Religion Vs Spirituality

[Guest guest]

Dear Members,

 

First I thank the group moderators for accepting me into the group.

 

I thank Prof.V.Krishnamurthy, Mr.Sachin and Mr.Marc for their welcome

note.

 

Name is the biggest source of Ahamkara. Though the matter was

Religion Vs Spirituality my name was appearing in the subject.

 

As Shri Ramanamaharishi told, why should we bother about what a jnAni

would do after he has eaten the banana, when we have not even opened

the skin and when we are just looking at the full banana with skin

and admiring about what the great saints had said about the banana.

 

As I understood from the lives of the saints, some people climb the

mountain without any tools. Some after reaching the summit throw the

tools. Some even after reaching the summit come down with the tools

to help the others who are struggling to climb.

 

Any how let the Great Lord bless us to acquire good tools and climb

at least one step up and cling to the tools until we reach the summit.

 

Thanks

Solaikannan

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note: List wants to thank the members for their continued

support to list policies and guidelines. Please do not include the previous

posters' messages in the tail end (or in the beginning) of your message while

sending your replies. Both the new members and other members do seem to continue

to repeat doing this. The list appreciates your cooperation in keeping the

message crisp and clear by removing all unnecessary parts of previous messages.

(As it was done in this message!)

 

Hello Solai,

 

Thank you, for your response.

 

Solai: Yes we are Brahman, we know. But, have we realized that we are

Brahman? No.

 

Non Sum: Does your "No." state the fact, or Make the fact; do you

suppose? There is something psychologically counterproductive in

denying that we are what, in actual fact, we really are. Shankara,

like Krishna, suggests several yogas for those who cling to the

concept of `necessary pot cleaning.' But, then OTOH he offers

something quite different as well:

 

 

"Why not, instead of identifying with the unreal ego, and

tormenting yourself with mental agony, start with

 

the awareness "I am Brahman"? What after all is the difference

 

between one who, identifying with the ego, eventually surrenders

 

the ego to the divine Self, and one who identifies with the divine

 

Self and thereby silences the ego? The only difference is that the

 

first is a process of diminishing and finally annihilating the ego,

 

and the second a process of affirming the Self and annihilating the

 

ego immediately. If you identify with the false ego, you identify

 

with the suffering accompanying its annihilation; but if you

 

identify with the Self, you go from truth to Truth, and from peace

 

to Peace."

 

 

 

Solai: I was also like you, 9 years before. Believed that Knowledge

is enough and let us meditate on this knowledge

 

 

NS: Then we have something in common. For I was also like you from

45 till 20 years ago. I too believed that Self-realization was

something to be `gained,' `made,' `midwived,' but not already had.

The only thing that kept my poor mind from seeing the fact was lack

of sight (`avidya'). If I had only `Looked' instead of `assumed and

conceived,' then I would have spared my jivan mind 20 years of

unnecessary ignorance. You are not a "muddy copper pot," as you

suggest. You are a living Self, independent of a mind, body, and

acts. So long as we inquire of our mind who we are, rather than look

right at our Self, we will always be given empty concepts and pots.

 

 

My poor advice is to simply leave the "tools," and leave the tool-

user too. As soon as you've left every thing, you will then find

your Self with nothing left besides You.

 

 

Solai: Even or materialistic matters, which gives momentary

 

pleasure like driving a plane etc., we need hours of

 

practice. Whereas when we are going to be a state of

 

bliss for years, then how much effort is required to

 

get into practice.

 

 

NS: "Spiritual" matters are not "material matters." Don't look to be

in "a state" of anything. A `state' is a psychological place. As

soon as you `make yourself a place' you've lost sight of the Self

which always abides in the infinite place-less place called, "Here."

No, "effort" is not required to be "My Self." `Who' is this Self of

the person who makes the effort?

 

Namaste, NS

 

 

>Solai Kannan <nsolaikannan wrote:

Dear Non sum,

 

Thank you for your mail.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

The exchanges between `Solaikannan' and `Non Sum' are indeed

interesting. My post here is just to add a few more thoughts.

There is talk about the `identification with the (false) ego'

and `identification with the Self'. I also use these expressions

when I expound Vedanta. But coming to think of these expressions, I

notice a subtle point. The `identification with the ego' is not in

our conscious knowledge. We almost always do it without our own

knowledge. In fact our identification with our ego is what makes us

dispense standard human (not humane) reactions to what impinges us

from the external world. On the other hand the `identification with

our Self' has to be made by us by an effort though the point

that `Non Sum' makes, namely, `No effort is needed to be the Self'

has the sanction of the Master, Shankara himself. Incidentally,

For an explanation of what Shankara says on this point in his Gita

Bhashyam of Gita XVIII – 50, see

advaitin/message/19058.

 

`Identification with the Self' is supposed to be catalysed by

repeating the statement `I am brahman' and consciously doing a

nididhyAsana of what it means. But this is not an easy process,

inspite of what the Acharya says.

 

`Identification with the non-self' happens always – willy-nilly.

 

So how do you avoid one and adopt the other? This is the million-

dollar question. The new entrant to the advaita teaching, when he

has got this far, is puzzled by exactly this question. To him it all

appears to be playing with words and concepts. What should he do to

change his attitude from the one to the other?

 

My experience in this matter is the following. When we bite our

tongue, what do we do? We ignore it, don't we? When we hurt our

finger, we should do the same thing. We have to train ourself to

take it as God's Will. When we lose some money, we have to train

ourself to take it as God's Will. When somebody hurts us by his

words, again we have to train ourself – but this time with some more

effort – to take it as God's Will. This process has to go on from

small losses and small hurts to larger and larger losses and hurts.

 

In the meantime there is another process of self-discipline which

has to run parallel. When we have achieved something for which we

have been working for some time, what do we do? We congratulate

ourselves on the one hand and we expect some recognition from those

who are concerned with what we have achieved. Here starts our first

real experiment with `identification with the Self'. Instead of

patting ourselves on the back we should be able to tell ourselves

that it is again God's Will. This process of attributing our

successes to God's Will, should start from small successes to larger

and larger successes.

 

Thus the two processes `na ahaM kartA' & `na ahaM bhoktA' have to

go on all our life. This is the `effort' that I mean when I say

that the `identification with the Self' needs effort on our part.

At this point my advaita experts can find fault with me by saying

that by bringing God's Will in the process I have diluted, in fact

corrupted, my advaita, because I have brought in duality in the

place of non-duality! But tell me from your heart, can we aspire to

be a Ramana Maharishi who `lived the Self' all his life, ever since

his enlightenment as a boy? What is an alternate recipe?

 

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Hello profvk,

Thank you, for your kind words. I enjoyed what you posted here, and

especially what you said in the post that you linked—summed up nicely

in your very last line:

 

Profvk: "Whatever effort we make should be for the removal of the non-

Self. The Self is already and always there!"

 

NS: I agree completely. Even the term `removal' can mislead

the `effort ambitious.' When `a post is mistaken for a man' no

physical posts require extraction, nor do we need to make a mantra

of: "it's a post, it's a post,…" to beat our misguided minds into

submission. We simply, shine a light, draw closer, directly observe

the truth of the matter, and voila—be it ever so manlike, we never

again fall into the `man-post delusion.' It becomes one more `bent

oar' in the water—seen yet not bought into.

 

Provk: my advaita experts can find fault with me by saying

that by bringing God's Will in the process I have diluted, in fact

corrupted, my advaita, because I have brought in duality in the

place of non-duality!

 

NS: I am neither `expert,' nor one to `find fault' with

introducing "God's will." Krishna uses the exact same device with

the 3 gunas, which, unlike the Self of Arjuna, IS the doer of all

actions.

 

Provk: Instead of

patting ourselves on the back we should be able to tell ourselves

that it is again God's Will. This process of attributing our

successes to God's Will,

 

NS: Yes, Krishna assures Arjuna that, not only can he (Arjuna)

never `do' anything, but that all results are completely out of his

hands. This understanding, if lived, is the essence of Karma Yoga.

If one come's out from `his' acts by attributing them to: God, or

guna, he finds a Self that transcends, not only action, but, the body

that acts and the mind that imagines the action as `his.'

 

One could call this an `effort' to reprogram the mind, but I wouldn't

characterize it that way. It is more a matter of `dropping' a

falsehood. It takes no effort to cease from an action. Where

before, I appended the thought: "This is done by me. I made/make

this happen," now I don't. Simple as that—take the rest of your life

off; you are no longer employable. You've been demoted to a

mere `Self,' which is a regular `do-nothing,' and `no account.' ;- )

 

Provk: When we bite our tongue…

 

NS: Do we, "bite our tongue"? Can we? Teeth, jaws, muscles, nerves,

conscious and unconscious thoughts to act; they can bite a tongue.

If we pull your teeth, or remove jaws, etc., have we removed You, or

mere body parts? You are a Self, not a sore tongue, nor biting

teeth. Even the body-mind that says, "ouch" (decorously inside their

head, of course.) is not who You are. If whatever happens is the

will of God, the action of gunas, then leave to God and

guna `Everything' done. And, for your part, take nothing that does

not belong to you, lest you become a thief.

Respectfully, NS