rigorism

[Guest guest]

Hello All,

 

How useful is rigorism in Advaita, to instantly fly to the absolute as the

standard of reality and truth. What is the practical utility of doing that?

Can

it be defended as a sadhana? All practice whatever can be dismissed as mere

karma and repudiated by the aspiring jnani. So gradualism is out, progress is

out, there goes religion.

 

In relation to this Ramakrishna spoke of ripe and unripe meditation. To fall

into the abyss of pure being you have to be ripe and no mere rational assertion

will accelerate that process. A pure heart is more likely to move you in that

direction. Something is pure if it is unalloyed, unmixed, unadulterated. To

have a pure heart is to will one thing and to live out where you are as you are.

What do you really want? 'Where your treasure is there is your heart also.'

 

"He who knows that Brahman as existing in the intellect, lodged in the supreme

space in the heart, enjoys, as identified with the all-knowing Brahman, all

desirable things simultaneously."

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Michael said:

>How useful is rigorism in Advaita, to instantly fly

>to the absolute as the standard of reality and truth.

>What is the practical utility of doing that? Can it

>be defended as a sadhana?

 

Don't let 'rigorism' become 'rigor mortis'! :-)

 

Just another feeble attempt at humor.

The author does have a point.

And I'm keeping it brief.

 

However, I must add that I believe that a prolonged and sincere

bathing in pure naked awareness, however naive and imperfect, can be

of spiritual value. This is one possible understanding of

'absolutism'. And any sadhana is better than vegetating in front of

TV all day.

 

Om!

Benjamin