Detachment

May 3, 2004

Namaste,

Benji & Adiji wrote:

<<<"Speaking for myself, I view my lack of detachment as the primary obstacle

to realization. Attachment, ego and ignorance all seem to be synonyms. If one

goes, so do the others." this is so true . Benji, how many people will readily

admit to this ? Yes !!getting rid of the attachment is the greatest struggle !!

why this so ? because of 'fear' .... fear of losing... here is verse which swami

vivekananda was often fond of quoting ...>>>

In this connection, I reproduce below a very interesting/thought providing

article appeared in The Times of India

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

“BUDHA CONSCIOUSNESS: BECOME A WITNESS”

(By Sukshmananada Swami, - Excerpted from “Mind the Gap”

The writer is a disciple of Sri Narayana Guru)

Detachment is not indifference or lack of love In fact; it is real love

because it is not related to appearance. Witness has no attachment and hence no

detachment is needed. Ego has attachment and therefore detachment has to be

developed.

If appearance was a permanent reality we could not make changes. We make

changes in our lives in order to order to gain new experiences. This is possible

only because that particular part of life is not reality it is appearance, and

until we know what reality is we will continue the game of changes to modify our

experiences.

This is the age of browsing. We browse quickly through a variety of

experiences, including relationships. The browsing will continue till we reach

reality. So in one sense, by browsing, we are indirectly searching for reality.

Spirituality eliminates the disparity between appearance and reality. The

answer “I don’t know why I love you, I just do” reveals the ridiculousness of

the situation. If you do not know why you love, it simply means you are not

conscious about your love. True love never generates problems but is always part

of the solution; it is part of witness, not ego.

Harmony, love and compassion are not the products of religion. They are

spiritual products. Often, religion strengthens the ego, because religion needs

the individual to remain in the ego so that its strength and power can be

maintained. We like those who enforce our ego and we dislike those who weaken

it. The person who talks adversely about religion indirectly tries to weaken our

ego; hence it hurts our religious feelings.

Do not expect religion to assist in transforming the ego. The strength of

all religions lies in untransformed egos. The love of a terrorist is a good

example of religion-induced love, and the love of the Buddha is a good example

of spirituality-generated love. If we are still in the ego level no

transformation has been made, so there is a lack of development and we could

therefore never reach the level where one can love the entire world. The

family-love consciousness is of a lower state than that of Buddha-consciousness

or the global-love state.

The ability to love the whole world is a post-transformation state. A

single glimpse or a single darshan of God alone is insufficient to transform a

person’s whole life. The darshan should become the background music of our

lives, or, it will appear and disappear like everything else in life.

Appearance and disappearance may be recognized through an underlying

factor; the witness. Without the witness, it is impossible to notice appearance

and disappearance. The part of us that is witnessing may not develop into the

object, as that is who we really are, our true selves.

A popular way of explaining reality is: the eye cannot see the eye.

However, do not miss the point because of this platitude.

Witness is god, witness is reality, and ultimately, it is a higher state of

consciousness, beyond the ordinary state of consciousness. We have to develop

into the mystical state of consciousness and for that a glimpse is insufficient.

Therefore, travel through the glimpse regularly until you become a part of

mystical state of consciousness, the higher state of consciousness.

We hanker for permanence while paying tribute to transient emotions. We

bond with the image while ignoring the reality. Only when we see the difference

between the eternally real and the ephemeral image, our problems will disappear.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **

With regard to “detaching” “attaching” and such other words used while unfolding

Self, in absolute realm(?) there is neither attachment nor any detachment. The

attachment is apparent, i.e. at the mithya realm, and so the detachment if at

all required will be only at the mithya realm. The one who is “attaching” is

mithya, to which attached is mithya, and attachment itself is mithya. What is

actually required is to FALSIFY THE ATTACHMENT, and ignore the apparent

attachment. Once you try to detach, you are giving reality to that which you

want to get detached from. No effort is required as it is a question of

Knowledge. “Tatwam asi” is a statement of fact, and knowledge. Following that

“Aham Brahmasmi” is also a statement of fact, and knowledge.

There is no detachment involved in this. There is also no special experience

involved, as it is “pratibodhaviditam”, i.e. it expresses itself in every piece

of knowledge and experience one has. Without It being there as the background,

no knowledge nor any experience is possible. For the necklace to know that it is

gold, it does not have to detach itself from gold. It cannot get itself

detached; as once it gets itself detached from the gold, the necklace is no more

there to know that it is gold. It is one and the same and no detachment is

possible nor is it required.

Let the background music “Aham Brahmasi” and “Tatwam Asi” be there in full

volume in whatever action I undertake, in whatever I see, in whatever I hear, in

whatever I touch, in whatever I taste, in whatever I smell, in whatever I

imagine.

Let It be equally there in whatever I do not know also.

The whole attitude changes, with the background music on, you cannot but love

all, because you are all and you love you most, and so you also love all as you

love yourself.

It is spontaneous and for the simple reason that “Tat Twam Asi”

Hari Om

Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at HotJobs

May 4, 2004

Namaste Maniji,

"With regard to "detachingattaching" and such other words used

while unfolding Self, in absolute realm(?) there is neither

attachment nor any detachment. The attachment is apparent, i.e. at

the mithya realm, and so the detachment if at all required will be

only at the mithya realm. The one who is "attaching" is mithya, to

which attached is mithya, and attachment itself is mithya. What is

actually required is to FALSIFY THE ATTACHMENT, and ignore the

apparent attachment. Once you try to detach, you are giving reality

to that which you want to get detached from. No effort is required

as it is a question of Knowledge. "Tatwam asi" is a statement of

fact, and knowledge. Following that "Aham Brahmasmi" is also a

statement of fact, and knowledge."

These sound like your words. Let me commend you on your wisdom. I

think you have the right idea.

The story from Sukshmananada Swami that preceding your words was also

very good.

Hari Om!

Benjamin

May 4, 2004

-ben-ji ,

I know you have some 'Buddhi-sm" in your background so before we go

on to discuss the philosophy of 'attachment' in the context of

Hinduism, let me put you in a light mood by telling you a joke ...

A Buddisht monk went to a srore and asked the salesman " to show him

a vaccum cleaner without any *attachements.*" Lol!!

from light-hearted to more serious stuff ...

Benji, do you know the story of Nachiketa and the Yama from Katha

UPANISHADS .. ?

Nachiketa and Yama are the main characters of the Kathopanishad.

Nachiketa is the young son of sage Uddalaka and Yama is the god of

death. Nachiketa goes to Yama, after his death and is given three

boons by Yama. As the third boon Nachiketa asks Yama to teach him

about the existence of Atman after the death of a person. Most of the

Kata Upanishad is about the nature of Atman as taught by Yama to

Nachiketa.

As the story goes, a rishi (sage) named Uddalaka performed Vishvajit

yajna with a desire to get heavenly rewards.

In the Vishvajit yajna, the performer of the yajna gives away all his

possessions to priests. Uddalaka had a young son who was still merely

a boy. He was full of devotion and faith. When the cows were brought

as the last sacrificial gifts, Nachiketa was very upset that his

father was giving away those cows who were old, weak and had stopped

giving milk or calves. He thought that a person who gives away such

cows will certainly go to an unhappy world after this life. Perhaps

his father had set aside young and healthy cows for Nachiketa. He

wanted to awaken his father's conscience and asked him with

sarcasm, "Father, to whom will you give me?" His father first ignored

him, but when Nachiketa repeated the same question for the third time

he could not control his anger and shouted, "I give you to Death!"

Soon after uttering those words Uddalaka realized that by virtue of

his tapa (austerity) and yajna (sacrifice) he had achieved such

powers that whatever he said would come to be true. He knew that his

son would die soon in front of him, all due to his uncontrollable

rage. He started repenting and crying. Nachiketa asked him to calm

down and not to feel sorry for him, because one who is born is sure

to die. He also reminded him of his ancestors who neither swerved

from truth nor took their words back.

Nachiketa went to Yama, the god of death, but the latter was not

home. Nachiketa waited for him for three days and three nights there,

without any food. When Yama returned back, someone told him that a

Brahmana boy had been waiting for him for three days without any

food. He was also reminded that a Brahmana guest is like fire, who if

not pacified, would burn not only his household but all his fruits of

good deeds, his offspring and his cattle to ashes. Thereupon, Yama

hurried to fetch a jug of water for Nachiketa to wash his feet (as

the custom was in India in old days), bowed to him with respect and

said, "O Brahmana, you have stayed at my house for three nights

without any food. I am aware of the consequences of all this. I would

like to make up with you by awarding you three boons."

Nachiketa said, "O Death, may my father be pacified and may I go back

to him alive. This is my first boon." So be it," said Yama. "Ask for

the second boon," he continued.

Nachiketa said, "I have heard that in Heaven there is no fear,

disease, old age or death. O Yama, you know the method of that fire

(sacrifice) which leads to Heaven. Please teach me that sacrifice, as

my second boon."

Yama taught him that sacrifice. When Nachiketa repeated the method in

exact detail, Yama was pleased with him. He said, since he was such a

good student he would name that sacrifice as Nachiketa-Agni after

him, from that day. He asked Nachiketa to ask for the third boon.

Nachiketa said, "There is a doubt about what happens to a person

after he dies. Some say, he still exists while others say he does not

exist. Teach me about this secret. This is my third boon."

Yama realized that what Nachiketa was asking was to teach him the

secret knowledge of the Atman. He thought, he was too immature and

young for that supreme and deep knowledge. On this, Shri

Shankaracharya comments that perhaps Yama thought he was merely

curious like a boy who wanted to examine a crow's teeth (kaka-danta-

pariksha).

Yama asked him not to seek that knowledge because it was too

difficult for him to understand. Instead he was willing to give him a

long life, a huge kingdom with many horses, elephants, enormous

wealth, and beautiful women who would entertain him with their music,

song and dance. He could also choose sons and grandsons with long

life. But Nachiketa refused to take these worldly boons. He said,

there was no comparison between the supreme knowledge of life-after-

death, of which even gods have no knowledge, and short lived worldly

pleasure. He thought there was no better teacher of the knowledge of

the Self than the god of death himself.

Yama eventually yielded, when he realized that Nachiketa was a

qualified student for the knowledge of the Atman. He praised him for

his determination to learn the supreme knowledge and for not being

swerved by ephemeral worldly objects. He finally taught him the

knowledge of the Self.

to read more on this

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/katha/ka_1.html - 31k - Cached

**********************************************************************

When are cut all the knots of the heart here on earth, then a mortal

becomes immortal! [Katha 6.15]

Aum shanti! Aum shanti! aum shantihi!!!

May 5, 2004

Benjaminji, Namaste,

You kindly wrote:

<<<<These sound like your words. Let me commend you on your wisdom. I think

you have the right idea. >>>>

It is kind of you to have gone through my post. However, please do not commend

me for anything. All your commendings go to my Guru Maharaj. All is His wisdom,

maybe it expresses through my fingers. My salutations to Him again and again.

Warm regards

Benjamin <orion777ben wrote: