good' and 'evil'?Are 'good' and 'evil' in the realm

> of vyavahar(pragmatics) and so are Adnyaan and Maya

> from kevaladvait?

>

Evil and goodness are not that relative - there are universal values,

relative values and subjective values What you are referring to are

relative values which change with time and place and particular

socidty. The sujective values are for example - I like Okra and you

like cofee etc. Universal values are very clear and Krishna difines

very clearly in almost every chapter. One should not kill, steal,

lie etc. These are not relative but universal since in the evolution

one learns that one does not want others to hurt him, lie to him,

steal his proprerty. One expects others to be compassante towards

him, forgive his mistakes, be kind to him - Hence one has value for

these values. Even a natorius thief has a value for not stealing the

property since he does not any one to steal his stolen property.

Those values one wants other to follow towards him - he should follow

towards the other - that is dharma. Those values one does not want

others to follow towards him, he should not follow those - that is

adharma.

 

Any action that is self-insulting is ultimately evil. That which

takes one away from oneself is evil. All universal values ultimately

to make oneself to be with oneself. Otherwise it becomes

unassimilated values that raises internal conflicts and agitations

and takes one away from oneself. Hence Bhagavaan insists on values -

see for example Ch. 13. or 16 etc.

 

Any ego-centered action ( I and I want - anhankaara and mamakaara) -

is ultimately that takes one away for oneself - is evil - the

evilness depends on the degree of ego involved in the action. All

sadistic actions will be gross evil - All that violates the human

degnity are evil - hurting an innnocent child for example for ones

pleasure. One can go on. If one thinks deeply the evil that violates

the human degnity is not that relative. - abhyuddhaanam adharmasya -

to destroy evil - He is born again and again. Every puraNa takes

about the destruction of the evil by the Lord - in one form or the

other.

 

Hari OM

Sadananda

 

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos

http://launch./u2

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Vasant:

 

The best starting point to get a glimpse of understanding of evil and

good is reading of Mahabharat. The Bhagavad Gita explains

philsophically (also with practical and psychological solutions) our

role in sailing through the 'Samsara Sahara - journey in the vast

ocean of life.' The fundamental assumption is all human beings should

obey 'Dharma'and the term dharma is multidimensional and it defines

the norms for crossing the ocean of life.

 

In the drama of Mahabharat, evil and good manifests along with the

actors and actions and the entire play is directed and projected by

the Lord using His power of 'Maya.' An interesting episode in the

play can illustrate the ambiguity in defining 'good and evil.' Once

Lord Krishna asks Dhryodhana (symbolical embodiment of evil) and

Dharmar (symbolical embodiment of good) to find and bring a person

opposite to their nature. Dhryodhana searched for the whole day to

find a good person and returned back empty handed. Also Dharmar

couldn't locate an evil person in the city and declared that no evil

person could be found! The moral of the story is that 'evil and good'

are our own creations and the best way to remove the 'evil' is to

obey the human dharma

 

The Bhagavad Gita is known as the 'Dharma Sastra' meaning that the

primary objective of Gita and the presence of the Lord is to maintain

Dharma. Gita implicitly outlines that each of us should

define 'Mamadharma or Swadharma' and with discipline stick with it.

What is Swadharma? Here is a simple explanation. When someone does

something to me which depives my peace of mind, then I should learn

from it and not to repeat a similar act toward others. When I feel

that I am harmed by another person's action then 'Swadharma' requires

me to avoid a similar action toward others. This simple explanation

may not answer all the questions and no explanation can ever fully

clear all our doubts and this is due to the curse of 'mAyA.'

 

The bottom line is everything in our life is 'relative' as long as we

use our intellect to rationalize 'right' and 'wrong.' We have to

cross the boundaries of 'intellectual rationaization' in order to

experience our 'True Divine Nature' which is beyond all dualities!

No one else other than you who can resolve the questions posed by you

and you should start your search within. (Bhagawan Ramana calls

this 'atmavichara').

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, vasant godbole <vggodbole> wrote:

>

> --- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada>

> wrote:

> >

> > --- Tony O'Clery <aoclery> wrote:

> > Ahimsa sometimes doesn't

> > > mean non violence but resistance to violence and

> > evil.

> > > Trouble is finding evil........ONS....Tony.

> Indeed the trouble is finding evil.What is evil?Why is

> it evil? who decides what is evil?Using what

> criteria?Yesterday's "evil" may become todays's "good"

> if it succeeds.At the bottom,so-called evil is a

> threat to somebody's interest,be it one individual

> against another,one religion against another,one

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Gandhiji's thoughts on 'Mahabharat'and Gita will certainly bring

additional insights: The following is his introduction in the

book, "The message of Gita." The provided text below is his words!

 

THE MESSAGE OF THE GITA

Even in 1888-89, when I first became acquainted with the Gita, I felt

that it was not a historical work, but that under the guise of

physical warfare, it described the duel that perpetually went on in

the hearts of mankind, and that physical warfare was brought in

merely to make the description of the internal duel more alluring.

This preliminary intuition became more confirmed on a closer study of

religion and the Gita. A study of the Mahabharata gave it added

confirmation. I do not regard the Mahabharata as a historical work in

the accepted sense. The Adiparva contains powerful evidence in

support of my opinion. By ascribing to the chief actors superhuman or

subhuman origins, the great Vyasa made short work of the history of

kings and their peoples. The persons therein described may be

historical but the author of the Mahabharata has used them merely to

drive home his religious theme.

2. The author of the Mahabharata has not established the necessity

of physical warfare; on the contrary he has proved its futility. He

has made the victors shed tears of sorrow and repentance, and has

left them nothing but a legacy of miseries.

3. In this great work the Gita is the crown. Its second chapter,

instead of teaching the rules of physical warfare, tells us how a

perfected man is to be known. In the characteristics of the perfected

man of the Gita, I do not see any to correspond to physical warfare.

Its whole design is inconsistent with the rules of conduct governing

the relations between warring parties.

4. Krishna of the Gita is perfection and right knowledge

personified; but the picture is imaginary. That does not mean that

Krishna, the adored of his people, never lived. But perfection is

imagined. The idea of a perfect incarnation is an aftergrowth.

5. In Hinduism, incarnation is ascribed to one who has performed some

extraordinary service of mankind. All embodied life is in reality an

incarnation of God, but it is not usual to consider every living

being an incarnation. Future generations pay this homage to one who,

in his own generation, has been extraordinarily religious in his

conduct. I can see nothing wrong in this procedure; it takes nothing

from God's greatness and there is no violence done to Truth. There is

a Urdu saying `which means, "Adam is not God but he is a spark of the

Divine." And therefore he who is the most religiously behaved has

most of the divine spark in liim. It is in accordance with this train

of thought that Krishna enjoys, in Hinduism, the status of the most

perfect incarnation.

6. This belief in incarnation is a testimony of man's lofty spiritual

ambition. Man is not at peace with himself till he has become like

unto God. The endeavor to reach this state is the supreme, the only

ambition worth having. And this is self realization. This self

realization is the subject of the Gita, as it is of all scriptures.

But its author surely did not write it to establish that doctrine.

The object of the Gita appears to me to be that of showing the most

excellent way to attain self realization. That which is to be found,

more or less clearly, spread out here and there in Hindu religious

books, has been brought out in the clearest possible language in the

Gita even at the risk of repetition.

7. That matchless remedy is renunciation of the fruits of action.

8. This is the center round which the Gita is woven. This

renunciation is the central sun, round which devotion, knowledge and

the rest revolve like planets. The body has been likened to a prison.

There must be action where there is body. Not one embodied being is

exempted from labour. And yet all religions proclaim that it is

possible for man, by treating the body as the temple of God, to

attain freedom. Every action is tainted, be it ever so trivial. How

can the body be made the temple of God? In other words how can one be

free from action, i.e. from the taint of sin? The Gita has answered

the question in decisive language: "By desireless action; by

renouncing the fruits of action; by dedicating all activities to God,

i.e. by surrendering oneself to Him body and soul."

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote:

> Namaste Sri Vasant:

>

> The best starting point to get a glimpse of understanding of evil

and

> good is reading of Mahabharat.

[Guest guest]

Greetings Madathil,

You Wrote:

 

"The sense of transcending is the real problem and it arises from

granting duality a status of reality. The world of good and evil,

Bushes and Saddams, Ramas and Ravanas, is truly unreal. By trying to

correct it with missionary zeal, we are only aggrandizing ignorance

and granting it the status of a parallel reality. An advaitin has no

time for such shadow-chasing. Being convinced he is the One without

a second, why should he labour with a sense of two and three and

attempt a reconciliation with them?"

 

Here I think language is leading us astray. The word 'reality' as we

normally use it is opposed to unreality as in real/unreal. We may ask Is

this real butter, a real Rolex etc. These are answerable questions. The

word as used by yourself is a metaphysical extension of this word.

By discrimination you are perhaps applying a test or tests to this world

which will determine whether it is truly real or not. One such question

might be - Is it? The answer you may give yourself is yes and no. It both

is and it isn't i.e. it is changing. The rigourist would hold that to be a

deficency in reality. Others would hold that you have merely rigged the

argument by defining the word in such a way that the world or the ground out

of which its meaning is extracted, is anihilated.

 

Is there a way we can 'save the appearances' or more importantly lend a

little ontological dignity to the practices of the vast majority of seekers?

I think there is and it is to be found in the concept of superimposition

itself. The reality of the snake is in the rope, it does not have any

reality within itself *taken on its own*.

 

(from Tripura Rahasya pg.127/8) ...the universe exists, but not separately

from the primal Reality - God. Wisdom lies in realising everything as Siva

and not in treating it as void.

The truth is that there is one Reality which is consciousness in the

abstract and also transcendental, irradiating the whole universe in all its

diversity from its own being, by virtue of its self-sufficency, which we

call Maya or Sakti or Energy. Ignorance lies in the feeling of

differentiation of the creatures from the Creator. The individuals are only

details in the same Reality.

 

Further- (240): "Nor is it proper to contend that acceptance of Supreme

Intelligent Being followed by the denial of the reality of the jagat is

sunya vada, because false jagat inclusive of the Supreme Reality is

self-contradictory. (The correct position is: the Supreme Being appears or

seems to be the jagat.) If you argue that this results in duality whereas

the srutis declare, "There are not many here but only the Self", I say you

do not understand the advaita sastra; nowhere do the sastras declare the

jagat to be unreal. But yet they proclaim advaita to be certain. Srutis

such as "He became all", "Only the non-dual Supreme Being shines as the

universe", declare the jagat to be real and thereby non-duality is not

impaired. Though the town reflected in the mirror seems distinct yet it

cannot exist without the mirror and so is no other than the mirror; in the

same manner the jagat though seeming distinct is no other than the Supreme

Self. So non-duality is unimpaired."

>From time to time extraordinary things happen through prayer because for a

moment the upadhis which normally occlude the unity of Consciousness as felt

by the individual are for a moment mitigated. Yes you will say but is it

not paradoxical to speak of approach by slow degrees to where you are

already. Our relation to Tat is not expressible in language. By

metaphysical insight we may intuit the truth but our spontaneous reactions

tell us where we are living. We move between our residences on BG road 9.14

and 9.15. The first is a large well appointed place of many apartments with

turrets, towers, spires and swarming gopurams. From without you may hear

them making a joyful noise unto the Lord with chants, hymns, gongs, conches

and tintinabulation.

 

The other 'place' is built along less is more lines. Silent. On the door

is a note: "I'm not in. P.S. Even when I'm out, I'm in.

 

Ciao and Blessings, Michael.

 

 

 

 

_______________

Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[Guest guest]

Thanks Michael for the feedback. Appreciate your thoughts. But,

haven't you refuted things which I have not stated or implied? I am

fully with you.

 

Even when I am out, I am in. Poornamatha, poornamidam!

 

Regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

advaitin, "michael Reidy" <ombhurbhuva@h...> wrote:

[Guest guest]

> Daily Words of the Buddha

> November 15, 2002

>

>

> Difficult is life for the modest one

> who always seeks purity,

> is detached and unassuming,

> clean in life, and discerning.

>

> Dhammapada 245

 

Namaste,IMO,

 

Whether it be Buddha or the Vedantists, it always

comes back to the same place: Purification of the

samskaras.

 

So many put forward the mental non dualism, without

the sadhana to purify the buddhi.

 

No matter how non dual one is mentally,( Vndists) one

thought or samskara will bring one back or prevent

moksha.

 

Moksha isn't fast food or instant gratification

through intelligence......It is hard work

Sadhana....look at Ghandiji.........ONS...Tony.

 

 

=====

'What is Truth?' (Pilate to Jesus.)

(Jesus answered with silence).

 

Online book draft and writings

http://www.geocities.com/aoclery

 

 

 

Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site

http://webhosting.

[Guest guest]

advaitajnana, "Tony OClery" <aoclery>

wrote:

> > Daily Words of the Buddha

> > March 9, 2005

> >

> >

> > Let go of the past, let go of the future,

> > let go of the present, and cross over to the farther

> > shore of existence.

> > With mind wholly liberated,

> > you shall come no more to birth and death.

> >

> > Dhammapada 348

>

> Namaste,

> I find this interesting as most say live in the Now,

> but in fact we have to let the Now go as well....This Now is

consciousness at rest or observing or Sakti/Saguna. Which is

ultimately unreal and never happened....ONS..Tony.

--- End forwarded message ---