Regarding Death and beyond

[Guest guest]

Reply:

 

Dear Harsha ji and Sri N ji

 

Reg: Message 29921 of sri V.Subramanium

 

 

 

I am not sure whether anybody has lived a complete life,

 

unless they have understood their basic reality. They might have led a

 

successful life, which is a different thing, which is not having lived

 

a complete life. Many persons without the need for the quest for a

 

transcendental reality, or being satisfied with their traditional way of

 

life, carry on, not having been buffet ted by the painful lashes of

 

life, which gives us a misleading conception of the doctrine of karma

 

and the grace of god, these two things being interpreted by most of the

 

people in terms of worldly success or failure. As regards the question

 

as to what happens to all the empirical memories of the individuals,

 

it is a difficult question to answer, as no answer to these questions

 

are available both from the standpoint of transcendental truth, and

 

purely the sole evidence of the empirical existence, the outcome of

 

avidya, which hides truth. I have a feeling- this is based on my personal

 

judgment- that the individual does not separately evolve into the

 

higher states, all individuality being attributable to mere ignorance,

 

not also being in conformity with the idea of the natural justice of a

 

divine being, who ought not to be partial in his treatment meted out

 

to his creation. The question as to what happens to an individual

 

after he dies, is based on the belief that we are individuals, which may

 

not be so, although we may be different bodies with different talents.

 

The question of after life is only related to spirit ism and not

 

religious, and should not bother us. We should not allow this question to

 

be nourished by way of curiosity, as it would result in a detour in our

 

quest making us believe that we are individuals. Sri Ramakrishna, when

 

a question is raised as regards rebirth vis-a-vis the concepts of the

 

various astral planes talked about by Theosophy, answers that he does

 

not know all these things, his knowledge being limited only to the

 

contemplation of the divine. Ramana Maharishi also discourages

 

questions about after life, stating that only the unreal individuality

 

continues and not the transcendental Atman. Of course, driven by an extreme

 

fear of samsara, pursuit of this question at a religious level helps

 

us to chalk out our divine destiny. Pure academic interest of what

 

happens to the particular memories, is not of help to us, but surely a

 

hindrance, which does not mean reincarnation is not real; but the fact of

 

the matter is that we can have no yes or no to this question, as it

 

belongs to the domain of Maya.

 

with regards,

 

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

Reply:

 

Dear Sri Sankararaman ji:

Namaste. As would have been evident to you from the quotes that I had

mentioned, Bhagavan Sri Krishna, the Upanishads and Acharya Shankara are not

concerned with things of purely academic interest but what they have said is

indisputably for the uplift of the human being. They were quite capable of

dismissing every question by saying that it belonged to the realm of Maya and

therefore needs no enquiry by us. But the fact is that man does not find

himself in the highest pedestal of saying everything is mithya. Only a few have

reached that state. And they too do not foist their standpoint on the sadhakas

who have definitely to be shown a way out of the ignorant state that they find

themselves in. The topic of death, rebirth and samskaras are of paramount

importance to the aspirant and he has to be given an idea of these matters not

as that of an academic interest but with a view to take up an action plan. Life

is uncertain and can end at any moment. Since it is the thoughts

that a person cultivates that has a bearing on what he is, there is every need

for the aspirant to be cautious as to what kind of thoughts he entertains, what

he should do to improve himself and how he should go about it. All these are

taught in the scriptures. It is not with a view to whiling away the time that

the seers have said these things in the scriptures. Acharya Shankara considers

the 'yam yam vaapi' verse so important that he takes it up during a discussion

in his Upanishad bhashyam elsewhere. These verses have a bearing on the

Yoga-bhrashta discussion of the 6th chapter of the Gita where the question of

what would happen to the yogi who dies before attaining the fruit of his

sadhana. Are these not matters of importance to the sadhaka? Who else but the

Lord, the Upanishads will/can answer these questions?

 

The classic example of Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi remaining by his Mother's side

during her death is there for all to read about. He stayed with her with his

hand on her chest for a whole day and night. What he mentioned and did at that

time is not something to be pooh poohed. He was a Jnani and could have seen

everything as Maya and gone about with his own work. Why did he stay with the

Mother till the end and finally declare that he sat there tending to her vasanas

and aided her in attaining sadgati? He did that in the case of the cow Lakshmi

too. He composed a poem in Venba about the demise of Lakshmi. He did say that

some souls had come to his presence in the form of peacock, dog, crow etc with

a view to be liberated through his hands. Pointing to the body of the cow

Lakshmi, he said ' Look, in the case of people who die in Kasi, people say Lord

Siva will whisper into the ear. Lakshmi too has her right ear up' and showed

that ear to all people there. Then, regarding

the question of Kavyakantha Ganapathi Muni's state, I remember Bhagavan having

said: 'No. how could he have got liberation? He had many wishes unfulfilled.'

 

When we see Sri Ramakrishna's life, we are baffled by the abundance of

instances where he referred to the past births of so many people who came to

him. He had had a vision of Naren and Rakhal (Swamis Vivekananda and

Brahmananda) in a divine loka much before these boys came to him for the first

time. When he toured Varanasi, while the boat was passing through Manikarnika

ghat, Sri Ramakrishna had the vision of Shiva chanting the Taraka mantra in the

ears of those dying there.

 

Since what we are is what our mind is, there is every need to know about these

matters and the Lord, the Upanishads and Acharya Shankara, not considering it a

trivial matter, go to great lengths to teach about this. An individual may not

like this, but this is not the concern of the Scripture. It gives the teaching

that is Hita to the individual and not what is priya. It is up to the

individual to take them up in right earnestness and work for one's own

upliftment. Uddharet aatmanaa aatmaanam says the Gita. 'Lift yourself up by

your own effort'.

 

It is important to remember that these topics are discussed in the context of

the jijnaasu, the aspirant, who is concerned about the transcendental reality.

 

Warm regards

subbu

 

 

 

 

Photos

Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP.

 

 

[Guest guest]

V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v wrote:

Reply:

 

Dear Harsha ji and Sri N ji

 

Reg: Message 29921 of sri V.Subramanium

 

 

Dear Subramanium,

Apropos your clarification, I

fully agree with your views. My earlier response was in a different vein,

having seen the death of both of my parents in the last one year, this having

given me a feeling of jolt and an arid void that I am not able to overcome.

Since, in spite of all my religious study, I am not able to look at the great

sorrow from a spiritual perspective, and I have been pondering over the

questions of life and death, and the stark fact that the persons who have been

responsible for my being ushered into this world are no more with me, a feeling

of existential nausea has come over me, which I am trying to overcome not by

merely adjusting myself to this world of Maya, but trying to find out whether

this manifest stream is a falsehood imposed upon us, or whether we have lived

a totally self-cent red life, which is the cause for this individual sorrow.

Death is happening for so many persons in the world in all

types of gruesome ways, which we hear as an entertaining news satisfying us

with some theoretical understanding of the scriptures. But when it comes to

the dear and near ones, we are carried away by the individual sorrow and sink

in it. Death does not give as an impetus to question the fundamentals of life.

It is in the context of my mixed emotions that I have responded in the

particular manner. If it is unbecoming of me to have made some outlandish

statements, I apologize for the same. Incidentally, I may say that death is the

one irrevocable reality which should make us more serious in our quest.

with kind regards

yours ever in Bhaghavan Ramana

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover

Photo Books. You design it and we’ll bind it!

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

>

>

>

> V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v> wrote:

> Reply:

>

> >

> Dear Subramanium,

> Apropos your

clarification, I fully agree with your views. My earlier response

was in a different vein, having seen the death of both of my

parents in the last one year, this having given me a feeling of

jolt and an arid void that I am not able to overcome. Since, in

spite of all my religious study, I am not able to look at the great.

 

Namaste,G.S. et al,IMHO,

 

It is the 'emotion' that takes over, for reason cannot grieve the

loss. Also emotion came before reason so with grief we have to go

back to the beginning of the route.

 

However as Sanakara said 'Death is a separation from our

attachments'....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Ref. Post: 29944

 

Namaste Sankarraman-ji;

 

Beautiful words indeed. I believe, however, that you fail to identify some

issues, which in fact can be accounted to their proximity with the subject.

In my limited perception, knowledge and spiritual evolution, i am able to

perceive, better yet, tangibly feel how much you, as an individual, inspite

of (likely) not having gathered much more objective knowledge than you

already had, in this limited course of time (around 3 months of postings)

have greatly evolved. Only by reading your posts, as i believe i have read

them all as well, unsurmountable evolution transpires. You already knew a

lot, as it must have become clear, at the time of your first post, but

without regarding the "actual" amount of knowledge you possess, it seems to

me you know so much more as of now.

 

I had the same impression you had just recently (confirming my own

limitations), with the passing of someone dear to me. However, somewhere

along the lines, one set of thoughts occured which shifted my perspective on

the issue.

 

Firstly, i do not believe we engage in the study of our own true nature so

that we may become unsentient and dry. The perception of the holyness in

every surrounding soul, the enveloping canvas whatever it may be (as was the

case with Bhagavan and Lakshmi), should at the very least raise the

perceived value of (why not) each individual as a sentient part of the

absolute (even though the "part" part may remain as an undying illusion). So

i rejoiced in suffering (even though it seems contradictory), in the moments

where it seemed the only appropriate thing to feel. Then, moments later, i

rejoiced from having taken part in that particular drama. If anything, i

witnessed another aspect of divinity come and go, i was blessed by its sight

and presence, and will forever hold within all the moments in which the

pure-love, which only the holly spirit itself can bring forth, lashed out at

me. And then i suffered some more, until finally i was ready to accept that

all that was, and still is, was another part of what really is "me", and

forever will be.

 

To be caught in a whirlwind of emotions is not healthy. To shift experiences

to a negative is not healthy. But i don't believe not feeling is healthy

either. Emotions should come and should go, also (at least i believe), or

else we won't learn from suffering.

 

I believe dwelling on any particular feeling (besides the greatness of the

One) is not healthy, but as long as feelings are completely spontaneous,

what do you have to do with their origin, at least for a tiny fraction of a

second? And i do not believe that out of compassion, our greatest spiritual

leaders and set examples did not shed a tear or two. What should remain, in

the end, is that you came out better when that chapter was thru. Someday we

all find peace.

 

My warmest regards...

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

doce lar. Faça do sua homepage.

http://br./homepageset.html