Dharma the supreme truth

[Guest guest]

sri maniji

 

thanx a lot for ur appreciation. but i think i must appreciate ur

patience and very objective reading of my posts more. i am very happy,

that u put my posts to the very same test i hv written. my heart goes

out to u, as a token of my appreciation for ur instant grasp of

dharma, its universality and objectivity of view, pls accept my

namaskrams.

 

<<I hope you will agree, all of us are in fact after this goal, and

for reaching it, we seem to fall back on materialism, religions,

rituals, spirituality etc. Do we really get that by trying all

these? Most of the time, in this process we seem to get "brain-washed"

by some "ideas" and "thoughts".>>

 

yes i agree.

 

<<We totally forget the "present".>>

 

sri mani, u struck the exact note. it was perfect and simply

wonderful. this reminds me of what used to happen (and still happens,

though less frequently) when i tried samadhi earlier. the mind is like

a monkey. jumping from one branch of a tree to another branch of

another tree. not one sentence of a thread of thought is over that the

next thread begins. and so on. and the strikingly remarkable feature

of all these thoughts was that they were either of the past or of the

future (or some futuristic imagination). "oh that experience was

wonderful! i wish it happens more." never was the mind in the present.

it appeared like a himalayan task in the beginning to keep it in the

present.

 

i remember somebody on this list also asked, how one shud remove all

thoughts. the method is to remain in the present. so many of us say

that 'i live for today' but in reality, that's not true. mental

agaitation is a sign of not living in the present.

 

even to date bringing the mind under control for more than 10-15 mins

(knowing the present) is very difficult. samadhi involves both keeping

in the present and not allowing trShNA, both aiding in developing the

faculty of awareness.

 

<<I feel, what we should "look forward to" should be here and now with

us. And, that can be, only by living the life of Dharma.>>

 

i agree fully. dharma surely involves this.

 

<<Is it necessary to know the supreme truth to live a life of Dharma?

Is not knowing Dharma itself knowing the supreme truth? And, is not

that Dharma known to everyone? However, knowing has no meaning unless

that "knowing" reflects in one's life.>>

 

u r right sri mani. knowing and living in dharma is the same as

knowing the supreme truth. if u don't want to use the words supreme

truth here, u may omit them. it hardly matters. as long as u adhere to

dharma (in the real sense of dharma) it is ok.

 

unfortunately however, it is not yet known to everyone (though some hv

known it). we dont know dharma very well, for we r still hving a very

subjective view. the development of "right view", which i discussed in

the last post, was only at the intellectual level. so whatever knowing

u r talking abt is only at the intellectual level. that is not true

knowledge in what i understand.

 

deep down, we r very much subjective in view. when this subjectivity

vanishes only then can one know dharma. it is like ten blind men

trying to know an elephant. one tking its trunk, the other the tail

and so on. they r intrinsically blind, no matter hw much u say what an

elephant is (eg: u may say its black, the one holding the tail will

say, "yes, its made of black hair" and will fight the one with the trunk)

 

similarly, the subjectivity is the blinding factor, which resides deep

within all of us. this subjectivity is what Sankara called 'incorrect

cognition of the Self', buddha called 'avijja' etc. whatever

understanding of dharma we hv is (largely) intellectaul alone.

 

if u apply the tests of objectivity to the above para, it will seem to

fail, for there may not seem to be any evidence to show this. but i

shl take a very simple example to explain this. many think that

controlling anger etc. is an aspect of psychology and that a

psychiatrist can best treat it. but it not true. the fact one gets

angry is indicative that he/she does not have control over the mind

and is largely bound by trShNA. an example of hw anger can destroy and

evidence that its removal is very much a part of spirituality is seen

in the BG:

 

krodhAt bhavati sammoha:, sammohAt smrtivibhrama: |

smrtirbhramShAt buddhi-nAsho, buddhi-nAshAt praNaSyati ||

 

even if one thinks without getting moved by the BG quote, that control

anger is very much within the scope of spirituality cn easily be seen.

anger does not cause the one who is angry to be happy. it is but a

representation of sorrow. it is another way of showing sorrow. an

angry person is not to be argued with, but pitied for the sorrow in

his life. sorrow is due to bondage and bondage is removed by dharma.

hence tackling anger is surely within the scope of dharma.

 

the idea was to stop running away from anger (by drinking water,

counting, chanting etc.), but to face it boldly and objectively

(without craving or aversion). (this is true satyagraha) to face it

one needs to be able to simply note it without getting angry (without

trShNA). but hw do we do this? we cannot fix an appointment with

anger. and for example if i (let me put myself instead of pointing to

someone else, which may seem offensive) hv a secretary who will tell

me "sir, see. anger is here. just watch it." i will feel like giving

him one tight slap saying "yes i know there is anger. who r u to tell

me that? dont i know?" what happened to objectivity. while at an

intellectual level, we may hv developed objectivity, there is a very

hard line between buddhi and manas which needs to be crossed for

dharma to actually sink into us.

 

it is for this reason, that we need to clean the mind, and thru prajnA

become fully aware of the truth. the fact that no secretary can help

us indicates that we (i) will hv to do it ourselves (myself). no one

can do it for us (me) and bestow this knowledge on us (me). if someone

cud, he wud hv done so by now.

 

also note, that im not asking u to try watching anger in the abv

manner. it wont help. we must stop anger from even surfacing. arrest

it long before. and for doing that we will hv to be able to

objectively note very subtle sensations, indicating that anger is

imminent. observing them objectively simply destroys this anger. but

one must not wish that they shud die away either. that is not

objective. to be able to do this extremely subtle observation, we must

sharpen the faculty of awareness (vijnAna) and control the mind. this

needs a lot of abhyAsa. this is why samadhi is required first.

 

only when intellectual understanding enters real AcaraNa can it be

considered as knowledge.

> Only on a particular point, i.e. when you say "(in fact I think it

cannot be. it has to cm from anubhava)", could you visualize what that

"anubhava" is?

 

no. im sorry. i donot theorize something i dont know. i wud suggest

that u dont either. hwever, still ppl like doing so. telling them will

not stop them. if u wanna theorize and visualize, pls keep it to

urself and not debate it with others. here i do discourage

metaphysical theorizations and speculations, but i hope members will

not be offended.

 

-balaji

[Guest guest]

Balaji Ramasubramanian <balajiramasubramanian wrote:

 

 

sri maniji

<<<that controlling anger etc. is an aspect of psychology and that a

psychiatrist can best treat it. but it not true. the fact one gets angry is

indicative that he/she does not have control over the mind and is largely bound

by trShNA. an example of hw anger can destroy and evidence that its removal is

very much a part of Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. >>>>

 

Balaji,

 

It has been a great pleasure to exchange notes with you through Advaita Group,

and I must say, your views and thoughts on Dharma, have been very enlightening,

and they do deserve assimilation.

 

As for Anger, nobody can make anyone angry nor any situation can do that. Yes,

anger is manifestation of pain, sorrow, and at the back of anger, there is a

sadness or a feeling of hurt, which in turn, is the result of non-acceptance of

a certain happening, or disappointment over certain expectation, which is also

non-acceptance. Anger is not an action, as it takes place, but once the anger

takes place, like any other emotion, such as hatred, jealousy, etc., action

follows, where if one brings his viveka, one can restrain oneself. However, can

viveka come to the help when one is angry? It is possible, if one has Acharanam

of Self Knowledge/Dharma. And, as you said, this involves tremendous Abhyasa.

This way one can manage the anger when it takes place.

 

When we do Acharanam of “Karmani eva adhikaraha, Ma phaleshu kadachana”, in my

opinion, there is no place for any non-acceptance. IMHO, all emotional problems

have one and only cause and that is non-acceptance of self.

 

Coming to Anubhava on enlightenment, I always look at it, as the peace, maybe

the state of mind one feels, when acceptance of self takes place, and when

through Abhyasa, there is no non-acceptance of self at any time, that I think is

the Anubhava of enlightenment. We do taste that Anubhava, though at times, where

we accept any situation or a person.

 

I am open for correction, as I based my above observation following assimilation

of Teaching and my own analysis.

 

With all good wishes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.

 

 

[Guest guest]

sri mani,

 

<<As for Anger, nobody can make anyone angry nor any situation can do

that. Yes, anger is manifestation of pain, sorrow, and at the back of

anger, there is a sadness or a feeling of hurt, which in turn, is the

result of non-acceptance of a certain happening, or disappointment

over certain expectation, which is also non-acceptance.>>

 

(i rquest members to kindly bear with my non-punctuated posts. i hope

it is not too much of an inconvenience. actually, ive got used to

typing emails this way. pls indicate to me, if it is really

unacceptable i shall however try to abbreviate lesser (u, r and ur).)

 

ur point is well taken and appreciated. but let me note that u r

talking of non-acceptance of a situation, which is basically aversion.

hence as u point out, anger is aversion. anger may be averted if one

accepts the situation.

 

but let's not extend this to enlightenment as well as it seems to hv

happened here. i don't understand, in what sense u mean acceptance here:

 

<<Coming to Anubhava on enlightenment, I always look at it, as the

peace, maybe the state of mind one feels, when acceptance of self

takes place, and when through Abhyasa, there is no non-acceptance of

self at any time, that I think is the Anubhava of enlightenment.>>

 

what is acceptance of self?

 

if it is like an ideation of self (accepting or thinking that it

exists), don't u think, it already exists (as ego)? some even have

ideas like 'this is soul, a light source in my body' or 'a white misty

medium reponsible for life' etc. rn't these acceptance of the self in

some form?

 

maybe i'm wrong and have mininterpreted ur words. but truly one cannot

say what the self is, when one is enlightened. when all conditioned

consciousness (using which we percieve one as different from another)

disappears, what do we call the self and through what do we know this

self? (brhadaranyaka upanishad) hence how do we 'accept' this 'self'?

 

the normal tendency of people like us is that we generally percieve

the self as the five aggregates - form, feelings, perceptions, mental

formations and (conditioned) consciousness. none of these is right and

deep down in the mind we need to correct this view.

 

being non-enlightened, i cannot ponder about what it wud be like if

one is enlightened. even a enlightened person cannot tell this. it is

like moving to the 4 dimensional world. if someone from the 4

dimensional world comes to the 3 dimensional world, thru what wud he

explain to us, this 4 dimensional experience, and thru what do we

understand it?

 

-balaji

[Guest guest]

Balaji,

 

My very warm Puja Greetings to you and all our dear members.

 

Sorry, I could not respond to your mail earlier. We had a few days holidays here

in Calcutta for Durga Puja, and I took the opportunity of going out for a few

days.

 

You said, in your last mail,

 

<<<but let me note that u r talking of non-acceptance of a situation, which is

basically aversion. hence as u point out, anger is aversion. anger may be

averted if one accepts the situation.>>>

 

 

 

What I wanted to convey was, all situations are Orders of Iswara, and we cannot

but accept them, as Order of Iswara is nothing but Dharma. That is wisdom. I am

in this world is nothing but Dharma manifests, and so I am manifestation of

Dharma. All orders are Iswara’s orders, i.e. Dharma, and when I have wisdom, it

is my Dharma to accept them as Dharma of Iswara. Anger is nothing but a

psychological order and there is nothing wrong in one getting anger, rather

anger taking place in one. Since we human beings are blessed with the faculty of

Viveka or Wisdom, it is for us not to translate any anger, and for that matter

any emotion, into action, where we have a choice, so that we do not oppress

others, as Ahimsa is Parama Dharma. There is no question of averting anger, as

one does not have any say in anger taking place. All I wanted to communicate was

that once the anger has taken place, wisdom should shine in one so that there is

no reaction.

 

My non-acceptance of certain situations is also Order of Iswara. However,

non-acceptance does not mean I should persecute some one if that is against

Dharma. I can even do that in order to uphold Dharma. Killing is Adharma, but

Lord Krishna has not asked Arjuna to pull out from the war, but asked him to

fight. It was for upholding Dharma. “Dharma samssthapanarthaya” engaging in

adharma itself is Dharma.

 

<<but let's not extend this to enlightenment as well as it seems to hv happened

here. i don't understand, in what sense u mean acceptance here:>>

 

To be very frank, I do not know what exactly this enlightenment is. All I have

understood from the very little teaching I am exposed to is that our perception

is always subjective as we have a structure for everything. Any such structure

is not natural but cultivated as one grows up in life. We do not know the real

nature of Swaroopa of Ego or self. On analysis backed by Shastra and teaching, I

can at least appreciate that my perceiving things subjectively, based on my own

structures, is the root cause for all my problems, emotional problems, that I

face in my life journey. Since I always want to be free from emotional problems,

as that gives me inner peace, rather that helps me to abide myself in peace,

which I am always after, I must get the Ego educated on this aspect, and once

the Ego gets educated, my life becomes much more beautiful, as I look at

everything objectively. Let the anger takes place, but I should not react – my

wisdom says.

 

 

 

<<<what is acceptance of self?

 

if it is like an ideation of self (accepting or thinking that it exists), don't

u think, it already exists (as ego)? some even have ideas like 'this is soul, a

light source in my body' or 'a white misty

 

medium reponsible for life' etc. rn't these acceptance of the self in some

form?>>>

 

By acceptance of self, I mean, recognition of Swaroopa of self by self as SELF,

I.E. consciousness, Poornam, Sat Chit Ananda, Atma of all known and unknown, as

unfolded by the Upanishads, as against recognition of self by self as limited

consciousness, always lacking and wanting, and always seeking happiness, all due

to Ignorance about its own Swaroopa.

 

Ego is Self. It has no form. I have no form, and the whole problem is I relate

to Forms. However, when I say “I exist” I am not relating my self to any forms.

I just know I exist and that knowledge not does require any pramana or

instrument of knowledge, as it is available immediately, and it is aparoksha.

But when in vyavahara, I always relate myself to forms, moods, quality, species,

gender, etc. etc. although when I say “I exist” I say this without relating my

self to any of these, i.e. lingas. So there is an error in my judgment about my

self. Ego is nothing but I thought. However, we should know where does this I

thought floats. Like all thoughts, this also must be floating in the mind, and

when the mind, along with its instruments of knowledge, is stripped of all

thoughts, it is consciousness per se, example in Deep sleep. In absolute terms,

if we try to negate Ego, who will be that negator? If we try to surrender the

Ego, as people say “surrender your ego”, who is the

surrederer? However, we can analyze that Ego and educate it with that Knowledge

that it is nothing but manifestation of Iswara, and Iswara is Dharma, as all

Orders, biological, chemical, physical, and even psychological orders are

manifestations of Iswara. If one says “there is no ego or soul” we must know who

says so? If we say, ultimately there is nothing, that itself is knowledge, and

where does that knowledge rest? It must rest in a sentient entity only, whether

it has shape or not. That consciousness where all thoughts including I thought

floats is SELF and that is never absent and for knowing/not knowing, its absence

also involves consciousness.

 

<<<the normal tendency of people like us is that we generally perceive the self

as the five aggregates - form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and

(conditioned) consciousness. none of these is right and deep down in the mind we

need to correct this view.>>>

 

You are absolutely correct, Balaji, and that is what I tried to explain above.

The problem is we try to “perceive self” and in the process we relate the self

with the five aggregates - form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and

(conditioned) consciousness. It is all because of the “programming” that has

taken place where the software is “Ignorance” and IMHO self knowledge removes

this software and maybe a new software is introduced but that software “Self

Knowledge” is most desirable to live a life of Dharma. Moksha may be even

removing that software, but where is the hardware at that stage, as the hardware

itself is there because of the software Ignorance. All get resolved into

absolute Knowledge or Consciousness.

 

IMHO again, it is just a Knowledge to be assimilated and understood by Ego, and

this knowledge does help the Ego to monitor its day-to-day life with the new

software at the back, and not only that, that helps the Ego to appreciate its

Swaroopa, i.e. Self, and not the limited consciousness, etc.

 

I do not know whether I have managed to communicate whatever little I have

digested, and maybe my language is not lucid enough.

 

With all good wishes

 

 

 

 

 

vote. - Register online to vote today!