Sadhana

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

 

This is my first mail in this group. I thank you all for the knowledge being

shared in this group.

 

Respected NS,

 

First of all, if you yourself is Brahman then you should not call yourself as

Non Sum. Brahman is Whole Sum.

 

Since every person is Brahman, the prefix SHRI is used. It addresses to the

Brahman.

 

I am trying to understand your viewpoint. You are saying Sadhana is waste of

time and effort. A person will realize the Brahman within, at any moment.

 

My Questions:

 

1. So what are the criteria (like karma, maturity of mind) to reach that point

or is it all random?

2. If there is some criteria what is it? How to fulfill it? (The "Sleeping

state" of the body ends when we have slept enough "TIME", or some "DISTURBANCE"

occur. So there is some criteria to end the "Sleeping state" of body)

 

Rest all,

 

It was said in couple of mails in recent past that "Reading" is DRY. To reach

the core we should do Sadhana. So READING, LISTENING etc. are not part of

Sadhana and only MEDITATION is true Sadhana?

 

There is a seed in a fruit which is hanging high on a tree. Unless the seed

reaches the soil, it can not form another tree out of itself. I believe the

READING provides the SEED a flight to the SOIL. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Madhav

 

 

 

Discover

Use to plan a weekend, have fun online & more. Check it out!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shree Madhav

 

Thanks for your post. You are right. As long as I have not realized

Brahman, any means to realize it saadhana and is a purification process.

That includes shravaNa, mananam and nidhidhyaasana. Listening to the

scriptures (that includes studying the scriptures- discussing it etc)via

a teacher, mananam, reflecting on the truths expounded in the

scriptures, and nidhidhyaasana, contemplating on the scriptures - all

are part of saadhana. Even to do these one needs a proper frame of mind

and that is discussed as saadhana chatushhTayam or four fold

qualifications of the student. These are means for the purification of

the mind. All have a role depending on the student's mental evolution.

 

 

Saadhana dissolves when saadhak, saadhya, and saadhana merge into one

homogeneous mass of consciousness-existence-bliss, the Brahman that I

am. All the notions of saadhana will disappear at the time of

realization. That is time as Dattatreya declares - "aham dhyaata param

dhyeyam akhanDam khanDate katham' - "how can one divide that I am

meditator and that has to be meditated upon in the indivisible!".

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

--- Madhav Mundlye <madhavm_99 wrote:

 

> Respected NS,

>

> I am trying to understand your viewpoint. You are saying Sadhana is

> waste of time and effort. A person will realize the Brahman within, at

> any moment.

> Madhav

[Guest guest]

Hi Madhav, and welcome,

I'm new to this fine group myself, but have been posting on forums

for several years. It can be great fun!

 

Madhav: First of all, if you yourself is Brahman then you should not

call yourself as

Non Sum. Brahman is Whole Sum.

 

NS: "Brahman" is a name indicating what transcends name and form

(nama rupa), but yes, one could say Brahman is the whole, or that

Brahman is absolutely empty and no-thing (re: Nagarjuna). When I

refer to my reading, typing, thinking, jivan self, like everyone

else, I apply a name to that illusory self. Names tend to indicate

a `something.' When in fact, there is nothing real, nor any actual

self resident as, `NS' or Madhav. There is only one true Self, and

it can never be described or named; besides, it doesn't type as well

as NS does.

 

Madhav: Since every person is Brahman, the prefix SHRI is used. It

addresses to the

Brahman.

 

NS: That may be the tradition, but Brahman doesn't read or hear. Nor

is Brahman `lordly,' any more than It is `disgusting.' `Namaste'

salutes the `S'elf within, but `Lord' titles the individual without.

Christ, and most all of Advaitism, insists that we "deny" our `s'elf,

not ennoble it. As Lao tse says, "Jade within, rags without."

 

Madhav: I am trying to understand your viewpoint. You are saying

Sadhana is waste of time and effort. A person will realize the

Brahman within, at any moment.

 

NS: Succinctly, put.

 

M: 1. So what are the criteria (like karma, maturity of mind) to

reach that point

or is it all random?

 

NS: "That point"? Do you mean a `point' in time, or space? (please

forgive my answering a question with a question, but I need to

understand you rightly.)

 

M: 2. If there is some criteria what is it? How to fulfill it?

(The "Sleeping

state" of the body ends when we have slept enough "TIME", or

some "DISTURBANCE" occur. So there is some criteria to end

the "Sleeping state" of body)

 

NS: True, for bodies, which do exist in time. Untrue, for Spirit,

which doesn't slumber and is eternal. `Eternal' is not another word

for `hell of a long time.' `Eternal' is neither long not of short

duration; it has no duration at all. It Always is. "Only the

Beginningless is Endless." It's apt that you mention `Time,'

because all Sadhanna relies on time.

 

Poonja said: "Any effort, any method, to achieve something will bring

you into time, and time is mind." Now, you please tell me, Madhav,

at what time does one find the Timeless? Where in the mind (be it

quiet or noisy) is the `place' where you expect to find That which

transcends the mind?

 

Believe me, I know how it appears that `everybody' says "do spiritual

exercises." I too did them literally for decades. My mind too tells

me that to master some skill or learning I must exert mental and/or

physical effort in time. So, of course, when you feel the desire to

master Spirit, you go get instructions and exert your little heart

out. Makes sense. Only one problem when it comes to mastering,

finding, making, reaching, etc., Spirit—You already are Spirit, and

the imagined person who wishes to get Spirit never can nor will, try

as they may. This is all about `mis-identification,' not

construction, or mind redevelopment.

 

"If they ask you what to do, what practices to adopt, which way of

life to follow, answer: `Do nothing, just BE. In being all happens

naturally.'" (Nisargadatta)

 

M: It was said in couple of mails in recent past that "Reading" is

DRY. To reach

the core we should do Sadhana. So READING, LISTENING etc. are not

part of

Sadhana and only MEDITATION is true Sadhana?

 

NS: I suppose everyone has their own definition. To me `Sadhanna' is

simply any `spiritually orientated practice,' intended to make a

jiva more spiritual. It's on the same idea as trying to teach the

alphabet to a rock.

 

M: I believe the READING provides the SEED a flight to the SOIL.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

NS: I am not here to "correct" anyone. You are probably much wiser

than I. I merely offer another widely held (across all major

religious and some philosophical traditions) opinion that "the mirror

requires no dusting." (Hui-neng, 6th Zen Patriarch)

 

I would ask you, without reading would you never have felt

the `Buddha Urge'? Without reading, and with the `Urge' strong and

present, would you have been able to simply shrug it off and take up

bowling instead? You should have more trust in this thing burning

inside of you. It made you, it calls you, it drives you, it IS you.

Do you really think it would give up on you if you couldn't read?

A pleasure to discuss this with you, Madhav,

NS

[Guest guest]

Hi NS,

 

We both were wrong or right. Brahman is "Nirgun" so it's neither whole sum nor

non sum. Or it IS both.

 

I agree that Brahman does not hear. So calling it Shri does not have any effect

on it. It's just for paying it RESPECT.

 

What you said about SELF realization is true. It HAPPENS by itself. But for that

realization to happen a person has to reach a certain level of maturity. Once

the person has reached this level, there is only one way - he/she has to wait

till that realization happen.

 

But for reaching this level there are many ways. Like there different food

practices to be healthy. Most people prefer meat while vegeterians don't prefer

any meat. But both the styles CAN provide proper nutrition to human body. So a

person can chose any one style. Similarly in the spiritual world there are many

ways to reach the level after which a person can realize SELF.

 

You have written in your mail to Marc: "Try and see your SELF". This TRY itself

is Sadhana.

 

The instructions given by sages are not for everyone. A specific instruction is

for people who are at specific level of spirituality. So without proper context

any istruction is useless (or even harmful). What Poonja said is true but it's

applicable only at certain level. Patanjali says the same thing: One has to

leave behind one's guru and sadhana in the LAST STATE.

 

What you have said is right: Efforts in teaching alphabet to a rock goes down

the drain. But if we carve bowls from the rock and fill them with water, they

can create music. This is what "VIVEK" is. It tells to differentiate and then

apply proper procedure.

 

Buddha need not had to read anything to deny the world. But JATAK KATHA tells

about buddha's earlier lives. In those lives he suffered and learnt. That was

Sadhana. Mirror is always clean. We don't have to make any efforts to see

ourself in the mirror. But there are many curtains/veils in between the mirror

and where we are today. We have to remove/tear/cross them to reach the mirror

and that is Sadhana.

 

Regards

 

Madhav

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Madhav,

Most of what you wrote was both, easy to agree with and easy to

enjoy. So, please don't take my picking out differences as

indicative of anything beyond going where good discussion can be

found.

 

Madhav: I agree that Brahman does not hear. So calling it Shri does

not have any effect on it. It's just for paying it RESPECT.

 

NS: Is it? If I call you, "Sri Madhav," to whom am I speaking? In

my own experience, I give full credit where it lies. The jiva, `NS,'

is the doer (prakriti), and the done to. I give everything to the

jiva, and know that others take me for that person with whom they

interact. OTOH, the Self is impoverished of all capacity, ability,

and exterior knowledge. Self is perpetual Self-knowing, no more. It

is `Lord' of nothing, save Itself.

 

I can have no direct experience of `your' Atman, nor you of `mine.'

Therefore, I only address the jiva Madhav, whether in compliment or

insult. If Madhav consciously knows that he is an empty `nothing,'

then when I call him `Lord Madhav,' he knows the foolishness of

calling an empty shell `Lord Nothing.' A bit like Victor

Hugo's "King of the Beggars."

 

M: But for that realization to happen a person has to reach a certain

level of maturity.

 

NS: Should we assume an `immaturity' for you? Who, here reading this

now, will step forward and insist that they are too immature to

bother looking to see who they actually are? Millions of books,

gurus, and want-to-be-gurus, will give out free Sadhanna to one and

all. "Get your `roadmap' to the home of the stars. You too can be a

great enlightened sage by doing these simple repetitive steps." It's

a good business, since, "there's one born every minute, and two to

take him." (P.T. Barnum)

 

M: Once the person has reached this level, there is only one way -

he/she has to wait till that realization happen.

 

NS: To "wait" is to put it in time. Do you really believe that the

Self is constrained by time, or jivan maturity?

 

`Dogen censures the disciples who, "devoid of understanding, await

a

great experience and thereby neglect the present moment." `

 

But, more importantly, take a minute and look objectively at where

you place yourself when you say, "he or she has to wait…"

You are saying, insisting, reifying, that You are a `he or she'

(wanna-be realized one day) jiva. Krishna and I are saying that you

are not a jiva; you are a Self. Only so long as you mentally insist

on believing you are not a pure Self, will you remain (in your mind)

a particular jiva. Whose side are you on? Lose the jiva, and you're

done! Keep the jiva, and your screwed. What's to `practice' in this?

 

M: But for reaching this level there are many ways.

 

NS: True. One way is to refuse to `reach' at all. Instead of

exercising one way or another, abandon the one who could exercise in

any way. Right this moment vow to never be a doer ever again, and

then do nothing. Then, you're finished. You've moved on

past "mature soul" to `no soul at all.' This is the

necessary "death" that all of mysticism insists upon--quick and

easy. Or, are you too in love with your self to kill Madhav?

 

M: You have written in your mail to Marc: "Try and see your SELF".

This TRY itself

is Sadhana.

 

NS: You're right. Skip the "try" part, and just look at your Self.

There's nothing hidden about it.

 

M: What Poonja said is true but it's

applicable only at certain level. Patanjali says the same thing: One

has to

leave behind one's guru and sadhana in the LAST STATE.

 

NS: Ramana says, "there are no `levels'." Why conceive of yourself

as an object that exists in a "state"? Refuse All 50+ states, and be

stateless. So long as you are high or low, advanced or immature,

this or that, you are actually `low, immature, and stuck in avidya.'

One either realizes their Self, or they don't. It isn't a `stairway

to heaven.' Hui-neng says, "nothing is attained,seeking a way to

attainment is pure self-deception." You say he is wrong. Why? How

does it serve your interest to insist that you are a mere mature jiva

with high hopes?

 

M: This is what "VIVEK" is. It tells to differentiate and then apply

proper procedure.

 

NS: If you `differentiate' between the real and unreal, and take

yourself for the real only, then there is no need for any procedure.

 

M: But there are many curtains/veils in between the mirror

and where we are today. We have to remove/tear/cross them to reach

the mirror

and that is Sadhana.

 

NS: Yes, it all comes down to "where we are today." You `conceive'

yourself to be in a `where' that is not `There yet.' The (mentally

lazy) realized don't bother to `conceive' themselves at all. They

merely take their Self-experience (straight and neat) as their only

Self. Where is that Self? In `no where' at all—a place

called `Here.' Ever try to leave being `Here'? In what time is the

Self? In a time called `Now.' Ever try to leave `Now'? "Oh, if

only I could find a practice, or be mature enough, to "reach" Here,

Now, and mySelf. I guess there's much work to be done." Can you see

how ridiculous this sort of `reach thinking' is, Madhav?

Be well, NS

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri NS:

 

Your very first statement to Sri Madhav - "Most of waht you wrote was

both, easy to agree with and easy to enjoy" is full of wisdom! But I

wonder whether it is necessary for you to dilute your wisdom by

picking out non-existing differences! ProfVK recently commented about

'verbal non-dualism' which I believe is an accurate summary of what

you have attempted in this post!

 

I do agree with Profvk's conclusion that unnecessary discussions have

become a familiar involuntary habit with most of us who have heard

(*shravana*) a little about advaita , practised (*manana*) less of

the same, and tasted (*nididhyasana*) still less of it!

 

None of us possess a purified mind and that explains why we perceive

differently and find non-existing faults and differences. The most

important Sadhana for all us (as suggested in the scriptures and also

by Sri Sankara) is to purify our mind! Without this Sadhana, we can

never cross the 'vyavaharika satya' and can never reach

the "paramarthika satya."

 

In conclusion let us divert our focus to more on "nididhyasana" and

try our level best to reduce "verbal non-dualism" as much as possible.

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "nonsums" <nonsums> wrote:

>

> Hi Madhav,

> Most of what you wrote was both, easy to agree with and easy to

> enjoy. So, please don't take my picking out differences as

> indicative of anything beyond going where good discussion can be

> found.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

<<<<What you said about SELF realization is true. It

HAPPENS by itself. But for that realization to happen

a person has to reach a certain level of maturity.

Once the person has reached this level, there is only

one way - he/she has to wait till that realization

happen.>>>

May I put it the other way around, i.e. once self

realization rather self knowledge takes place, or self

ignorance gets removed, maturity takes place itself.

Pranam

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi R.S. Mani,

RS: May I put it the other way around, i.e. once self

realization rather self knowledge takes place, or self

ignorance gets removed, maturity takes place itself.

 

NS: You certainly 'May' as far as I'm concerned, R.S.. And, you put it

very well at that!

Appreciatively, NS