Compassion

[Guest guest]

Hello,

 

So... Of all the groups, people, centres, etc, I seem to come across

a distinct difference in the interactions of nothingness as

nothingness.

 

Namely, compassion. Many non-dual types, seem to me to be arrogent and

condesending. They seem to laugh at human suffering. They

say, "Hey, non-duality is so simple, just drop everything" If it was

that easy for many humans, would they not all awaken in a flash?

Many of these types dont realize that dropping all concepts, is a

concept in and of itself. Just another thorn, to remove the thorn of

ignorance.

 

Than we have what I call real enlightend beings. Those that have

realized, and yet sympathize with those who have not. These types

dont seem to hide their heads under the sand like an osterach.

These dont see nothing wrong with leading someone to non-duality.

Unlike the former who will just say "what pain? what ego? what

seperation? You are delusional, your pain is irrelivant to me?".

 

So I wonder about this. Ramana would say this is just parabdha. The

enlightend ones, will just let the body go like a runaway train. The

avatar will take control of the train, in full realization, and help

humanity.

 

Does anyone see this difference? Was not compassion, empathy, the

traits of all true realized masters. Jesus, Guatama, Ramana,

Ramakrishna etc. etc.

 

It seems to me these two distinctions are like this. Both are

realized.

1. The being, refuses to speak of duality, tries to be non-dual.

But dont realize that non-duality is beyond words. They dont

identify with their own egos, so how could they possibly feel others

pain.

These people seem scared. Scared that using their ego in a

benovelent manner, will drag them back into ignorance.

 

2. The being, who acts in accordance with qualified non-dualism.

They do not identify with their ego, but they are not scarred to use

the ego. They see the suffering of others, and empathize. They are

love, and they use the ego to express it.

 

So, I feel blessed to have such good teachers, who have explained

three things to me.

 

1. duality. The first step of spiritual awakeing. The devotee and

the diety. The relative and the absolute. They strive for something

higher, not yet knowing that what they strive for is non-duality.

 

2. Qualified non-dualism. Realizing our true nature, the awakend

one, sees that his ego is a part of a universal ego. That their true

nature is non-dual, but as long as their is awareness of ego, it is

qualified. Savikalpa samadhi. These realize all is consciousness,

but are honest eneogh to acknowledge the duality in oneness.

 

3. Non-dualism. This is beyond words. It cannot be explained, only

experienced. It is beyond pure awarenes of ego. It is the

difference between being sugar and tasting sugar. It is called

nirvikalpa samadhi. There is no awareness of anything. Not bliss,

not love, not emptiness, not nothingness, not anything, not

everything. It is neither everything, or no-thing. It is neither,

love nor hate. It

is neither being, or non-being. Even the word non-dual implies the

opposite of dual. That is why scripture calls it THAT.

 

I have dealt with these two types of people for years. I play with

both. But I prefer the honest ones. It is what it is. If you are

reading this, it is qualified non-dualsim. No-thing has an ego. If

you did not, you would not be reading this.

 

So, personally, I feel that compassion is the only teaching/teacher.

If you cannot identify with the ignorant person, you are of little

help.

 

Namaste

Om Namah Shivaya

All love is you, in me.

Jason James Morgan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Jason James Morgan" <>

> Namely, compassion. Many non-dual types, seem to me to be arrogent

and

> condesending. They seem to laugh at human suffering. They

> say, "Hey, non-duality is so simple, just drop everything" If it was

> that easy for many humans, would they not all awaken in a flash?

> Many of these types dont realize that dropping all concepts, is a

> concept in and of itself. Just another thorn, to remove the thorn of

> ignorance.

 

[i am afraid you are mistaken. We seem to indulge in avoidable

suffering. Those who seem to laugh at suffering are only asking us

to analyse our upleasantness against Knowledge. If such analysis is

practised every time woe betides, the way to a balanced life will be

clear. Laughter, coupled with proper understanding, is the best

medicine.]

> Than we have what I call real enlightend beings. Those that have

> realized, and yet sympathize with those who have not. These types

> dont seem to hide their heads under the sand like an osterach.

> These dont see nothing wrong with leading someone to non-duality.

> Unlike the former who will just say "what pain? what ego? what

> seperation? You are delusional, your pain is irrelivant to me?".

>

> So I wonder about this. Ramana would say this is just parabdha. The

> enlightend ones, will just let the body go like a runaway train. The

> avatar will take control of the train, in full realization, and help

> humanity.

>

> Does anyone see this difference? Was not compassion, empathy, the

> traits of all true realized masters. Jesus, Guatama, Ramana,

> Ramakrishna etc. etc.

 

[We have records of Bh. Ramana exhorting his listeners to ask

questions like "Who am I?", "Who is suffering?" etc. He is also

famed to have asked someone to "go back the way he came" when a

question about misery, pain and sorrow in life was asked. Despite

all this, Bhagwan was an ocean of compassion. Against this

background, if one misses the same compassion in the so-called Type

1, I would say, perhaps the error lies in the eyes of the beholder.

In other words, Type - 1 can also be compassionate but we seem to

miss it due to our preconception that they are arrogant. We don't

have the patience to analyse their statements against knowledge, for

we like our misery and are hell-bent on perpetuating it. The

question we must ask ourselves is whether we want to manage our woes

or we want them to take control. Most of us are unfortunatley too

complacent to shoulder the first option and like to believe that the

whole world is laughing at us.]

>

> It seems to me these two distinctions are like this. Both are

> realized.

> 1. The being, refuses to speak of duality, tries to be non-dual.

> But dont realize that non-duality is beyond words. They dont

> identify with their own egos, so how could they possibly feel others

> pain.

> These people seem scared. Scared that using their ego in a

> benovelent manner, will drag them back into ignorance.

 

[using ego in a benevolent manner is not 'benevolence'. It is another

ego-trip - a put on. Benevolence is spontaneous and arises from

Knowledge. Such benevolence can be spotted in the so-called Type-1

too if their statements are analysed against Knowledge and if they

are approached without faulting them for arrogance. It is again in

the eyes of the beholder. I have met people who accuse a very

learned Swamiji of arrogance. When I look around I see several

others who adore him, draw immense inspiration from his teachings and

see an ocean of compassion in him. It is therefore improper for us

aspirants to sit in judgment of others. Any categorization of men of

knowledge by prospective aspirants is likely to be subjective and,

therefore, untenable.]

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAm-s,

 

Jason-ji wrote:

Unlike the former who will just say "what pain? what ego? what seperation?

You are delusional, your pain is irrelivant to me?".

 

praveen:

I'm not sure who exactly you're referring to here, but doesn't the same

master also say "what pleasure?". His indifference is not specific to

others' pain. It may also mean that he is not willing to take credit for the

(invisible) good he is doing. From similar viewpoint as yours, one may also

wrongly conclude that God is cruel since he doesn't care for the pain of

others.

 

 

Jason-ji wrote:

So, personally, I feel that compassion is the only teaching/teacher. If you

cannot identify with the ignorant person, you are of little help.

 

praveen:

IMHO, if a parent scolds a child, it need not necessarily mean that the

parent is not helping; its a perspective problem. As another example,

consider a thorn being removed by the thorn. No one said that the second

thorn won't hurt.

 

jai bajrangabali,

--praveen