Three points

[Guest guest]

Om Aspirants

 

Three points for your consideration:

 

1. There are some who believe that Moksha Mantras are not

necessarily important in one's life. They point out that many

people spend their lives initiating others into non-Moksha

mantras for such mundane purposes as curing scorpion and

snake bites, gaining success in examinations, or having babies,

etc.

 

The problem with non-Moksha mantras is that they keep one

bound to the wheel of Samsara. They keep one rooted in Maya,

as if it were real. Non-moksha mantras maintain the kleshas,

the obstacles ot Self-Realization, of Patanjali. Non-Moksha

mantras encourage us to cling to life, keep us rooted in

raga-dvesha, keep our egos out of control, and mire us in

ignorance.

 

It is possible to be in Maya but not be ensnared by it. Arjuna

fought in a war but did so not out of personal conviction for the

rightness or wrongness of the side he was fighting for or the

side he was fighting against. He had no personal connection to

the causes and events of the war and fought only because of

personal, religious and cultural dharma. Part of his

consciousness knew the events of the war but not bound by

those events. His consciousness remained with God.

 

There is only one goal in life and that is to know Brahman.

Tactically, we do that by relinquishing our attachment to the

evidence of externally-directed senses and ego. Non-Moksha

mantras maintain and strengthen that attachment.

 

2. There are some who say, "If you are a spiritual or religious

explorer/adventurer you can explore different margas, exoteric

and non exoteric." Such attitudes seem to imply that it is okay to

spend time with one Guru or teacher, and then spend time with

another and later with yet another and so on. Or, that you can

spend time engaging in the practice of one spiritual path and

later switch to another spiritual path.

 

This guru-hopping and spiritual path switching is unproductive

and self-defeating. It causes confusion in the mind of the

aspirant. It prevents the aspirant from entering into the most

profound aspects and teachings of the Guru or spiritual path.

 

As Swami Sivananda has said, "From one doctor, you get a

prescription. From two doctors, you get a consultation. From

three doctors, you get your own cremation. Even so, if you have

many Gurus, you will be bewildered. You will be at a loss to

know what to do."

 

"Listen to all, but follow one. Respect all, but adore one. Gather

knowledge from all, but adopt the teachings of one Master. Then

you will have rapid spiritual practice."

 

3. And finally, Sankarrukku has said that the term `fake gurus' is

an insult to Gurus but a few lines later he himself uses the term

`con men masquerading as Gurus'. If anyone can tell me how

the former is an insult and the latter is not and what the

difference is between the two terms, I would be grateful. My

preliminary opinion is that he has let some personal animus get

the better of him.

 

Om namah Sivaya

 

Omprem