U.G. Krishnamurti

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

 

I'm writing because I recently read an interview with U.G. Krishnamurti

that has left me a little unsettled. In this interview, available at

realization.org, U.G. Krishnamurti talks about his life events,

including his so-called enlightenment. Some of his statements that are

disturbing to me are the ones where he says that if people knew what

enlightenment was like, they wouldn't want it. His entire account seems

full of suffering and bizarre events. Even at the end, there is no

mention by him of peace or anything positive.

 

I would be interested in reading the opinions and insights of the

members on this person.

 

Regards,

Nathan

[Guest guest]

That is the reason why we look for Shastra as pramaana not experience of

individuals.

 

Enlightment involves suffering is found no where in the shastra. That

it involves renounciation - yes - tyagenaike amRitatvamaanasuH - But

that is the renounciation of the ego and the associated with suffering

with it.

 

Once one fellow asked Swami Chinmayanandaji - Sir I have been attending

you talks on Bhagavad Geeta and on Upanishads and I understand very well

that I am Brahman - I have no more doubts about it. But question I have

How come I am still suffering?

Swamiji just smiled and replayed - sir, that is also my question - if

you know you are brahman, how come you are suffering?

Knowing Brahman is being Brahman - Brahman means limitless or ananda -

Any suffering is due to limitations that arise with identification with

the limited. It is as simple as that.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

--- Nathan Port <eport924 wrote:

> Dear members,

>

> I'm writing because I recently read an interview with U.G.

> Krishnamurti

> that has left me a little unsettled. In this interview, available at

> realization.org, U.G. Krishnamurti talks about his life events,

> including his so-called enlightenment. Some of his statements that are

>

> disturbing to me are the ones where he says that if people knew what

> enlightenment was like, they wouldn't want it. His entire account

> seems

> full of suffering and bizarre events. Even at the end, there is no

> mention by him of peace or anything positive.

>

> I would be interested in reading the opinions and insights of the

> members on this person.

>

> Regards,

> Nathan

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

IMVHO

Suffering is there. But what is the locus of suffering? I think we make a

mistake that suffering is for "I". If suffering is for "I" that suffering must

be there always for "I" but at times that "I" also appears to be free from

suffering, while suffering is already around there. Suffering, not suffering,

happiness, unhappiness, pain, pleasure, and all such dwandwas, are there, but

their locus is not the "real I". It is the "false I" which appears to be

attached to these Dwandwas.

Hariomingly

Mani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Here is what Ribhu Gita states clearly.

 

 

 

"The total discarding of the mind alone is victory,

achievement, bliss, yoga, wisdom and liberation. The

sacrifice of the mind is, in fact, the totality of all

sacred sacrifices." (Ch. 15, v. 7). In the ordinary

language of the world, losing one's mind refers to

insanity. In language of the Heart, losing one's mind

means losing it to one's beloved or absorption in the

Self.

 

 

 

There are many glamorous and sensational accounts of

the so called enlightenment with much suffering and

bizarre events, etc. If one starts reading the

autobiographies of the "enlightened" people, each has a

story better than the other. What can we ordinary

people do except stick to the basics.

 

 

 

Once my teacher said, "Never follow any guru blindly."

I was surprised (because he was my guru). I asked,

"Gurudev, why not." He smiled and said, "What if the

guru goes crazy!" Whenever I think of that I smile.

 

 

 

Love to all

 

Harsha

 

 

 

_____

 

advaitin

[advaitin] On Behalf Of Nathan

Port

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 6:50 PM

advaitin

U.G. Krishnamurti

 

 

 

Dear members,

 

I'm writing because I recently read an interview with

U.G. Krishnamurti

that has left me a little unsettled. In this interview,

available at

realization.org, U.G. Krishnamurti talks about his life

events,

including his so-called enlightenment. Some of his

statements that are

disturbing to me are the ones where he says that if

people knew what

enlightenment was like, they wouldn't want it. His

entire account seems

full of suffering and bizarre events. Even at the end,

there is no

mention by him of peace or anything positive.

 

I would be interested in reading the opinions and

insights of the

members on this person.

 

Regards,

Nathan

 

 

 

 

_____

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yesterday when I was discusiing some issue with my fiend, he asked me

what is ultimate happiness. I told him, that attaining which you will

never ask for more.(More a theeoritical answer)

Then he asked, how it can be attained. I told him that you can attain

by realizing that "you are happy"

Then I staarted to think on how can we attain ultimate happiness. I

have read from different vedantis that when we were child we were

Happy. We were actually Happy people, but we have become unhappy. When

I started to think about it I realized its because we have started

associating happiness with "IF". If I have this I can be hapy, If I

have that I can be happy. But since shastra tells that materials will

never give us happiness(I think this is where we need to think

Shastras are Prmanas), dropping the association of Happiness with IF

becomes necessary. When we drop that ultimate "IF" that this body is

necessary for Happiness, you will realize that you are brahma.

When we drop that IF, then all the other IF's will automatically drop

off, for the simple reason that what ever we do, we do it for our body.

 

Thanks

Prashanth.K

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

I have also read the experiences (suffering) of UGK. In fact, I found

him interesting only upto that point. I did not read him beyond that.

Now, in retrospect, I think I did the right thing.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Pranams to one and All

 

I had the privelege of meeting UG almost everyday durinng winter time, when he

was in Bangalore. One question one has to answer is that " when the mind is

destroyed, what changes occur in the Brain"?

 

Necessarily channges must take place, not in the Brain, and in the glands and in

the very system. Enlightenment in small doses is satori. When prolonged over a

stretch of time, enlightenment stabilises, and man is liberated. During the

interugnum, body chemistry undergoes vast changes. there will be spells of

swooning, imbalanced walking, sto,ach disturbances, a distaste for anything and

every thing, will loose interest in spicy foods, have visions, and will also get

some powers. It all depends upoon how much the Brain can withstand. That is why

Mahatmas, who attained liberation and led ordinary life, got enlightened at

early ages, like Pramahamsa, Shankara, Ramana Mahrishi, and Swami Vivekananda,

to say the least. The list is long, after ageing, if enlightenment takes place

the grip of Brain Conditioning will cause many upheavals. Those are the bizzare

experiences narrated by UG. No doubt they are horrifying. I have had the taste

of it, and remeber, one will have Migraine for over

20 years. That persistent pain which cannot be diagonised by Doctors , who

would prescribe pain-killers, actually is working of the Universal Mind on the

conditioned Brain. Even ordinary memory will be erased.This is my experience.

 

Thus in the fiftieth year when UG got enlightened, it is but natural for him to

have had these experiences. he has lost the sense of his own body too, and if

one were to go through the literature compiled on him, & his conversations, one

will easily acknowledge him as Brahman in a Pyjama Kurtha. Apparently one can

see contradiction between his statements and Statements of Ramana or others,

underneath it is one and the same. Liberated Masters employ language knwon to

them. UG has lost knowledge of his mother tongue-telugu-too. He talks from a

borrowed language. Thus the difference apparently not in the Core.

 

Chidaananda Rupaha Shivoham Shivoham

 

 

 

 

Check out India Rakhi Special for Rakhi shopping, contests and lots more.

http://in.promos./rakhi/index.html

 

 

[Guest guest]

On 8/23/05, Nathan Port <eport924 wrote:

 

"I'm writing because I recently read an interview with U.G. Krishnamurti

that has left me a little unsettled..."

I met UG once in 1998 in Calcutta. One time meeting is hardly enough to

understand a person (..and that too a self proclaimed enlightened person

:-)). To me he appeared an extremely intelligent yet shrewd person. I

certainly did not feel any vibes that are usually referred to enlightened

masters. My opinion is subjective and I may be wrong.

Fortunately, shAstras have not left us in the jungle of subjective opinions

in choice of a teacher. shAstras do not stop at "brahma-nishtha" as the sole

qualification of a teacher. They add "shrotriyam" also. Faking

"brahma-nishthA" is not difficult if one has learned some buzz words and

gift of gab. All sorts of babajis can claim to be enlightened (and some may

actually be so.)How does one find out? However, recognizing a "shrotriya" is

not difficult. He has a whole sampradAya behind him. A charltan will be

spotted in no time. Therefore both the qualifications have been considered

essential by shAstra. BhagvAn Raman, though himself a brahma-nishtha, did

not formally accept any disciple respecting the advaita tradition that does

not recognize a non-sampradAyavit as a teacher. Modern gurus are not so

scrupulous.

praNAm

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Nathan Port" <eport924> wrote:

> Dear members,

>

> I'm writing because I recently read an interview with U.G.

Krishnamurti

> that has left me a little unsettled. In this interview, available

at

> realization.org, U.G. Krishnamurti talks about his life events,

> including his so-called enlightenment. Some of his statements that

are

> disturbing to me are the ones where he says that if people knew

what

> enlightenment was like, they wouldn't want it. His entire account

seems

> full of suffering and bizarre events. Even at the end, there is no

> mention by him of peace or anything positive.

>

> I would be interested in reading the opinions and insights of the

> members on this person.

>

> Regards,

> Nathan

 

Namaste,

 

Simply put, of course people with desires don't want enlightenment,

it is a desireless, mindless, and attributeless state--inexplicable.

Many people who claim to be non dual also do not with the pure Nir

Guna state, they aim for the Sakti/Saguna State of Sat-Cit-Ananada.

Any trace of modification whether it be Sakti or Mind is not full

realisation. Many people prefer the Savikalpa Samadhi to the

Nirvikalpa for there is nothing to enjoy or remember/ecstasy in

Nirvikalpa. So of course the unenlightened with a mind will not want

true Moksha for in the first place the samskaras prevent lucidity,

then mix in loss of ego-identity and you have the dominant fear of

prevention right there.

 

The Ego will do anything to survive, it drives the mind mad, and can

even kill the body in its desire to keep its delusional existence.

 

That is why the expression that we must use a thorn to remove a

thorn.........At the right time and with enough Sadhana and

Purification.........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

The question that we should ask within is : "What

is `enlightenment.' It is possible for any one to state a `scholarly

view of enlightenment." It is also possible to evaluate and rate

such scholarly views of `enlightenment' on the basis of level of

scholarship and spiritual maturity. It is like trying to describe

the `nirguna Brahman.' The available languages of the world of today

and tomorrow can ever be able to describe what is `Brahman.'

According to the sages of the Upanishads, one who recognizes

his/her true identity becomes the Brahman. Now what is the nature of

the Brahaman? For intellectual understanding, the scripture assign

three qualities - Brahman is eternal, Brahman is changeless and

Brahman is without attributes. From this we can infer the following –

Brahman only knows the Brahman! These are the facts that we infer

from the `Scripture' and are confirmed from the subtle messages that

we can gather from the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad

Gita.

 

Any experience that anyone including Sri UGK can describe such

as `sufferings or `enjoyment' should be coming from the experience

of the `body' and certainly not by the `atman.' When we have love

and respect for a great Vedantic scholar, we do admire such a person

as an `enlightened person.' This is a normal human tendency and there

is nothing wrong to express our love and respect that way. Many of

the modern day `enlightened' gurus may fall into this category and

they were told that they are `enlightened!' We do need to understand

the distinction between `real enlightenment' and `scholarly

enlightenment.' A scholarly enlightened person will likely feel the

pain and pressure to maintain the level of scholarship and keep the

level of admiration from the followers and admirers.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, jayantha srirama

<jayanthasrirama> wrote:

>

> Pranams to one and All

>

> I had the privelege of meeting UG almost everyday durinng winter

time, when he was in Bangalore. One question one has to answer is

that " when the mind is destroyed, what changes occur in the Brain"?

[Guest guest]

Namaste all

 

After I read this thread I went back to Google, searched for UGK and

got his website. I tried to read some of it. But I stopped after

some time because I felt I was not spending my time usefully.

 

"nidrAyAH loka-vArtAyAH shabdAder-Atma-vismRRiteH"

 

The shloka that begins with this line says that things or words

which take you away from the Atman -- like sleep, worldly gossip

etc. -- should be avoided if one is interested in Atma-lAbha.

 

Secondly, advaita-type of knowledge can be given in several

manifestations of words. We can keep on talking about 'The

Absolute' and get lost in those very words themselves. That is why

great sages like Ramana recommended Atma-vichAra (Enquiry within

oneself about the Self) and not any 'exposition' about the Atman.

 

I do find 'advaita-like' statements in UGK; but, for me, more

authentic statements from the Upanishads and the Puranas are enough

food for thought or nididhyasana.

 

Just to illustrate that any profound statement can look like a

Vedantic expression or exposition, worthy of advaitin's

consideration, I am posting in a separate mail, extracts from "The

Four Agreements" by Don Miguel Ruiz, which I read recently, and was

impressed by the Vedanta I could 'find' in it!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> That is the reason why we look for Shastra as pramaana not experience

of individuals.

 

Greetings,

 

Are not the scriptures too based on the experience of individuals, only

far in the past, which makes them seem infallible?

 

Regards,

Nathan

[Guest guest]

> Namaste,

>

> Simply put, of course people with desires don't want

enlightenment,

> it is a desireless, mindless, and attributeless state--inexplicable.

> Many people who claim to be non dual also do not with the pure Nir

> Guna state, they aim for the Sakti/Saguna State of Sat-Cit-Ananada.

> Any trace of modification whether it be Sakti or Mind is not full

> realisation.

>

Greetings,

 

I understand that the ego doesn't want enlightenment, but can't it

still be said to be desirable and 'good'?

 

You say that sat-chit-ananda is only in the sakti/saguna state, but

Shankara says in viveka-chudamani: "The 'I'-consciousness is now

rooted in the body. Merge this consciousness in the Atman, which is

absolute existence, knowledge, and bliss."

 

Regards,

Nathan

[Guest guest]

--- Nathan Port <eport924 wrote:

> advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

> <kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> > That is the reason why we look for Shastra as pramaana not

> experience

> of individuals.

>

> Greetings,

>

> Are not the scriptures too based on the experience of individuals,

> only

> far in the past, which makes them seem infallible?

>

> Regards,

> Nathan

 

 

In principle yes. But experiences are reconfirmed again and again; and

consistency of the statements - samanvaya - of the vedic statements are

brought out by Badarayana in his Brahmasuutras. These are time-tested

statements.

 

It is not experience of one individual but several running many

centuries and recorded without any individual ego involved.

 

Faith is the basis for any Subjective experiences - more so in this

adhyatma vidya or spirtual enlightment- Faith in collective experience

of many yogies in the past is considered better than faith in one

individual that contradicts many.

 

It is accepted in the Hindu tradition,that Veda's are considered as

supreme pramaana for vedatic philoshophy - These are called astikaas -

that is philosophies that believe in the Vedas as pramaaNa.

 

Even the statement of Bhagavaan Krishna are considered as valid only if

they agree with the Vedas. Hence Krishna himself repeatedly confirms

that what is teachinig is intune with the Vedas.

 

When the questions arise - how come this guru's says this way and other

guru's says other way as your own question implies, the settling factor

is only Veda-s, for all these subjective experiences.

 

Hence scripture forms a basis for advaita vedanta and advaitic

experiences too.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Nathan Port" <eport924> wrote:

>

> > Namaste,

> >

> > Simply put, of course people with desires don't want

> enlightenment,

> > it is a desireless, mindless, and attributeless state--

inexplicable.

> > Many people who claim to be non dual also do not with the pure

Nir

> > Guna state, they aim for the Sakti/Saguna State of Sat-Cit-

Ananada.

> > Any trace of modification whether it be Sakti or Mind is not

full

> > realisation.

> >

> Greetings,

>

> I understand that the ego doesn't want enlightenment, but can't it

> still be said to be desirable and 'good'?

>

> You say that sat-chit-ananda is only in the sakti/saguna state,

but

> Shankara says in viveka-chudamani: "The 'I'-consciousness is now

> rooted in the body. Merge this consciousness in the Atman, which

is

> absolute existence, knowledge, and bliss."

>

> Regards,

> Nathan

 

Namaste,

 

Sankara taught at different levels depending on the audience, as do

all Masters. The achievment of merging the 'I' means there is no

small I and only the larger I which is aware of its illusory

condition or non happening. On dropping the body the entire creation

disappears as never happening....So Moksha is two instantaneous

steps..........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

U. G. Krishnamurti (UGK) was not even upto the mark of having

sound morals, let alone being a realized sage. UGK possessed a

big mouth, little intelligence and an enormous ego to boot. They

say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and in UGK's

case, it is right on the money.

 

To understand what kind of a man UGK was, it is sufficient to

read his experience of meeting with Ramana Maharshi (RM).

 

Please note: read the "meeting with RM" with a pinch of salt, as

most of UGK's claims regarding his conversations with RM are

false. UGK actually attributes "arrogance" to RM!! Either UGK

misunderstood RM which makes UGK obtuse, or UGK is

misrepresenting RM, which makes UGK a liar. Either way, it is

best to distance oneself from UGK and his "teachings".

 

http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0031.htm

 

----------

So, reluctantly, hesitatingly, unwilling, I went to see Ramana

Maharshi. That fellow dragged me. He said "Go there once.

Something will happen to you." He talked about it and gave me a

book, Search in Secret India by Paul Brunton, so I read the

chapter relating to this man -- "All right, I don't mind, let me

go and see." That man was sitting there. From his very presence

I felt "What! This man -- how can he help me? This fellow who is

reading comic strips, cutting vegetables, playing with this,

that or the other -- how can this man help me? He can't help

me." Anyway, I sat there. Nothing happened; I looked at him, and

he looked at me. "In his presence you feel silent, your

questions disappear, his look changes you" -- all that remained

a story, fancy stuff to me. I sat there. There were a lot of

questions inside, silly questions -- so, "The questions have not

disappeared. I have been sitting here for two hours, and the

questions are still there. All right, let me ask him some

questions" -- because at that time I very much wanted moksha.

This part of my background, moksha, I wanted. "You are supposed

to be a liberated man" -- I didn't say that. "Can you give me

what you have?" -- I asked him this question, but that man

didn't answer, so after some lapse of time I repeated that

question -- "I am asking 'Whatever you have, can you give it to

me?'" He said, "I can give you, but can you take it?" Boy! For

the first time this fellow says that he has something and that I

can't take it. Nobody before had said "I can give you," but this

man said "I can give you, but can you take it?" Then I said to

myself "If there is any individual in this world who can take

it, it is me, because I have done so much sadhana, seven years

of sadhana. He can think that I can't take it, but I can take

it. If I can't take it, who can take it?" -- that was my frame

of mind at the time -- you know, (laughs) I was so confident of

myself.

 

I didn't stay with him, I didn't read any of his books, so I

asked him a few more questions: "Can one be free sometimes and

not free sometimes?" He said "Either you are free, or you are

not free at all." There was another question which I don't

remember. He answered in a very strange way: "There are no steps

leading you to that." But I ignored all these things. These

questions didn't matter to me -- the answers didn't interest me

at all.

 

But this question "Can you take it?" ... "How arrogant he is!"

-- that was my feeling.

----------

 

--- Nathan Port <eport924 wrote:

> Dear members,

>

> I'm writing because I recently read an interview with U.G.

> Krishnamurti

> that has left me a little unsettled. In this interview,

> available at

[Guest guest]

I strongly urge posters not to discuss about the individuals whether

someone has realized or not, but concentrate only on the subject

relavent to Vedanta.

 

Sthitaprajna lakshana is only intended to evaluate oneself whether one

has realized or not. Being a subjective experience, it is futile to

judge others about their experience.

 

It is impertinent whether U.G Krishnamurthy is realized or not -

question only pertaines whether experience of suffering is compatible

with state of self-realization. If so how and if not, why not.

 

No further discussion is encouraged about the judgement of other

individuals. I urge everyone to refrain from it.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

--- S Jayanarayanan <sjayana wrote:

 

> U. G. Krishnamurti (UGK) was not even

[Guest guest]

praNAm all,

 

Even Ramana's body suffered cancer and he said that the body itself is a

disease (at that stage). Considering this, I'm reminded of various Kundalini

experiences that people mention and how the body undergoes changes. Whether

the body undergoes any change is quite besides-the-point since the body

*was* a tool for a jnaani. As Ramana seems to have asked "I can give... but

can you take it" would mean precisely that. If one still thinks that the

body is suffering and starts associating it with spiritual developments, one

can't take it!

 

shivam shaantam advaitam,

--praveen

[Guest guest]

advaitin, praveen.r.bhat@e... wrote:

> praNAm all,

>

> Even Ramana's body suffered cancer and he said that the body itself

is a

> disease (at that stage). Considering this, I'm reminded of various

Kundalini

> experiences that people mention and how the body undergoes changes.

Whether

> the body undergoes any change is quite besides-the-point since the

body

> *was* a tool for a jnaani. As Ramana seems to have asked "I can

give... but

> can you take it" would mean precisely that. If one still thinks

that the

> body is suffering and starts associating it with spiritual

developments, one

> can't take it!

>

> shivam shaantam advaitam,

> --praveen

 

Namaste,

 

.....yes.....in reality we are not the body...

and never realy have been...

it is difficult to talk about this.....

en ego mind which is attached to body and mind...is suffering more or

less.....depending how deep are this attachments

this suffering, i think, is more related to an ego-mind than to a

mind which get peace and love....on the path to the Self

 

once i read that people living with Ramana were so much concerned and

sad about his body disease and cancer.....

he answered:"....but don't you remember that i'm not the body...?"

 

Regards and Love

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

I am myself not enlightened. I am writing this only as a reader.

Although, I wish you have your own views about this matter of UGK, I

thought I may just add a few of my words.

 

1. Enlightenment is not sorrowful. I am assured of that, but don't

expect you all to beleive me. Why? A steady progress in this path

makes clear to me, the futility in sorrow. The more I look around and

contemplate the conditioned existence of the world, the more I am

clear, that the equanimity resulting from it, the sense of great peace

resulting from it, etc., arise along with a feeling of non-doreship

and non-sufferership. There is noone who is suffering. Then whence the

end of sorrow? But time and again, my desires (even mild things such

as a feeling of being in the body, or the seer, or the smeller etc.)

pull at me and this truth fades from me.

 

Enlightenment has to be accompanied by the complete dissolution of all

desires, for enlightenment exists always, but is faded or just clouded

by our desires. Of course, you need not take my words.

 

2. Age does not alter enlightenment. The Buddha was enlightened when

he was nearly 40. Even Sankara points out in his introduction to the

Upanishad Bhashya: "...no age can restrict a person from the bliss of

enlightenment and the knowledge of the Self as said in the Upanishads

....."

 

3. Enlightenment/Unbinding is not attained. It would be incorrect to

think of enlightenment (or knowledge or wisdom) as an object to be

procured, or as a state to be attained. It is beyond everything. No

amount of sorrow, ill-will, etc. can shake an enlightened one.

 

4. Renunciation is not a hardship. If one feels it is a hardship, he

is not ready for either renunciation or for enlightenment.

Renunciation is complete freedom from so many bondages, that if one

can really understand the freedom, he would surely want to renounce

everything. A maturity grows and a willful renunciation takes place -

it needs no ritual, wearing of some special clothes etc. But if a

person, thinks that renunciation is only in the mind and enjoys at

home, he is only fooling himself. If however, he truly remains aloof

from the 'all', it hardly matter if he is at home or outside home.

 

In the last five years of my renunciation, I have found lots of

freedoms. Having to beg for food everyday, having no bondages of a

home, travelling from place to place, (except in the rainy months),

having no diseases, since one eats only once a day, (if at all, you

catch cold or some food is poisoned, herbs are there to help), having

no jealousy, since one has no competition to attain anything with any

fellow bhikku/bhikkuni, I feel a sense of freedom, I had never felt

before. I donot think it is hardship.

 

5. That the materials donot give happiness is written in many books of

many religions all around the world (not only the Sastras). But not

all the people have renounced their material possessions. And not

everyone can have the spiritual maturity to do so. How one gets

disillusioned about the world and gives up everything, is something of

a wonder. It happens just at the spur of the moment, one feels the

bondages he has to bear, when he feels the need to free himself.

That's when he become mature.

 

6. I cannot say with certainty if disease will be there after

enlightenment. But if it is there, one won't suffer from it. Just as

an enlightened person is also bound by death, he may have disease as

long as the body persists, but he won't suffer. I don't know, I guess

I'm just reckoning here, but I have no idea what it would be like, to

be enlightened and have a disease. But surely, when I had typhoid 4

months back, I did not suffer as much as I did about 8 years back,

although I did have some painful nights. I think suffering reduces

slowly at the rate at which a person's desires reduce.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

[Guest guest]

Greetings,

 

My original question wasn't so much as about suffering in the life of

UGK, but his teachings. I can accept that suffering may be part of the

path, but what I found strange after reading UGK's account, was that he

never mentions becoming peaceful or happy or anything like that.

 

Some of the members suggest that just reading the vedas is the safe way

to go. But there are many good modern life accounts and teachings, that

one is bound to come across some that maybe aren't. This is when I

become troubled, when I read writings such as UGK's, which seem

nihilistic.

 

Regards,

Nathan

[Guest guest]

praNAm,

 

Nathan-ji wrote:

....But there are many good modern life accounts and teachings, that one is

bound to come across some that maybe aren't. This is when I become troubled,

when I read writings such as UGK's, which seem nihilistic.

 

praveen:

Thats perhaps why people suggest to stick to traditional advaita teachers

when learning advaitic accounts. As for modern day teachings, I've not read

UGK, but I felt some of J. Krishnamurthy's teachings interesting, though

nihilistic or with a mix of Zen, etc. If you're inclined towards reading

*neo-advaita*, I'd suggest to try Nisargadatta Maharaj. Or how about

Ramana's direct path, if you've not already been reading?

 

shivam shaantam advaitam,

--praveen

[Guest guest]

> praveen:

> Thats perhaps why people suggest to stick to traditional advaita

teachers

> when learning advaitic accounts. As for modern day teachings, I've

not read

> UGK, but I felt some of J. Krishnamurthy's teachings interesting,

though

> nihilistic or with a mix of Zen, etc. If you're inclined towards

reading

> *neo-advaita*, I'd suggest to try Nisargadatta Maharaj. Or how about

> Ramana's direct path, if you've not already been reading?

>

> shivam shaantam advaitam,

> --praveen

 

Greetings praveen-ji,

 

Yes, I am reading both Nisargadatta Maharaj and Sri Ramana currently,

but I don't read just Advaita books. I like to read books of

different traditions, such as Buddhism and non-sectarian writings. I

find it refreshing to read books from different traditions, because

different terms are used, and so one doesn't get too wrapped up in

particular words. Also, it is nice to read truths expressed

differently.

 

Regards,

Nathan

[Guest guest]

On 8/25/05, Sri Nathan Port wrote:

> My original question wasn't so much as about suffering in the life of

> UGK, but his teachings. I can accept that suffering may be part of the

> path, but what I found strange after reading UGK's account, was that he

> never mentions becoming peaceful or happy or anything like that.

 

Nirvana or enlightenment or jivanmukti can mean different things to

different people. What may be enlightenment to a dvaitin or a bauddha

will not be acceptable to an advaitin and vice-versa. It is not to

suggest that mukti as sought by an advaitin is superior to that sought

by others. Just that they are different and will appeal to people with

different temperaments.

 

Before going ahead with UG or any other teacher, it is important to

find out what they mean by mukti and whether it is what one is

actually seeking. What UG calls as mukti is not considered so in

advaita; hence the difference.

> Some of the members suggest that just reading the vedas is the safe way

> to go.

 

If by mukti or enlightenment, you mean jivanmukti as considered so in

advaita vedanta tradition- the answer is a resounding YES. You may

however like to remove "just" before "reading vedas" in the above

sentence.

> But there are many good modern life accounts and teachings, that

> one is bound to come across some that maybe aren't.

 

Sure. And therefore it is important to find out whether they are

talking of the same goal or different. By all means one should go

ahead with UG if one is seeking an enlightenment that finally brings

misery as UG has described.

> This is when I

> become troubled, when I read writings such as UGK's, which seem

> nihilistic.

 

This is what BhagvAn Krishna refers to in Gita 2.52. Shankara in his

commentary on this shloka has mentioned that after ones discrimination

gets matured by practice of karma-yoga, one naturally develops a

dispassion towards scriptures other than those leading to

self-knowledge.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

--- Nathan Port <eport924 wrote:

> Some of the members suggest that just reading the vedas is the safe

> way

> to go. But there are many good modern life accounts and teachings,

> that

> one is bound to come across some that maybe aren't. This is when I

> become troubled, when I read writings such as UGK's, which seem

> nihilistic.

>

> Regards,

> Nathan

 

Shree Nathan

 

As everyone is emphasizing - it is not just reading Vedas - one cannot

understand Vedas properly without a proper teacher. A traditional

teacher alone can unravel the mystic language of the Vedanta.

 

After fully understanding the goal and the paths, one can look at the

other masters and take out that which agrees with Vedic understanding

leaving out that which is not.

 

There are several well established traditional schools and teachers that

can provide the required background - Ramakrishna Mission, Chinmaya

Mission, etc are just to name a few. Many books are available for

introductory study. There are many study groups run by both missions

throughout the world. Manual of self-Unfoldment by Swami Chinmayanandaji

is one book that I recommend for beginners. One can get that book on

line.

 

For Bhagavaan Ramana's teaching one has to have required frame of mind

to follow - I teach Ramana’s texts - Upadesha saara or Sat Darshan only

after several introductory texts. They are very profound and cryptic. So

is DakshiNamuurti sthotram of Shankara.

 

There are many files stored in the advaitin achieves that one can unload

and study - this list serve is meant for learning from each other.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda