Sadhna -Some Facts (3)

[Guest guest]

Contd...<br><br>The other important point is to

avoid laziness. A dacoit may become a saint but a lazy

will never be (example of Saint Valmiki who was a

dacoit earlier). Laziness is Tamoguna and action is

Rajoguna. Tamoguna can not be transformed into Sat

directly. It has to pass through Raj first. So let the Tam

not over power us in forms of laziness.<br><br>We

should always make an equilibrium in every thing. shri

Krishna has said in Gita -Yoga is not for those who eat

too much or those who remain hungry neither for those

who sleep too much or those who do not sleep well

6/16).<br><br>we should make an equilibrium in every thing. We

should not speak too much, we should not work too hard,

we should not love too dearly but also we should not

hate , or be lazy. There should be a balance in our

day to day jobs.<br><br>And the most important point

to remember is that Sadhna is our whole life, our

whole day, our whole being We can not be pure for the

moments of Sadhna, and become an impure one for the rest

of the time. Moral life is very essential for

Sadhna. <br><br>We have to be good human being first,

before becoming good Sadhaka, or bhakta. Every work

should be treated as a Yajana done for the supreme.

Needy should be helped as Narayana, not as wretched

poors. Feeling of kindness, or donation is sometimes a

nourishment for ego. All good works should be done as act of

duty not as a favour to an individual.<br><br>If our

daily life is not pious, disciplined and sattvic, we

can not progress on the path of Sadhna. Because

whatever we do the whole day, whatever we think during the

day, has a direct effect on our sadhna.<br><br>Hari Om

Tat Sat<br><br>silent soul

[Guest guest]

dear SS<br><br>Isn't there a contradiction ? You

have written that impure persons do not get Moksha but

on the other hand you have mentioned that a dacoit

became Valmiki Saint all of a sudden ??<br><br><br>vinod

[Guest guest]

Heres what I would like to say.<br>I agree that

it is not possible for an impure soul to attain

Moksha. Ratnakar never attained moksha, but the day the

love and devotion for Shri Rama came into him, the day

he was sat surrounded by 'Valmik' (termites) with no

self consciousness and meditated on Rama, Ratnakar

became Valmiki. It is then that Valmiki attained

Moksha.<br><br>Babu

[Guest guest]

Well said Babu.<br><br>Being "impure' doesn't

mean one cannot attain moksha. In a certain way we all

are 'impure' at a certain level or the other ...

otherwsie we wouldn't be here. It simply means even a

dacoit has the opportunity to choose actions

(appropriate yoga paths) which can lead him to moksha.

<br><br>Tat twam asi<br><br>UMA

[Guest guest]

Yes vinodji, the answers given by Dear Babu, Uma

and Gypsyqueenb togather make a beautiful reply to

your querry. I may also like to add here that Vallmiki

was earlier a dacoit named Ratnakar. He was a very

cruel robber. One day he came across a saint whom he

asked to hand over all his cash and valuable things.

The saint saw his old karma and found that he had a

treasure of good old karma but was destined to be a robber

due to a mistake done in his past birth. The saint

wished to wake him up so he asked Ratnakar," Son I have

a very valuable thing with me and i will give it to

you if you tell me why do u do this sin of robbing ?

Are you not aware that you will go to the fearsome

hell by this karma?<br><br>Ratnakar :- I do it for my

family whom i love. I do not wish them to go

hungry.<br><br>Saint:- Son will your family share your sin and will go

to hell with you ?<br><br>Ratnakar :- Sure they all

love me <br><br>Saint:- let us go to your family and

ask them.<br><br> So they reached the hide out of

Rantnakar and the saint asked Ratnakar's wife if she and

her children will share the sin of

Ratnakar.<br><br>His wife was very learned lady, She thought and

said," Look he is the head of the family and he married

me with his wishes and he wanted children so we have

them. Now it is Ratnakar's duty to feed us and comfort

us. We are not concerned how he earns. We are not

going to share his sins. Let him bring money by hard

work and feed us, we do not mind".<br><br>Ratnakar was

shocked and his hypnotism was broken. With tears he fell

down on the feet of the saint and asked him to show

the right way. The saint told him'" Son do not worry

for your present sins, Go and surrender yourself to

god and his one touch will purify you.<br><br>And

Ratnakar started Tapasya so vigrous that he sat in a

posture for years that termites made a mound on him hence

he was called Valmiki as dear Babu

explained.<br><br> Moral values have a very tricky meaning. As dear

Uma has beautifully written "we are all impure at

some level". We are somewhere impure that is why we

are in this body. Also what is moral for me may not

be moral for you. A dacoit may be more moral than a

priest. A thief may be more moral than a policeman.

<br><br>What exactly should be taken as a moral

??<br><br>Someone has a reply to this ????<br><br><br>Hari Om Tat

Sat<br><br>silentsoul

[Guest guest]

Thanks SilentSoul for the invitation, have

learned a lot from the initial posts in the club so

diligently reproduced by dear Shivoham, feel gratified to

join this club.<br>A very very interesting point that

you have raised, "What exactly should be taken as

moral?"<br>Morality exactly is a very private issue depending on

one's past but it has been so widely abused by people

trying to implement their own standards of morality upon

other individuals. What a violence this is !<br>Your

pointer about moral values having a tricky meaning makes

one look inward and see all the violence one has been

doing in trying to impose one's own correct(moral)

views upon others.<br>Should then dacoits then be left

as dacoits ?<br>Or as the saint did for ratnakar,

try to blossom the dacoit's sense of morality from

within; without doling out one's own version of dharma

etc., for that would lead to friction only.<br>Isn't

this a truly non-violent method of

interaction?<br>What indeed then can be termed as moral, which you so

correctly pointed out to be a very relative term, varying

from person to person.<br>It simply appears to be

one's better sense prevailing over oneself ? May be

leading to evolution ??? Is this a evolutionary

tendency?<br><br>"A dacoit may be more moral than a priest. A thief

may be more moral than a policeman. "---beautiful

thought provoking words...<br><br>How close is one to

one's own truth...<br>Is that all that matters??

[Guest guest]

Since most of our members are pursuing the

subject for quite some time, let me share some secrets

which should only be disclosed to the those adept in

sadhana.<br>Spirituality is relative and is sadhak specific. It is better

not to Universalize the dictums of the procedure of

the sadhana. One man's meat can be another man's

poison.<br>Hope those who have been really serious in studying

spirituality gets my point. I mean, if one does not belong to

a particular higher stage of spirituality that

person should not try to follow the dictums of that

higher level. It not only generates misconceptions about

spirituality but can be immensely harmful for those try to

(mis)apply it on themselves.<br>So dear member beware of

what you post and for whom. Be sure to mention the

stage you are talking about. Had Balmiki not belonged

to a higher stage he would not have heeded or

noticed what was said to him at all. Or even if he

understood the implications he would not find the impetus to

pursue sadhana, or would have left it mid way, the path

being sharper than the razor's edge. His being a dacoit

was just the result of his karma and vasanas.

[Guest guest]

Every disciple on a path is aware of the secracy

of some laws or experiences, because he is told so

by the guru or because he has taken vows on

it.<br>But we shouldn't exagerate on this. No secretes what

so ever were revealed in this or other spiritual

clubs. <br>You are right in saying what is good for one

person, may not be good for another. But everybody speaks

for himself and there are general laws. Sharing can

be so helpfull.

[Guest guest]

We can have a long discussion as to what are the

moral values. And this is an important question too

because many people get confused over this. To start with

i am telling a story told by one saint.<br><br>

There was a temple and behind the temple lived a

prostitute. One day the priest of the temple and the lady

died same time and reached God, who ordered the priest

to goto hell and the prostitue to heaven.<br><br>The

priest argued," But my lord, i had been worshipping you

for the last 20 years and this lady was dancing and

comforting ruffians of the city...isn't your order defective

or you have overlooked these facts ?"<br><br>God

smiled and said," Son while you were worshipping me, you

were only thinking of the prostitute and listening to

her songs. while this prostitute while dancing,

singing or entertaining her clients was guilty and was

listening to the shlokas spoken by you. she always felt she

was not doing the right thing and her heart was

always in the temple whereas your heart was always in

this prostitute's house.<br><br>Hari Om Tat

Sat<br><br>silentsoul

[Guest guest]

This is a great statement Mr really-I-am

"Morality exactly is a very private issue depending on

one's past but it has been so widely abused by people

trying to implement their own standards of morality upon

other individuals"<br><br> do you think we can make a

general definition of morality for sadhakas, which should

be acceptable to all.<br><br> what should be taken

as sin for a sadhaka ??<br><br>love<br><br>sushma

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the appreciation mz Sushma, but I am

afraid I would not be competent enough to give a general

definition of morality, especially for so many advanced

sadhakas who grace this club.<br>I suppose, for starters

we can accept the "Yama-Niyama" as a guideline, but

even then it is ultimately one's antaraatmaa that

decides the issue. For eg.the yama of truthfulness and

non-violence often come to a contradiction in certain

predicaments so well illustrated in some of the classical

stories, then what is one to do ?<br>Here I suppose lies

the most obvious difference between a computer and a

human viz "the inner voice". If one is sensitive enough

to one's innermost feelings and is acting upon them,

that would be good enough, atleast that is what I TRY

to do.<br>We could go on and on upon this topic, but

let us try to keep things simple and direct.

[Guest guest]

I know this was in reply to someone else and not

for me,"good for one person.......";good is good

always and that goes for everyone,what is good for one

cannot be bad for another.<br>However it can be said

that what suits one maynot suit another or to each his

own.<br>This is ofcourse my way of

thinking.<br>love<br>Blueblackeyes.

[Guest guest]

Sin is Maya.Worship maya as the supreme goddess.Any lack of compassion could be

considered a sin.Morality is treating people appropiately.Sin punishes itself.