Surrender of the ego...Bede Griffiths

[Guest guest]

"The surrender of the ego is the most difficult thing we have to do," Bede

wrote, and insisted "The surrender of the ego is the ONLY way of life."

"The problem with human existence is that we all have a self-centered

personality," he once said in a talk on religious vows.

Bede Griffiths has been called the "equivalent to the Hesychast," one who goes

beyond silence to stillness of heart. He saw the contemplative process not only

as one of transcendence but also a painful experience of self-discovery,

"initiating an experience of self-knowledge and purification, shattering the

illusions we have about our self, the nearer we draw to this Transcendent

Mystery." (Judy Walter's Influence on My Life, 5/31).

Regarding the image of the Crucified Christ, Father made the statement that his

understanding of the crucifixion had deepened profoundly. He wrote:

On the Cross Jesus surrendered himself to this Dark Power. He lost everything:

friends, disciples, his own people, their law and religion. And at last he had

to surrender his God: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." Even his

heavenly Father, every image of a personal God, had to go. He had to enter the

Dark Night, to be exposed to the abyss. Only then could he become everything

and nothing, opened beyond everything that can be named or spoken; only then

could he be one with the darkness, the Void, the Dark Mother who is Love

itself...

 

http://www.bedegriffiths.com/bio.htm

[Guest guest]

Dear Friend

 

Yes, "surrender of the ego" or destruction of ego is

the way.

 

According to the Bible Jesus said:

"For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it;

but whoever loses his life for My sake shall find it."

MAT 16:25

 

The ego must go.

 

yours in Bhagavan

 

michael

--- Miles Wright <ramana.bhakta wrote:

>

> "The surrender of the ego is the most difficult

> thing we have to do," Bede

> wrote, and insisted "The surrender of the ego is the

> ONLY way of life."

>

>

 

 

 

Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

 

[Guest guest]

Is the Ego an Illusion?An Interview with Bannanje Govindacharyaby Andrew Cohen

ANDREW COHEN: In spiritual traditions where moksha [liberation] is the goal, it

is often said that the ego is the one fundamental obstacle on the path. In my

own teaching, for example, I speak about the ego as pride or arrogant

self-importance, as this very intense, profound need within the individual to

see themselves as being separate from the whole. How would you define "ego"

from the point of view of Vedanta?BANNANJE GOVINDACHARYA: In Indian philosophy,

"ego" has different shades of meaning. The ego is not only pride or

self-importance or arrogance. In the most basic sense, ego means awareness of

the self. This is the subtle ego, what's called ahamkara in Sanskrit. And that

is wanted; that is not to be denied, not to be rejected. Awareness of self is a

very essential part of practice. First I must know: What am I? In order to have

the awareness of God, I must first have the awareness of my own self. This is

the required ego. One must have it. It is not to be denied by practice or by

any other spiritual pursuit. It is there even in the deep sleep state. Even in

moksha you are aware of your own self, with awareness of God simultaneously. So

this is one kind of ego.And then there is the dangerous ego. That ego means

self-importance or pride. That is the gross ego. And that is always dangerous

in the practice of the spiritual. Krishna says in Bhagavata, "If you've

acquired a knowledge, wisdom or philosophy, don't be egotistic." Don't think,

"I have learned this, I am a scholar because I did this." No, this should not

be there. Even after knowledge, surrender should be there, submission should be

there. Then you will be knowledgeable. Otherwise that knowledge is dangerous. If

you want to realize God, you must erase this ego, this self-importance or

pride.AC: Shankara said that the ego is the only obstacle to moksha and it's

what the sadhaka [spiritual practitioner] must make every effort to liberate

themselves from. Would you say that he was referring to this sense of

self-importance or pride?BG: Yes. This tamasic or gross ego. When you say, "I'm

superior to all, I am great, I am learned, I am special." This should not be

there. If one wants to reach moksha, this is to be avoided in any type of

sadhana [spiritual practice].AC: Wouldn't you say, though, that for all except

the fully liberated one, there's some gross ego functioning, still active?BG:

Yes. On a certain level, it is there. Of course, to some degree, these forces

can be overcome through learning. But the dangerous thing is that by learning,

one may also develop ego.AC: It usually happens, right?BG: Yes. AC: Because

there's pride in knowledge, pride in knowing. And this can be difficult to

eradicate.BG: Yes, that is correct.AC: Also, it's possible that one could have

powerful spiritual experiences, a powerful awakening, deep realization, and

even be proud of that.BG: There are so many levels of realization. And

sometimes what appears to be realization is actually a totally false

realization. There can be realization that exists entirely in the mental world;

it is only a mental experience. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says, "You

perceive the world through the glass of your belief. You don't see it how it

is." So if your belief is wrong in the very beginning, the foundation is wrong.

You can build a big castle of realization, but the entire castle will

collapse.AC: In the West at this time, there's literally an explosion of

interest in Advaita philosophy, mainly due to the influence of Ramana Maharshi,

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, H.W.L. Poonja and Ramesh Balsekar. And there are also

now a number of Western teachers propagating the advaita or nondual teachings.

In Advaita, what is emphasized is the unreality of the worldthe unreality of

manifest existence. And in that, what's being stressed by many teachers is also

the unreality of the ego. Therefore, it is said that the sadhaka need not make

any effort to struggle against the negative ego in their pursuit of inner

freedom because the very object that they're trying to free themselves fromthe

egois merely an illusion. The teaching goes: Simply realize that the ego never

existed and then live happily in the knowledge of one's own inherent

freedom.Now my view on this is that it's only the rarest of rare realized

persons who could get away with saying such a thingthat the ego is an

illusionand that therefore one need not make any effort to liberate oneself

from its corrupting influence. Indeed, only the rarest of rare individuals,

someone like Ramana Maharshi or Ajja, could say something that absolute, that

outrageous, and it actually be true. Why? Because those rarest of rare beings

are already finishedtheir ego has been utterly destroyed, burnt in the fire of

spiritual experience until there was nothing left. But to encourage a seeker

who is very, very far away from that kind of extraordinary attainment to

presume that their ego is an illusion appears to be a dubious form of

instruction. In fact, it could be dangerous in some cases because it opens the

door for self-deception and/or self-indulgence. The seeker could easily, under

the guise of enlightened understanding, abandon all effort to censor or control

impure motivations or tendencies that actually do exist within them. In other

words, "Well, the ego doesn't exist; everything is unreal, so nothing really

matters anyway."BG: Just to deny ego is of no consequence at all. If somebody

merely says that they have no ego, that is egothat is the greatest ego. "I

don't have ego so I need not reject it" is a foolish statement. Somebody who

says, "I don't have ego," is at the same time expressing his ego. This is

against our experience. It's just escapism through philosophy. These people say

the ego is false and not existent and that therefore they don't have to reject

it. But what is existent then? Does that mean everything is nonexistent? Then

why practice? Practice is nonexistent! If the whole thing is false, if it

doesn't exist, and if only the real essence exists, then why practice? A

realized person can say that they don't have ego because it is a

self-assessment; it is not self-assertion. They can say it. But not all people

can say it. It is not a common, general statement.You see, the problem is that

in Advaita there is no acknowledgment of individuality. Advaita says that all

is only one Atman [self]. But Advaita is just a certain sect in India; it's not

the whole of Indian philosophy. In fact, Shankara, who lived in the seventh

century, was the only major Indian philosopher who preached Advaita. Later

philosophersRamanuja, Bhaskara, Nimbarka, Madhvaeverybody condemns Shankara.

Nobody accepts him. But nowadays, Advaita has become a fashion.AC: In Advaita

philosophy, the world of appearances, or the world of manifestation, is

rejected. BG: In Advaita, the world doesn't exist. It did not exist, does not

exist and will not exist. It is only illusoryit seems to be real, but it

doesn't exist. And in Advaita, because they believe the world is nonexistent,

they don't give any importance to it. And then, in fact, they cannot give

importance to sadhana either. It is not necessary because essentially you are

Atman. But the world is real. We live in this world and we face the problems of

this world. Sorrow is there, pain is there, bliss is also thereeverything is

there. Everything is real. So, there is meaning to life. Otherwise, there is no

meaning. And if there is no meaning to life, there is no meaning to

liberationbecause you are already liberated. This bondage is a false notion,

that's all. There is nothing. There is no meaning to liberation. There is no

meaning to practice. But if it is real, you have to swim this ocean and reach

the other shore.So, what is moksha? According to Shankara there is no

individual moksha. Everything becomes one, that's all. But Madhva says practice

is individual, realization is individual and even moksha is also individual. The

perfection of yourself is your moksha. Perfection of myself is my moksha. We are

like seeds. If you sow a seed, it becomes a tree and is full. So the fullness of

the growth of that tree is the perfection of that seed. So the perfect growththe

perfection of your own personalityis moksha. It is not for you to become like

someone else, and not for you to become one with all. You must become your own

self.

 

Attachment: [not stored]

Attachment: [not stored]

[Guest guest]

om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya

Dear Friend,

Thank you for posting this interview. I had not seen it before. Is there more?

Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan,

Miles

---------

Is the Ego an Illusion?

An Interview with Bannanje Govindacharya

by Andrew Cohen

ANDREW COHEN: In spiritual traditions where moksha [liberation] is the goal, it

is often said that the ego is the one fundamental obstacle on the path. In my

own teaching, for example, I speak about the ego as pride or arrogant

self-importance, as this very intense, profound need within the individual to

see themselves as being separate from the whole. How would you define "ego"

from the point of view of Vedanta?

BANNANJE GOVINDACHARYA: In Indian philosophy, "ego" has different shades of

meaning. The ego is not only pride or self-importance or arrogance. In the most

basic sense, ego means awareness of the self. This is the subtle ego, what's

called ahamkara in Sanskrit. And that is wanted; that is not to be denied, not

to be rejected. Awareness of self is a very essential part of practice. First I

must know: What am I? In order to have the awareness of God, I must first have

the awareness of my own self. This is the required ego. One must have it.

[Guest guest]

Ramanuja says that in pure knowledge there is no distinction between the knowing

subject and the known object. For the universal Self, there is no distinction

between the knower and the known. For the individual Self, however, the 'I' or

ego cannot be obliterated without obliterating the essential nature of the

Self. The individual Self must have an I-consciousness which persists even in

the state of ultimate release. The 'I' or ego is not merely an attribute of the

individual Self, but constitutes the nature of the individual Self. Thus, the

I-consciousness is not obliterated by knowledge of Brahman.

The knowing subject is the 'I' or ego, which is a consciousness of the inward

Self. The 'I' or ego is a form of knowledge, constituting the essential nature

of the Self. Thus, the released Self knows the essential nature of the inward

Self.

Atman may take three forms: 1) it may be bound to the material world, 2) it may

be released from the material world, and 3) it may be eternal in its unity with

Brahman. The bound Self identifies itself with the material world. The released

Self is freed from attachment to the material world, and is aware of itself as

a spiritual reality. Release from samsara (cyclic, worldly existence) is a

state of non-difference from the highest Self. The released Self is aware of

the unity of Brahman.

Ramanuja rejects the doctrine that the phenomenal world is illusory and unreal.

According to Ramanuja, the phenomenal world is not unreal unless it is viewed

as distinct from Brahman. The phenomenal world is not simply a realm of false

and illusory appearances. The phenomenal world includes primordial matter

(prakriti), which is part of the body of Brahman.

Prakriti has three qualities (or gunas): 1) clarity (sattva), 2) activity

(passion, rajas), and 3) inactivity (darkness, tamas). These gunas may interact

to determine the nature of the material world. Brahman is the inner Self or

spirit (purusha) of prakriti. Thus, reality is both material and spiritual.

Spiritual reality may transform material reality. Plurality is not unreal

unless it is seen as replacing the unity of Brahman.

Ramanuja’s Visishtadvaita Vedanta (or philosophy of qualified non-dualism) has

some important differences from Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta (or philosophy of

non-dualism). For Shankara, undifferentiated Brahman is ultimate realty. For

Ramanuja, differentiated Brahman is ultimate reality. For Shankara,

undifferentiated Brahman can be known and experienced intuitively. For

Ramanuja, Brahman can only be known through its attributes, and since Brahman

has attributes which can be known and experienced intuitively, it must be

differentiated.

For Shankara, maya is an illusory appearance of reality, occurring when the

plurality of the phenomenal world is superimposed on the unity of Brahman. For

Ramanuja, however, maya is real and is the plurality of attributes which are

manifested by Brahman. Maya is the way in which Brahman is manifested in the

phenomenal world.

-

Miles Wright

RamanaMaharshi

Friday, February 14, 2003 7:48 PM

Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Surrender of the ego...Bede Griffiths

om namo bhagavate sri ramanayaDear Friend,Thank you for posting this interview.

I had not seen it before. Is there more?Ever Yours in Sri

Bhagavan,Miles---------