Do we mystify things

[Guest guest]

Mystical Powers (Riddhis and Siddhis) may come naturally as a

result of intense Sadhana done over a long period of time in this

life time or in previous ones. But a Sadhak need not attach too

much impotence to it as far as one's own Sadhana is concerned.

The trick is find a system of spiritual Sadhana with which one

feels comfortable with and then stick to it. Wandering from one

system to another may not help much.

 

Hari Om,

radhakutir

 

 

-

"lotuswithin" <no_reply>

<>

30 September, 2003 10:20 AM

Do we mystify things

 

 

> There is a saying in my part of India, the gist of which means

> no namaskar (reverence) without chamatkar (miracles).

> regards

> shubhanan

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Lotuswithin .. welcome .. long time no see!!!!

 

One interesting discussion usually leads to another .. just as you

have brought up this one. thank you!

> Do we mystify things related to religion and spiritual topics?

 

Before I attempt to say anything can you elaborate on what you mean

here by "mystifying"?

 

> There is a saying in my part of India, the gist of which means

> no namaskar (reverence) without chamatkar (miracles).

 

Who we are depends on the level of consciousness.

 

Dehabuddhyaa tu daasosmi, jeevabuddhyaa twadamshakaha

Aatmabuddhyaa twamevaahamiti, me nishchitaa matihi.

 

When I am in body consciousness I know I am your servant, when I am

conscious of the higher force of life I know I am a part of you, and

when I am conscious of the Self, I know I am You --- HanumannaaTaka

 

What is a miracle? When something occurs which doesn't appear within

our sphere of understanding; what you have referred to as "human

logic". To a child what appears a miracle is not so to an adult,

similarly, to a spiritual child what appears as a miracle is not so

to a spiritual adult. As we begin to understand, practice and then

personally experience even the tiniest "miracles", the fascination

with it dissipates, or at least changes to admiration towards one

who is farther along a journey. (Siddhis can be performed by

practitioners who train simply for the powers and have little

spirituality associated with it!) The mystery dissipates as we move

along on the experiential journey.

 

> I feel sometimes this mystification discourages potential aspirants

 

Can you elaborate please?

 

Waiting for more....

 

_/\_ Tat twam asi

 

Uma

 

 

 

, lotuswithin <no_reply> wrote:

> Do we mystify things related to religion and spiritual topics?

> There is a saying in my part of India, the gist of which means

> no namaskar (reverence) without chamatkar (miracles).

[Guest guest]

Pranam!

I was trying to understand what you mean by mystification and even

though I am still not sure what you mean I will use the definition of

the dictionary.

mys·ti·fy

1.To confuse or puzzle mentally.

2.To make obscure or mysterious.

 

There were so many things which used to puzzle me regarding yogic

terms and concepts. In fact, some of them still do. I often find

myself spending much time thinking about what is purusha,

prakriti..., what is the nature of tattwas..whats the relation

between prana and kundalini etc... Such terms can really confuse

one. But in the end I found the indian philosophy a very eluminating

one and a very logical one when compared to the dogmatic of the

religions. I believe that aspirants finally can understand religion

with the help of the spiritual sciences. In yoga everything can be

explained, analysed and understood both intellectually and

spiritually. Maybe thats why Vivekananda once said, that we should

avoid having to do with mysterious things as the weaken the mind?

 

I can imagine why mystification discourages some aspirants. Maybe

because the supernatural belongs to the sphere of myth for them and

they are afraid to get involved with fakeness. ?

 

Namaste

[Guest guest]

Pardon me for not being clearer in the post.

> > I feel sometimes this mystification discourages potential

aspirants

>

> Can you elaborate please?

 

I was indicating at instances where as an example - great figures are

linked to mythical or divine figures. Does that mean that others

cannot be like them because they cannot (apparently) trace

their "origins".

Why can't a great spiritual figure be great on his own accord. Why

does he have to be linked to someone else that we aren't even sure

existed.

I think this sometimes overawes aspirants. I think it creates a

servile attitude and gives rise to cowardice. People then think that

someone else will take responsibility for them. It is true that by

taking refuge in a great saint we inculcate more refined qualities,

but is the presence of such great saints a necessary condition for

achieving this?

I think partly the answer lies in the fact that most of us are

cowards and we take refuge under the name of karma and mysticism. We

do not want to work towards "realization" but want someone else to do

it for us.

just some of my ramblings

 

my humble pranams

shubhanan

 

> Hi Lotuswithin .. welcome .. long time no see!!!!

>

yes. Its good to be back, but I didn't see any post from

SilentSoulJi? Is he doing fine?

I am really greatful to you and the other people of this group for

keeping it alive. My gratitude for that.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

>>Why can't a great spiritual figure be great on his own accord. Why

does he have to be linked to someone else that we aren't even sure

existed.<<

 

I do not think great spiritual figures are always linked to someone

else. For example the great Advaita saint Vallalar ( Ramalinga

Swamigal), Arunagiri Nadar, Avaiyar, Manika vachagar, Sundarar,

Appar, Thiru Jnana Sambandar, Thiruvalluvar were not linked to

anyone. They were great on their own accord.

 

However many a times we do link great spiritual figures to some one

else only to satisfy ourselves and not the spiritual person in

question. We do this to increase our faith and trust in the guru.

Some people say Adi Shankaracharya was an incarnate of Shiva, Ramana

Maharshi was an avatar of Arunachala. We link only to prove to

ourselves that we are indeed going in the right path, and this human

guru we are following surely has the power to take us out of the

misery. However, Adi Shankara never self proclaimed to be the avatar

of Shiva nor did Maharshi claim to be the avatar of Arunachala. Only

we say so, to satisfy our own egos.

 

>>It is true that by taking refuge in a great saint we inculcate more

refined qualities, but is the presence of such great saints a

necessary condition for achieving this? <<

 

A presence of a great saint is not necessary for achieving Jnana /

Liberation. However a guru in some form is absolutely essential, be

it external or internal. Most of us are Dvaitis and are caught up in

this web of Maya and do not have the power to look inside. So to make

our tasks simpler, we seek an external Guru. However, a few are

capable of turning the mind inwards , and for them an internal Guru

will suffice. Whatever the form, a Guru is necessary, for he's the

ferry man who can row us across this huge ocean of samsara.

 

Hari Aum !!!

[Guest guest]

Sat sri akaal,

 

Chamatkaar ko namaskaar ! this is true lotuswithin, at least in

today's world when every Tom and Harry is equipped with information

gathered from internet, knowledge/information has no meaning. How do

we know we are making progress ? Miracles are a sort of indicators

which tell us where we are.

 

and saints have shown miracles. Guru Nanak dev ji's life was full

of miracles, same with Krishna or Christ. If we have reached at

certain height in Meditation and spirituality, mysterious powers do

come and there is no harm in showing them for benefit of others

(although some modern day saints use some magician tricks to impress

people - and they have lot of followers too).

 

Mysterious powers are gained surely on this path

 

Bole so nihaal

[Guest guest]

Hi Lotuswithin

 

Glad to have you back .... and hope things have been going well with

you. Silentsoulji is well, but away in India in a situation where he

does not have regular access to the net. Hence his silence. I will

certainly pass on your query to him, he will love to hear from you.

Thank you for appreciating the presence of our club .. any success

is possible only because of our satsangh members and the energy they

help create.

 

>"great figures are linked to mythical or divine figures."

 

Most sages or saints I know of do defer to some figure who are

accepted to be even higher in consciousness whether that is their

main teachings or not. If not a divine figure, they speak of their

Guru, who is equated to a Divine figure. (Gurur Brahma Gurur

Vishnu Gurudeva Maheshwara...) Adi Shankaracharya was a goood

example.. even while being known for his advait teachings he was one

of the greatest bhaktas, while Ramakrishna Paramahansa being a great

Bhakta was just as comfortable with advaita vedanta.

 

>>"Does that mean that others cannot be like them because they

cannot (apparently) trace their "origins".

 

Origins - do mean as in avatars? As svcs pointed out there are

several who don't call themselves avatars, and it is only the

limited human need to categorize and express in their terminology,

that often leads to them being called that.

 

On the other hand, it is also true that all incarnations are

potential avatars .. it is upto the individuals to realize their

true Selves.

 

>"Why can't a great spiritual figure be great on his own accord."

 

Who is this "own" person? The incarnated limited ego - the little

self? Is this a cry by the little self to remain locked within its

own cycle? A "great spiritual figure" can be so, only when they have

experienced that ONE SELF. At that place there is no "him"

or "them" - no separation at all.

 

Using the analogy of color, we know from physics that it is not the

object that has the color. Instead, it the light, which after

hitting the object, gets absorbed according to its properties, and

only a certain part of the light spectrum is allowed to go pass

through. These properties are like our ego - the little "i". The

same SELF touches us all, but our "properties" = ego, allow only

some of the light to pass through. If we accept that the purpose of

our lives is to cycle through untill we become absorbed in that True

SELF, then each incarnation clears some of those properties allowing

corresponding "colors" to emerge.

 

Realized souls are those who have had higher levels of clearing of

such "properties" where they don't even see the separation, a

property of the limited "i" - pure light shines through them with

nothing to block the paths.

 

The fundamental obstacle to achieving this state is this ego which

wants to exert its role and take total charge. The act of deference

is an action which takes away, this total obsessive control of that

steering wheel from this limited ego. Sadhana, when lived in one's

life, or even life experiences without conscious spiritual practice,

help the individual find that delicate balance between taking

responsibility for their actions and letting go of control of the

fruits of those actions. It is this process that is sadhnaa, the

trial and error path of SELF discovery.

 

>>I think partly the answer lies in the fact that most of us are

cowards and we take refuge under the name of karma and mysticism. We

do not want to work towards "realization" but want someone else to

do it for us.

> just some of my ramblings

 

Ramblings are exactly what is needed for the clearing of

those 'properties". All actions are preceeded by thought, its

processing and clearing through questions and dialogue. Yes, most of

us are certainly afraid, which is why we hang on to our limited ego

selves. And that is precisely why many aspirants choose to hang on

to the protection (perceived or otherwise) of the divine beings who

are considered to have greater powers than we do.

 

Deference to someone else, or humility is one of the most powerful

ways of taming that ego. Any acheivement is not by "me",

(little 'me") but the Guru/God/Higher Self - "Na Mamah".

The "taming" of the ego occurs only when this is sincerely felt.

 

(Humility is a much misused, misunderstod concept with interesting

cross cultural implications. Another good topic for dialogue.)

 

Some of My ramblings

 

_/\_ Tat twam asi

 

Uma

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Thank you so much for all the wonderful responses. They throw light

on the various facets.

 

> >"great figures are linked to mythical or divine figures."

I mean other people making the link. I completely agree that it helps

in arresting the ego. But my point is against the following.

It is nice to look up to great figures, and I see them as ideals

which should be achieved. But people sometimes discourage others who

even think of becoming like their ideals.

 

In that sense if we say that a particular person is a personification

of a particular mythological character, we are actually talking about

the qualities and not the actual character. But over a period of

time, it is my feeling that this fact has been covered by the dust of

time.

 

I am deliberately trying to avoid giving any examples because

examples limit the context of discussions.

 

some more of my ramblings

my humble pranams

Shubhanan

 

note: please forgive me for my intermittent and uninspiring posts.

Firstly, I know nothing and have very little practical experience,

unlike many members of this family. Secondly, being a student I have

to look after my studies. And finally, its a joy to stand back and

read all the lively discussions that go on in the group

 

 

, "Tatwamasi" <tatwamasi> wrote:

> Hi Lotuswithin

>

> Glad to have you back .... and hope things have been going well

with

> you. Silentsoulji is well, but away in India in a situation where

he

> does not have regular access to the net. Hence his silence. I will

> certainly pass on your query to him, he will love to hear from you.

> Thank you for appreciating the presence of our club .. any success

> is possible only because of our satsangh members and the energy

they

> help create.

>

> >"great figures are linked to mythical or divine figures."

>

> Most sages or saints I know of do defer to some figure who are

> accepted to be even higher in consciousness whether that is their

> main teachings or not. If not a divine figure, they speak of their

> Guru, who is equated to a Divine figure. (Gurur Brahma Gurur

> Vishnu Gurudeva Maheshwara...) Adi Shankaracharya was a goood

> example.. even while being known for his advait teachings he was

one

> of the greatest bhaktas, while Ramakrishna Paramahansa being a

great

> Bhakta was just as comfortable with advaita vedanta.

>

> >>"Does that mean that others cannot be like them because they

> cannot (apparently) trace their "origins".

>

> Origins - do mean as in avatars? As svcs pointed out there are

> several who don't call themselves avatars, and it is only the

> limited human need to categorize and express in their terminology,

> that often leads to them being called that.

>

> On the other hand, it is also true that all incarnations are

> potential avatars .. it is upto the individuals to realize their

> true Selves.

>

> >"Why can't a great spiritual figure be great on his own accord."

>

> Who is this "own" person? The incarnated limited ego - the little

> self? Is this a cry by the little self to remain locked within its

> own cycle? A "great spiritual figure" can be so, only when they

have

> experienced that ONE SELF. At that place there is no "him"

> or "them" - no separation at all.

>

> Using the analogy of color, we know from physics that it is not the

> object that has the color. Instead, it the light, which after

> hitting the object, gets absorbed according to its properties, and

> only a certain part of the light spectrum is allowed to go pass

> through. These properties are like our ego - the little "i". The

> same SELF touches us all, but our "properties" = ego, allow only

> some of the light to pass through. If we accept that the purpose of

> our lives is to cycle through untill we become absorbed in that

True

> SELF, then each incarnation clears some of those properties

allowing

> corresponding "colors" to emerge.

>

> Realized souls are those who have had higher levels of clearing of

> such "properties" where they don't even see the separation, a

> property of the limited "i" - pure light shines through them with

> nothing to block the paths.

>

> The fundamental obstacle to achieving this state is this ego which

> wants to exert its role and take total charge. The act of deference

> is an action which takes away, this total obsessive control of that

> steering wheel from this limited ego. Sadhana, when lived in one's

> life, or even life experiences without conscious spiritual

practice,

> help the individual find that delicate balance between taking

> responsibility for their actions and letting go of control of the

> fruits of those actions. It is this process that is sadhnaa, the

> trial and error path of SELF discovery.

>

> >>I think partly the answer lies in the fact that most of us are

> cowards and we take refuge under the name of karma and mysticism.

We

> do not want to work towards "realization" but want someone else to

> do it for us.

> > just some of my ramblings

>

> Ramblings are exactly what is needed for the clearing of

> those 'properties". All actions are preceeded by thought, its

> processing and clearing through questions and dialogue. Yes, most

of

> us are certainly afraid, which is why we hang on to our limited ego

> selves. And that is precisely why many aspirants choose to hang on

> to the protection (perceived or otherwise) of the divine beings who

> are considered to have greater powers than we do.

>

> Deference to someone else, or humility is one of the most powerful

> ways of taming that ego. Any acheivement is not by "me",

> (little 'me") but the Guru/God/Higher Self - "Na Mamah".

> The "taming" of the ego occurs only when this is sincerely felt.

>

> (Humility is a much misused, misunderstod concept with interesting

> cross cultural implications. Another good topic for dialogue.)

>

> Some of My ramblings

>

> _/\_ Tat twam asi

>

> Uma

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shubhanan,

 

>>But people sometimes discourage others who even think of becoming

like their ideals.<<

 

People discourage not only for spiritual matters, but also for

worldly matters. Imagine you said this, " I'm going to start a

company that will be a rival of Microsoft and soon I'll be the # 1

man in this world and Bill Gates will fall down to # 2. " or if you

said, " I'm going to be a great scientist and find out the secrets of

the Universe that haven't been discovered yet. I'm goiing to be

greater than Einstein and people from now will think of me whenever

they think of a genious and no more of Einstein."

 

People would laugh at you even if you said the above and will

discourage you. This is because all of us want to be perfect, but no

one wants to work towards it. If given an opportunity to be a great

person, by a miracle, no one would refuse it. However if one had to

struggle on their own, they think of it as an impossible feat or

something which involves too much work, and hence is meant for the

others to do it. They discourage because they do not believe you can

do something which is considered nearly impossible by them.

 

But when you become one, these very people who discouraged will now

flock and will tell stories of how dedicated and hard working you

were since your childhood.

 

Enouragement is indeed something important, but stop not just because

people around are discouraging. If you are meant to do something, you

will definitely do it, no matter what, for what is, is what was

ordained.

 

Ramana Maharshi said, "The fate of souls are all by God ordained

according to the deeds that they have done. That end that's destined

never to be attained will never be achieved by anyone, however hard

they try. All those things that is destined must occur one day,

will come to pass whatever you may do to interfere and try their

course to stay. And this is certain. At length we come to see that

it is best that we should silent be."

 

Hari Aum !!!